Now You Know Everything

 

In the highly unlikely event that you've been reading my maunderings for the past two years, you know a little about how I think. You're also aware that I know everything. At least you should be. I've told you so. But while I know everything, I don't tell it all. And there are several reasons for this.

The first is that there isn't enough space. Look up anything using a search engine and you'll find uncountable references, irrespective of the unimportance of the subject. However inane it is,ⁱ many people have written about it. Many of those references are wrong. I know they're wrong because they disagree with me. It's obvious, though, that the plethora of writings on various subjects is unmanageable. Once the Library at Alexandria could house much of the world's knowledge. More recently the Library of Congress has managed to contain a small amount of this knowledge, and now the internet tries, but totally fails, in the same quest. Only I know everything -- but as you can guess, there isn't enough room to reveal it all, so I dole it out in small amounts.

Another important reason is that the reader simply won't understand all I have to say. He'll be depressed. And the last thing I want to do is to make the ignorant feel inadequate. He knows it already and I don't want to rub it in.

Much of what I know isn't relevant to current society and mores. American culture nowadays is undisciplined and ruled by the media, old wives's tales, technology, and other fads, and there is little appreciation of the past and its contributions. Any society that can condemn fat and salt while lionizing exercise and iPads is corrupt and has been badly misled. Any country that gives away money and permits cigarettes is just looking for approval by voters. But that's not all of my message 2 U.ⁱⁱ

Rather, I'd like to go over one subject that's important to me but, assuming it would hold less interest for you, I've underplayed. The subject is religion -- specifically mine, Judaism. This morning, though, as I was looking at my tzitzit,ⁱⁱⁱ it struck me that my view of Judaism was of sufficient interest to me that even if you can't relate to it there are some things I want to say. Because even if I know everything, I don't have to like everything the way it is.

Don't misunderstand. My intent is not to fault Judaism, but I can't ignore the faults of some of its adherents. Because so many have been assimilating and intermarrying – especially in the context of a free American society – the overall number of Jews has been decreasing, and there has been fear that our community would die out, and with that, among other tragedies – especially spiritual – we would lose whatever political influence we have. Since we have long supported Israel,^iv and America has joined in this stance, there has been fear that American assistance might be jeopardized. Fortunately the non-Jewish community, especially the Christian right, favors our country's support of Israel. And fortunately as well, the Orthodox population is increasing both absolutely and, even moreso, proportionately, so that, at least in the New York area,^v the number of Jews is increasing, along with the observance of biblical injunctions.

But we're like all other people, and there are numerous problems among the Orthodox as well. The difficulties of adapting to modern society, and the close watching by modern society, have led both to scandals resulting from unacceptable behavior by some who fashion themselves as “good” Jews, and to increasing pressure on Israel both by non-Jews and some Jews as well. It has also led to greater pressure on Israel, since many view this as a politically correct way to express anti-Semitism, a bias that has existed in countless different forms for millennia.

To a degree, the anti-Semitism has helped us to survive. Jews were kept separate from non-Jewish communities and were united in the will to survive. With an inclination toward knowledge – especially of their religion – and the exclusion from the outside world, the Jewish community developed a large number of Rabbis and scholars^vi who interpreted the holy books far beyond what was sensible^vii or true, and that, even if inapplicable to our times, is what we have to follow. It has become tradition, even if we might prefer a different view of the material.

But I recognize that much of this came about because of the insularity forced by anti-Semitism, and I recognize that the activities of those scholars, and the traditions that arose from their debates, are what have helped us to survive, and that modern fashions and trends are destructive. And the loyalty of so many Jews provides the glue that will continue to keep our community together, notwithstanding the pressure from so many of our own people to adapt to the society in which we live.

So I can live with the traditions. And I can live with the knowledge that some of what I know – which is everything – is wrong. My view of life, even if it's a view anchored in the past – no, because it's a view anchored in the past – is true. As I said, I know everything. And I don't have to tell you (I said also that I don't intend to tell you everything) there is nothing new under the sun. Just trust me.

Next episode: “Forethought” – Full frontal capacity.

i       And I know inane.

ii      Did this all start with Francis Gary Powers and the Pentagon in the 1950s?

iii    The fringes or threads mentioned in Bamidbar (Numbers) 15:38 and D'varim (Deuteronomy) 22:12 that are worn “on the corners of your garments.”

iv    Although more and more liberal and unaffiliated Jews now question that support. The greater the temporal separation from the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, and the more detachment from Judaism as a religion, the less interest Jews have in Israel.

v     The numbers come from a UJA-Federation report and include the facts that 40 percent of the city's Jews consider themselves Orthodox – it was 33 percent in 2002 – and 74 percent of all Jewish children in the city are Orthodox.

vi    A cadre of padres?

vii   In fact, some of the scenarios suggested in the Talmud are bizarre or laughable, and some of the science and history is clearly fallacious. We often view what we don't like as metaphorical, and look for a more acceptable interpretation.

The Amoeba And The Oak Tree

                                                                                                                                    

It's hard to condemn something you don't understand,ⁱ but it's easy to raise the questions that make your understanding difficult. And that's what I intend to do since I'm a little confused by one of the major trends of our society: Veganism.

Yes. It's a major trend. There used to be vegetarians, and the biggest questions when one came over for a meal dealt with whether he would eat dairy products or eggs. And it turned out that a few even had fish. But they all drew the line at meat.

It now appears that vegans consider conventional vegetarianism, no matter how strict, to be inadequate. In fact it causes grief to animals. At least that's the contention of some of them.ⁱⁱ

As far as I can determine, their philosophy is based on the view that it is immoral for humans to use animals for any benefit. Thus the use of leather and wool would be proscribed as would the use of any products tested on animals. Even honey, which is an animal product, should be avoided. Circuses and other animal-based entertainments (eg horse racing and dog shows) would be eliminated. Pets are out.  And, of course, neither meat nor animal products should be part of our diet. In fact, a “life-style” based on veganism will solve the problem of animal abuse and provide better health for its adherents.ⁱⁱⁱ

Whether I subscribe to that philosophy or not, I have two real problems with implementing it. The first is reality, writ large, and the second is that I really don't know what an animal is from an evolutionary standpoint.

Reality first. Most of the power used to run our transportation, to operate our manufacturing plants, to keep the lights on in our houses, and even to fuel the machinery that farmers use to plant and harvest our vegetables, is derived from fossils. And those vegetables – especially the “organic” ones – are fertilized with animal products. (Mothers' milk comes from animals, although I suspect that vegans draw the line on human products.^iv) In third world countries where farmers cannot afford farm machinery, animals are used to help in working the fields. Guide dogs for the blind and other kinds of service animals are critical to some who seek to lead a more normal life. Abjuring all these things would put us in wooden shacks with thatched roofs eating whatever we could forage from nearby plants.

But the second problem – one of evolution and definitions – is even more perplexing. What is an “animal?” According to Dictionary.com it is

any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike (sic) nutritional modes.

That, however, is a human definition and, interestingly, is somewhat circular and problematic. It would be a surprise if animals didn't have “animallike nutritional modes,” but if this simply means that they ingest other species and cannot make their own food by photosynthesis, then the sea slug, Elysia chlorotica, which contains chlorophyll and can survive for up to nine months based on its own production of food,^v is a plant, not an animal. And carnivorous plants,^vi like the sundews, and the pitcher plants, and snap trap plants like the waterwheel plant and the Venus flytrap, are animals not plants.

If the differentiation of animals and plants is based on locomotion, then while it is true that higher plants have a root system that ties them to a particular location, they may climb and send out shoots from that place, and the species may move based on the spreading of its seeds. Many biologists consider bacteria to be plants, even though some of them have flagella and can move from place to place.  And some animals, like sponges, barnacles and coral, are sessile.

Another part of the definition, and one that seems to be the presence of a cell wall. Plants have them, but animals don't. Both have cell membranes, although the usual differentiation is that animals have cell membranes and plants have solid cell walls.

But all of these criteria are based on the fact that we've chosen to define organisms this way. We've drawn a line at an arbitrary point in evolution. If all life arose from molecules in a primordial “soup,” then plants and animals have the same ancestry and the differentiation is based on a human definition. For some reason we have chosen to define animals as superior to plants. I find it difficult to view an amoeba as more advanced than an oak tree, but the former is an animal, and the latter a plant. It may be a clear distinction to vegetarians, and may be a deciding factor in their behavior, but I am less certain – at least based on these criteria.

The distinction, then, relates to where you draw the line. Salt and water were never alive (although they may contain organisms) but steak was. And so was bread. We know that plants react to time, light, and temperature, and to nutrients as well. But does wheat feel pain when cut? It certainly doesn't have a neural system similar to those in animals, and it doesn't scream out. But there is no question that cut plants have characteristics different from those attached to the ground. And there is increasing evidence that some plants can communicate with each other.

So where do we draw that line – if at all? And why? Is it possible to live without what we call animals, and do we want to? What is clear to the vegan is less clear to me. When these questions are answered, I'll be better able to form an opinion on veganism.

Next episode: “Now You Know Everything” – Or at least I do.

i     Actually, it's not that hard. It's foolish and unfair however. That, of course, doesn't stop people from doing it.

ii    For example, see: http://www.ivu.org/news/evu/news95/veg_n.html. While the article favors vegetarianism, it mentions some of the objections of vegans – objections which are often stressed with great venom.

iii    A position with which not everyone agrees. Perhaps you'll find the following op-ed of interest. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html.

iv    If that's the case, of course, cannibalism would be permissible. Or maybe that's pushing it too hard.

v     http://www.independent.com/news/2010/jan/30/first-known-photosynthetic-animal/ While the building blocks for the photosynthetic process are derived from plants, the organisms we define as plants originally derived their own chloroplasts from incorporated cyanobacteria, and the chloroplasts became par of the organisms.

vi    It's of interest that the first well-known work on the subject, Insectivorous Plants, was written by Charles Darwin.

The Current Crisis

The Current Crisis

 

[The following appeared in “The Jewish Voice And Opinion” – June 2012

It had no byline or other attribution.]

 

          Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

          The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
          The fifth would pay $1.
          The sixth would pay $3.
          The seventh would pay $7.
          The eighth would pay $12.
          The ninth would pay $18.
          The tenth (the richest) would pay $59.
          So that's what they decided to do.
          The ten men drank every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
          The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
          But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
          They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to drink. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount [and, to the degree possible, proportional, more or less, to what he paid – Sir Oracle], and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
          The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).  
          The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
          The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
          The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
          The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22 % savings).
          The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
          Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
          “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
          “Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got.”
          “That's true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
          “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
          The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
          The next night, the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down to drink without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
          And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact they may even do their drinking overseas.
          For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor Addresses Myths In UN Security Council Speech

The following recent address, needs only one footnote.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor Addresses Myths In UN Security Council Speech

Thank you, Madame President.

Churchill once said, "In the time that it takes a lie to get halfway around the world, the truth is still getting its pants on."ⁱ

In the barren deserts of the Middle East, myths find fertile ground to grow wild. Facts often remain buried in the sand. The myths forged in our region travel abroad - and can find their way into these halls. I would like to use today's debate as an opportunity to address just a few of the myths that have become a permanent hindrance to our discussion of the Middle East here at the United Nations.

Madame President,

Myth number one: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central conflict in the Middle East. If you solve that conflict, you solve all the other conflicts in the region.

Make no mistake: it is important for Israel and the Palestinians to resolve our longstanding conflict for its own merits. Yet, the truth is that conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, and many other parts of the Middle East have nothing to do with Israel.

It is obvious that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won't stop the persecution of minorities across the region, end the subjugation of women, or heal sectarian divides. Obsessing over Israel has not stopped Assad's tanks from flattening entire communities. On the contrary, it has only distracted attention from his crimes. And dedicating the majority of this debate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, month after month, has not stopped the Iranian regime's centrifuges from spinning. Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to the Middle East, and the entire world.

The Iranian nuclear program continues to advance at the speed of an express train. The international community's efforts to stop them are moving at the pace of the local train, pausing at every stop for some nations to get on and off. The danger of inaction is clear. We cannot allow the diplomatic channel to provide another avenue for the Iranian regime to stall for more time, as they inch closer and closer to a nuclear weapon.

Madame President,

Myth number two: There is a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

In fact, numerous international organizations have said clearly that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the Deputy Head of the Red Cross Office in the area. Gaza's real GDP grew by more than 25 percent during the first three quarters of 2011. Exports are expanding. International humanitarian projects are moving forward at a rapid pace. There is not a single civilian good that cannot enter Gaza today.

Yet, as aid flows into the area, missiles fly out. That is the crisis in Gaza. And that is what keeps Gaza from realizing its potential.

It is a simple equation. If it is calm in Israel, it will be calm in Gaza. But the people of Gaza will face hardship as long as terrorists use them as human shields to rain rockets down on Israeli cities. Each rocket in Gaza is armed with a warhead capable of causing a political earthquake that would extend well beyond Israel's borders. It will only take one rocket that lands in the wrong place at the wrong time to change the equation on the ground. If that happens, Israel's leaders would be forced to respond in a completely different manner.

It is time for all in this Chamber to finally wake up to that dangerous reality. The Security Council has not condemned a single rocket attack from Gaza. History's lessons are clear. Today's silence is tomorrow's tragedy.

Madame President,

Myth number three: Settlements are the primary obstacle to peace.

How many times have we heard that argument in this chamber? Just this month, the Human Rights Council proposed yet another "fact-finding" mission to Israel. It will explore…surprise, surprise…Israeli settlements.

Today, I'd like to save the Human Rights Council and the international community some time and energy. The facts have already been found. They are plain for all to see.

The fact is that from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, and Gaza was part of Egypt. The Arab World did not lift a finger to create a Palestinian state. And it sought Israel's annihilation when not a single settlement stood anywhere in the West Bank or Gaza.

The fact is that in 2005 we took every settlement out of Gaza and only got rockets on our cities in return. The fact is that this Israeli Government put in place an unprecedented ten-month moratorium on settlements. The Palestinian leadership used the gesture as an opportunity to take Israel and the international community on another ride to nowhere. For nine of those months, they rejected the moratorium as insufficient - and then demanded that we extend it. As former U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell said "what had been less than worthless a few months earlier became indispensable to continue negotiations…[for the Palestinians]."

Madame President,

The primary obstacle to peace is not settlements. The primary obstacle to peace is the so-called "claim of return" - and the Palestinian's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

You will never hear Palestinian leaders say "two states for two peoples". You won't hear them say "two states for two peoples" because today the Palestinian leadership is calling for an independent Palestinian state, but insists that its people return to the Jewish state. This would mean the destruction of Israel.

Some of you might say, "Oh Ambassador, but the Palestinians know that they will have to give up this claim, that's what they whisper quietly at the negotiating table."

Ladies and Gentleman - the Palestinian leadership has never said publicly that they will give up the so-called "claim of return" - neither to the Palestinian people, to the Arab world, to the international community, or to anyone else. Since the Palestinian leadership refuses to tell the Palestinian people the truth, the international community has the responsibility to tell them the truth. You have a duty to stand up and say that the so-called "claim of return" is a non-starter.

Instead of telling the Palestinian people the truth, much of the international community stands idle as the Arab world tries to erase the Jewish people's historical connection to the Land of Israel. Across the Arab world - and even at this table - you hear claims that Israel is "Judaizing Jerusalem". These accusations come about 3,000 years too late. It's like accusing the NBA of Americanizing basketball.

Like many nations around this table, the Jewish people have a proud legacy of age-old kings and queens. It's just that our tradition goes back a few years earlier. Since King David laid the cornerstone for his palace in the 10th Century BC, Jerusalem has served as the heart of our faith.

In debate after debate, speakers sit in the Security Council and say that Israel is committing "ethnic cleansing" in Jerusalem, even though the percentage of Arab residents in the city has grown from 26% to 35% since 1967.

The holiest sites in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people, were closed only to Jews from 1948 until 1967. Everyone could come to these sites except Jews. There was absolutely no freedom of worship. The world did not say a word about the situation in Jerusalem at that time.

Since Israel unified the city, it has thrived under the values of tolerance and freedom. For the first time in centuries, sacred places that were once sealed off along religious lines are now permanently open for worship by all peoples. This is a principle grounded in our values, our actions and our laws.

Madame President,

There is another great truth that this organization has completely overlooked for the past 64 years. In all of the pages that the UN has written about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in all of its reports and fact-finding commissions, and in all of the hours dedicated to debate about the Middle East, there is one great untold story. Or - to be more specific - there are more than 850,000 untold stories.

More than 850,000 Jews have been uprooted from their homes in Arab countries during the past 64 years. These were vibrant communities dating back 2,500 years. On the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, Babylonian Jewry produced many of Judaism's holiest books - and thrived for two millennia. In the great synagogues and libraries of Cairo, Jews preserved the intellectual and scientific treasures of antiquity into the Renaissance. From Aleppo to Aden to Alexandria, Jews stood out as some of the greatest artists, musicians, businessmen, and writers.

All of these communities were wiped out. Age-old family businesses and properties were confiscated. Jewish quarters were destroyed. Pogroms left synagogues looted, graveyards desecrated and thousands dead. The pages that the UN has written about the Palestinian refugees could fill up soccer stadiums, but not a drop of ink has been spilled about the Jewish refugees.

Out of over 1088 UN resolutions on the Middle East, you will not find a single syllable regarding the displacement of Jewish refugees. There have been more than 172 resolutions exclusively devoted to Palestinian refugees, but not one dedicated to Jewish refugees. The Palestinian refugees have their own UN agency, their own information program, and their own department within the United Nations. None exist for the Jewish refugees. The word "double-standard" does not even begin to describe this gap.

This discrepancy is very convenient for some in this Chamber, but it's not right. The time has come for the UN to end its complicity in trying to erase the stories of 850,000 people from history. The time has also come to speak openly in these halls about the Arab World's role in maintaining the Palestinians as refugees for more than six decades.

Jews from Arab countries came to refugee camps in Israel, which eventually gave birth to thriving towns and cities. Refugee camps in Arab Countries gave birth to more Palestinian refugees. Israel welcomed its Jewish refugees with citizenship and unlocked their vast potential. As they rose to the highest levels of society, our refugees lifted the State of Israel to new heights.

Imagine if Arab countries had done the same with their Palestinian refugees. Instead, they have cynically perpetuated their status as refugees, for generation after generation. Across the Arab world, Palestinians have been denied citizenship, rights and opportunities.

All of these are facts that must be neither forgotten nor overlooked, as we look to move forward on the path to peace.

Madame President,

I've saved the most obvious myth for last: The myth that peace can somehow be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians by bypassing direct negotiations. History has shown that peace and negotiations are inseparable.

Direct negotiations are the only tool, the only way and the only path to create two-states for two peoples. Last January, Israel offered a clear proposal in Amman for restarting direct negotiations. We presented the Palestinian delegation with negotiating positions on every major issue separating the parties.

That proposal - filled with Israel's vision for peace - continues to gather dust, as Palestinian leaders continue to pile up new pre-conditions for sitting with Israel. They are everywhere except the negotiating table. It is time for them to give up unilateral efforts to internationalize the conflict and take up the real path to peace.

Madame President,

This week we will observe the two most significant public holidays in Israel - our day of remembrance and our day of independence.

On Wednesday, sirens will sound across Israel. For two minutes, everything will come to a halt. People will stop in their tracks, cars will pull over to the side of highways, and the entire country will pause to remember the more than 22,000 Israelis who have been killed by wars and terrorism in our nation's short history.

On Thursday, we will celebrate the rebirth of the Jewish nation - and our 64th year as a free people in our ancient homeland. Against persistent threats and overwhelming odds, Israel has not only survived, but thrived.

I walk the halls of this organization tall and proud of my extraordinary nation - a nation of just 7 million that has produced 10 Nobel prizes; a nation that sends satellites into space, puts electric cars on the road, and develops the technology to power everything from cell phones to solar panels to medical devices.

We intentionally commemorate these two days one after another. As the Israeli people celebrate our independence, we carry the heavy weight of great suffering and sacrifice.

The lesson we take from these days is clear. We can never turn a blind eye to the dangers around us. We cannot pretend that we live in a stable region filled with Jeffersonian democracies.

But there is another lesson that will fill the hearts of Israelis this week. We can never, ever give up hope for lasting peace. The price of conflict is too high. The evil of war is too great. That is the fundamental truth which guides our leaders.

Madame President,

In the dangerous uncertainty of a turbulent Middle East, the Security Council has never had a greater responsibility to separate myth from truth, and fact from fiction. The clarity of candor has never been more valuable. The need for honest discourse has never been clearer. It is time for this Council to sweep out the cobwebs of old illusions - and plant the seeds for a truly "open" debate on the Middle East. The challenges before us demand nothing less.

I        Actually, this remark is usually attributed to Mark Twain, but is older. Rev. Charles Hadden Spurgeon used it in 1859 and called it an old saying.

The Absolute Truth

                            

The trouble with absolutes is that they're absolute. There are no exceptions. And it's hard not to temper your beliefs with reality and changed circumstances.  Despite that though, I'm an absolutist.

That's a difficult concept. And it's difficult for a variety of unrelated reasons. Most are based on the idea – one widely held – that there are no absolutes. Some people believe there's no such thing as an absolute. All values are relative: all are based on the preferences of different cultures.ⁱ And truth is whatever a particular society considers it to be.ⁱⁱ What some consider moral others would view as immoral; and there may be a lack of concurrence on truth, with many arguing that there are relative truths and degrees of truth. So different groups should have different standards for right and wrong. And, indeed, they do.

But they all accept the view that there is a “Right” and a “Wrong.” The taboos of incest and homosexuality may be common, however conceding that such ideas are not universal, everyone believes that murder is wrong. Even if you accept the concept of absolutes though, agreement with others breaks down in the areas of definition and interpretation. And right and wrong depend on those foundations – foundations which vary according to time and place.ⁱⁱⁱ That's where cultural differences arise.

In addition, there are political differences which regulate our views. If murder is wrong, is capital punishment permissible? What about abortion? And self-defense? Among other areas, there is an overlap of philosophy, science, and culture in relation to such questions. (Similarly there are arguments regarding many other issues, such as one we view as sacred –“freedom of speech.” Liberal groups, like the ACLU, see this as an absolute “right”^iv while others cannot consider it without evaluating the context. The “Patriot Act,” for example, is, in their view, an appropriate response to danger.)

Yet we all accept the idea that there are such things as right and wrong. So that view must come from somewhere. But where?

For many, the Bible provides the “final word” on the subject.^v There are problems with this explanation, though. Many societies are outside of the community that follows biblical teaching, with holy books and concepts of their own, and many individuals consider all religion to be mistaken. They may still believe in right and wrong, though. More important, however, even if the Bible contains truths and absolutes written by G-d, it was proofread and interpreted by humans.^vi So if, at the time of Babel, societies were separated by language, it is reasonable to expect that their understandings of what we consider basic premises would also be different.

Some people, including biblical personalities and interpreters, focus on an individual's intent as a tool to determine whether what he has said or done was right. This is exemplified in a talmudic story about a debate between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. While in that debate both argued sincerely and strongly for a particular position, in the end a voice from heaven announced that “The law is according to the House of Hillel,” but “These and these [the arguments of both] are the words of the living G-d.”^vii There may have been an absolute, but those who were wrong weren't necessarily “wrong.” Because of their intent, even though they disagreed, because they had argued “for the sake of heaven”^viii both were right.

But the idea that good intent justifies all thoughts and acts leads to the conclusion that what most people would view as evil is “right,” if their perpetrators are convinced of their own virtue. And that cannot be the case. Too many arguments, injustices, and killings take place between parties convinced of the morality of their cause.

The idea of evolution suggests a different, and, perhaps, better answer. Many of the actions of members of the animal kingdom are based on instinct; they are taken without conscious consideration but are helpful to the individual or the species. Whether dealing with the protection of offspring, the following of migration paths, avoiding danger, finding sustenance, or something else, these actions are taken rapidly and, apparently, without thought. Somehow or other they must be coded into our genes – for we humans have them too. Perhaps we call it “intuition” or a “hunch,” but it is difficult to support on rational grounds even though we may be convinced that it is right. Most believers in the truth of the Bible, followers of other religious traditions, and atheists agree, for example, that there is a responsibility to help those in need. There may be disagreement on the means by which such a result might be achieved, but there is agreement on the goal.

And more and more evidence is being adduced that our acts on behalf of others are genetically determined. They're in our DNA. We're controlled by an “altruism gene.”^ix And that raises additional questions. If there is such a gene, are there alleles and mutations? When someone says “the Devil made me do it,” or G-d ordained it, is he correct? That, of course, depends on your views of evolution and religion. But, once again, most of us believe that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. It's absolute – even if we disagree on the details.

Yes. There are absolutes. But, as I said, that's a difficult concept. And the bigger problem for me is that although I believe in absolutes, I don't know what they are. No one does. For the time being we're stuck with the need to compromise our relative values to achieve some kind of peace and cooperation. Perhaps this (and further evolution) will bring us closer to the “Truth.”

Next episode: “The Amoeba And The Oak Tree” – How do you rate them?

i     For many there is the view that we all have “natural rights” and that these cannot be taken away. In the American experience we find these as the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. But they do not come from Thomas Jefferson or John Locke. What are they and where do they come from? They're rights we're all supposed to have. How do these “rights” relate to religion or are they human creations? Do we all agree on them? Are they absolute? And who (or Who) enforces those rights, and how?

ii    See “1984” by George Orwell.

iii    Noah was said to be “righteous in his time.” Whether that means that the standards of his time were different from those of another period can be debated, but the fact that the praise is ambiguous indicated some change in criteria from time to time.

iv    It was suggested earlier (see note i above) that “rights” come from somewhere, so it is reasonable to consider whether this is a divine right or one created by humans.

v     As well as many other issues.

vi    It also contains copying errors and differences in versions, especially in the Talmud. In fact there are conscious changes and word additions based on the premise that a particular statement is true irrespective of other text that might bring it into question.

vii    Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.

viii    Babylonian Talmud, Avot, 5:17.

ix    See http://io9.com/5859786/is-this-the-altruism-gene. There are many similar articles and blogs, all pointing to some kind of genetic predisposition to help others. Although it seems reasonable from an evolutionary standpoint that the purpose of such a gene would be the benefit of the species, humans who are altruistic may devote themselves to other species as well as other people.

All The News ... Addendum

Time passes. And we think of things we “shoulda' said.” Usually that phenomenon occurs immediately after a particular conversation. It is a missed opportunity. It's too late now to make a clever remark or pose a particular argument that would have gotten everyone's attention just a few moments ago.

Ideas, however, are not static. And they are not bound by time.

I was reading a previous blog that I wrote a little over a year ago, “All The News That's Fit To Print.” Of course I agree with myself, but I could have said more. And perhaps I could have emphasized other ideas. In it I pointed out that the primary aims of a publication are to sell papers and to publicize the publisher's opinion.ⁱ Thus the media slants are predictable even before a story is read or viewed by members of the public – a public usually having the same view anyway.ⁱⁱ The media weren't giving us the objective truth we had a right to expect.

I haven't changed my view about the facts – and these are facts. But my perspective is a little different. I still view the various media as biased in a wide variety of was – both in terms of political judgments and international perspectives. I still think the papers are excellent for wrapping fish,ⁱⁱⁱ and I think that they have the view that while it is their job to criticize others, any criticism of them is an impingement on the First Amendment. With those criticisms, though, there's more to be said.

I've come to the conclusion that that's their job. Mostly they're relatively honest^iv and it's the responsibility of the public to sort out the differences of opinion and to try to get a more objective view of events by consulting a wide variety of media with different prejudices. It's time we realized and accepted the fact that there is no such thing as a free press. At least not in the sense that one can get unbiased news about all important matters, and get it from a from a single site. And there are are many causes for this problem.

First of all, the public has little patience for “hard news.” Its great interest is in sensational material, especially in the detailing of the pain of others. In addition to all the murders and other crime stories that are featured, we find that pain in reports on the poor of our own country, as well as those elsewhere. We devour stories about wars and natural catastrophes. As long as the problems are those of others, we are fascinated by them and search them out. We savor Schadenfreude, so that's what the media provides.

Adding to the problem is the fact that accuracy is not a critical factor, but speed is. Publishing first, takes precedence over getting it right. In fact, there is not enough time for the media to get it right. Like a lie, a rumor “will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”^v To be first, therefore,^vi little time can be wasted on the checking of facts – or those statements presented as facts. Indeed, notwithstanding pompous statements about “truth” and “accuracy,” it is not always in the best interests of the media spend the time to present material correctly and objectively. Rather, it is the goal to achieve a certain response on the part of those who receive the information, and to achieve that response first – before someone else convinces them of an alternative “truth.” The deadline dictates the news.

And news usually reflects a point of view rather than objectivity.^vii The message is the message. But that has always been the case, and, like today, those in the past who carried new information either believed what they had heard or been told, or they related “facts” that they wanted the audience to believe. Some may even have believed it themselves, although they probably told the story in such a way as to emphasize their beliefs rather than the facts. Travelers related what they considered important when questioned about the place they had left. That represented “incidental” news. But sometimes the goal was more calculated. Pheidippides ran to Sparta to get Athenian troops needed for the battle against the Persians at Marathon – at least that was Herodotus's story.^viii It was the messenger who carried good or bad news.^ix

Wandering minstrels followed, and town criers as well.  And they, like the editors of today, chose what we would hear.  But the “news,” at least that which was reported, was old. Even the introduction of newspapers in the seventeenth century left the public with old news. Perhaps it was more recent than previously, but it was old. That problem was solved with the telegraph, radio, television, and internet, and now we get the news while it is happening – sometimes even before.^x This is especially the case when the media are controlled by the state. For them, the news is an extension of foreign, as well as domestic policy,^xi and it must be doled out to the public carefully, expressing the ideas that will be of greatest use to the government. Politicians recognize the power of the pen.

And the same is true of history, which is, in essence, old “news.” Using old reports, such as those in newspapers, or history books written long after the fact, is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”^xii That's quite in line with the idea that the written word, even now, should be considered in the light of the prejudices of the writer. So the best historians are those who sift through contemporary documents and try to understand them rather than those who rely on the interpretation of others. The record of events more likely to be correct than reports of events.

So if, like Will Rogers, all you know is what you read in the newspapers, you'd better read a lot of them. Which, fortunately, you can now do thanks to the internet. You can read all about it in papers from coast to coast and internationally as well. You can sample both governmental and private biases around the world. The responsibility for what you read, and what you believe, however, is yours. The obligation to get the facts belongs to you. You can't blame the media for slanting what they present. You'd do the same. If you only read what you're going to agree with, you're wasting your time. You could write those articles yourself.

That's what I shoulda' said. Rather than blame the media for doing what I would do – what anyone interested in making money and influencing people would do – I should have acknowledged my own responsibility to learn the truth. And it is my responsibility. No one will do it for me.  I'll be my own editor.

Next episode: “The Absolute Truth” – I'm Sir Oracle. Don't question me.

i     The paper will claim otherwise, saying that the staff are free to express their own opinions. The staff, however, having been approved by the publisher, are likely to share his views. At least if they want to keep their jobs. Some papers boast balance and evenhandedness and hire columnists with contrary opinions, but those with different views are certain to be outnumbered significantly by those who express the “party line,” lest anyone think that the minority opinion has any validity. Obviously it doesn't. But the publisher has established his credentials as one who is “objective” and who wants to air all sides of a story.

ii    The bias of a newspaper is likely to be known to the purchaser before he opens it. The Village Voice will speak out in extremely liberal terms, while the Wall Street Journal will record a much more conservative perspective; the New York Times will multiply Israel's faults while the New York Sun will always see the bright side. (The same is true of other media. NPR, for example, is likely to have a liberal outlook while FOX News will be conservative; Atlantic Monthly will be liberal and National Review conservative.) To a large degree this is a marketing as well as a political position. Each outlet finds its niche, and each reader buys the paper that he knows will echo his prejudices. And from that viewpoint, it works.

iii    I didn't say that at the time, but it's true.

iv    Notwithstanding the low opinion of the media as held by the public and as demonstrated in polls which evaluate the performance of many professions and industries.

v     Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon.

vi    And that's a major goal of the media.

vii    It's a mistake to take at face value either “All the news that's fit to print” or “Fair and balanced” reporting. They respond to both temporal and doctrinal dictates as much (or perhaps more) than the objective facts. In some markets one is more attractive to the public, in some markets the other is favored. It's unfortunate that much of what they say is taken seriously. Some of the media make a show of “evenhandedness,” but it's clear that it's only pretense.

viii   Plutarch tells it differently.

ix    And he was sometimes shot for his efforts.

x     The scheduling of particular events, or their anticipation, coupled with the need to be first in reporting, my lead to errors. For example, Dewey did not defeat Truman. And the reporting of election winners, reporting that occasionally needs to be revised, also occurs.

xi    Clausewitz was too limited in his perspective.

xii    He also wrote “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” A cute remark, and one illustrative of the unreliability of such printed reports.