The Continuity Of Humanity

                                                                            

It is the “instinct” of living things to survive. The continuity of individual species is a primary part of the inborn “program” of all plants and animals. A species cannot evolve if it is extinct. We recognize this basic principal when we support efforts to label and preserve endangered species.ⁱ

For that continuity to take place – for the good of the species – it is important that reproduction take place. That reproduction should be in large numbers and with an emphasis on variation, since evolution, and the advancement both of individual species and life in general, depends on these fundamental building blocks. The greater the number of members of a species, the greater the possibility for superior examples to exist.ⁱⁱ The greater that number, moreover, the greater the possibility of new variations in the genetic pool which will allow advancement to take place.

With that in mind, a lot can be said in favor of rape and incest. Both of these practices increase the likelihood of additional pregnancies and additional progeny. What could be better devised to provide for species continuity? Society may not be sanguine about these methods, but that is an emotional rather than a rational reaction. Whatever yields a greater number of species members is advantageous to the species.ⁱⁱⁱ

A ban on homosexuality and abortions, therefore, makes sense – not for any religious reasons but because actions that decrease the number of species members are counterproductive. Similarly, the death penalty should be outlawed and all prisons emptied so that there will be more individuals – humans in the case under discussion – available to reproduce. These steps may not seem to be rational, but, in fact, they are – at least in terms of evolution. Evolution is a product of time and numbers. We may not be able to affect the passage of time, but we can increase the numbers. Any action that limits population should be abjured since it limits evolution at the same time. If those actions are not examples of the Law of Unanticipated Results, they have the same effect. However virtuous the goal of limiting numbers in the hope of improving the condition of humanity, that action will inevitably hamper our evolution to a better and more productive humanity.

We can also improve the quality of the species by a restoration of a limited form of the practice of eugenics. We have no compunctions about using selective breeding techniques to get better looking flowers or cattle with more meat and less fat, and similar methods designed to produce more intelligent and healthier humans make sense as well. I do not propose that we leave deformed babies on the mountain sides, or that we withhold treatment from the sick (especially those capable of reproducing) in order to rid ourselves of imperfect examples of our kind, but with the limitation of resources that seems to be an unavoidable part of our civilization, it seems counterproductive to use funds for the salvage of the infirm who may pass their own infirmity on to future generations.^iv It would be better to use the limited funds for the discovery of those with superior DNA, and the matching of those individuals for reproduction – as well as genetic manipulation, and also the cloning of superior specimens.

The combination of rape, incest, ends to abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty, the release of convicts, and the encouragement of cloning, multiple births and eugenics, then, should have beneficial effects on the evolution of humanity. That may seem counterintuitive, but the logic is unassailable. At least in terms of what we know about natural selection and evolution.

But for many, such steps don't make much sense. For them, evolution has more to do with ethics than with numbers and anatomy. However many members of humanity there are, we have a responsibility for them. The concepts of right and wrong take precedence over numbers, and the idea that the end – a larger population – justifies the means. The promotion of rape and incest, for example – makes a mockery of the whole idea of humanity. Perhaps many favor an end to the death penalty, but not the release of dangerous prisoners. And if they oppose eugenics and abortion, it is not in order to aid evolution. It is because they believe these practices to be wrong.

Interestingly, the ideas of right and wrong do not seem to be cultural, since they exist in almost all societies including isolated ones.^v They seem to be inborn. In a way, they are as much a part of human beings as arms and legs, a liver and a spleen. But the anatomical features may be found as well in what we view as lower forms. A hyena has legs; a rattlesnake has a liver. As humanity has evolved it has found ethical concepts as part of its makeup. From a violent past we have progressed to a present in which it is “human nature” to provide for the less fortunate; we all know without being taught that murder and theft are wrong. We seem to be evolving into a species that sees the Ten Commandments as natural and unassailable. As Voltaire put it in “The Three Impostors," "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." Voltaire used the subjunctive because he believed that God did exist. But that view is not universal. Even so, it seems that if we don't kill each other off first, evolution will one day bring us to the point that we all accept the idea that there are rules as real as our organs, and those rules cannot be questioned any more than our lungs can be questioned.

Or, if we accept religious doctrines as they now exist, it is obvious that the proposals to aid evolution may be rational, but they're foolish and immoral. We don't need evolution to teach us these rules, we have them already.

Next episode: “Time In” – There's a time for everything.

i      I don't mean to suggest that all the efforts to protect endangered species are rational, but the reasoning on which such efforts are based has some internal logic. Arguments can be made, however, that the cost of saving some species is too high to justify any conceivable benefits that evolution may confer on them.

ii     Inferior ones will also be produced, but that's a risk worth taking. And they are less likely to survive in the long run.

iii    IVF (in-vitro fertilization) is developing and being utilized at an increasing rate as time goes by. I would be advantageous to the effort to ensure multiple pregnancies as often as possible to increase the numbers. “Octomom,” and the doctor who performed the procedure that resulted in that result, are to be congratulated for their work to enlarge the genetic pool.

iv     There is nothing to be gained by helping the survival of evolution's failures.

v      The ideas may not be identical. There may be differences in the details of right and wrong, but there are some ideas that bridge all cultures. And the very idea that there are certain practices that are wrong is common to all groups.

The Debate

                                                                

Last night the third presidential debate was held. I don't know who won. In fact I don't know what constitutes winning.

This was the only one of the series I watched. I've avoided them up to this point but for some reason – one I can't really explain – I tuned in last night. I've ignored them for several reasons. First of all, having already made up my mind there wasn't much to be gained. Second was that I have better ways to waste my time because (third) I don't believe what either candidate is saying. During the “debate” the candidates delivered their well-prepared remarks – remarks intended as ones which would impress the undecided voters. Because they were designed to prove, by any means necessary, their speaker's superiority to the opposition, truth wasn't a major issue.ⁱ

Still it got a reasonably good audienceⁱⁱ and some minds seem to have been made up or changed – at least according to the polls.

So what did those viewers see? On what did they make their judgments? How did that relate to the candidates' “game plans?”ⁱⁱⁱ

Having discounted the specific messages of the debaters (which, I suspect, was the approach that many viewers took), it was hard not to use style as the deciding factor. One of the candidates chose^iv to present himself as “presidential” – in charge and forceful, indeed, argumentative. The other was more “laid back” – dignified but “above the fray.” The goal of the first was to convince voters that no petty dictator would take advantage of him in negotiations; the second had the assignment of portraying himself as cool, confident, and worthy of the trust and confidence of the people.

But I didn't believe either of them. Or, better, I didn't want to believe either. I can't imagine that behind closed doors, in a diplomatic setting, with no television cameras or audio feeds running, that a well-trained negotiator would keep telling his counterpart that he was wrong and that he should go check the record. And it doesn't seem likely that he would keep interrupting the positions of his opposite party, no matter how inaccurate he thought they were.

Nor would I be comfortable were my representative so unengaged that he looked bored when he was being attacked. I'd like to think that, when it was necessary, he would be forthright and forceful in his arguments.

In short, I suspect that with the accompaniment of trained diplomats and advisors, and out of the glare of the television studio, the styles of the two would be relatively similar. Both would defend the interests of our country as they see them politely, but with all tools available – no-holds-barred and with every option “on the table.”

And in that appraisal is the factor that I consider the most important: “as they see them.” Having reached the position of presidential candidate, I'm sure that both are sufficiently alert, arrogant, and ambitious to perform reasonably well in the position. And with a variety of advisors they'll get enough opinions to sort through. But the decisions they'll make will be based on their preconceived biases. Their choices will be in the best “interests of our country as they see them.”

For me, then, the ballot choice will be based on what they have said and done in the past. It will be founded on the times when they were not as vigorously running for office as now but were speaking and performing according to their biases. In all likelihood they'll revert to that approach once the campaign is over. ^v

The fact, though, that the event could affect many of the voters – something attested by post-debate comments and polls – suggests that some citizens took their words at face value, and their approaches at body value. I only hope that the assessments^vi of those voters ultimately conform to my biases.

 

i      Do we have more bayonets than in 1916? I've heard contrary answers from “fact checkers” but who cares – except for the fact that it was a Twitter moment (apparently one well prepared and searching for the opportunity to be used). Otherwise it was one that was totally irrelevant.

ii     Six and a half million viewers. It was the lowest of the series, but that's not a surprise because with previous debates the excitement was gone and because the electorate has relatively little interest in foreign policy – the subject of the debate. In addition, it was in competition with the concluding Major League playoff game and “Monday Night Football.”

iii    After all they were competing with other sporting events.

iv     Or was advised.

v      As George Santayana said (among other things) “Remembering the past gives power to the present.” Unfortunately we're prone to forget the past and lose the present – and future – to easy claims, even if they are without basis.

vi     Even if they were made irrationally.

Only The Dead Know Brooklyn

                                                                                

I'm not one for book clubs or book reviews, but I'll make an exception. Having spent the time necessary to read a novel of over 7oo pages,ⁱ it seems to be a waste not to find an additional use of that time.ⁱⁱ And, since I'm an extraordinarily slow reader with a short attention span, this was no minor accomplishment. But I read relatively quickly – for me – and only had to renew the book once, though I finished it just soon enough to be able to return it to the library without paying in coin what I had lost in the shortening of my life.

First of all, let me admit that apart from the author, the title has nothing to do with the subject matter of this essay. But it's a catchier title than anything more directly involved with the bookⁱⁱⁱ I'll be discussing – or anything else I could imagine – and more likely to attract the attention of the reader.^iv The short story, “Only the Dead Know Brooklyn,”^v was published by Thomas Wolfe in 1935, three years before his death from tuberculosis, and five years prior to the publication of “You Can't Go Home Again,” the novel about which I'm writing.

I won't bore you with the plot line of this autobiographical work. Rather I'll give some of the impressions I had while reading it. They're hardly comprehensive, and simply reflect a few of the ideas that crossed my mind while reading it. The story can be found on line, and even if you can't find a plot summary, just read any entry which tells the story of Wolfe's life. You'll find the biography to be the pretty much the same as the story in the novel.

If you look hard enough on line you'll also find many reviews of what was called by most critics a literary masterpiece. Some “ordinary” readers agree with that assessment, however others are more reserved in their praise. Many, in fact, see more faults than strengths, although there is virtually universal acknowledgment of the poetry and the beauty of the language used.

I'm among those inclined to take issue with what I read. The novel, for me, is a conglomerate rather than a unified work. Besides the story itself, a large portion of the novel^vi consists of what seems to me to be self-conscious and “artsy” writing,^vii very different from other parts of the work. Some critics have noted and praised his “stream-of-consciousness” style, which I find to distract from the story-telling aspect of the work. The writing seems to change styles from time to time, which is something I find disconcerting. In addition, large sections of the book, and numerous characters, seem to have been inserted only in order to allow the author to have a platform for his philosophical expositions.

Another problem that I had was that in one section of the book Wolfe told about a period in which Hitler and his supporters reigned in Germany – a country of which he seemed quite fond – and though it was clear that many of his characters were troubled by what was happening, they viewed it as for the best for Germany in the long run. There was, for example, a little^viii about the fate of the Jews, but the view was expressed by several of the characters – both party members and “average” citizens – that the Jews had it coming to them.^ix Earlier in the book Wolfe spent a good deal of time describing his relationship with his Jewish mistress – whose husband seemed either dumb and ignorant, or unconcerned about the affair. The husband, like all Jews (and almost all the city characters in this portion of the story were Jewish) was more interested in making money than in any other aspect of his life. There is also much deprecating talk of “Jewesses,” whom the author doesn't seem to admire especially.

Perhaps his views can be regarded as reflecting the spirit of the times. It was a period in which many of our people were more interested in problems at home than in those of people far away. And, in any event, there was little sympathy for Jews at the time. If that was the case, though, it is a sad indication that the author was simply willing to go along with the crowd. One of his earlier books, “Look Homeward Angel,” although well regarded, has been criticized for the racism of its author. There too, however, Wolfe was excused because he was a southerner, and his position simply reflected the feelings of the time and place. Even so, it is telling that the artist followed the views of the time rather than exposing their errors. Perhaps he agreed with those views.

A final criticism may seem carping, but in a way it describes something which may, to a degree, undermine the entire work. Near the end, the main character, an author, speaks lovingly of his friend and editor, and describes him as “Ecclesiasticus.”^x Since that title is used more than once it is hard to pass it off as a typographical error. He then refers to the man as the “Preacher of Ecclesiastes” – like whom he had wonderful insight. Wolfe's confusion and conflation of the biblical “Ecclesiastes” with the apocryphal “Ecclesiasticus”^xi suggests that some of his own insights^xii may not have been based on personal knowledge. Whatever the reason, however, it is hard not to wonder about the accuracy of other “facts” in the book.

Oh well. It's hard to be “wordy”^xiii and still be accurate in a book this long.

i      I rarely read fiction, and even more rarely anything – fact or fiction – of this length.

ii     One more entertaining for me than the book was.

iii    Actually the author – or maybe it's his editor – specifies that the volume comprises seven “books.” The style changes that mark some of the books, and the fact that the novel was published two years after the author's death, and following the assembling of his notes by editor Edward Aswell, certainly raise the question of whether this conceit was Aswell's.

iv    Note that I put that in the singular, not as a matter of style but because it's unlikely that there is more than one reader – if there is any at all.

v      Anything with “Brooklyn” in its title is likely to be noticed.

vi     See, especially, “Book” 4.

vii    Philistine that I am, I found the writing pretentious. Some of it was moving, but much seemed overwritten and with a view of how it would impress the critics who read it.

viii   Very little. Perhaps this was because little was known about what was happening, although Wolfe was living in Germany through much of it. As a writer, and observer of the conditions around him, it's hard to give him a pass on the issue.

ix     Wolfe seemed preoccupied with giving his Jewish characters large noses and talking of “chews” – as one of his German friends termed them – as more interested in money than anything else.

x      At least that's what it says in the edition of the book that I read: Perennial Classics – a Division of Harper Collins, 1998. If that's not the case in the original, perhaps my criticism is of those who put out this edition and not of Mr. Wolfe.

xi     Also known as “The Wisdom of ben Sirah,” “The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirah,” and “Sirach.”

xii    And those of critics who did not remark on this error.

xiii   A frequent description in reviews by professional critics and “average” readers, though often combined with such complimentary words as “poetic,” “brilliant,” and the like. It's interesting that critics, who were referred to as Communists and “aesthetes” by one of the characters in the book, spoke so highly of it. Did each assume that the deprecating remarks referred to the others and not to himself? Were they simply beating their breasts in admission of the failings of their profession? Were they as caught up in the prejudices of the times as Wolfe was? In the reviews I read I saw no notice of those biases.

Something For Everyone

                                                                            

Whatever happened to compromise? When I was young (don't you hate ideas that begin this way?), politics was viewed as the art of the “possible.” By that it was meant that even if you didn't get everything you wanted – nor did those who opposed you – both sides got enough through bargaining give and take to be able to accept a deal without losing face. Everyone won.

To be sure, on occasion there was a filibuster in the Senate, but it ran its course. Those who participated were exhausted, and the rest of the chamber got some extra sleep. And then they all moved on – perhaps to pass whatever was being filibustered, or to alter it to make it acceptable to those who were unhappy, or to consider the next item. But they moved on and accomplished their work. Even a “do nothing” Congress got work done, if not always to the pleasure of all observers. The good of the county seemed to be the top priority.

Conference committees debated differences between House of Representatives and Senate versions of legislation, and usually managed to formulate a text acceptable to both. Having put some “wiggle room” into their positions, the various sides in a dispute could magnanimously concede points here and there and still claim victory when agreement was reached. And agreement was usually reached. It was generally the case that public opinion was in the “middle of the road” and the eventual solution of whatever problem was at issue found its way to that place.

Unfortunately, though, we have become more and more polarized. Our leaders maintain that they cannot give in to views that are wrong – out of touch with our country's needs and with the position of the American People. In reality they are staking out their positions for the next election: they're populists who are “standing on principle.”ⁱ There's no compromise between right and wrong.ⁱⁱ And they're hoping that the principle will garner the support of enough of the voters to bring them victory. Just to be sure, they use polls and focus groups as the sources of those “principles.” Before they take a position it's important to be sure that it will play well. The good of the party is the top priority. And the result will be that nothing gets done because the other side wouldn't compromise. At least that will be the claim. The reality will be that nothing gets done because neither side will compromise.

But that's fine with the participants. They don't want anything avoidable to get done.ⁱⁱⁱ At least not before the election. After that the lame ducks can defend the principle (if they lost in their bid for reelection) or vote on remaining legislation for what they declare to be the good of the country (if they won). At the very least, the election results will serve as a guide for what positions they should be taking on the various issues.

But it is a mistake to view pig-headedness as solely an affliction of politicians – at least those we usually think of as politicians. Some of the labor strikes and lockouts have a vituperative edge which seems to be brought on by unions and management with “my way or the highway” positions. Notwithstanding difficult economic times, unions may refuse to (publicly) consider givebacks of gains they made in better times, even when the cost to the public is difficult to defend. And in the face of large profits, some businesses deny any intent to share their wealth with those who have earned it for them. And taxpayers are becoming more and more frustrated when they see benefits going to public employees that far exceed those they receive. Even so, no one will look for a satisfactory middle ground. Take no prisoners.

There is even less consideration given to the negotiated settlement of international disputes. “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” That may have been Winston Churchill's approach but it's so old-fashioned. More accept the (older in age but more in keeping with the goals of modern tyrants) idea that "War is an extension of politics by other means."^iv So the threat of war always looms over negotiations – especially those which include non-negotiable demands. ^v The intent, clearly, is not to negotiate, not to engage in a process which may require compromise, but to have your way no matter what it takes. We're back to the “my way or the highway” method of “give-and-take” except that it's all “take” and there's no “give.” And the highway is mined.

But what is probably the most vicious, and the least thought-out, example of the phenomenon is divorce. A “partner”^vi scorned can create a hell of a situation. And a divorce for another reason can lead to the same result. Too often there's no room within the fury for compromise. The goal is to penalize the other party and no concession by him or her will be acceptable, nor is there any chance that any concession will be offered, because the passion to punish is shared by both participants, and it is fanned by their representatives. “Collateral damage,” even to their children, is a price they're willing to (have the children) pay. For a variety of reasons, divorce is far more prevalent now than when I was young – perhaps in part because of the belief that compromise is something only the other party should do. We live in an all or nothing world. And we all make the mistake of backing our opponent into a corner. Or maybe it's not a mistake but done intentionally. You can be sure that tactic will make compromise impossible.

That's the way to be sure there will be nothing for anyone.

Next episode: “The Continuity Of Humanity" -- Toward a better future.

i      The mere threat of a filibuster is enough to end the debate and establish the patina of principle.

ii     As Barry Goldwater said in the Presidential election of 1964, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It's all a matter of how you frame the debate and the positions to be compromised.

iii    What's not avoidable are bills that the voters want passed and for which they fear they'll be blamed if things are still up in the air on Election Day.

iv     On War by Carl von Clausewitz.

v      It's even more difficult when the non-negotiable demands are the precondition for negotiations on other issues, as is the case with the Palestinians demands of Israel.

vi     Man or women. Same or opposite sex.

Blue Light Special

                                                                                

A few evenings ago, while crossing the George Washington Bridge, I saw the pink lights that outlined the cables of the span, presenting a majestic, yet delicate, picture as they lit the sky above the Hudson – a necklace of pink. It wasn't a surprise. It's Breast Cancer Awareness Month,ⁱ and I had heard on the radio that the Port Authority would be taking this action in recognition of the event.

Every year, during October, the bridge takes on that hue – the one adopted by the various charities dealing with breast cancer – which reminds everyone of the situation. It seems strange though – even sad – that the recognition takes place for only one month each year. Are we all free to forget the problem during the remainder of the year? Does the disease go away in all other months? It's unfortunate that our memories are so short and we have to be reminded.

But that recognition is more than other diseases, and other problems, receive. There are countless diseases, including cancers of all organs, yet the Port Authority doesn't seem to consider them all to be worthy of its notice. I have no wish to minimize the toll of this disease, but it's hard to avoid the feeling that our concern results from our conviction that our scientists have long minimized the problems of women during their research, and have favored men, both in terms of choosing research subjects and in selecting diseases for study. And perhaps that is the case. But one might argue that it is unreasonable. Women have a significantly longer life expectancy than men so in the interests of equality it makes sense to emphasize their afflictions.

Even dealing with the issue of breast cancer however, it is difficult to justify, except for public relations reasons, the favoring of this particular disease. More women smoke than get breast cancer; more women are obese; more women are hypertensive. Far more women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. Moreover more women die of heart disease than of all cancers combined.

Some attention, too, ought be paid to the fact that while breast cancer is the most common tumor of women, more men will get prostate cancer. But don't expect any blue lightsⁱⁱ on the bridge during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.ⁱⁱⁱ That, however, is a good thing.

I drive across the GWB frequently – weekly, in fact. It's not cheap but it's necessary. And I don't begrudge the Port Authority the right to make the costs of running and maintaining the bridge.^iv Those are legitimate expenses and I accept my responsibility for my share. But I'm a little less understanding of the use of the bridge for a public relations gimmick. And I resent having to pay for it, irrespective of the importance of the cause. That's not what the bridge is for.

Consider, for a moment, how many man or woman^v hours must be involved in changing the bulbs, and in changing them back when November comes. Imagine the risk to workers who must spend longer in this precarious, but unnecessary, labor. And the cost of the additional bulbs that are used for a limited time and then, if they still function, require storage, which adds to the overall expense.^vi

Yet the cost of travel over the bridge increases with appalling regularity. Because the Authority is losing money from its transportation efforts and its real estate ventures, it turns to the driver, and, though I disagree with the policy, to the general public, for additional revenues. Increasing their costs to promote charities^vii at the expense of those who use the bridge doesn't seem to reflect good management. It takes its toll.

Perhaps the bulbs should be changed to red. At least then they'd reflect the overall functioning of the Port Authority.

i      That's been the case for twenty-eight years although the pink lights are a recent phenomenon.

ii     Kmart could probably supply them.

iii    Chances are good you didn't even know that there is such a month. It's September, but it doesn't get much attention in the media.

iv   I certainly believe that those who use the bridge should pay for it. Not the general public.

v    That was included to reflect the Zeitgeist, not because of any specific knowledge of the sex distribution of bridge workers.

vi     Even if the bulbs are changed during other maintenance, the additional time involved, risk, cost of the bulbs, and storage add to the bridge's budget. And it's interesting that the other maintenance is always required at the end of September.

vii   In recognition of the Girl Scouts's centennial, in November 2011, there were green lights used. I wonder where they are now.

Parsing Fancy

                                                                    

The gemaraⁱ has been the backbone of Jewish learning for centuries and, despite any criticisms, is entitled to much of the credit for our survival. When our sages might have been distracted by the world and the cultures around them they focused on the puzzles of the gemara and in creating solutions for them. Their dedication to our heritage was an important contributor to the persistence of that heritage. And the Torah,ⁱⁱ despite what we don't understand, is the basis for what has sustained us.

But the key, in the previous sentence, is “what we don't understand.” Man does not know everything. Nor should he be expected to. Thus we should be willing to accept apparent errors and inconsistencies as areas of our ignorance, rather than try to construct explanations. In some limited cases we admit we don't understand, and that is admirable. But when we say that someone meant something else rather than what he is said to have said, or when we add or disregard a word, we are placing our own egos on a pedestal and, basically, saying we know more than our predecessors did. We're saying that we can figure out what may have confused those who came before us. Unfortunately, taykuⁱⁱⁱ is not used enough. Too often our sages have tried to clarify the words they found in the Talmud but used methods that raise bigger questions in our minds.

Gemara commentaries read like rules for a children's game. They seem to be ad hoc, based on the desired outcome and without regard for reality or previous rules, or that contradict a rule we learned before. Whenever a situation is reached that cannot be resolved using principles with which we're familiar, another rule is introduced that solves the problem.

Sometimes there is a close observation of science, as in anatomy of kosher animals, and sometimes there is a total disregard of science. The fact that the “science” is wrong doesn't seem to disqualify any results based on the errors. We are cautioned against using the Talmud as a science book^iv

The most bizarre explanations are used to justify what was written. The basic premise is that the tannaim were always right. As such, if we don't understand, or if we disagree with one of their decisions, we are obligated to construct a scenario compatible with it. And that's what they “must have been” explaining. And if two disagree, they don't disagree. They were explaining two different situations, even if there is no such indication in the text. So we must hypothesize two such sets of circumstances.

And, since the Torah is the word of G-d, there are no errors^v in it. Here again we may have to “explain” what appear to be inconsistencies. And there are no extra words.^vi Thus every one must carry a lesson and we have to figure out what it is. It does not matter that there may be no obvious support for our position or that someone else may have a completely different explanation – one diametrically opposite – or a contrary opinion. “These and these are the words of the living G-d.”^vii

So how can we explain what doesn't make sense? The Rabbis have used many different methods. For example:

They [two authorities who seem to disagree] must have had different versions.

He meant something other than what seems to be the case. What he actually meant was ...

That word doesn't belong here.

There's a word missing.

There's a different rule in this specific case [even though the case seems comparable to another that was decided differently.

We have no choice but to reverse the opinions of the two authorities quoted.

There must have been a copying error.

There seems to be an answer for everything. I recognize the tradition that those closer in time to Sinai have a more accurate idea of Torat Moshe^viii than later generations so that the more recent cannot disagree with their predecessors.^ix I am less certain about the idea that they, therefore, are always right. It seems to be our view that they cannot make mistakes. If there is any statement that does not make sense or seems to be in disagreement with another, the mistake is ours and we must reevaluate our interpretation of what we read. I am troubled by the hoops we pass through in order to make a statement fit in to what we know. It often means that they have to suggest, and we have to accept, some unlikely, or even bizarre, scenario that would justify a statement, or we are expected to accept the view that something “must” mean the opposite of what it seems to say, or that it was copied wrong. Anything to ensure that the tanna^x (or whoever) is right. We turn them into deities who are infallible, even though we claim to believe that only Hashem^xi is infallible. By doing so, by refusing to accept the idea that one of them can make a mistake – we risk having all of Shas^xii called into question, especially painful if we are convinced that what we are defending contains errors.

And if we cannot accept all the explanations, there is always the approach of “Bottom line Judaism.” With such an attitude, we do not deny the Rabbis' conclusions, even if we don't understand the route to them. As we learn from the Torah, we must accept their interpretation of the law. But that does not mean that we accept the explanations they give for reaching their conclusions. It is hard to give complete credence to the explanations of two Rabbis who have reached the same conclusions by diametrically opposite routes, and who disagree with each other's arguments. But their conclusion is binding on us.

We may be determined to understand though. So how can we deal with what doesn't seem to make sense? Ask someone who knows – or claims he does – someone who can decipher the text and provide an interpretation that seems to be valid. But when seeking an explanation of contrary ideas, bizarre scenarios, and scientific errors, it is better not to allow the expert to demand the provision of a specific example, because he is likely to focus on the example and not address the basic principle – even if he's familiar with that principle and its problems. One of the “explanations” which I have cited is likely to be used as justification for what is written.

So we have to be careful when we choose someone to help us, or when we decide on the explanation of a great authority from the past. We may stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us, but if they fall we'll be badly hurt.

Next episode: “Something For Everyone" -- Except you.

i      The portion of the Talmud that “explains” the Mishna, which is, itself, an explanation of the Torah – both the part that is written and the portion given to Moses at Sinai but not written down at the time.

ii     The first part of the Bible, otherwise know as the “Five Books of Moses,” the Chumash, and the Pentateuch, among various other designations.

iii    “It stands.” It may not be resolved but the point will be elucidated when the Messiah comes.

iv     Or history book, or whatever.

v      On the other hand, there may be errors in the interpretations of those words, although that is unlikely. Indeed, the Rabbis were not wrong even if there are mistakes in the documents we have now. Any apparent errors are those of the people who followed them.

vi     See previous note. The extra words represent errors by the copyists, not by the ones who originally spoke the words.

vii    Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.

viii   The Torah of Moses.

ix     But they are free to offer their own explications of the meaning of those who preceded them.

x      One of the Rabbis whose words – from the first or second century CE – appear in the Mishna.

xi     G-d.

xii    The Talmud.

Silly Season

                                                                  

It's silly season again.ⁱ The candidates for President are roaming around the country making promises to every audience they can find, and, especially, to any group that has a particular ax to grind. Each candidate, naturally, has a better solution than his opponent to every problem, and a more all-encompassing promise than the other that he will be responsive to the needs of the voters. The speechifying and general campaigning will go on almost non-stopⁱⁱ until election day. Then it will stop abruptlyⁱⁱⁱ while the parties analyze the results and start their planning for the next general election.

During the campaign those running for office will, in their speeches and even more in their advertisements, spend more time bewailing the failures of their opponents than suggesting solutions to the problems they identify. They will, however, let us know that they have a plan to cure all the ills they perceive. They may not reveal the details of that plan, but trust them, it will do the trick.

That, however, is all show. For them and for most of us. If you didn't know three months ago how you'd vote in November, you haven't been paying attention.^iv And if you didn't know whom the various papers would endorse long ago, the same is true. For example, over the last few days (or maybe it's been weeks) the lead editorial in the New York Times has focused on why the Republican candidates will destroy America, and the vast majority of its Op-Ed columns also denigrate them.^v They don't have all that much to say about the President, but you get more mileage from negative than positive statements.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal is writing a lot about the Republicans, their nominees, and the convention – and most of it is favorable. It's easy to guess which candidates each will favor when the election rolls around. I suspect that the endorsement editorials have already been written. Indeed, they were probably outlined years ago with spaces left for the insertion of whatever seems timely to support their predetermined positions.

And none of it will have much impact on those papers' readers. They've already made up their minds. The endorsements' main value is to convince the lethargic that there is an important decision to be made and they are critical to it. The current goal of the campaigning is to be seen as the winner. And the incumbent has the advantage since he has the better chance to do things that attract attention, whether or not his acts have any real impact.

But now's not the time to pay attention. You'll go out of your mind. First of all, the candidates and their supporters can't be trusted now. They're saying whatever it takes to attract votes. Truth and sincerity are not important, although their appearance is. (After the election the winner can “clarify” his intent and the loser can point to the backtracking. Or he can skulk into, and sulk in a corner. In either case the original statements and the charges and changes will be quickly forgotten.) Politicking now is just that, politicking, and the high-minded (and highly negative – the ads you see will, for the most part be defamatory) rhetoric is not to be believed. What is said about the issues is what the candidates believe to be important to voters and it's all spin. Priorities now are looking good on television and appearing to act decisively, so there'll be loud proclamations and accusations, as well as negative advertising and rapid reaction to the polls and to anything that seems to have the voters' interest.

Batten down the hatches. Until election day your telephone won't stop ringing with robocalls, and your mailbox will burst with political brochures and pamphlets. And, of course, expect lots of e-mail and its analogues. But remember that anything you read in those pamphlets and hear on the telephone calls and in the media now can't be believed. The reality is that when the time comes, the red states will be mostly red and the blue states mostly blue.^vi Campaigning will focus on the undecided who, unfortunately, can't remember history, not even the last election. They have almost no knowledge of what the candidates actually believe or what they have done. Nor do they really care. They are the apathetic, ignorant, and uninformed ones, or, more euphemistically, the “independent” and “undecided,” and may not even make up their minds until they enter the voting booth. They'll be the focus of the ads and speeches from now on. Toward the end it's all about appeal to those undecided voters who will choose based on appearance and other non-political factors, though the appearance of decisiveness and action will help the image. Those who haven't yet decided have no interest in reality and past performance, only in images.^vii

Don't expect anything substantive^viii to occur. Both parties will make proposals that they know are doomed but will give the appearance of decisiveness and concern for the voters. But both parties will block the efforts of the other so as to avoid giving an issue to their opponent, or in order to get one for themselves. Don't worry though. Most of what's promised is of no consequence to the one promising it, nor should it be to you. Most of the proposed programs are ill-considered for the long run,^ix but that won't be of any great significance because none of what's promised will happen no matter who wins. Even those proposing the programs don't expect them to be enacted. It's all show for the voters.

So don't worry. It's silly season now.^x Nothing will change. And all we can expect is a continuation of what we've had, based on our knowledge of the candidates' and the parties' past performance.

Oh. We can also expect traffic jams caused by motorcades.^xi

Next episode: "Parsing Fancy" – All I know is what I read.

 

i      When is it not? In this particular instance, in the last week of August, things are just as idiotic as they'll be when this is published.

ii     There will be an occasional pause in the campaigning when some inevitable tragedy occurs. Everyone will remind us that some healing must take place before it can resume. To continue would show disrespect for those who have suffered. But those displays of “sensitivity” are themselves a form of campaigning and of humanizing the candidates. And it's fascinating how soon they determine that the time of sadness is over and they can get back to to educating the voters to the critical issues that will change the country – issues that only they can face successfully.

iii    But not for very long. Once the analysis has taken place, present and future candidates will begin telling voters about likely future problems – the ones that polls tell them have swayed the voters themselves – and their solutions.

iv     The reality is that most of us are single issue voters, though we may want to convince others – and ourselves – that we are basing our vote on everything that is being discussed. But having decided where a candidate stands on the issue that is most important to us, we “spin” his position on everything else to support our decision.

v      Today (August 29^th), on the morning following the vote for the Republican nominee for president, the Times's lead editorial condemned what it considered Republican “propaganda” at the convention.

vi      Pink, mauve, and puce voters will also be important.

vii     They may try to convince themselves, and anyone who'll listen, that they're weighing all the information about past performance and plans for the future, but the truth is that they haven't been paying any attention until now and will wind up voting on a whim, or for an image.

viii    Other than vigorous fundraising. It's amazing how much money is used in carrying on a campaign. It reflects how much the candidates consider the offices worth – to themselves and to those who support them. Apart from a job, a leg-up on the next election, and some prestige, the candidate, for whatever office, receives some valuable “perks,” some of them for life. And the benefits for contributors, including individuals, corporations, lobbies, and unions, are huge in terms of the ability to dictate political agendas and to get “set asides,” “earmarks,” tax benefits, and the like. It's a good investment if you're on the winning side.

ix     The unintended consequences would be more harmful than the intended would be helpful.

x       It's also two years since I began writing these essays.

xi     To rub salt into the wound, taxpayers will both suffer from these inconveniences and pay for them.