The Case Against The Jews

On Tuesday, March 27th, members of the Park Slope food coop, an organization formed to provide low cost products, will decide on a political issue -- whether or not to vote on a boycott of Israel. The claim will be made that Israel, which has citizens of all faiths, is racist. On March 30th people from countries that deny religious freedom, citizenship, or land ownership to those who don't practice the state religion (and many who do) will march on the only democratic country in the area -- the Global March on Jerusalem. It will be hailed widely as a demonstration of "virtue" and "justice." Its hypocrisy will be ignored as so many tyrannies deny freedom to their inhabitants, and as people are starved and murdered around the world. Perhaps there is a hidden message.

That's the body of a letter I sent to the New York Times this morning. They won't print it, but I feel better. In fact it will be a surprise if they have stories about either of the two events I mentioned. In the event there are articles about them, I suspect they'll be at the bottom of an inside page. It's even less likely that the Times will take editorial notice, but if they do, they'll probably express sympathy for both. They'll clothe whatever they say in “evenhanded” terms, but it will be clear that they approve of both the boycott and the march.

With all the disasters going on in the world – both those that are natural and those produced by tyrants, terrorists, and other murderers – the nations have always seemed to favor the scapegoating of Jews irrespective of any other factors. Thus they claim that there would be peace in the world if Israel didn't exist or if if the Jews allowed the “Palestinians” to turn it into another Muslim state. No one takes such claims seriously, but modern anti-Semitism is usually euphemized as “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” opinion. The aim is no different, but the words are more acceptable to some, especially those who view language as a tool to be used in the war against the Jews. And the immediate goal is the destruction of a Jewish state by whatever methods work. That is the crux of their campaign around the world and, especially, in the United Nations. And their public relations effort – one far more effective than their military one – is well received by a public eager to fault those they envy.

Anti-Semitism has been with us for millennia, with the most vicious manifestations expressed by members of religions derived from Judaism. Their goal was to eliminate and replace the Jews, and the failure to do so has resulted in their continued hatred. But the need to have someone to blame for their own failures means that they cannot eliminate the Jews entirely. That would be counterproductive. They would have no one left to take responsibility. It's better to maim than to kill, and to try to destroy the spirit of the remaining Jews.

Because a show of concern for the weak and downtrodden is popular, especially among those considering themselves liberals, and hatred for those accused of causing the suffering of the less fortunate is more persuasive than thought, the United States and Israel have been targeted by those who fashion themselves as caring. It's far easier to have a single simple answer to many questions than to consider them individually. And there are many problems that the nations don't want to face, so they prefer to focus their attention on a single “villain” while ignoring those problems. And because anti-Semitism is so pervasive, Israel is disproportionately blamed for perceived faults – far more than any other nation. In fact the United Nations rarely condemns anyone else for anything.

Perhaps after another couple of millenia this kind of scapegoating will subside. Perhaps not. Maybe the world will face up to its real problems, but I doubt it. As Tom Lehrer put it in National Brotherhood Week, “Everybody hates the Jews.”

Second Nature

Here's a pop quiz.ⁱ It should be easy. Only one question and it's multiple-choice. And there's no correct response. You don't even have to mark your paper.ⁱⁱ Just pick the first thought that pops into your mind. You'll probably find it in the list below. One question and just one answer.

Here's the situation: You notice a small piece of litter on the floor.

And here's the question: What do you do?

Choices:

1. You pick it up. That's what G-d wants you to do.
2. You pick it up. You'll be rewarded in the afterlife. If there is one. Anyway, it's good insurance.
3. You pick it up. That's the right thing to do.
4. You pick it up. That's what all people with OCD do.
5. You pick it up. You just feel like doing that.
6. You pick it up. That will make it easier for someone else.
7. You pick it up. It's a matter of habit.
8. You leave it. It's a matter of habit.
9. You leave it. It's not your responsibility.
10. You leave it. It's not something you notice anyway.
11. You leave it. You don't care and it doesn't bother you.
12. You leave it. Your back hurts.
13. It depends on where it is – inside or outside.
14. It depends on where it is – will it be associated with your home or office or is it in some public area?
15. It depends on whether it's a single bit of litter or if there are others.
16. Is anyone watching?
17. You'll do whatever you feel like at the moment.

OK. It's not so easy. But you do make a choice.

And that's the way it is with most of the things we do. Even the simple decisions we make areⁱⁱⁱ based on a lot of considerations, and we're often unaware of why we wind up taking a particular course of action. Most of the time we don't even think about it. We don't debate the possibilities. We don't attribute our choice to a specific consideration. We're only thinking about it now because of the format of this piece. Which you picked up, or you wouldn't be considering the question.

The parameters for understanding our actions used to be those of Freud: id, superego, and jargon like that. Freud, though, has been less and less of a factor in psychology in recent years than in the mid-twentieth century. And it's hard to understand the relationship of a piece of litter on the floor to sex, which is what all of his theories seemed to boil down to. But a good Freudian analyst can probably connect the dots. Even if there aren't any dots.

I tend to deal with questions in terms of right and wrong, realizing that different cultures have different criteria for right and wrong. But they're wrong and I'm right.^iv,v And I think in terms of responsibility, both to those around me, and to people I don't even know. It's surprising to think that the decision to pick up a piece of litter or to leave it may be based on such considerations as these, but it is. Philosophy may play a large part. And secular and religious law as well.

Fortunately, we give little thought to what we do. But unfortunately, we give little thought to what we do. Most of our actions, though we may have initially evaluated them, have become the results of habit. What's our pattern of action when we get into our car? How fast should we drive? What's involved in washing the dishes? And in shoveling the snow? What about our income taxes? We probably spent a few moments the first time we did them before deciding to give ourselves “the benefit of the doubt,”^vi but we don't think about it any more. We've established our patterns and, unless there's some major change in our outlook, our actions are automatic. And, if we think about them at all, we don't always understand why they led us to do things in particular way. But the habit has helped us to deal with a potentially time-consuming decision. So we can avoid “the paralysis of [never ending] analysis.”

Clearly the good part of a habit is that it saves us from wasting time debating the pros and cons of every situation we face, which would surely immobilize us. The down side is that we may have established that habit based on ideas that no longer apply. For example, we may have gone home by a certain route for years and find ourself doing so even though there is now an obstruction on one of the streets we use. We'll probably change our routine after spending extra time on the blocked street once or twice – because we went that way without thinking. We'll establish a new r(o)ut(e) – a new habit – and follow it until there's a reason not to. And, after redecorating, we'll have to stop looking for something we've always put in a particular spot in that place. Now we'd better put it somewhere else where we'll be able to find it.

Individually our habits are small things, however all of them together dominate our day. And it's so easy to ignore them and let auto-pilot take over. But from time to time it's worthwhile giving each of them a little thought. You probably won't want to make many changes, but some will be in order^vii in addition to the ones forced on your attention like the blocked street. And for some you probably won't even be able to recall how you formed that habit because any possible reasons for doing so don't seem to make sense.

As for the piece of litter on the floor: I'd probably be somewhere between 4 and 5.^viii But now that I think about some of those other choices, I'm not really sure.

Next episode: “Introspection” – Where I've been and where I'm going.

i     The more I mull it over, the more I suspect that mom may be more interested in the results than pop.

ii     You don't even need to have a paper.

iii    Or were at one time.

iv    I don't subscribe to ideas of cultural relativism and morality. As far as I'm concerned there are some things that are always wrong (like murder, but not “killing”) even though I know that it mights be difficult to define them to everyone's satisfaction. I now await the inevitable description from a reader (if I have any readers) of a murder that is justified, or a defense of the position that all killing is wrong. I'm not in full agreement on that point, though I do know that “honor killing” is. But, then, it's murder.

v     I'll discuss the slippery slope at some time in the future.

vi     Whether there's really a doubt or not.

vii    Like stopping smoking.

viii   Actually, they may be related. At least in me.

Free Speech, Gossip, Bullying, Hate Speech

I've written on the subject before,ⁱ but news of the conviction of a Rutgers student for, among other things, a “hate crime,” prompts me to do so again. The student hasn't yet been sentenced, and his lawyer has stated that there will be an appeal, but whatever the outcome, the charges and the trial themselves raise concerns.

The story is clear. The student spied on his roommate – he invaded his privacy – and invited others to do so as well. The spying was done with a live action television camera, which added to the titillation because his roommate was gay, and the viewing was to be of a gay liaison. Ordinarily it wouldn't be much of a story and it's unlikely that a trial would have resulted from it, nor would it have gotten the publicity it's received. But the individual who had been spied on committed suicide. While the accused was not specifically linked to that suicide by the prosecution, the jury was aware of it and it is likely that they were concerned about that result when considering their verdict. So a stupidⁱⁱ college prank – one eventuating in a suicideⁱⁱⁱ – ends in the criminalization and possible incarceration and deportation of an otherwise intelligent student just out of high school – a result which seems to be motivated more by the desire to “send a message” to others than anything else. The accused student invaded another's privacy and publicized aspects of his life that should have been private. His actions were irresponsible and reprehensible – and he should be punished for them in the same way that they are treated in other instances of spying and bullying – but I cannot help wondering about the piling on of statutes forbidding “bias crime” to add on to the guilt. In fact, it is hard for me not to wonder if there is any justification at all in the conceptions of “hate speech” and “bias crime.”

If there is one activity in which we all participate it is gossip. It is not always done with the intention to cause harm, but it is the basis for much of the conversation we have – whether over the telephone, by the water cooler, at a cocktail party, on Facebook, or Twitter. We live on the troubles of others, real or imagined. Soap operas, motion pictures, and television programs that chronicle those troubles fascinate us. And that's the way we view it – as a fascination.^iv We don't consider ourselves as “bad” people because we're interested in the lives and problems of others. We're good, and we know right from wrong. We know, for example, that the paparazzi have no business spying on others. Like the student in this case, they invade the privacy of their subjects and they publicize what they find. But if they have a particularly revealing photo of someone famous,^v we're eager to see it. And if a private investigator^vi produces photographs of some financier's or politician's dalliance as part of a divorce procedure or political campaign, it's sure to attract our attention. It may be invasion of privacy but no matter. They're fair game and we're interested. And if the paparazzi document activities that some view as immoral or outside society's limits, all the better. Unless they involve a “protected” group, in which case they cannot be tolerated. In that circumstance we abhor them. (But we look anyway.)

After all, crime is crime, but making fun of others – especially those sensitive to perceived insults – must be condemned. Fortunately political figures are usually thick-skinned. So late-night TV personalities can make jokes at their expense, no matter what conduct they have displayed. Even though most viewers would condemn the behavior that is belittled – even if they are “biased” against it – watching and laughing aren't crimes.^vii Actually, virtually all humor is at someone's expense. If someone weren't belittled, shown up, or criticized one way or another, it wouldn't be funny. Is the comedian biased? Is he guilty of “hate speech?” Does it matter if the butt of the humor is recognizable or not?

And does it matter if the butt cares? Who decides what is “hate speech?” Is it a function of what the accused says or how the “victim” takes it? And does labeling something as a hate crime^viii depend on the thoughts of the accused, what he says, or is the deciding factor what is perceived by the accuser and the law? The individual convicted was considered as biased because he invaded the privacy of a gay and publicized it. Does a proud gay who “outs” a fellow – who invades his privacy and publicizes it – do the same. Is the act any less troubling to the victim because it was done by someone not biased against homosexuals? And is someone guilty of sexual abuse because a statement he makes,^ix one which might be considered unexceptionable by some, is viewed as derogatory by others? At what point does free speech yield to societal preferences and prejudices? And at what point does a person's thoughts become a crime separate from whatever else he does?

We have moved far from the principles on which our country was established. At least in terms of our laws and their interpretations. As people we're probably pretty much the same. Even if we try to show our concern with insincere proclamations that we assume will only involve others.

i     See “Hate Speech,” which appeared on January 8, 2012.

ii     And mean.

iii    Although it is difficult not to wonder about the underlying mental health of an individual who would ultimately take his own life.

iv    There are many who argue that viewing crime on television leads to criminal behavior. Is the same true of watching such programs? Does it legitimize and lead to the kind of behavior we condemn?

v     Or one not so revealing; or of someone not so famous.

vi    He's not Congress but an individual citizen and not subject to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution or to the remainder of the Bill of Rights.

vii   It's interesting that in the case described I've seen no mention of prosecutions of those who were titillated by the transmission. Were their “biases” different from the accused?

viii   As opposed to a “love crime?”

ix     Or a calendar in his locker.

One Mind With But A Single Thought

Confession time: I'm a single-issue voter.

I know it's not fashionable to admit to such an approach. It marks me as a closed-minded bigot. I should make my decisions based on a full analysis of all issues rather than to use a single one as a benchmark. However I don't. I'm a single-issue voter.

But then, of course, so are you.

Perhaps our issues are different,ⁱ and the scope of our concerns as well, but when it comes down to making a choice there is usually some overriding point directing our decision. That point may be agreement or disagreement about a particular policy, or it may be party membership and a general political philosophy.ⁱⁱ It may even be our view of the trustworthiness of the candidate, possibly based on previous experience or performance and his record.ⁱⁱⁱ But when the time comes, one point will take precedence over everything else.^iv

(This state of affairs, by the way, is not limited to affairs of state, like politics. We make decisions whatever we do, not just in the voting booth. We do that whenever we buy something. And advertisers form focus groups all the time to try to determine what we're looking for – what will control our decisions. Is it price, a specific characteristic of a product, a combination of features, an overall impression, a dream, or something else? Perhaps we want a car that gets good gas mileage,^v or maybe it's a shampoo or skin cream made with some particular vegetable.^vi Possibly what is being sought is a fantasy of love or a feeling of patriotism. Or it could be brand loyalty. Maybe we identify with a famous entertainment or athletic star and will imitate him.^vii If he uses^viii a particular brand, so will we. In any event, we have to make a decision, and one of those factors will dominate our choice. And the advertisers want to know what it is.)

Advertisers like us single-issue people – as long as they can determine what that issue is and how to satisfy it.^ix As they say in politics, “It's the economy, stupid.” Some matter has gained the public's attention. It may not be limited to politics, but it's effective there. Once an area of concern is determined, it becomes the only one fit for discussion. It may, however, vary from one group to another. What sells in the rust belt may be of no concern in the Bible belt. The poor and the rich see the world differently, and political candidates either have to find a way to please both, or pick a group – which risks the alienation of a large number of voters.

It was easier in the old days. When speeches were give in different localities and had no effect on the larger population you could make different promises in different areas – even contradictory ones – and no one would be the wiser. National television makes that harder. So candidates have to hedge their bets by being as unclear as possible, while looking strong to all viewers. Charisma and “character” are emphasized, while positions and opinions are ambiguous.

And politicians, in their advertisements, denigrate their opponents rather than state their own records and positions. It's true that someone who has never held office won't have a record on which to run, but if he doesn't have opinions on current problems, or proposals on the way to improve things, the simple solution is to turn us against the other candidate(s). He is promoting our single-issue approach by trying to make our choice the rejection of the opposition. The issues may be complex, but the argument is that voting for someone else is a bad decision. Everything is incorporated into that one idea.

So having an issue – a benchmark – which will help you decide is a good thing. It's usually easier to get meaningful information if you focus on a single idea than if you try to learn about everything, or if you base your decision on some generalized, but vague, feature. As long as you're aware that the seller – politician, advertiser or whoever – is trying to outfox you, and you'll have to discount claims which seem to be bogus.

And that's the way it has to be with us all; that's the strategy we have to use. We may be concerned about a lot of things, but after considering them all one issue must tip the balance. It is our single-issue – the one on which we make our decision. But that's not a bad thing. We're fortunate to live in a democracy where we'll have the chance to change what didn't work out. Not everyone has that option. So we can choose to take a particular stance today knowing we can change our minds tomorrow. Today's single-issue needn't be tomorrow's, but in each case we have to have some deciding factor on which we will base our decision. That's certainly better than standing in the voting booth for hours and never reaching a conclusion.

Next episode: “Second Nature” – Sort of continuing the thought.

i     My single issue changes from time to time depending on the subject being discussed, the position(s) of the candidates (do they agree or disagree?), the general tenor of society, and a host of other considerations.

ii     For example a concern for the poor, or a libertarian approach.

iii    But, more likely, based on his good looks, or how he comes across on television.

iv     Even the decision to accept the Constitution was based on a Yes/No vote.

v     Of course when buying a car that uses more “non-polluting” electricity and less gasoline, very few people worry about the source of the electricity or the pollution that its production may cause.

vi    Vegetables seem to be popular whether or not they have any effect on your hair or skin.

vii   Or her.

viii   At least if he claims he uses it.

ix    Read “pander to it.” Advertisers and politicians have no fixed principles, except that of convincing their targets. And it doesn't matter how they do it.

Gossip

I saw a newspaper article recently in which two writers accused an educator of psychological and physical abuse. The evidence presented suggests that the accusations were true,ⁱ but that's not the point. Clearly the article was exciting. It was an exposé that, by its front page placement, was sure to attract readers. The content can only be described as lashon hara (gossip – literally “evil speech” in Hebrew) and the accuracy of the information doesn't change that.ⁱⁱ

Whether true or not, the article must have been harmful to the individual accused – even if he was prepared to shake it off. And it certainly raised questions for me about the writers. According to the Talmud,ⁱⁱⁱ the spreading of lashon hara “kills”^iv three – the accused of course, but also the speaker and the one listening. The letters in response to the article make it clear that there were many who were damaged by “listening” – not a big surprise when dealing with a front-page exposé. Some supported the accusations, and some were hurt by them. In fact, one of the letters contained accusations against another party – one not mentioned in the original article – against whom similar accusations were made.

There are authorities who deal with abuse, even in the country – not ours – where the alleged actions were said to have occurred,^v but there was no evidence that the article's authors had contacted them.^vi More likely they probably believed that their article would provide the information needed by those who were able to correct the situation and the publicity would force them to do so. And the authors would probably argue that those capable of correcting the problem were aware of it and didn't act, so that the publicity was warranted and no purpose would have been served by their going to those authorities. Moreover they claim the abuse is widespread, and that it is largely accepted and ignored by all parties.

Perhaps that is the case. But while the spreading of such information (read “gossip”) is occasionally permitted – for example when someone is entering into a relationship that he would avoid if he knew all the facts – the limitations are severe. In this particular article, the authors wrote, “it’s long been an open secret that …,” so it's hard to argue that this article would provide information unavailable elsewhere. Ideally, however, for such an act to be justifiable, there should be no better way to deal with the bad situation than the spreading of that “information.” And, according to Jewish law, the witnesses to an anticipated specific criminal act should have first warned the party that the act was prohibited, and they should have indicated the penalty for it. Perhaps the authors consider their article to be such a warning, although neither a particular anticipated offense is named nor is its penalty specified. Rather, this is the kind of article in which the accused is guilty. There is no presumption of innocence.^vii Unfortunately, that's the way it is with gossip. There's no balance. It's all accusation.

We're all guilty every time we start talking about someone else. Whatever our goals, whether to hurt someone else or to build ourselves up – or even to help someone else – it would be better if we found another way. In the particular case described, the authors might have spoken with the accused, letting him know the charges that had been given them, and allowed him to respond to them.^viii That would certainly contribute to fairness and fact-checking.  And they might have presented the charges to the appropriate authorities and let them know that if the charges were true, and fitting penalties were not applied, this would be revealed to the reading public. There would be no need to name the accused in such a story. The responsibility would belong to those in charge. After all, societies are formed because we are willing to give up some “rights” in order to gain protection from those who would harm us. And that harm is not only physical, but may be psychological or social.

Admittedly, that approach does not sell newspapers any more than not spreading gossip builds up the image of the silent one. All it leaves is the opportunity for someone else to be the bearer of ill tidings.^ix Threatening to expose those in power who are charged with protecting us but do not do so, however, may be a lot more productive in the long run. And speaking to someone of perceived offenses – “chastising the sinner” – may similarly have a greater effect than spreading rumors. It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Next episode: “One Mind With But A Single Thought” – To each his (or her) own.

i     Or at least used to be true.

ii    According to the Chofetz Chayim, the most important authority on the subject, lashon hara can best be described as any speaking about individuals, whether the comments are favorable or not. Favorable statements may evoke negative responses and comments by the listener.

iii    Arachin, 15b.

iv     “is harmful to” probably conveys the meaning better.

v     Although it is claimed that the kind of abuse about which the article is concerned is a general phenomenon, happening in many institutions.

vi    Nor could I find any indication that the matter had been discussed by them with the accused. The article was long and I might have missed it, but I don't think so. 

vii    Even if that should be the case, the retraction will not be as prominent as the accusation and it certainly won't have the same impact.

viii   Perhaps they did, but it's not at all clear from the article.

ix     In the case of a newspaper story, that means that someone else might print first. Journalistic ethical standards probably exist justifying the decision to print first and ask questions afterward – at least that's the impression I get from the media – but to the non-journalist it has the appearance of trying to cash in on gossip.

There She Is, Myth America

American history is draped in mythology. The drapings are, of course, a mixture of red, white and blue, but the mythology, itself, is pure white.ⁱ Whether Parson Weems or a modern text, the history is intermixed with unprovable – often invented – stories that add to the image of a great nation – a nation with a glorious mission – one with a Manifest Destiny. And, daily, the myths increase.

That shouldn't come as a great surprise. All societies remember their pasts with a luster that often exceeds reality, but one that answers the great inevitable questions in a way that both engages and honors us and our forebears.

Few history books will mention, for example, that George Washington was a poor generalⁱⁱ or that Alexander Hamilton was probably a British agent.ⁱⁱⁱ Most will gloss over the fact that although Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate against slavery, he was, himself, a slave owner. My intent is to deal with what actually happened – at least to the extent that we can so long after the events – not to belittle our Founding Fathers. Their greatness is undeniable. The documents upon which they founded this nation,^iv and the nation which has developed following the outline they put in place, are of unmistakable brilliance. Both are masterful products of their time, and those who fashioned them must not be judged by us. They acted, too, in accordance with the principles of their times, and they not only did the best they could, but they did a superb job.

But that's the point. They, and the founding documents, were products of their time. And we live in different times. Sooner or later those documents will have to be reviewed and revised to reflect the times in which we live.

“Jefferson also believed – uniquely – that this world belongs, solely, to the present generation. Hence, every twenty years or so, new laws should be promulgated at a constitutional convention. A grown man he noted in his best biblical parable style, should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”^v

Jefferson's view was acknowledged in what eventually was termed Federalist Paper number 49, although James Madison, who wrote that “letter,”^vi opposed constitutional conventions. And Jefferson was not alone in believing that the Constitution – the script for the great American drama – which we have come to revere, would have to be brought up to date periodically. There were many who recognized that a perfect document was not achievable at that, or any time, and that amendments would be required periodically.

The United States is one of the greatest countries on earth.^vii It is strong, rich, and the kind of place to which people from around the globe want to go. Some risk their lives to do so. And it exists because those who founded it endowed it with a governing document that was unique – one that has served as a model for other nations since then. But the mythology surrounding the founding itself and the documents employed to do so, as well as the virtue and wisdom of the founders, clouds the fact that however great they may have been, however far they may have been ahead of their time, they were fallible human beings of the eighteenth century. They were products of that age, but their time was not the twenty-first century in which we live.^viii Jefferson was right. “A grown man … should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”

The two major political parties have created their own “realities,” or, more accurately, their own mythologies. They have expressed exaggerated views of their own virtues and, very much in evidence at election times, frightening characterizations of the evils of their opponents. And the parties tend to become even more confrontational following election. The three branches of government, like the political parties, compete rather than cooperate. Each works hard to increase its own influence, leaving the mythical “We the People” out of the loop. Although our Constitution provides for a form of democracy, the reality is that the “representative” democracy our founders gave us is not representative of anyone but the politicians themselves. Having promised us solutions to all the problems we face, our representatives, once in office, focus on the next election rather than on our needs. The Executive branch of our government claims to lead, but its members are more likely to say what poll-takers tell them will sell, and after election they go on to assert their power and act as they see fit. And those of our Judiciary, who may never face an election, are free to follow their own views, irrespective of the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve.

The ability to review the mythology, however, and, if necessary, to change it, is built into our system.

Article IV

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The Constitution, which we sometimes view as sacred, provides for measured changes. No more should be necessary since its authors saw it as the answer to our country's problems and a solid basis for an infinite future of liberty.

But it was written illegally. The convention from which it emerged had been asked to amend the inadequate Articles of Confederation – not to write a new document. And we are as free as they to rewrite the Constitution rather than amend it if there are enough changes that need to be made, and if individual amendments will either not accomplish our wishes or will, because of their large numbers, either take too long or prove too burdensome to accomplish. It may take historical revisionists to correct our mythology, but a united citizenry – one fed up with current bickering and manipulation of the system to suit the needs of those who are supposed to work for us – has the ability, at least in theory, to invent our own future and the mythology that surrounds it. Whether we have the will to do so, though, is a different question. Probably not, because it's easier to live by the rules of an imagined past.

Next episode: “Gossip” – Some words to the wise guys.

i     The word refers to the purity of the story only, not to the harsh realities of our history. No defense of “racial purity” is intended. Indeed, it shouldn't be overlooked that racial politics spawned a separate mythology designed to justify the indefensible practice of slavery.

ii    Fortunately he was a patriot. He was honest and politically savvy even if he was a poor soldier.

iii    Recognizing the greatness of the work he did in establishing this country, we can only assume that he believed a close association with Great Britain would be beneficial to our survival. Whatever other motives he may have had, and notwithstanding disagreements we have had – and even a war – we have found our alliance with England to be mutually beneficial. In Hamilton's time, moreover, the (American) colonies had many supporters in the British government. England, to a degree, was just as happy to be rid of the colonies which had become a major financial burden, detracting from her hostilities with France.

iv    Primarily the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The efforts of James Madison in writing the latter document are also noteworthy.

v     From Inventing a Nation by Gore Vidal, 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Page 14.

vi    The Federalist Papers originally appeared as newspaper letters signed by “Publius,” but written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay.

vii    Some will take issue with this assessment, and that is understandable. They cannot, however, argue with the specific qualifications I mention in the next few sentences.

viii   In this electronic age – one never foreseen by eighteenth century politicians – both the tools and the rules have changed. See Constitution 3.0, by Rosen and Wittes (eds), Brookings Institution Press, 2011.