The New Paradigm

I mentioned, last week, that I didn't care for people. Nothing new. I've said it before. There are just too many of them. At the moment there are about 7.175 billion. That's too many.ⁱ

The Chinese noticed that also. They decided to limit births – to make it a crime to have more than one child. While the penalty is primarily a fine, the Chinese people have accepted the philosophy, with relatively few opting to have additional children even though the rules have been relaxed and a second child is permitted to many of them.

It's a good start – the limitation, that isⁱⁱ – but I suspect that that method probably wouldn't work here. Our culture and political parties would make its implementation impossible. But we recognize the problem. So we toyed with the idea of zero population growth (ZPG) for a while and, to a degree, still favor methods that would limit births.ⁱⁱⁱ We are the world's third most populous society^iv and have a responsibility to lead the way.^v

One of our responses to the problem has been to encourage the increased production of food. “The Green Revolution,” which earned Norman Borlaug a Nobel Peace Prize, has been supported in large part by American expertise and technology. By the use of hybrid^vi grains and modern techniques and equipment, a marked increase in farm production was achieved and it is estimated that over a billion lives were saved.

The problem with which Borlaug was dealing was clear: too many people and not enough food. From his perspective the solution was self-evident – increase the food supply. And it worked. But it can only succeed for so long. Sooner or later we won't be able to keep up. Sooner or later we'll run out of space and other resources for all the world's people. So we have to think about the other side of the equation – those people. Forget the food. How can we stop population growth? Better still, how can we reduce the world's population?

Working within the limits of American society,^vii the answer seems obvious. Besides the emphasis on sex, a main preoccupation of our society is the LGBTQ movement. More and more members of these groups are appearing out of the woodwork and coming out of the closet, and they're becoming mainstream features of our lives and our culture. Unfortunately we're expending all our efforts in a fight over whether they should exist. Rather than encouraging their participation in American life, we're stifling their development – an act which is not only harmful to them, but to us. They can help us if we let them. Homosexuality should be encouraged.^viii It should become the norm.

How is this possible? Instead of forcing them to stay hidden and to wed members of the opposite sex, we'd be better off with more homosexual unions.^ix The more sterile family units the better, and two homosexuals, whatever the label of their bond, are certain to contribute to that goal. An even surer guarantee of childlessness would be surgery^x that eliminates the possibility of begetting, or bearing a new life. No room for slip-ups, even if one of the participants^xi strays.^xii

That's not to say that they can't rear children. I'm not sure it's such a good idea, but I leave that judgment to the psychologists. There are plenty of children available for adoption (preferably American children – we should solve our own problems before everyone else's) resulting from rapes^xiii and other unplanned (by the mother) events.

We can't ignore the rest of the world entirely, however. Many countries have begun recognizing homosexuality and according increased honor, rights and privileges to its adherents. What the world needs is more homosexuality^xiv in order to lower birth rates in those countries.

As for those lands that continue, in their ignorance, to forbid such practices, we should encourage war and honor killings. And because education appears to be associated with a decreased birth rate, learning programs should be beamed to the recalcitrant nations by both the internet and radio. While it is likely that this will lead to the killings of some of the women who seek education, that will, itself, contribute to the cause. They will be martyrs.

But, as I mentioned earlier, although it is our obligation to lead, we have to start at home. We must keep up with the times and promote forward-thinking programs and movements.^xv Most of our citizens have already accepted the idea that, contrary both to Creationism and Darwinism,^xvi homosexuality is the wave of the future.^xvii It's chic, and we're all sophisticated and sensitive. But more important, the LGBTQ movement is our greatest hope for a nation with a smaller, and more caring society; a country of brotherly – and sisterly – love. But no incest. At least, no heterosexual incest.

Next episode: “I Was Wrong” – Who woulda believed it?

I        Those who see additional children as workers on the farm or elsewhere, and those who desire children to help make up for lives lost during the Holocaust, are doing our species a disservice.

ii       The more recent changes which allow additional children are a mistake.

iii     Our culture also glorifies sex in our movies, television shows, games, and stories. Everything we do – as opposed to what we say – promotes procreation, while we ring our hands over the problems it has caused. But we are “concerned” society, not necessarily a logical or consistent one.

iv       India and China are way ahead of us, but they're not as advanced as we are, and we can only lead them to wisdom. We can't force them to see the light.

v       To reducing the population, not to being the most populous. So here's one approach. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” and one of the gurus of ZPG, said “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children.” That was his view of women. I don't know what he said about men.

vi       That sounds suspiciously like genetic engineering which we all know is “wrong.” Whether it works or not, and whether it's dangerous or not, it's immoral and not worth the risks.

vii      Eating children, Jonathan Swift notwithstanding, is unlikely to be accepted as a solution.

viii     We should consider providing free or reduced-price weddings and receptions in these cases.

ix       I prefer something other than “marriage” even though that's the term being bandied around right now. That word has centuries of use with the connotation of the union of members of opposite sexes. A new designation would seem to be preferable to muddying the meaning of the old – perhaps a univalent bond.

x        Christine Jorgensen and Lorena Bobbitt were pioneers in this field.

xi      I hesitate to say “partners.” A few days ago I heard, on the radio, that the “partner” of a murder victim had testified against the individual accused of the killing. The victim was a policeman and I was uncertain whether the witness shared a patrol car or a bed with him. Or maybe they played bridge together. It's another example of the danger to the language of adapting old terms to new situations.

xii      Consideration should be given to tax exemptions for childlessness, rather than for children. Expenses for child-rearing should never be deductible. Indeed, the government should assess a tax on college education so as to make it more expensive to have children. (Sex education should be given at a much earlier age.)

xiii     Interestingly, there are more than twice as many rapes of men as of women according to the Justice Department. According to the Daily Mail, a British publication, “More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 [male] inmates were assaulted while serving time, according to the [American] Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison [a little more than 90% of whom are women].” Presumably the numbers are much closer since many (most?) rapes are not reported. The figures, however, suggest that we should consider an increase in incarceration to inure inmates to homosexuality and, perhaps, cure some of them of their heterosexual tendencies.

xiv      And bestiality as well. Satyrs, mermaids, and centaurs don't reproduce all that well. The status of sirens and harpies is a matter of opinion.

xv        We should provide birth-control clinics at home and around the world. And we should emphasize the value of hysterectomy and vasectomy which we might promote as procedures which would allow sex at all times without concern about pregnancy which will require abortion or child support. Good for the participant and good for society.

xvi      Whatever the origin of our species, we're increasing like rabbits. “Survival of the fittest” is a poor paradigm for a slimmed-down and efficient future. Childless unions should be the goal.

xvii     Actually it's the wave of the present – a fact easily discernible by watching TV or going to the movies or a play. If you're not queer, you're strange, and divorced from the new American ethos.

Hermitage

I used to think that people walking alone and talking were touched. So did you – admit it. Now we reserve judgment. They may be on the telephone. They may be “reaching out and touching someone” else.

That's the jargon, but the reality is that most people can no longer stand silence, nor to be alone. And at the same time they often insist on being alone. Many of those who have buds in their ears as they walk along with their eyes down are listening to something or other, but not to someone on the other end of the telephone line. It's a “play list,” or some other form of entertainment. For lots of people, the main enemy seems to be actual communication, and they protect themselves from it by whatever means are necessary. With the buds in their ears they warn everyone else to stay away. And the buds provide license to the wearer to ignore everyone around, using the pretense that no one is heard.

I'm more like the members of this latter group. Like Greta Garbo, “I want to be let alone.”ⁱ I prefer silence to people. I'm a hermit. I'm willing to concede that. I prefer isolation.  I'm not enochlophobic – I just don't like people.  So unlike Garbo, I want to be alone as well. Perhaps I should get earbuds connected to wires that are loose in my pocket. No one will suspect a thing. 

But I want to be alone on my terms. And, for better or worse, there's a world out there that I want to be available when I want it to be available.

I raise the issue because, a few days ago, I was cut of from the world. It happened in Massachusetts, in the southern Berkshire mountains, where my wife and I have a vacation home. It's my Hermitage. Andrew Jackson had his (as did Catherine the Great, for that matter) , and this one is mine.ⁱⁱ

I happened to be there alone one dayⁱⁱⁱ when the electricity went off. No big deal. It's happened before. The house is in the woods, and the town is small, but there are available electric company employees in the area and repairs are usually reasonably prompt. I decided to take a nap and reevaluate the situation when I woke up. I suspected that the electricity would be back by that time, and I was right. But when I picked up the telephone,^iv there was no dial tone.

That's a little more unusual. In all likelihood the problem had existed for a while, but, since I rarely use the telephone, I hadn't noticed. My primary use of the land line is to get DSL for my laptop. It had been spotty earlier, but that's frequent when you're out in the country, so I didn't pay much attention to it. Now, though, it was only working sporadically and unpredictably.

So I pulled out the cellular telephone that I occasionally carry in case of emergency. I rarely use it – perhaps once or twice a year – but I have it as insurance. Except the message I got was “No Service.” I think I had overpaid for the “insurance.” The only chance I had to communicate with the outside world was to leave a note on one of the message carriers and hope that it got transmitted in one of the occasional burps of internet service. And fortunately it did, at some time or other after that. The message was addressed to my wife and it asked her to contact someone I know who lives near me^v so that he could have the telephone company check.

I'm not really sure when the message went out, but, as I said, apparently it did, for a couple of hours later there was a knock at the door and I was greeted by my friend's cousin,^vi who came to inform me that my wife had called in a panic, and he wanted to get me to a phone to call her back. (She'd been trying to reach me but all she got was a busy signal, despite the fact that I wasn't using the telephone).

So I did, and after I reassured her about my health, I learned that she had already called the telephone company and they'd come by on the following day. They kept their word and fixed the short on one of their poles about a mile away, and by the following afternoon the world and I were one again.

But I had been unreachable. And just as I, until then, had had the expectation that I could contact others, she expected to be able to speak with me whenever she felt like it. That's the problem. Our ancestors could live in solitude without any concern because they never experienced anything else. On the other hand we, having always been “connected,” become anxious when that capability disappears. It's one of the curses of our modern technological society. The numerous devices we have around have created their own set of expectations and we get nervous when they can't be met. The telephone system^vii at our primary residence is dependent on a backup battery which lasts for about eight hours. It should be plenty of time in a modern city for the return of power. Except that isn't always the case, and once, when electricity was off for several days, we were without power, and without the ability to reach the rest of humanity. As I mentioned, that sort of thing is quite acceptable to me, but most people can't live with it. It's hard for them to tolerate life in a hermitage unconnected to everyone else.

And not everyone can abide a primitive life in general. Abe Lincoln read by candle light. That requires two things: a book and a candle. When the electricity is out and the batteries have already been discharged, there's neither candle nor Kindle. We've become so dependent on technology that its absence is threatening. Our expectations have been raised to such a high level that a fall from it is paralyzing.

So what's the solution? Actually there are three things that can be done. The first, of course, is to prepare for any possible contingencies. For example, get some candles. And get some real books. You should also keep some foods and drinks that won't spoil in the absence of refrigeration.

Next, lower your own expectations and those of the others in your life. When you're hiding away somewhere, let everyone know that you won't be reachable and they shouldn't even try. That won't stop you from contacting them if both the capability and the will exist,^viii but that's your choice. They won't be anticipating it or waiting for it.

And the third thing you can do is somehow or other turn everyone you know into hermits too.

Next episode: “The New Paradigm” – You can decide if it's really better.

i         In “Grand Hotel” (1935) she said “I want to be alone,” but she denied that this was her personal philosophy. Quite correctly she drew a distinction between being alone, and being let alone. The latter was her desire. In terms of quiet, most of her career was in silent films.

ii       Thomas Jefferson occasionally referred to Monticello as “Hermitage.” It seems he not only favored a “wall of separation” between Church and State, but a personal wall between himself and the outside world. I can relate.

iii      My wife was in New York at the time. Sometimes I go to Massachusetts to “veg” and to glory in my solitude, and she comes up for the weekends.

iv       I can't remember why I picked it up. I really don't like talking to people.

v        Actually he lives about a half-hour away, but since he takes care of my house when I'm away he seemed like the logical person to contact.

vi       My friend had fallen asleep. Fortunately he and his cousin live in the same house.

vii      FIOS.

viii     And don't forget to tell them that you had to travel many miles to be able to call them. That will impress them with the idea that you care a lot, and it will give them a sense of guilt for your having to do so just to speak with them. (That may not be true, but it will probably discourage them from calling back.)

Addendum

Add this to yesterday's post.

Headline Shocker Implicates Israel in Ceasefire Breakdown   The Daily Telegraph's headline on the attempted Gaza ceasefire implicates both Israel and Hamas as equally responsible for its breakdown. Read more...

And, of course, it lists Israel first.

I Admit It

Well, I didn't get it quite right yesterday. Today's New York Times headline was:

Brief Lull Ends In Gaza Crisis; Strikes Resume

It didn't mention Israel in the headline. It doesn't bother to mention that Israel had accepted the cease-fire. And not until the sub-headline did it note that Hamas had rejected the cease-fire. The “Lull” mentioned above was, in fact, only on the Israeli side. The “proportional” response to that moderation by Israel was rocket fire on southern Israel by Hamas. And then it tells us, “Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip resumed on Tuesday the all-too-familiar rhythm of their latest battle.” The first mention that Israel had accepted the truce came from the first person quoted in (the sixth paragraph – the last on the front page) of the article. It was by Norman Thrall, “an author of the [objective?] International Crisis Group report on the situation.”

“Egypt helped its ally, Israel, achieve a face-saving unilateral cease-fire – that's what happened. … We had an Israeli unilateral cease-fire to which Hamas never agreed and”

Continued on Page A6

“Egypt helped Israel market it.”

The Times article continues, “The lopsided battle claimed its first Israeli casualty [actually it was the first death, not the first casualty] Tuesday night” while Israeli strikes continued, “bringing the Palestinian death toll to 189 over eight days.” And later it added, “Israel had little to lose by initially approving Egypt's proposal.” That's The New York Times's version of “fair and balanced.”

CBS radio, to which I listened a few minutes ago, talked about the fact that Israel was now targeting the homes of Hamas leaders, and it reported how many Palestinians had been killed, while The Wall Street Journal's front page headline was:

Palestinians Told to Clear Out

Israel Warns Thousands to Leave Gaza as Army Readies Broader Offensive

Sure Hamas had rejected a truce, but you had to start reading the article to actually find that out.

So the message of yesterday's essay may not have been quite right in the particulars, but the overall idea was on the mark. The press underplayed any Palestinian responsibility, while emphasizing Israel's, and the suffering of the Gazans.

I'm not sure why I get upset about what is so predictable, but I do.

In The Eye Of The Beholder

Israel Resumes Bombardment of Palestinians

Observes truce for only six hours

That's the headline I expect to see on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times. Perhaps somewhere in a lower paragraph, or on an inside page well beyond the view of someone whose main interest is in headlines and lead paragraphs, there will be a brief mention of the fact that Hamas didn't accept the truce at all, and that it continued to aim rockets at Israel during the time that no fire was being returned. (I speak primarily of the Times, by the way, because of its influence, but the situation is far more extensive.)

And the article will be accurate in terms of presenting facts. But it will completely mislead the readership. Actually, it won't mislead the readership, who are used to this kind of misplaced emphasis and who approve of it. For them this is the truth that's fit to print; it's the truth they want to read. The Times sees Israel as the source of the problem in the Middle East, and trumpets the victimhood of the Palestinians who fight on bravely, though, despite the billions contributed to the PA, they lack modern weapons and defenses. It is a land blockaded by Israel which is starving the Palestinians and making the area uninhabitable. There is little notice of the long border of Gaza with Egypt nor the large number of smuggling tunnels from both Egypt and Israel.

And in addition to the frequent front page articles bemoaning the fate of the Palestinians, there are regular editorials and “Op-Ed” columns which describe the steps Israel must take if there is to be peace. There are two problems with those columns, however: they imply, wrongly, that only Israel must act in order for there to be an end to hostilities, and, even more wrongly, they lead the reader to believe that if Israel acts peace will result. The refusal of Hamas to accept the present cease-fire, and the long history of failures by the Palestinians to respond to Israeli offers of peace make it clear that agreement is not what Hamas and the PA seek. And the continued indoctrination of their children to hate Israel and Jews makes it unlikely that a positive result will be brought about by anything Israel does.

But that's not what “spin” is about. “News” articles have become editorials and reporters are now advocacy journalists. All you need to do to “subjectivize” the facts is to make whatever supports your view prominent, and bury what brings it into question. The last place to look for the news is in the “objective” media. Better to look in publications that don't hide their bias. At least you know what you're getting.

Day Of Unrest

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form. … And the evening and the morning were the first day.”ⁱ

In the beginning the particle appeared. And, in accordance with the laws of physics, the Big Bang turned it into the universe that houses everything. Before that happened, time didn't exist. Nor did anything else.

“Who really knows, and who can swear, how creation came, when or where! Even gods came after creation’s day. Who really knows, who can truly say when and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He, up there, knows, maybe; or perhaps, not even He.”ⁱⁱ

“There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the 'Way.' ... The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures. The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony.”ⁱⁱⁱ

*********************************

The first of these descriptions of the beginning comes from the King James Bible; the third from the Rig Veda, and describes a Hindu version; the fourth is from Daodejing – one of many Chinese cosmogonies. Around the world there are, of course, numerous other versions of the unknowable, the discussion of the origin of everything. They represent what is known as “Creation Myths”^iv and are matters of belief – no one really knows the facts.^v

Interestingly, the second version described above, the scientific view, seems just as mystical as the others. Notwithstanding any mathematical calculations and any theories of physics, it is as unprovable as any of them and just as reliant on belief^vi – in this case the beliefs of “rational” mathematicians and scientists.

But belief can have dangerous consequences.

An important part of the religious narrative, at least in the traditions that stem from the Jewish Bible,^vii is the concept that Creation took six days and G-d rested on the seventh. And He commanded us to rest on that day as well. That seventh day is usually termed Saturday and corresponds to the Sabbath^viii which is divinely ordained. The idea of a day of rest, though it has gained widespread acceptance, has not been viewed with favor universally.^ix

A few years ago^x I wrote an essay on the calendar. One of the points that it made was that “universal” calendars favored the elimination of the seven day week as he sole basis for construction of the “year.” Rather, they employ such a week for the purpose of general organization, but because a “perfect” year^xi is required – usually with 52 seven day weeks always beginning and usually beginning on Sunday – it's necessary to slip in one or more days that won't be counted. They're days off. And who can argue with an extra day or more of rest. But the extra day (or days) shifts the Sabbath each year, and that's unacceptable to those who observe it. Supporters of a universal calendar, however, demean those who favor a Sabbath. From their perspective, a day off is a useful and modern labor benefit; the Sabbath is a remnant of the outdated mythology of a bigot. (That perspective is, however, evidence of their own biases.)

Believers, though, have different views. Indeed, they often are bigots.

One instance involves some Jews who have difficulty tolerating the violation of the Sabbath^xii by other Jews. They may throw stones at the vehicles of those who drive on the day of rest, or simply castigate those whom they deem insufficiently observant. It's not an action, however, that is generally approved by others – even those who may agree concerning the specifics of the violations.

Of far greater concern, however, is the urge to impose the religious statutes of one religion on another, or to use the Sabbath for the purposes of incitement against those of other faiths. In medieval Rome, for example, especially when all the city's Jews were forced to live in a ghetto, those same Jews were required to listen to a Sunday Christian sermon which described their evils and the goodness of the Church. Following the sermon, the killing of the evil ones sometimes occurred – most notably on Easter to deal with those who, according to their teachings, had killed G-d, as if that were possible. It was an example of anti-semitism in a form that was sanctioned by Christianity, and was aimed at using the day of “rest” to intimidate, and sometimes to eliminate, those who did not share its views. (Regrettably it was a practice not limited to Rome.)

But, as the saying goes, “that was then ...” Unfortunately, things haven't changed. Or perhaps they've gotten worse. Anti-semitism flourishes. There's an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled “Do Jews Have a Future in Europe?”^xiii The main (but not sole) source of the bias is “the violent threat of jihadists.” Although it is considered racist to say so, most of the violent episodes of which the media tell us daily involve Muslims. And it is sad to note that we frequently hear of similar violence instigated by a cleric who makes such action a focus of his Friday message to the faithful. It is not a surprise that the prayer service on that holy day is an important part of their indoctrination,^xiv for it is the time when the largest number of believers is there and eager to learn who is oppressing them and what they must do in response.

So how did everything begin? And when? I don't know. Was it a Divine Creation? Was it the logical result of scientific laws? Was there some other mechanism in play? The question is hard to resolve and will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. But the secret of existence and the meaning of life should never be something that divides us. It should never be the excuse for depriving life of all meaning. And we should certainly not use a part of our observance as as tool whose purpose is to oppress others. Especially not on the day we consider most sacred.

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.” But it was for us – all of us – to live with each other. Not only on the day of rest, but on the rest of the days.

Next episode: “Hermitage” – Alone by design or not.

i        King James Bible.

ii       Rig Veda 10.129.1-7, from Science and the World’s Religions, ed. Patrick McNamara and Wesley J. Wildman, 2012.

iii      Daodejing, Translation – Victor Mair, 1990.

iv      Labeling them as “myths” rather than “narratives” or “accounts” immediately tells the reader not to believe them. Notwithstanding the scientific explanation given, which human logic tells us is more believable than the other narratives, we do not – we cannot – choose between them on rational grounds.

v       Or even that our concept of “fact” makes any sense when considering cosmogony.

vi       Where did the particle come from Daddy? And the laws of physics? What's on the next block beyond the restaurant at the end of the universe?

vii      Although this is not the only view, it, and the works that originated from it, serves the largest number of individuals. I do not pretend there are not other understandings of time.

viii    Actually the Jewish Sabbath, from which the concept stems, begins, in accordance with the biblical description of each day beginning in the evening, just before sunset on Friday and continues until about an hour after sunset on Saturday, but for practical purposes it is usual to consider Saturday as the seventh day, removing complications that are confusing to some. Notwithstanding the Bible's decrees, there are those who sanctify the first or the sixth day of the week – or some other time – for holiness. For some, the day of rest is weekly – for others the schedule is different. But the concepts of rest and reflection are the rule.

ix       “ … even after the Romans had taken over the oriental seven-day week, … the Jews were accused of 'laziness.' So little was Sabbath understood and so much was it resented that many a Greek city, and once apparently a Roman emperor himself, prohibited its observance.” From “A Social and Religious History of the Jews,” volume 1 (second edition), by Salo Baron, Columbia University Press, 1952.

x        On January 14, 2011. I'm sure you remember. But just to remind you, it was entitled “Klutz or Kluznik.”

xi       It has to correspond to the solar year of 365 and a quarter (more or less) days.

xii       “Violation” relates to rules which may not be accepted by others who view themselves as observant.

xiii     WSJ, June 16, 2014. Essay by Simone Rodan-Benzaquen and Daniel Schwammenthal. (The paper also included an article on the abduction of three boys in Israel, raising the question of whether Jews are safe anywhere.)

xiv      The indoctrination is everywhere, especially in the schools and in the mosques where children are taught hatred and violence from the beginning.

Blaming The Victim

Many more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the ongoing war. But they picked the fight. Shouldn't we blame them?

Civilian casualties? If they cheer for the deaths of Israelis and they allow themselves to be used as shields, those civilians must know that they're likely to be targets, even if the terrorists who hid among them have already run away leaving them to receive the punishment.

Israel has better weapons and a better defense system? Hamas knew that before beginning the engagement. The victim ought not be blamed for defeating the aggressor. What Hamas seems to have wanted were graphic pictures of the death of its people, and the grief of the Palestinians, that it could “sell” to an eagerly awaiting press to illustrate the suffering of the “oppressed.” And those who claim to represent the Palestinian people will use the numbers of dead as ammunition in their effort to convince the UN to condemn Israel. But just as might doesn't make right, neither does weakness, though this is the argument of weak instigators. They attempt to attract sympathy by pretending to be a David wronged by a Goliath. And the hope is that the sympathy can be parlayed eventually into a victory by David – victory from the jaws of defeat.

There is no justification for the murder of a Palestinian, but neither was there any justification for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers for which it was unwarranted revenge. And attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks from there on Israel. If the reaction is more effective than the original attacks, and if more civilians are killed, it still remains the appropriate response to the war being waged against Israel. And it is nothing less than war. According to the UN Charter, there is an “inherent right” of self-defense against armed attack. Those who view Israel's actions as “disproportionate” haven't been able to prescribe a more reasonable answer to Hamas's aggression, and to its declared determination to eliminate Israel.

Taking the side of the Palestinians out of concern for those flaunting their weakness is simply the bias of a party more concerned about the appearance of right than about right itself. (And by extension it raises questions about the objectivity of other opinions from the same source. I have in mind The New York Times.)

Additionally, the following AP report was on my was on Home Page this morning:

In the first indication that cease-fire efforts were underway, the office of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said he held "extensive contacts with all active and concerned parties" to end the fighting. It said the two sides discussed the "critical conditions and the need to stop all military action, and to stop the slide" toward more violence. It called on Israel to protect Palestinian civilians.

It apparently never occurred to him to call upon Hamas to stop using civilians as shields when their troops were sending rockets against Israel.

Sadly, this has been the pattern of coverage for many years. And it has been the default strategy of the Arab world as well. There has never been a willingness to accept a Jewish State by the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, many of those countries were created by western powers and they question the borders set for themselves as well. Although the inclination is to blame Israel for all of the unrest in the region – and elsewhere, it is difficult to connect Israel with the problems in Syria or Iraq or in other countries. To a great degree, the invective against the Jewish State serves the purpose of distracting the citizens of a nation ruled by tyrants. And the “meek” will join together to conquer the strong, and to “inherit” the world – which they will do until they begin fighting among themselves.

It's hard to see an end to the situation. The amount of distrust between the countries in the area, and the repetition of the accusations and lies and incitements to new generations makes any solution unlikely. The only hope is that the world will finally understand that the acceptance of wrong because it sounds good, and comes from those who control the fossil fuels they need, will never lead to peace. And when the media, and the world that they inform, recognize that the only path is one in which tyrants are discouraged from inciting violence, we'll have a chance.

But until then we'll blame those who refuse to give in, and there will be invective, war, and casualties. It sells newspapers.

Social Socialism

“Good job, Charlie Brown.”

It used to be “You're a good man, Charlie Brown” but now everyone is complimented for doing a “good job.” It doesn't matter what the job is or how well it's been done, there is nothing more important than building up the self-esteem of whomever you're praising.ⁱ Everyone's a winner. And everyone will receive a certificate to prove it.

We're all equal. The Founding Fathers said we were so we have made it an article of faith.ⁱⁱ Whether or not we recognize it to be true – in terms of physical characteristics, intellect, social status, and the like – we pretend that it's the fact, and we take issue with those who may feel otherwise. Even if their evidence might be convincing.

We are so intent on making everyone equal, and making sure that we do not offend them with the implication that they are anything less, that we have invented a language inoffensive to anyone, and supportive of everyone. We're hoping that we can replace bias with respect by altering what we say to words that will instill within us a positive view of all around us. It's our wish that by eliminating unwanted words we can rid ourselves of unwanted thoughts.ⁱⁱⁱ The Constitution may delegitimize censorship by the government, but society has made us censor ourselves. And if we do not do so, those who hear our words will certainly make our error evident to us.

So to a degree, for example, we assuage our own guilt^iv and cater to the wishes of Blacks by calling them “African Americans,” even if that term is inaccurate.^v,vi And we guarantee minorities and other oppressed groups equality by providing them with perks denied to those not in “protected classes.” We have substituted equality of results for equality of opportunity,^vii and that has become the new American Way, whether or not it corresponds to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

But the decision to legislate protected classes means that those not so defined are unprotected. Me, for example. I'm Jewish, however past prejudice against the Jews which permeated American society for so long, and current (increasing) anti-Semitism, require no apology or preference.^viii So I don't look for them. I'm not in a protected class.

Surely there were problems with our founding documents – and, in terms of our legal system, I'm referring to the Constitution – their correction is supposed to be by amendment, not fiat. Thus slavery and the three-fifths of a person clause were eliminated by such action. But when a favored philosophy is not matched by amendment, it becomes the resolve and the responsibility of Congress or the courts to correct the situation.^ix

A good example of this approach is Affirmative Action. In 1961, President Kennedy, in Executive Order 10925, prohibited the use of federal funds for projects unless there were provisions to “take affirmative action” regarding the hiring and employment practices for the projects with an aim of ensuring that they are free of racial bias. Since that time, by the acts of Congress and the decisions of the courts, the thrust of the idea shifted from one of preventing racial bias, to the positive act of ensuring minimal quotas^x for members of particular protected classes. There has been no Constitutional Amendment dealing with this problem, but that has not stopped our judges, Congressmen, or the President. Not all have favored the conduct as practiced,^xi but the various departments of government have not been shy about weighing in on the matter, even while proclaiming that equality^xii and justice^xiii are American characteristics. An unfortunate (though unintended) result of the practice is that some students assume that any member of a protected class benefited from preference received due to membership in that class and would not have been admitted otherwise.^xiv The most gifted of minority students, therefore, is often viewed as having received a free pass. It's a less than ideal way of ending bias.

And, in a way, it's not in keeping with the Constitution, common law, or American ideals either. We value property and, Robin Hood notwithstanding, we don't endorse taking the property of one person and giving it to another. We call that theft. But that's what taking a college admission or any other award from one more deserving and giving it to one less so – in the interests of diversity, self-esteem or whatever – boils down to. “Theft” is a rather strong word, but this kind of redistribution so as to promote “equality” or some other social goal is the equivalent. It's taking from one and giving to another. It's socialism.

Whether that's good or bad is not the issue. But it is an example of the philosophy that the end justifies the means. It is proof that in front of every silver lining is a cloud. Charlie Brown may have done a good job, however it is not clear that we're following his example. Unless we've reached the point where we place too little value on merit, but too much on feelings.

Next episode:  "Day Of Unrest" -- The evil good does lives after it.

I        It's usually a child who is being praised – whose fragile self-image requires strengthening.

ii        Actually, that's a bad term. We don't want to violate the First Amendment by suggesting that we believe anything. Yet “equality” is difficult to prove, and scientific proof is acceptable while faith, which is, after all, a religious concept, is unconstitutional.

iii       It worked in Oceania.

iv        Over the slavery that ended a century-and-a-half ago, and over the prejudice that has persisted.

v        Someone who has moved from Capetown to Cape May is an African American, irrespective of his race. The definition both devalues the language and misleads. If our intent is to identify those who are descendents of African Blacks, we should say so. One of the reasons for such labeling is discussed below.

vi       In addition to the example used, we have also rendered our language genderless, corrected Columbus's error by correcting the term “Indian” and replacing it with “Native American,” and, in general, condemned the use of “hate speech.” That speech is usually considered anything that someone doesn't want to hear.

vii      It is not enough that everyone can participate in the race; everyone has to be a “winner,” whether last or first. The one who reaches the finish line first is no better than the one who is last, and can take no special pride in his accomplishment – an accomplishment which we have devalued. His self-esteem is less important than that of those who are less talented.

viii     I really should be protected however. If an individual who had one Black grandparent (or less) is considered an African American for the purpose of benefits, it is clear that membership in a protected group relates to the genes inherited from one's predecessors. For some purposes, women are protected and half my ancestors were women. And if that's not enough, I'm a descendent of “Lucy” (No, not Charlie Brown's friend) so (at least) one of my ancestors was African.

ix       At least in their view. The “Women's Rights” amendment may not have passed but we have already found ways to accomplish some of its goals.

x         In the past, quotas were used to exclude. Now the opposite is the case.

xi        See Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, 438 US 265, which took issue with some of the methods used by the U of C in choosing among candidates. Nonetheless it upheld the principle of affirmative action.

xii       In this instance the equality is clearly of results, not opportunity. Bakke was rejected while minority candidates with lesser qualifications were accepted in the interests of “diversity.” The reason given was his age – Bakke was in his early thirties and age discrimination was acceptable at the time. The courts decided that in his particular case admission was warranted, although the concept of affirmative action was not overturned.

xiii      The form of justice that says that everyone should get more (of whatever) and the rich should pay for it. That's fair, isn't it?

xiv      And having been told all their lives that they have been doing a good job, and that they are winners, the idea that they might have less than a 4.0 GPA is unacceptable. It's the professor's fault, not theirs.

The Immoral Equivalent

According to this morning's news reports, someone kidnapped an Arab youth and killed him. It was believed that this was in retaliation for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers. While it's too early to know precisely what happened, if what is now believed to be true was, in fact, the case, the perpetrator was (or the perpetrators were) stupid. I think I understand the grief of the one(s) responsible, but the best construction that can be put on the act is that it resulted from a misplaced desire for revenge – a random act of retaliation – a reaction unmediated by rational thought; the worst construction is that it was a planned execution by a murderer looking for an excuse. Tit-for-tat will not bring back the three who were already murdered. More likely it will instigate further acts of violence and revenge. And the punishment of someone who had nothing to do with the original crime cannot be seen as appropriate retribution for what had happened.

More important than the fact that the revenge was stupid, however, is the fact that it was wrongⁱ and immoral. Neither murder can be justified. Judaism may not believe in turning the other cheek, but it does not accept the concept of murder – irrespective of the reason. Talonic law is understood to refer to monetary penalties rather than any physical act. True, the death penalty exists in the Bible for, among others, murderers, but, with only a single exception,ⁱⁱ it has been outlawed by the Israeli government. Even the go'el ha'dam, the “avenger of blood,” a member of the family of the victim, could only act against a convicted murderer – and that ancient practice is not permitted by Israeli law.

Following the Holocaust, we have adopted a philosophy that tells us that we can “never again” permit the murder of our people. But the responsibility for enforcing this doctrine belongs to the government, not to individuals. We cannot condone murder under any circumstances. We must not sink to the level of those who do. Some see “moral equivalence”ⁱⁱⁱ between the actions of Israel and the terrorists from the surrounding states and entities, but it is an equivalence which ordinarily doesn't exist. In this case however the murders on both sides are inexcusable.

Is there any hope that there can be an end to the conflict taking place in Israel/Palestine? If there is, it is dim. As Bret Stephens put it in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “As for the Palestinians and their inveterate sympathizers in the West, perhaps they should note that a culture that too often openly celebrates martyrdom and murder is not fit for statehood, and that making excuses for that culture only makes it more unfit. Postwar Germany put itself through a process of moral rehabilitation that began with a recognition of what it had done. Palestinians who want a state should do the same.” As long as Palestinian children are taught to hate and to kill Jews,^iv there is little likelihood that the situation will change.^v It seems more likely that they will teach the same philosophy to their children and the conflict will continue.

We are all made in G-d's image. The murder of the Palestinian youth is indefensible. It was wrong and there is no way to defend it. It was immoral.

But acts like this can be expected as long as the teaching of hatred continues.

I        Apologies to Dr. Seuss.

ii       Adolf Eichmann was executed in 1962 for crimes during the Holocaust.

iii        William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” 1906.

iv       And to become “martyrs” in the process.

v        According to WikiPedia, “[Bill] Maher is critical towards organized religion as a whole, but believes that 'all religions are not alike.' Maher says there is something different about Islam, in that 'there is no other religion that is asking for the death' of people who dare to criticize it.”