For Better Or For Worse

                                                                                                                                                                              

According to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose,ⁱ “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” Say “it isn't so.” It isn't so. There, I said it. But I don't believe it. Or, at least, it's not the whole story.

There are really two different kinds of realities that are in question here: one is a perception of the state of society at a given time in relation to the past and the future, and the second is the actual state of society as viewed from a historical perspective.ⁱⁱ

When I was young,ⁱⁱⁱ I was bored by history and fascinated by change – anticipating a better world in the future. I lived in the modern world.^iv Change was good, almost irrespective of what it was. That is the view of the young and represents a rebellion against authority – whether parental or governmental. It's an optimistic attitude which remains in vogue now, not just among the young but one that is shared by large segments of the population. It demonstrates both hope and a great deal of faith in human nature.

Back in the old days (and I really mean old), long before there was printing – when there wasn't even much in terms of manuscripts – there was memory. Then scribes began copying the ideas that existed, and even though they made errors they provided a kind of hard-copy which – as opposed to the individual who passed on what he memorized – didn't die when the scribe did. Originally manuscripts were on scrolls, but eventually with the introduction of the codex,^v the advantages of the more manageable new format were realized. Then came printing^vi and now there are more books than we know what to do with.^vii

I guess it's all for the better.

But then came the electronic media and now anyone can publish whatever tripe he wants.^viii Books have also been digitized and now you can read on screen anything that interests you. Libraries are becoming outmoded along with all of their books.

However I like books. I like to held them in my hands and turn the pages, not push buttons. And I like libraries – especially if there are comfortable leather chairs and carved wood shelves, trimmings and embellishments. I love frippery. I live in the past. The past that left me so cold when I was young is now my sanctuary and, if they still existed, I would retreat to its institutions and they would be my hermitage.^ix I think that's because I'm a hermit.^x

That, however, is beside the point. At issue is the question of whether things change, and there is no question that they do. At least from the perspective of the particular “thing.” It's not always for the better,^xi and there are times when the rate of change is wrong – indeed, bewildering. Before you've left the store with your new electronic device, it's obsolete, and most of its software has been replaced with new versions.

When I was young, everything was great. (Everything is perfect in our youth – at least in retrospect. It's said that retrospect is 20-20. If so, nostalgia sees with rose-colored glasses.) But though some may dismiss it as self-serving and beautified, not all of what we remember of our past is wrong. In our youth, we want to be “modern.” We see change as invariably desirable.^xii As we^xiii age^xiv, the “traditional” perspective, with what seems to be a greater reverence for at least selected parts of the past, gains ground. Some may carry this philosophy too far,^xv but the concept itself should not be judged on the basis of those who pervert it.

There was a time when history moved slowly. Things remained the same from decade to decade, and even from century to century. Whether it was medicine, religion, prices, farming techniques, or communications, things were likely to be little different on the day you died in comparison to the one on which you were born. But over time there were changes – slow changes. And many of them were good. Indoor plumbing, penicillin, the Big Mac.^xvi

As time continued to moved forward, however, so did the changes – explosively. And that's the problem. We cannot keep up with them. Not just the technological ones,^xvii but all of them.^xviii Unmarried parenthood in the US reached an all-time high in 2013, with an estimated two out of every five births being to unwed mothers;^xix new words and phrases have expanded language faster than we can learn them; our legal system cannot keep up with new concepts of ethics; the weather and climate are changing faster than we can – or will – take any action;^xx prices are rising faster than we can deal with them. There's no time to breathe. Things are moving too fast.

But in one respect, Karr was right. We're the same. Whatever changes may occur in our perception, or in the perspective of history, people are the same as they've always been. Human nature – and that's the third reality^xxi – remains the same. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Not better, not worse – the same. Unfortunately we can't slow down the world around us to a rate that we humans can deal with. Our reach exceeds our grasp – or, as my^xxii mother put it, our eyes are bigger than our stomachs. That will never change.

Next episode: “The Greater Of One Elvis” – Whether or not it's true is beside the point.

 

 

I      1849. In Les Guêpes. See Wikipedia.

ii      Actually there is a third, but I'll deal with that presently.

iii    Bear with me. I know that nothing bores you more than someone else's maudlin nostalgia, but it won't last long.

iv    At least it was modern then.

v     Around the first century CE. Or maybe a little earlier.

vi    1455. But you know as much about Gutenberg and Fust as you care to already.

vii    “... of making books there is no end ...” Ecclesiastes, 12:12

viii   As evidenced by what you're reading.

ix     Figuratively, of course. I think I live in the past. But I guess that's what all people do as they age.

x      And, if I could arrange it, the past would be my heritage as well. But the problem with heritages is that they're always part of the past and they're usually dismissed as such.

xi    For example, antibiotics are good, but the resistant organisms for which we're responsible, by irresponsible use of those antibiotics, are not.

xii   We ignore the possibility of unintended consequences in our zeal to make the world better. And if what we do doesn't work, it's simply because we didn't change enough. So we up the ante and try again. The principle of change, after all, is right irrespective of the outcome.

xiii   Actually, I speak only for myself, but I suspect that this view is shared by others.

xiv   As we grow up and, perhaps, mature.

xv    All change is harmful, according to them. Things should be as they've always been.

xvi    Not everyone agrees on the last of these.

xvii   For example, the ones involving electronic devices and software that I mentioned earlier.

xviii  I'll list a few, but the “advances” are uncountable.

xix    WiseGeek. (http://www.wisegeek.com/how-common-is-unmarried-parenthood.htm) June 19, 2013

xx     “Everyone talks about the weather ...”

xxi    And, ultimately, the most important.

xxii   Everyone's.

Do I What?

 

                                                                           
I love my wife. I do. I really do. And I've been in love with her for about 55 years now. In fact our 53^rd anniversary was just a few weeks ago. But that love has changed over the years. Let me explain.

love, like, affect, fancy, care for, take an interest in, be partial to, sympathize with; be in love with; have a love for, entertain a love for, harbor cherish a love for; regard, revere; take to, bear love to, be wedded to; set one's affections on; make much of, feast one's eyes on; hold dear, prize; hug, cling to, cherish, pet., burn; adore, idolize, love to distraction, aimer eperdument, dote on, dote upon., take a fancy to, look sweet upon; become enamored; fall in love with, lose one's heart;

desire, excite love; win the heart, gain the heart, win the affections, gain the affections, secure the love, engage the affections; take the fancy of, have a place in the heart, wind round the heart; attract, attach, endear, charm, fascinate, captivate, bewitch, seduce, enamor, enrapture, turn the head., get into favor; ingratiate oneself, insinuate oneself, worm oneself; propitiate, curry favor with, pay one's court to, faire l'aimable, set one's cap at, flirt.ⁱ

While it hasn't been found in anything he wrote, George Bernard Shaw is usually credited with observing that the US and Great Britain are “separated by a common language.” However true it may be, even if we limit the population being assessed to natives of the United States, the plethora of a word's synonyms may make word use hazardous. The large number of words doesn't mean that they can be used to clarify a meaning. The case in point for today's discussion, as you can see above, is the word “love.”

Love.

“Do You Love Me?”

That's what Tevye asked Golde in “Fiddler On The Roof.”

It seems a straightforward enough question, but it's met with confusion and consternation. It had never occurred to either of them to ask. The issue had never come up. Their marriage was arranged and there was no courtship.

Tevye: “The first time I met you

Was on our wedding day

I was scared'

Golde: “I was shy”

Tevye: “I was nervous”

Golde: “So was I”

Tevye: “But my father and my mother

Said we'd learn to love each other

And now I'm asking, Golde

Do you love me?”

The question was direct. What had never been on the table was there now. Did she love him? In context, there can be little doubt about what he meant. And Golde understood as she answered, “I suppose I do.” That understanding is even more clear when Tevye declares, somewhat hesitantly, “And I suppose I love you too.” The love they felt was one of comfort, familiarity, and, perhaps, resignation. It lacked passion, but they could not envision being without each other.

Yet here as elsewhere the word “love” is more defined by the context than by anything else. And without that word it is hard to express the feeling we may have for our children, for chocolate, for a parade, for our country, a platonic friend, a cool breeze on a summer day, a crush, and certainly not the passion a teen-ager experiences when seeing his (or her) heartthrob, nor the passionate, hot, urgent love so commonly depicted in the movies or on television.ⁱⁱ There are numerous synonyms offered, but when we want to use an “extreme” word, we always wind up with “love.” There's no common substitute that expresses the same degree of affection while suggesting a particular kind of object or activity.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm more likely to deplore a person, shrink from an ugly monster, recoil at the proposed policies of the other political party, loathe an enemy, or scorn a walk in the woods with a serial killer. And, when appropriate, I can abominate, execrate, detest, or abhor. There's a wide choice of extreme words for “hate.”^iv I can even despise chocolate, but that's unlikely.

English is a huge language,^v and among the many major advantages it has over many others are the facts that words can be used in so many different and seemingly unrelated ways (for example, “kick” the habit, “kick” and scream, “kick” the can, “kick” the bucket), and also that there is a plethora of nuanced expressions – especially adjectives – for almost anything. That doesn't mean, however, that no changes are necessary. As is true of the word “love,” and many other common nouns and verbs, additional words may be needed. New terms are being introduced daily and the expansion of the vocabulary is both inevitable and healthy. That's your assignment. Help us define “love” better than we've done.

Combining meanings and deleting words, on the other hand, may be harmful.^vi As Big Brother demonstrated, the limitation of a word's meaning can limit the thoughts of the word's user.

“Do you love me?”

There may be two minds with but a single thought – but what is it?

Next episode: “For Better Or For Worse” – Hard to tell.

i      Synonyms for the verb “love.” There are equally long catalogs for nouns and adjectives, but I won't use any more space. This list is from some on-line thesaurus (with a few minor changes) – I don't remember which. I hope I'm not violating any copyright laws. This isn't meant to make any money for me or to be used as a thesaurus. It just seemed to be the best way to illustrate a point I want to make.

ii     At least I don't know of any single word usable in polite conversation that can convey this kind of love, and no words that can express the extreme pleasure of the others.

iii    That's not true of all languages. In some there are different words which can be used to designate the different types of love. (In some there are other differentiations that English lacks – perhaps specific words for the donning of shoes, a shirt, or another garment.) We lack a word that says “Let's not get into any discussions about love, I just want to jump into bed with you.” (Who wants to talk then anyway?) And it would be nice if there were extreme and specific words that connoted patriotic or other non-personal love as well as parental and non-sexual love of other people.

iv     Unfortunately, even though there is a wide variety of words that can be used to denote extreme hatred, they, too, require context and can't express the object of the hatred unless it is spelled out.

v      The large number of words in English – possibly larger than that in any other tongue – is not a substitute for words that are more expressive of particular ideas. In fact, the requirement that some words have an extensive delineation of the context may be the basis of the need for so many words.

vi     Consider a participant's loss of immediate understanding when, during a conversation, and for primarily political reasons, words like “marriage” and “partner” are used to describe same sex unions as well as those between members of opposite sexes. However appropriate the different unions, not that it's anyone's business, the language suffers because the old term is being made to cover very different situations, rather than would be the case with the creation of a new word to characterize a newly legitimated circumstance. Such merging of different ideas in a single word my cause confusion in the hearer. The blurring of distinctions leads to the blurring of thought.

I'm Doing This For Your Own Good

                                                             

Prohibition has always been with us. Or it would be more accurate to substitute “Prohibitions have” for the first two words, since I'm not referring specifically to alcohol and the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution.ⁱ

It began when life began, with chemicals that controlled particular functions, among them there were signals and warnings about other nearby creatures. Instincts followed and, eventually, human decisions about what was and was not permitted. “We”ⁱⁱ and “They”ⁱⁱⁱ decided what was appropriate behavior, and prohibited – or at least made us shy away from – those things and actions that were unsuitable or forbidden.

I raise this issue because two items in the news yesterday seem to be related to it, although in different ways. The first was the bull^iv by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York that stairway doors should be kept open and elevator use discouraged. If he had said that the purpose was to conserve electricity during this heat spell there would have been room for debate along political and economic lines. His reasoning, however, was that as a society we're too fat. Additional exercise, in the form of climbing stairs, was important to our health, and he would see to it that we were fit. It would not be a legal requirement that we walk – we would not be prohibited from riding the elevator – but the point would be made that the Mayor was more concerned about our health than we, and, given the opportunity, he would protect us from ourselves.

This is not the first time that he's tried to do this. Last year Mayor Bloomberg decreed that there would be a ban on large soft drinks containing too much sugar because he wanted to lessen the amount of obesity. He knew what was best for us. His edict was overturned by the courts on the day before it was to go into effect,^v so we can still get large drinks. They may not be good for us,^vi but it's our decision as to whether or not we drink them.

The other related item, although very different in many ways, is the release of information about the photographing of license plates and the use of GPS tracking of our movements. The ACLU has issued statements deploring this action (among others) and there were numerous commentaries on it yesterday. A great deal of concern was expressed over the retention of the information after it was determined that there was no evidence of criminal behavior. It appears that with the technical “progress” we have made, computer memory is getting closer and closer to infinite. So why not keep track of everybody? It's certainly a lot cheaper than it used to be, and maybe we'll have some use for the information in the future.

We learned only recently that all our telephone calls are monitored and recorded. We're told that it's for the sake of national security, and perhaps it is. That will have to be sorted out. But in the meantime all we know is that more and more of our actions are being “supervised” by our government. We are aware of some such actions but, I suspect, there are many others that haven't yet been revealed. It's the kind of thing that George Orwell prophesied. Not only does the government know what's good for us, but it knows more and more about us.

In 1776 we proclaimed our liberty. In the Declaration of Independence^vii we spoke of King George's “invasions on the rights of the people,” and we seem to be suffering from the same problem now. Our Founding Fathers established a government with checks and balances designed to ensure our liberty and to prevent government from impinging on our rights. The republic we established was limited in size, and there was a great regard for individual freedom. We established self rule for the individual as well as the nation. In the Bill of Rights we protected our citizens from their rulers.

Now we have enlarged that limited government which was originally established, and we're using it as a tool against its own people.^viii We claim it's for our own good, but I'm not sure.  I suspect we won't thank them later.

i       Although that is certainly an important example.

ii     And He. But we should not be foolish enough to blame Him for the mistakes we have made.

iii    Government and organized religion are two of the major actors, although our own instinctive taboos (mostly sexual in origin) and superstitions play a large part.

iv     No. I meant “decree.” If you thought it had another meaning in this case the fault is yours, though I might agree.

v      It's interesting that contentious issues like this are never settled until the last minute. It's almost as if no one pays attention until a problem looms.

vi     There is no dispute concerning the public health concerns raised by obesity, just as there is no dispute concerning the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. Nonetheless, we – unless we're minors – can buy a six-pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes and kill ourselves without running afoul of the law. Indeed, suicide and “assisted suicide” are becoming legal in more and more jurisdictions.

vii    Read it some time.

viii   In his campaign for the Presidency, our Chief Executive promised “transparency,” and that he would not commit the sins he attributed to the prior administration. His motto was “Yes We Can.” Unfortunately he quickly forgot about the transparency and decided that Yes He Could wield power as he saw fit. History will evaluate his actions.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury (emphasis added) of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ...

That's the Constitution's take on the rights of the accused. It can be found in the Bill of Rights, and, along with the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall

be subject for the same offence (sic) to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ...

I'll deal with the latter consideration presently (and briefly), but for the moment it's worth considering the dictates set by the Sixth Amendment as they apply to George Zimmerman.

On February 26, 2012, Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. The details of that killing – a killing that is not in dispute – are not relevant to this discussion, nor are the strong feelings both of his supporters and his detractors. But it is reasonable to question whether a proceeding that began more than sixteen months after the incident represents a “speedy trial.” It is said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” but it is less clear – at least to me – what the optimal time is between such an incident and its judicial resolution.

In any event, it has been resolved. And “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Here the Constitution is, in my view, making an assumption of what is sometimes the issue to be being adjudicated. By its decision, the impartial jury specified that no crime had been committed. Because Zimmerman had not denied the killing, there was never a question of whether the “right” man was accused, only whether he had committed a crime. In this respect the situation was different from that involving O. J. Simpson, who had denied, and was found not guilty of committing what was clearly a crime. (Not everyone agreed with the decision, but by law he was not guilty.)

So it has been argued and resolved. And Zimmerman has been acquitted of the charges against him. It should be over, but it's not. There are many who believe that he is guilty, notwithstanding the judgment of the the jury. For them, the principle is not “innocent until proven guilty.” It isn't even “guilty until proven innocent.” Their view prior to the trial – “guilty, period” – was not, and could not be, changed by the trial and the verdict. That view was nourished by pre-trial publicity, which certainly sold a lot of newspapers, but has no legal standing. It is understandable that the victim's (and many would question the “victim” status) family would hold such an opinion, and would have taken it even before the trial, but it is regrettable that so many others would do so as well, and reject the jury's verdict after the legal issues have been argued. Apparently their minds were made up as soon as they learned of the incident. There were enough stories and opinions expressed by the media to make the trial itself superfluous – and an acquittal is, for them, certainly a perversion of justice. Even so, the Fifth Amendment, which precludes double jeopardy, should end the issue.

But it doesn't. Those who disagree with the jury are attempting to have the defendant tried again. While Zimmerman cannot “be subject for the same offence (sic) to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” the same incident can be labeled as a civil rights violation which would have serious consequences for him which would not put him in jeopardy of life or limb, but would certainly cause him great grief and expense, and extend his “speedy trial.”

I don't mean to minimize, in any way, the grief of the family for the loss of their son. And I am neither qualified to evaluate the specifics of the case nor to judge the impartiality of the jury deliberations, but as far as I can see, the jury system has served us well and should be respected. Sometimes the jury gets it wrong, sometimes there is jury tampering or prosecutorial misconduct, but these are a small minority of cases and there is no evidence of any of those having occurred in this case. The only problem is that a vocal group is unhappy with the verdict. And that is enough reason to find other grounds for trying the defendant. Or at least harassing him.

That may not be what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but they didn't count on American “know-how” when it came to finding loopholes. Especially for those who consider their sense of justice keener than that of a jury of their peers.

Time Flies

                                                                    

So there you are in your rocket ship, strapped in and ready to go. You know. The one with the rear-view mirror. It's standing on the ground and in the mirror you see your best friend (Speedy Gonzalesⁱ) taking out a Hershey bar (with almondsⁱⁱ) from his backpack. Just as he starts to unwrap it, you take off. Fortunately the mirror continues to be aimed at him and, because of some enviable optics, his size never changesⁱⁱⁱ no matter how far from him you go.

You blast off and you accelerate. Twenty-five thousand miles an hour. Your speed is enough to break loose of gravity, and you head “out.” Where to? Straight ahead, and Speedy stays in the rear-view mirror. And, magically, his size still doesn't change. Look! He just dropped the outer candy-wrapper on the ground. Litterbug.^iv And now he's taking the first bite. Unfortunately you forgot to take any candy with you, and it will be a long time until you have any.

“Switch to 'High speed drive' at this time.” That's what the message on your control screen reads, so you push the red button, and you can feel the acceleration. 100,000 miles per hour. And there's your friend eating his candy. And we're clocking 1,000,000 miles per hour. 10,000,000 miles an hour – that's like almost 2,800 miles a second. Wow. We're really moving.

“Switch to 'overdrive' immediately.” Now what? Alright. I'll push the green overdrive button. Whoosh. We were just crawling before. Now it's 100,000,000 miles an hour; two, three, 500,000,000 miles an hour. And Speedy's just finishing. Looks like he'll drop the inside wrapper on the ground. There it goes. 670,000,000 miles an hour. We're really moving.

“You ain't seen nothin' yet. Push silver button for 'turbo warp' and you'll have a real blast.” Boy, is this exciting. (What's that bell?)

Wait. Something's screwy. Speedy's there, but the wrapper's back in his hand. And so's the candy. It's getting bigger too. Everything's going backwards. And there must be something wrong with the speedometer. It says a little over 800,000,000 million miles an hour. That's faster than the speed of light.^v (That must have been what the bell was.) But that's impossible.^vi Or, at least, that's what I was taught..

Faster than the speed of light.^vii That means time appears to have slowed down, stopped, and is now going backward. Until now you had seen “frames” of light delivered as fast as they were happening but now you're going faster than the frames and catching up to previous ones – images of what happened in the past.

Seeing the past is not anything new. We do it all the time. When we “see” the sun we're actually seeing what it looked like over 8 minutes earlier. As for the stars it's thousands, of years earlier.^viii In those cases, though, the time you see time is going forward, not backward.

What about “you?” Are you getting younger?^ix As you see the past, are you entering it, or is it only in your rear view mirror? Well your clock is going forward – even if it might be doing so at a different rate from “time” outside your ship. So you'll get older. And while you'll return to an earth that has gone through a faster passage of time than you've seen in your mirror, (and, consequently, time has passed faster there than in your speeding space ship) it has gone forward just as it has for you – whatever you may have seen.

Great theory, but I won't hold my breath^x in eager anticipation of it's arrival. A day at a time. That's all I can manage at the moment. We're told that time is uni-directional, and, at least for the moment, that's all we have, whatever our fantasies. Perhaps some day people^xi will be able to go back in time and take me forward to the future. But I'll go kicking and screaming. I'm a product of the twentieth century, and even the present is moving too fast for me.^xii So I'm not eager to see a future which I'm unlikely to understand. Especially if I can't have my Hershey bar.^xiii

Next episode: “Do I What?” – I suppose I do.

 

 

 

i        Yes. This is a Looney Tune.

ii       No other variety is worth the time and calories.

iii     It's always small.

iv     I gotta' talk to him about that. Or someone has to.

v      186,282 miles per second or 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. It's a little slower (but not much) in air.

vi     Not really. According to the Inflation Theory (Guth presented the theory in 1981, but he was preceded by several others – among them de Sitter and Starobinsky – who paved the way) the universe, starting at the size of a proton, expanded to the size of a ten centimeters. Not very big, but it did so in 15 x 10^-34 seconds. According to my calculations, that's 1 septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times the speed of light. I admit to being a little math challenged, but even if I'm off by a few zeros, that's ripping around at a pretty impressive speed.

vii    Much faster than a speeding bullet.

viii  That's without the aid of telescopes or other detector systems (including magical rear-view mirrors).

ix     Please.

x      There's nothing I can do about my breadth. I like food too much. Sometimes I think I'm inflating at an alarming speed, but it's more comic than cosmic.

xi     Or whatever descends from them.

xii    More on that sometime soon.

xiii  With almonds.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

                                                                             

Language is always changing. Take “compromise,” for example. It originally meant “mutual promiseⁱ to abide by an arbiter's decision.”ⁱⁱ That tells us that it relied on a third party – and used the process we now know as arbitration. Not an acceptable solution for today's problems. Ideally we ask the parties to meet and arrive at a mutually satisfactory position even though it doesn't always work.ⁱⁱⁱ For example, we'd like Congress to reach agreement on a number of issues vital to keeping the governmental wheels greased. But there is no arbitration – no one to force a solution on the two major parties that compete for control of our lives. And, too often, there is no likelihood that the two sides will agree on their own. “My way or the highway.” “Take it or leave it.”  Winning is the only thing. Gridlock. The sides will make no promises and will tolerate no position that is imposed. They will not compromise. (“Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”) Although the definition has changed, and decision by compromise no longer involves outsiders, compromise still requires concessions, and there are many occasions on which no concession can be made. After all, the lesser of two evils is evil.^iv And, of course, they will not submit to evil.

But in most instances, the choice is not so stark. Extremes may be voiced, but only for the purpose of the bargaining process. They're softened because they cannot lead to the desired solution of the problem. Eventually a settlement will be reached, so it is better to get the best deal as quickly as possible.^v The “two sides” to every story by definition do not coincide so, when a single approach involving both sides is required, some accommodations must be made. And if that single approach is to be attained, if progress is to be made at a time when neither side will agree to its adversary's position, both sides must give. The risk is that they may not do as well later. Better to lose a little, than to lose everything. It is said that a good compromise – a successful deal – winds up with both sides unhappy. Both sides lose but everyone wins.

According to von Bismarck,^vi “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” At least that's what it's supposed to be. Compromise. Too often, though, posturing, inflexibility and arrogance take over. And when accompanied by the power of veto or filibuster, a meeting of the minds will not take place. And that meeting may not be the real goal of one or both sides anyway. Sometimes compromises are avoided because of extraneous influences. “Hardball” becomes the medium that, it is hoped, will ensure gains in future elections. It's intended to show voters that a person or party believes unequivocally in the principle under “attack”; there's no compromise between right and wrong.^vii And the other side is wrong. There's a line in the sand and it won't be crossed.

When dealing with principles, there's little “wiggle room.” So it's important to realize that most of our positions are preferences or priorities, not principles. A sense of the differences can be gleaned from Jewish practice and law. Because the Jewish people are so widespread – even if not great in numbers – different groups have developed their own customs, and there is wide variance around the world. It is generally accepted that if you move to another community, you give up some of your practices and accept those of your new home. You may prefer your earlier ones but you compromise – those of the community prevail.

All Jews, however, are obliged to obey the mitzvot, the commandments of G-d to humanity. They may only be altered under very limited and well defined circumstances.^viii They are priorities that may only be compromised under extremely limited and pressing conditions.^ix

Finally, there are situations in which no alteration may be made irrespective of the circumstances. An individual may not participate in idol worship, in certain forbidden sexual practices, or in murder, even if it costs him his life. These are principles.

Preferences, priorities, and principles.

Unfortunately too many of those who take a position have difficulty distinguishing among these possibilities. Everything is rendered a matter of principle. At least that's what they say. But if they're honest,^x it is usually really a matter of posturing. They may say “Better dead than Red,” but they^xi don't really mean it. In too many cases, the parties are not wed to their opening positions but desire an extreme one as a starting point.^xii They know the difference between integrity and reality and want to establish the appearance of one as they prepare for the actuality of the other. When they are serious about the desire to solve a problem they find a way to adjust their preferences to suit the circumstances. And even in a desperate situation they can align their priorities to stave off disaster.

There are only two circumstances when accommodation cannot be reached and both reflect the lack of desire to do so: when a matter of principle is truly involved,^xiii and when a politician (or other negotiator), concluding that he has more to gain through a stalemate than a solution, converts a preference or a priority into a “principle.” And he'll sacrifice anything (or anyone) to make the point.

So where does that leave us? We all have different principles – the genuine ones, not those we consider most helpful in the circumstances. That's the real challenge: to distinguish them for ourselves. While we can't abandon true principles, when it's appropriate we should recognize those ideas that are merely preferences or priorities and be willing compromise them in order to achieve a necessary harmony when others have contrary views; most of the time it's possible to reach an accommodation – if we really want to.

Compromise. Live and let live.

Next episode: “Time Flies” – I don't want to keep up with the times.

i       Hence “compromise.”

ii      See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise.

iii    A “plea bargain” is a good example of this situation, although too often the stronger party, even if wrong, can force an unjust “bargain” on the weaker. (Sorry for the scare quotes but I don't know how else to put it.)

iv     In some cases, however, evil is inevitable. Much as you might like to vote “No” for President, it is not a tactic that can be expected to accomplish anything. You may refuse to vote, but that won't help either. Speaking out is the only option. It's unlikely to help, but good luck.

v      “You can't fight City Hall.” At least you won't win, no matter what you do. So “Pay the two dollars.” (Unfortunately it's much more expensive nowadays than when that dictum originally appeared in “George White's Scandals of 1931.”)

vi     August 11, 1867.

vii    Or Left and Right.

viii   For example, when there is a there is a threat to life.

ix     Priorities are not as crucial in most cultures, but they certainly rank below principles.

x      And politicians are always honest.

xi     At least most of them.

xii    They also need it to impress their supporters.

xiii  When, out of “true belief,” an individual may martyr himself. Perhaps “principle” indicates a willingness to die for a noble cause (“Give me Liberty or give me Death” and “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”) or perhaps it is a readiness to kill others to get your way even if it costs you your life (as would be the case when you trigger your suicide vest).