One Day More

                                                                                                        

Victor Hugo published Les Misérables in 1862, and it earned repute as one of the great novels of the nineteenth century. Eventually,ⁱ like other public domain stories,ⁱⁱ it became a Broadway musical, and one of the featured songs was entitled “One Day More.” It's a song which shows the determination of a number of French citizens faced by the uncertainty of revolution in eighteenth century France, and equally uncertain of their own fates, which might be changed significantly by the next day – a day to which they looked forward.

But the concept of anticipation of another day is far older than that. There is a midrash ⁱⁱⁱ that deals with the fact that Sukkot has one day more than, strictly speaking, belongs to it. Only after prescribing seven days for the holiday does the Bible specify the observance of Shmini Atzeret, the “eighth day of the assembly.” According to the Rabbis, that day results from HaShem's wish that Israel remain with Him for one more day.

I relate this story because it was the focus of a sermon which I heard a few days ago on the holiday. It was not new for me but it caused me to think about the premise, and I was troubled by it. After all, doesn't HaShem want us to remain with Him every day – not just the day after Sukkot? Of course He does. That's a basic precept of our religion.

The obvious explanation is that “one good deed leads to another,” or, in terms of Torah, mitzvah goreret mitzvah.^iv If we observe Shmini Atzeret correctly, we'll also properly observe the next day, and then the one after that. One day at a time, and each day that we remain with HaShem ensures that we will do the same on the next. We're on a roll.

We know that, however, and it remains true with or without the statement. In addition, it is true every day, not just on Sukkot, so why is it mentioned here? Probably because there is fear that we may be fatigued by the long sequence of holidays during the month of Tishray – a sequence that includes the two days of Rosh Hashanah (the new year), Yom Kippur (the day of atonement), and the seven day holiday of Sukkot. At other times of the year we're likely to look forward to holidays, while during this run we're awaiting their conclusion.

The last question, though, is the one that brings the most hope. Since we all know that HaShem wants us with Him at all times, why is it necessary to say so? Every day with Him is sacred and even more so if we observe His mitzvot. Why is it necessary for Him to ask us to stay with Him? Well, there's the reality that some of us stray, but more important is a reason that can be learned from Avot 3:18. There we learned, “Blessed is man, for he was created in HaShem's image. But it was by a special love that it was made known to man that he was created in HaShem's image.” Similarly Israel, who were HaShem's children and were given the Torah, learned that these blessings were theirs because of that love.

HaShem asked us to stay with Him on Shmini Atzeret specifically to indicate His love for us, and it is up to us to reciprocate by remaining true to Him through our observance of his holy days. All of them. Day by day. There is no need for uncertainty.

 

 

 

i        In 1985.

ii      As well as many that are still copyright protected.

iii     In Jewish teachings, a midrash is a story that explains some biblical text that may raise questions in the minds of readers. The explanations are often fanciful, but they contain spiritual messages that aid in the understanding of that text in the light of our traditions.

iv      The term “mitzvah” (plural: mitzvot) refers to a commandment given by G-d (HaShem) and the entire quotation means that the performance of one mitzvah will lead someone to the performance of another. That is the reward for the mitzvah. (The opposite is true as well.) It can be found in Avot (4.2), in the Talmud, and originated about two millennia ago.

Planned Parenthood

                                                                                              

The world's population at the moment is about seven billion, one hundred eight million, and we're breeding like rabbits. Something has to be done about it.ⁱ A wide set of options exists, and many of them have proved somewhat helpful.

One of the most extreme of these is China's one child policy.ⁱⁱ (In addition there are other extreme remedies imposed by various governments. See below.) By this policy, a second child is only permitted if both parents are, themselves, only-children. In rural settings a second child is permitted if the first is a girl, but the rules are more regularly enforced. Although a future easing of this policy is being considered, it remains in force at present, and there is a 30,000 yuan fine [about $5,000] for violations.ⁱⁱⁱ Since there are currently about sixteen million births annually in [mainland] China and their total population – the world's largest – is nearly one billion three hundred fifty million, it's likely that an increase there will have a significant effect on the world population. It is estimated that since the institution of the policy, four hundred million births have been avoided.^iv

Many other such policies, as well as other a variety of compulsory or unrevealed methods, have been employed by a variety of countries. One author^v writes of the work of Steven Mosher:

For over half a century, policymakers committed to population control have perpetrated a gigantic, costly, and inhumane fraud upon the human race. They have robbed people of the developing countries of their progeny and the people of the developed world of their pocketbooks. Determined to stop population growth at all costs, those Mosher calls "population controllers" have abused women, targeted racial and religious minorities, undermined primary health care programs, and encouraged dictatorial actions if not dictatorship. They have skewed the foreign aid programs of the United States and other developed countries in an anti-natal direction, corrupted dozens of well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations, and impoverished authentic development programs. Blinded by zealotry, they have even embraced the most brutal birth control campaign in history: China's infamous one-child policy, with all its attendant horrors.

There is no workable demographic definition of "overpopulation." Those who argue for its premises conjure up images of poverty – low incomes, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition, overcrowded housing to justify anti-natal programs. The irony is that such policies have in many ways caused what they predicted – a world which is poorer materially, less diverse culturally, less advanced economically, and plagued by disease. The population controllers have not only studiously ignored mounting evidence of their multiple failures; they have avoided the biggest story of them all. Fertility rates are in free fall around the globe.

Movements with billions of dollars at their disposal, not to mention thousands of paid advocates, do not go quietly to their graves. Moreover, many in the movement are not content to merely achieve zero population growth, they want to see negative population numbers. In their view, our current population should be reduced to one or two billion or so. Such a goal would keep these interest groups fully employed. It would also have dangerous consequences for a global environment.^vi

Specifically, Mosher reports^vii the use of experimental contraceptive drugs,^viii infanticide, abortions, forced sterilizations, coercion and bribes. He notes that the Netherlands permits the use of euthanasia – and that is certain to help in any campaign to lower the population.

But it is not only governments that act to control the population. Individuals do so on their own. Contraceptives, IUDs and chemical abortofacients, voluntary sterilization, and even infanticide are used (legally or illegally) to permit the pleasures of intimacy without the responsibility of having or raising a resulting child. More interesting, however, is society's response to pregnancy.

In a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal^ix by Professor Emily Oster of the University of Chicago raised questions about modern society's limitations on pregnant women, warning them about wine, cigarettes, cold cuts, and sushi, among other things. She pointed out that the scientific evidence to support all the fears of these toxins is, at best, weak, and in some instances research favors the use of the prohibited substance. Of course the article provoked numerous comments and letters. The letters were interesting, but the alarmed cautionary reactions were not surprising. We live in a society that thrives on the whims of “experts” who hypothesize based on “common sense,” and on unproved doctrines, especially when they “seem” reasonable. It is not necessary to prove them because that means exposing the fetus to the theoretical hazards.^x And studies that undermine the most severe strictures are not to be believed because of the risks involved. So a gullible, self-righteous population takes the responsibility for enforcing the craze.

In this instance, a society that permits and, in some instances, promotes, the termination of pregnancies, has found a way to “punish” those who actually favor a pregnancy's continuation. We make life unpalatable for the prospective mother. Peer pressure and repeated warnings are our weapons. In the paper, opposite the letters, was an article by Peggy Noonan on the loss of privacy. It cautioned us on the risks inherent in the pressure of knowing that others are watching us and limiting what we say and do.^xi I suspect that many pregnant women are feeling the effects of that kind of pressure.

It can't be good for the fetuses they are carrying. But maybe that's the point.

Next episode: “The Bottom Line” – Fear and respect, or indifference.

I       Life expectancies are also increasing. The countries leading, Japan, Switzerland, and San Marino, boast an average age of eighty-three years. The United States is thirty-third on the World Health Organization's list with an average of seventy-nine years. Oh, well. There's not much we can do about that. Except, perhaps, refuse to pay for end-of-life care if some panel decides that particular people aren't worth the investment. But that discussion is for another time.

ii      Copied since by Viet Nam. In neither case is it for altruistic reasons, but it is very useful for economic ones and for improved ability to manage the population.

iii     Forced abortion and sterilization are other punishments for the heinous crime of having too many children. CNBC (August 5, 2013) reports: “In Jiuquan today, though the one-child policy is relaxed, women are still subject to strict family planning rules. They are fitted with intra-uterine devices after their first child, sterilized after their second. Anyone who defies the two-child quota pays a 30,000 yuan fine.”

iv     See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

v       In a summary of his book (see next note).

vi       Summary of the book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Steven Mosher, Transaction Publishers, 2008.

vii     Ibid. Figure 5.1

viii    Sometimes without informed consent, or even the patient's knowledge. In some instances they are given to teen-agers without parental consent.

ix      August 10, 2013.

x       Which the self-proclaimed experts are sure exist.

xi      Of course, that means more wine and sushi for them. And a chance to stick it to those who are pregnant.

A Perfect World

                                                                                                   

“The poor will never cease to exist in the land ...”ⁱ So says the Bible.

But another authority has a different perspective. According to the BBC News Magazine,ⁱⁱ the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time of publication was $10,000.ⁱⁱⁱ There are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”

The problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich” – the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor” – everyone else.

But, for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a utopia, and we would all be equal.^iv We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence, “...all men^v are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal for which we should all be striving.^vi After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime would no longer exist.

For the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83. Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between $19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.

Such an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equally^vii among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual, should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single currency system,^viii and we've achieved our perfect world.^ix All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^x

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,^xi since there are different levels of fertility and different climates. Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.^xii It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's an acceptable price to pay for paradise.

It's possible that the new economic system might have consequences which were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist? And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any effort or initiative at all.^xiii

Who – if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to administer the “earnings” of minor children,^xiv or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services for everyone.^xv And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient than having differences based on folk themes or styles^xvi that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity that we all seek.

The trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What right-thinking person^xvii would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the limitations of the new paradise?

I'll bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.

Next episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.

i       Deuteronomy 15:11.

ii      March 29, 2012.

iii     The BBC got its numbers from the United Nations' International Labour [sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization (ILO).

 

iv     In this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others and wind up with greater incomes?  So let's make it equality of income. It may not be better, but it sounds better.
v       In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)

vi      Individualism will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.

vii     Will they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the buildings already on the land?

viii    As well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.

ix     Management of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a population that all think, believe, and act the same.

x      That was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to more (the rich) may “need” more.

xi      Would land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole question of inheritance of money and other property would require evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died? These are decisions that would be made by our government – our honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart – not their own.

xii     People would have to be transported to their new property, so there would have to be workers in the transportation industry.

xiii    Knowing that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting still is not an option and they'll want to be productive irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather than be productive.

xiv    Actually, sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance problems.

xv    Rationing may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion. It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be difficult.

xvi    Since people will be moved around following the land lottery, however, that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.

xvii  Or non-thinking person.

The UN, The US, And Syria

                                                                               

I expressed my concern recentlyⁱ over the American response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I was apprehensive about our standing in the world following the hesitation to act when Syria crossed what President Obama had declared from his bully pulpit to be a “red line,” when his Administration declared that we had proof that they used poison gas on their own citizens. I was sure that the President's decision to let Congress debate the use of force was an error and that the delay in action would be seen as weakness and a lack of resolution. It would send the wrong message both to our friends and to those who oppose our policies. And with an increasing isolationist sentiment among the voters, there was no certainty that Congress would support the President's stated goal of responding to such provocations.

Not surprisingly, both Congress and the President blinked. We have yielded to the United Nations. Although that body has determined that chemical weapons have been used fourteen times, and only the government has stockpiles, the organization cannot decide who is responsible for the use of the weapons.ⁱⁱ But Russia and Syria have come up with a plan whose purported purpose is to inspect and remove control of those toxins from the Syrian government to other nations, and to destroy them. And they have until some time in 2014 to do so. I suspect that Syrian President Bashar Assad is quaking in his boots.

This, however, was the path we chose to follow. To diffuse responsibility, President Obama declared that the “red line” was not his, but the world's, and it was up to the world to respond. And while he was inclined to pressure Syria to comply with international treaties which ban the use of chemical weapons, he would wait for the United Nations determination rather than act unilaterally. Consequently he backed off on his demand that Congress support him in his efforts. He was probably relieved that he didn't have to risk a congressional vote which he would probably have lost, and Congress was relieved that it did not have to go on the record. Russian President Vladimir Putin has gained status and President Assad will probably receive a new anti-aircraft system from the Russians. So, it seems, everyone gained something by the agreement.

More accurately, some gained, and others lost less than they might have. Our government now has time to regroup and prepare alternative messages for the time when there are further developments concerning the sarin and other chemical agents. There are likely to be delays at all stages of the procedure which will be blamed on the ongoing hostilities in the country, and our Administration will “grudgingly” delay any action based on that problem. And even if there is not compliance with the agreement, Syria will be protected in the UN by its good friend Russia, a member of the Security Council with veto power, who will probably claim that the Syrians are doing as much as is possible under the circumstances.

How did we get here? Did we go wrong, and if so, what happened? And what are the implications of our actions – or lack of actions?

In his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Obama promised “transparency.” He assured us that government with him at the helm would respect the public's right to know what was going on. But the only look at what's going on seems to be coming from Bradleyⁱⁱⁱ Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.^iv According to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal,^v the President ignored his advisers' recommendations to act immediately, choosing to delay any action while he built public support. That decision, however, was not revealed by him.^vi Publicly involving voters in the process was probably seen as the most sensible choice politically, whether or not it was beneficial to the country, and it would provide reassurance that he was on the right track. He was unable to get the desired support, however, and American foreign policy is now in limbo. His performance and his public lectures were viewed as bluster and blunder, rather than confidence and resolve.

It's frightening to consider how we make decisions and how our stance will be viewed by other nations. Iran has already seen that we and the United Nations are unwilling to do more than lecture, and impose sanctions that hurt only their citizens – not their nuclear and military programs. They, and other nations, have seen that delay and deception are acceptable responses to threats that will not be carried out. And this is another example. That is not to say that we should attack every country that does not do our bidding, but that we should carefully consider our public statements and threats before we make them. As matters stand now, we are emboldening our enemies and creating a situation in which those who would like to be our friends must think at least twice about whether to accept “guarantees” from us.

My concerns have increased.

i       Full Of Sound And Fury, September 2, 2013.

ii       Since only the government has the stockpiles, it is difficult not to consider the government as the one that used them, and, after fourteen attacks, the President should have known about the attacks. Surely he has the responsibility for what happened.

iii      Now Chelsea.

iv      However accurate the reports of their revelations are, as I stated in a previous essay (The Big Picture, June 18, 2013), I am completely opposed to the actions they took. They were not “whistle blowers” but traitors who could have raised the questions they did without putting the lives of others at risk and without endangering American foreign policy.

v     Inside White House, a Head-Spinning Reversal on Chemical Weapons, September 16, 2013.

vi      So much for transparency.

I Don't Know

                                                         
                                                                          

Yesterday was Yom Kippur. If you're unfamiliar with the holiday, it's the most important annual observance on the Jewish calendar. It's the Day of Judgment; the day of reckoning for us all; the day on which we are all judged regarding our behavior during the year that has just passed and our fate for the following year. Will we live or die?

On that day we fast, having neither food nor drink for about twenty-five hours. We focus on our shortcomings and our regret for them. We petition for forgiveness; we vow to try to eliminate our sinful behavior in the future.

Does it work? I don't know. It would be presumptuous of me to think that I have survived because I have led a virtuous life or that G-d has forgiven all my sins, but the reality is that I am still alive.ⁱ And it would be disrespectful of me to suggest that the lives of those who perished last year were less valuable than mine.

I don't know. But that's just fine. According to Avot,ⁱⁱ one of the tractates of the Talmud, “Regarding that which he [the wise man] has not learned, he says 'I have not learned this.'” And in Berachotⁱⁱⁱ it is written, “... a Master said: let thy tongue acquire the habit of saying 'I know not,' lest you be led to falsehoods.” There are many variations on this theme in the various cultures, but all point out that admitting ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

There is a genre, which is usually concluded with a “one-liner,” that centers on a guru at the top of a mountain. He is usually asked about the meaning of life, or its secret. While his response is unlikely to shed any real light on the question, that is not important. More to the point, the guru does not know – though he will not say so.^iv What is significant, however, is that the question seems to matter to so many people. And it is one to which there is no certain answer. There are numerous uncertain ones – philosophers, amateur and professional – claim to know what it is, but they are fooling themselves.

It is a commonplace of those who are observant of one religion or another to confess that they are clueless. They will usually frame their views with an acknowledgment of the existence of a Creator followed by an admission that they do not, and cannot, know His Mind^v on the subject or why He did what He did. They don't know, and they acknowledge it. And they concede similar ignorance about a host of other issues – physical and metaphysical – that deal with existence and with the world around us.

There are many, however, who discount any value or validity for religion. To them, neither fate nor faith has any meaning. Scientific proof is the only thing that matters. Lacking it, any view represents superstition. They know what is verifiable, and are certain that, in the end, Man,^vi will understand everything. They are not willing to say “I do not know,” unless it is followed by the word “yet.” They adamantly favor a “big bang” over a “creation,” although it is difficult to be sure what the difference is. In both cases “something” derived from “nothing” which, is a scientific contradiction, but so be it. Their belief^vii makes them happy.

As for me, I'm comfortable with the idea that I don't know everything, as well as with the fact that I cannot do so and will never do so. I will be judged next Yom Kippur as I was yesterday. It is my responsibility to follow the rules of my religion – and it is a responsibility that I glory in taking.

Science will take care of itself.

Next episode: “A Perfect World” – Don't you just wish?

I       Or, at least, I hope I'll still be among the living when this is published. Since I'm writing this about a month in advance, I can't be sure.

ii       Chapter 5, Mishna 10.

iii      4a.

iv      Which raises questions about his wisdom – the mountaintop notwithstanding.

v       Both words are anthropomorphisms. No sexism is intended. Not even in the word “anthropomorphism.”

vi      No sexism is intended here either. Use whatever pronoun you like.

vii     Although they'll deny that belief has anything to do with it.

When In Rome

                                                                                     
                                                                                                           

I have to tell you. I've been reading a lot recently. I've read about Lincoln and how he studied law in his log cabin. I saw the movie, too.ⁱ Reading by candle-light. Quaint. I couldn't figure out, though, why he didn't just turn on the lights? Later in his life he needed glasses, and maybe that could have been avoided. He wasn't too smart.

But that's an anachronism. Even though Humphry Davy made the first electric light in 1800 (a carbon arc light),ⁱⁱ it was strictly experimental and actual indoor electric lighting didn't appear until the end of the nineteenth century – long after Lincoln died.

We tend to project backwards what is familiar and important to us in the present, and give little consideration to the past itself. Another pictureⁱⁱⁱ presented some additional in Lincoln's life and it, itself, displayed a number of anachronisms^iv but, of course, many movies do so. It's hard to avoid the back projection. And it's easy to criticize it. At least that's the case when it comes to the errors of other people and those blunders that refer to physical objects.^v But there is no reason not to review their product and correct these errors, so it's a shame that movie personnel don't do that critically enough.

It's harder, though, to avoid the mistakes we, ourselves, make when we attribute our own standards to others. We've come to recognize this when we talk about “multiculturalism” and cultural diversity and relativity, and we've come to accept the idea that there may be different norms in different groups, societies, and at different times. We're taught, nowadays, that there is no single “right” and “wrong” that always applies.^vi For example, while the term “nigger” may be common and be viewed as perfectly acceptable among blacks, if a caucasian uses it there is no other way to interpret it except as racism.

As to other biases, we emphasize youth. Our focus in style, language, and behavior emphasize this. We idolize young singers, sports stars, and models. Other societies, however, may scoff at our choice and praise the wisdom of the elderly. Obviously they are ageist. Co-education is our standard, and those who permit single-sex schools are sexist.^vii But in many parts of the world, the education of women is considered to be wrong. The rules for those societies may differ from ours. While there are dissenters in those settings, however, there are also dissenters in our own country.

In ancient times it was often within a society's practices to perform human sacrifice. The Bible, with which most of us are familiar even if only superficially, includes rules of war which sanction the killing of women, children, and animals. While we modern people may view all of these actions as abhorrent, they were at one time considered to be “right” and natural. From our enlightened position, moreover, we attribute to religions that assign different rights and responsibilities to men and women, not only sexism but intolerance.^viii Adherents of religions who hold other than the current opinions, but maintain that they are following the word of G-d, are often viewed as intolerant fools whose views are unacceptable.

But though we are arrogant, convinced that our way is the only right way, it has become the rule not to criticize the practices of others – unless we disagree with them. And it is important to note that the “them” in the previous sentence may apply to the “practices” or to the “others.” Because of our modern sensibilities we often understand and accept the acts of others elsewhere^ix even if they don't measure up to our own and we're convinced they are silly and outdated. We are sensitive to their feelings and their needs, as long as it is fashionable to be so. And equally pompous and presumptuous, we interpret the past in the light of our own prejudices – even if they don't reflect the views of other times and cultures. Was George Washington a racist? Or Thomas Jefferson? Both owned slaves. Indeed, slavery also receives biblical approbation, and the Holy Book provides rules regarding the way it is to be conducted. Should we condemn these practices or do these situations reflect the norms for their times?^x

My intent is not to defend institutions with which I disagree. But though I may consider some of them “wrong” from my absolutist position, I am prepared to accept the idea that they may have been viewed as perfectly normal for their setting. Views change.^xi We cannot flout local customs when we are elsewhere. When in Rome, etc. And we cannot impose ex post facto rules on those who lived according to the standards and observances of their own societies.^xii (Nor should we.) Those who, in the past, opposed the participation of women in government are often caricatured now as sexists even though many were honestly concerned for the welfare of those women and wished only to protect them. We may now view this as patronizing and sexist, but for most of recorded history it was normal and “enlightened.”

But our tolerance for other views is selective. It does not justify all past and present practices. We can blame the Christian Church for his indoctrination, but Martin Luther was a vitriolic antisemite – and a vicious example of the contagion that has persisted for millennia, down to modern Islam, Europe, and the “liberal” Left. Slavery, which still exists, is also reprehensible. As is the modern war against religion waged by the media and those opposing any form of worship.^xiii And the refusal of some nations^xiv to permit religious practices other than those of its official religion.

The main problem is our preoccupation with our own views and with the modern concept of correctness. We're convinced that our perspectives represent the benchmarks for all times and places, but it is considered correct to tolerate and support those of groups now “in,”^xv while disparaging and dismissing the views of those whom we hate and who are out of vogue. There's no need to analyze the arguments of those groups. Whether the “in” group is wrong and the arguments of the “out” groups make more sense is beside the point. We support those whom we favor – right or wrong. And self-loathing disguised as a desire to better our country is an imposition of higher values here than we demand elsewhere^xvi and as the virtue of freeing a people from their government. Indeed, according to this thinking, we're always wrong and they're right.

And the same is true of the ideas that are in vogue now. They're true! And anything that deviates from our current biases is, by definition, wrong – even if it was correct at the time. We evaluate those in the past by current standards and judge them accordingly. Some day, though, we'll be held to standards inconceivable to us now, and we shall be found wanting.

So what's the solution? It's certainly not to abandon our own morality, but care is in order before we project it on others who may have lived in different times or who now live in different societies. And the answer also is not to give a pass to people we know to be violating basic behavioral norms and who should know that they are doing so because of some notion of political correctness. Politics shouldn't be used to vilify those we oppose and justify acts we know to be wrong but have been committed by those with whom we agree in regard to unrelated issues – to turn “good guys” into “bad” and vice versa.

In short, we should recognize that there are absolutes, and that everyone should observe them; but we should realize that the application of another area's “absolutes” depends on prior education and on the culture in which different people live. That doesn't make "wrong" right, but, rather, more understandable. After all, 1863 isn't 2013, and Lincoln, Nebraska isn't Port Lincoln, Australia.

Next episode:  "I Don't Know" – Knowledge and belief. 

i       Abe Lincoln In Illinois, 1940.

ii         http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/edison/lightbulb.shtml

iii     Lincoln, 2012.

iv      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/goofs?ref_=tttrv_sa_1

v      And the assumptions related to physical objects change regularly. My children assume I had a dinosaur for a pet and my grandchildren cannot imagine how their own folks could have spent part of their childhood without computers, iPods, and tablets. Going back a little – but only a little – I never lived before the time of electricity and telephones and indoor plumbing, while my great grandparents were raised before any of these were a practical part of life. And each generation cannot imagine how it's predecessors might have survived without them. It's easier to assume they always existed.

vi     Full disclosure: I happen to be one of those benighted individuals who believe that absolute standards exist – and I know what they are – but I recognize that I'm not in keeping with modern notions and political correctness, so I'll try, for the purposes of this essay, to limit my own views.

vii    Unless they're only for women. Women’s schools are necessary to protect women from domination by males at whatever level. Men's schools, however, are, by definition, sexist. They are separate but unequal.

viii   There is no recognition of the reality that, in the animal kingdom, it is usual for males and females to have different roles. If it happens among humans, even if members of both sexes approve of the arrangement, it is considered prejudicial.

ix     Americans tend to be intolerant of contrary views and practices by other Americans while they consider the mores of others to be perfectly understandable, and to be accepted without criticism.

x      Even Abraham Lincoln fought slavery only because by doing so he was defending the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states that were at war with the Union, and the proclamation, itself, was not written out of any deeply felt conviction that slavery was immoral. Were it not for the Civil War there is no evidence that President Lincoln would have acted to end slavery.

xi     That idea has more than one form. In the individual dogmas may change – for example, the liberal ideas of youth may (or may not) be converted to conservatism as time passes. Past views may change over the centuries as well. It is interesting to consider how our descendants will judge our own actions a few centuries hence. It's likely they will have different perspectives and biases and they'll be embarrassed by the way we acted. They'll see us as __ist – just as we view our predecessors.

xii    Even “right” and “wrong” may be different in different cultures. And those educated in one society may thus have different views from ones accepted in another. But as long as those views don't cause harm to others, they should be tolerated, no matter how misinformed they may be.

xiii   Indeed, war is not justifiable: whether the religious wars that have happened in the past or those far more lethal ones led by people like Hitler and Stalin whose only interest in religion was to exterminate believers. In this particular instance, the media tend to belittle religion, in large part due to a lack of interest in it, and antipathy towards it. See “Blind Spot” by Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert, and Roberta Green Ahmanson (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2009.

xiv    Saudi Arabia, for example. Other nations, like Jordan, forbid the sale of land to the Jews. The Palestinians have driven large numbers of Christians from Bethlehem and elsewhere. They have already declared that when they have their own state, Jews ill not be permitted.

xv     And those who share our own prejudices.

xvi    It's interesting that however much our own citizens decry our system and praise other societies, America is the most popular destination of those fleeing their own countries. And those are sometimes the “in” countries whose policies so many support.

Full Of Sound And Fury

                                                                                                                                                                         

Democracy is fine. It's a noble idea. But it has limits. It confuses politicians.

The can be only one captain on a ship and one surgeon in charge of a procedure. Increase the number and disaster is certain.

The surgeon illustrates another important rule: “Right or wrong, but never in doubt.” It's said as an insult of the breed, but it carries an important truth: “He who hesitates is lost.” (Sometimes clichés hold important truths.) There are times when action, even if not perfect, is better than inaction. It also happens in war. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future." That's the way General George Patton put it. But, unfortunately, the opposite is the thinking of the present.

In the past year or so, several heads of state have warned Syria about its actions. There is a civil war going on now and the use of chemical agents – which is contrary to international law, most recently the Geneva Protocol – has been proscribed by most observers. It is viewed as a particularly heinous crime when the agents are used against civilians, because it is a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). President Obama has specifically warned of action if this “red line” is crossed. Similarly, there were stern warnings from David Cameron, England's Prime Minister and from others.

The use of chemical warfare is not new. During the “First Sacred War,” between the Amphictyonic League of Delphi and Kirrha, the League poisoned Kirrha's water, using massive amounts of the crushed leaves of hellebore, a poisonous plant. It took place about 590 BCE and, not surprisingly, the league was victorious. The details of the war are not important, but the use of chemical warfare is. In fact, it is the first reported such incident. The Delphic Oracle had called for total war, and this was the result. There were no prohibitions against the use of such a weapon then and no warnings not to do so.

But now both treaties and warnings are in place, and there has been no dearth of strong censures regarding the attack last week. The Bible cautions us against “standing idly by” the blood of our brothers, but there are many who have concluded that their own ox wasn't gored so it's not our problem. It began with the British Parliament, which decided that Great Britain should stay out of it. Having joined in the effort against Iraq, which they attribute to bad US intelligence, they refuse to participate in any other action in the Middle East. It doesn't matter that their own government attests to the crime. Consequently, the Prime Minister, humiliated, and at risk of losing his job, has announced acceptance of the will of the legislators. So it's all talk and no action; long on rhetoric but short on resolution. Not the image of someone in the place that Winston Churchill once occupied. Not true grit but, sadly, true Brit.

The stain of isolationism, however, has spread across the Atlantic. President Obama, apparently fearing similar loss of popularity, has opted to let Congress take the heat for any decision against involvement. That will probably be next week. In the meanwhile we'll sit and wait. The delay, however, is not important. The President's credibility has already been badly damaged. With no immediate response to the use of chemical weapons and the killing of his own citizens, Assad has learned that a threat from the US is more bark than bite. And the rest of the world has learned the same thing. Other countries now know that they cannot rely on guarantees from us. Whatever we say, our words speak louder than our actions. Our talk is cheap. We speak loudly but carry a small stick. A word from the strong should be sufficient, but it's not if we fear to use our strength.

Most parents utilize an implied threat. “One, two, three.” If the child takes no action by then, punishment will result. Not might, but will. It only takes a demonstration once or twice for the implicit message to be understood. And parents also learn. The most important lesson is that it is counterproductive to say what you don't mean; to make a threat that you don't intend to carry out. So when a threat emerges, a prompt and credible response is warranted – not a resort to discussion and majority vote.

But that's the risk of democracy. Our leaders follow. They're not prepared to take the chance that they, or their party, will suffer from a decision they make. “Plausible deniability” and finger-pointing are the tenets of government. Those who can respond immediately are afraid to do so. In this instance our President calls on Congress to weigh in, so he can blame it for any negative results, while taking credit if the policy works. And Congress, not wanting to take any responsibility itself, will follow the polls. But when it comes to protection of minority rights, we've accepted the principle that the majority cannot always have its way. And this is one of those instances that the will of the majority is not the prime consideration.

“One, two, three” may be effective against four-year-olds, but it is not likely to be taken seriously by a tyrant. He can accomplish too much evil while we're thinking about a measured response; if we don't immediately stand by our words. After all, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but (words) will never hurt me.” There are times when the acceptance of responsibility by those in charge is superior to democracy.