Just The Facts Ma'am

That's all Joe Friday ever wanted. Just the facts. But I think he was asking more of people than they could give. His aim was to take all opinion out of the story being relayed to him. The only thing he was interested in was a description of the events that the witness observed. Just the facts.

That's not how things work however. Distinctions between “fact”ⁱ and “belief” may be difficult to identify, and there are also the problems of “opinion”ⁱⁱ and previous experiences unrelated to the current question entirely, but governing the way one interprets it. Not to mention confabulation and prevarication secondary to potential benefit from remembering an event in a way favorable to one of the participants, or fear of the consequences of an accurate recounting of what was observed.

And all of this presumes that the observer is accurate and remembers what he saw. But that's not at all certain.ⁱⁱⁱ What we see is based on what we expect to see, what we want to see,^iv and what we have seen in the past, as much as what has actually taken place. Numerous studies call into question the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Juries may believe the word of an “honest citizen” rather that of a “criminal,” but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One of society's big problems nowadays^v is bullying. The most obvious kind relates to physical abuse, but it's not the most common. Chalk that up to verbal violence.^vi One child will belittle the ideas of another as evidence of his own superiority, often using “facts” that he has made up. Whether we agree with his view or not is beside the point. We may not believe there is a Tooth Fairy, but that is not proof that there is none; we may personally doubt the existence of Santa Claus, but as Francis Church pointed out to Virginia,^vii in fact, there is one. Scientific documentation may not always be obtainable, and it is not always necessary.

The most important question then is what constitutes a fact. The word itself is from the Latin factum – something done – and, consequently, refers to something that is true: provable, demonstrable, observable, repeatable, and has predictive value.^viii Most of the definitions are variations on this idea – that a fact is true and verifiable.

But that's not all on the subject. For example, Collins's World English Dictionary^ix includes in its definition of fact: “philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement,” and, when it comes to legal issues, “(q)uestions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge.” And one of the statements of the Merriam Webster Third New International Dictionary^x is that a fact is a statement “purporting to contain something having objective reality.” Purporting. So the claim that something is a fact doesn't make it true, and it doesn't guarantee that it should be believed. Label something as a fact, though, and most people will consider you a fool if you don't accept it. Evaluation is no longer necessary.^xi Once everyone believes something is a fact, it is a fact.

But, as James Randi said, “No amount of belief makes something a fact.”^xii Randi has spent his life disproving beliefs, maintaining that only scientifically approved facts are worthy of acceptance. Facts like the four elements and phlogiston. Facts like the centrality of the earth in the universe. And, of course, facts about matters visible to all and known by all – like the fact that the earth is flat. That's certainly reproducible. But not all of science's past judgments are still believed.

For facts are really beliefs, some of which have mathematical or scientific basis and some of which are demonstrable and observable. But there are other facts for which there is no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean they are untrue. There were electrons before they were first demonstrated, and the sun was the center^xiii of our solar system even before Copernicus, but we couldn't prove it. And there were cells before Hooke, and laws of physics before Newton. There was even Truth before there was mathematics.

But we consider facts to be theories until we have the tools to “prove” them. Whether the proof is by direct visualization or an inference from mathematical theory, it takes a tool^xiv to make something into a fact. And it takes belief, Randi notwithstanding.

For some, the written word constitutes fact. Will Rogers averred: “All I know is just what I read in the papers.”^xv Unfortunately newspapers have their own agendas, and most reporters adjust their dispatches to coincide with the publication's philosophy. And many – “advocacy journalists” – present their own biases intermixed with the hard news. Even stories of scientific advances are notoriously unreliable.

Others prefer to make their own decisions without direction from journalists who may be biased. All they want to see are the pictures, whose content they'll judge for themselves. No captions are necessary. They ignore the fact that the pictures may be censored by some regimes, and those that do appear in the papers are chosen by the same people they don't trust for text. And Photoshop has ended the reliability of photos forever.

What, then, are facts? The best I can do is to view them as strongly held beliefs which may or may not have evidence to support them. Skeptics like Randi will often dispute the evidence anyway, but no one is required to accept his definition of truth any more than he accepts that of others. Before Einstein, Newton's laws of physics were indisputable. Who knows if Einstein's will be disproved. What we now believe science proves, may ultimately be shown to be wrong, but we are not compelled to use the scientific playing field in any case. The spiritual field is just as valid, as is the perspective of a particular culture. Facts are not as cut and dried as Sgt. Friday would have us believe.^xvi Nor are beliefs.

One thing is clear however. No amount of fact invalidates a belief. Even Randi's belief in the incontestable credibility of science.

Next episode: “Proportionality” – The measure of all things can't be measured.

I        As will become clear, I don't always place what people call “facts” in high esteem. I usually view them as having scare quotation marks, but using those at all times would be unwieldy in an essay of this sort. So don't look for them, but understand that I often don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

ii        Some might even say bias.

iii        You can fool some of the people all of the time.

iv        And we remember what we want to remember.

v        It's not a new problem at all, but all of a sudden it's become one of our major concerns. We should have dealt with it a long time ago.

vi       The persistence of this form of abuse into marriage is beyond the scope of this endeavor.

vii      Editorial in the New York Sun, September 21, 1897.

viii     Actually that's not completely accurate (though it will do for our purposes). “Fact,” comes from “factum” derived from Latin facere, and describes something that has happened. Already. So it's not really a fact that “the sun will come up tomorrow” – despite Annie's protestations. Based on our experience, however, we believe it to be true. But fact and truth are not synonyms.

ix       www.collinsdictionary.com

x        Springfield, Massachusetts, 1971.

xi       You can fool all of the people some of the time.

xii      http://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/no-amount-belief-makes-something-fact-james-randi

xiii     Well not really the center, but close enough. Certainly all the planets rotate around it. As far as we know.

xiv      Like a magnifying glass or electron microscope.

xv      Rogers only feigned his simplistic trust. He knew the papers were full of nonsense and used them as a comic prop. In fact, he viewed “just what I read in the papers” as “an alibi for my ignorance.”

xvi      You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Sharing And Caring

According to the Washington Post a few weeks ago (August 1, 2014), “The United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas – and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it's fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an 'emergency' meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its [sic] rockets.”

Without specifying who might be responsible of individual acts, Commissioner Pillay suggested that the deaths of Palestinian civilians might represent war crimes. Crimes, of course, attributable to Israel.

Not surprisingly there were howls of rage from around the world, and a lot of laughing, too. The idea that one side in a war should share its weapons or defense systems with its enemy seemed to be parody rather than reality. But with time to consider the implications of the idea and its justification, it becomes clear that the accusation by Commissioner Pillay is both logical and rational. Indeed, it is so obvious that one is hard put to understand why it has taken this long for it to be expounded. The problem, however, is that with Jewish control of the media there will never be a fair hearing given to the Islamic perspective. And since there are far more Muslims in the world than Jews it makes sense to understand that perspective. For it is much more in line with International law than the rationalizations given by an outlaw state that was admitted to the U.N. in a moment of weakness.

Let's review the law. Islamic and Jewish law apply. International law, in accordance with Sharia, recognizes all lands ever occupied by Muslims as Islamic – whether or not there are Muslims there at present. (It is axiomatic that Islamic presence, however it was achieved and in whatever numbers, qualifies a country as Islamic.) And there is a mandate to wipe out the Jews. As the Koran says, "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” (Note that it is “the Jews” who are to be eliminated, not the Israelis. It's a worthy goal, but at the moment the primary enemy for us all is Israel.) If Muslim civilians die during the hostilities they are martyrs, even if they are being used unwillingly by honorable jihadists as cover for military actions.

Jewish law, however, forbids killing. It's one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the killing of soldiers during a war is understandable, though not forgivable, but the murder of civilians, or their death resulting from the hostilities, cannot be justified no matter what rationalizations the Jews make. Civilians must be protected at all times. So the deaths of those not in uniform when photographed by Hamas photographers or properly screened colleagues constitute war crimes. Commissioner Pillay was right.

How can such a situation be addressed? It's unlikely that the outlaw nation will stop responding to missiles launched against their people from Gaza, even if the death of civilians is inevitable. But the deaths of Palestinian non-combatants can be limited if the Iron Dome system is used to protect them from misdirected Hamas rockets (the fire from Israeli planes is not the type for which the system is designed, but the poorly designed and inaccurate Hamas missiles intended to kill Israeli civilians sometimes fall in Gaza and kill Muslims). That must be the meaning of “its rockets,” the terminology in the original statement. When Israel, which has Muslim citizens (making it an Islamic state subject to Sharia), does not protect Gazans from Hamas rockets it is committing a war crime. Indeed, defending itself at all is repugnant.

The U.N. and the world are right in condemning Israel for its actions. Their advantage over the Muslims is unfair and fully deserving of our censure. As long as they exist they are obligated to ensuring the safety of those they battle.

The Death Of Archie Andrews

We were both born at about the same time, though he, like Adam,ⁱ started out full-grown – or, at least, as a teen-ager. And he never grew old.

I began as a baby and I'm considerably older now. I don't read comic books any longer but I was saddened when I learned from news reports that Archie had been killed. Life isn't fair.ⁱⁱ I know that over the years things have changed, but my memory hasn't moved on. The Archie Andrews I knew, like the one just shot, was young, though in my mind he hadn't matured philosophically in the way the comic book character did. He reflects the zeitgeist of my youth, rather than twenty-first century American culture. I aged but didn't change. He changed but didn't age.ⁱⁱⁱ

So I was saddened by his death. But I was horrified when I learned the circumstances. Apparently Archie took a bullet to protect his friend Kevin Keller,^iv a gay^v senator. (I never knew Kevin. I do remember, however, Jughead, Betty, Veronica, Reggie, and even Moose. And I remember sort of humorous depictions of High School life.) Senator Keller was an advocate of gun control which, whatever its merits, was never an issue when I was reading comic books.^vi Life was simpler then, and childhood was childhood.

When I was young comics told a story. They might have been humorous, or action, or even love. But they were stories. I guess there were messages in them, but when that was the case they were more reflections of common culture or dreams as they were, than prescriptions for what should be.

It seems that the comics no longer cater to the imagination, but are more involved in indoctrination into modern (liberal) thought – like newspapers and the rest of what we're feeding them. The funny papers are no longer funny. The escape from reality for which we turned to the comics has been replaced by “real” life and the lessons of how we should respond to it. It is the catechism of what should be. It's never too early to start teaching those lessons.

I guess that's a good thing. Shielding children from what used to be adult concerns is paternalistic. It's more important that we introduce them to the world that we have created. And the earlier the better. They have to be prepared. So even before it's born, we speak to the developing fetus (if it isn't our choice to abort it), and direct musical sound waves through the amniotic fluid. All the while we eschew good food in favor of that which is nourishing, and wine and coffee in favor of bottled water and organic green tea.

But it's certainly worth the sacrifice, as are the “Baby Mozart” and “Baby Einstein”^vii which we begin soon after the birth of the new being. And we're sure to register our offspring as early as possible in the finest pre-K and prep school.^viii Just as being a child has changed so much since the time I experienced it, so too have the responsibilities of parenting.

I can't help thinking, though, that we're making a mistake in both cases. We're too caught up in the fads, fashions, and, sadly, the fallacies of our times. We're too intent on making sure our children are prepared for the world in which we live to let them enjoy the one in which they live.

Mr. Weatherbee and Miss Grundy may no longer be redeemable, but our children are; comics may not be the highest form of art that we know, but it's the one to which children can relate. The modern “improvement,” “graphic novels” are fine for adults who want to pretend that they're reading, and they're as good a place as any for teaching cultural values and for presenting political propaganda, but we should leave it to them. Kids just want to have fun. Whether the stories are silly or fantastic and unrealistic, the comic stories of old were fun. There was plenty of time afterward to learn about what were viewed, a few years ago, as adult concerns.

The Archie Andrews I remember from the time I was young and reading comic books got into a lot of scrapes with his classmates and had some flirtations with his girl friends. Neither he nor I was “grown up,” and the situations we faced were straightforward issues of “right” and “wrong” unencumbered with the moral issues of the day.

But those days are past. We can't lose time. Childhood is the optimal time for learning and we can't waste it. There's no time for black and white, only gray – because that's what is. There is no right and wrong. Parents^ix are now weighed down with the cultural issues of the twenty-first century, and they're taking their children down with them. Archie Andrews is dead.

Fortunately my memory of what he used to be isn't.

Next episode:   “Just The Facts Ma'am" -- If such exist.


 

I        And Topsy.

ii       But I'll discuss that sad fact in a few weeks.

iii      Actually he did age, but not all that much. And it was more spiritual and emotional than physical.

iv       The only Keller I knew in those days was Charlie. He played for the Yankees. But King Kong died, at the age of 74, almost a quarter of a century before Archie.

v       Homosexual. Not the cheerful, optimistic, devil-may-care personality which characterized the Archie Andrews I knew years ago.

vi       Nor was premarital sex, though I read somewhere that Archie was thinking about marrying the mother of his child.

vii      In reality, which we think we're teaching, these programs have not been shown to be of any benefit. Except to the companies that make money from them, and to the parents who feel virtuous spending that money.

viii     We may even notify the college of the heritage who will be coming their way in the future, and the contribution that will accompany him or her.

ix       And comic book artists.

They

Whoever they are, they're out to get me. They're out to get all of us. They've been doing it for a long time, too. And it's not a mistake. They're doing it on purpose. I know that because every day I see, on my computer home page and in my internet files, links to all the things they don't want me to know – whether it's secrets about diets, car insurance, debt forgiveness, or whatever. I also hear about companies that can get the IRS off my back or even help me beat the police who catch me speeding. Doctors are the worst offenders. They know of lots of cures for our maladies, but they're hiding them. If we're healthy they can't make money. Fortunately, their conspiracy has been discovered and revealed by dedicated practitioners of alternative therapies.

I know it's true. It doesn't take a genius to know that conspiracies are rife in our society. I'm a good person, and the things going on all around me are mostly aimed at getting my money or, worse, getting me. If we Americans are the most litigious people around, it's because we're tired of being taken by people who are getting away with murder,ⁱ and the only way we can get back at themⁱⁱ is to sue them. After all, the problems that we have are their fault. They're certainly not ours. We're not to blame or anything that goes wrong. They've been putting it over on us for a while. Just look at Amazon.com and you'll find lots of books detailing all the things they don't want us to know. Even Amazon isn't clean.ⁱⁱⁱ And the really juicy stuff is on all of the TV shows and movies I see. There are lots of really bad people out there. You can't trust anyone.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg – the nickel and dime stuff. The real conspirators, the ones causing the most mayhem in our country, are members of the government. They're worse than the Mafia and the cable company. They're often acting against other government officials in a vast effort to sell us out or take over for themselves. Think about the Kennedy assassination for example. The Warren Commission whitewashed it, but anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the FBI had a hand in it. And 9/11 was obviously a governmental ploy to stir up everyone against the Muslims in general and the Arabs in particular. It worked, by the way.

Another thing. I'll bet that lots of our officials made a bundle on the Madoff ponzi scheme and on the bank bailout. People don't run for office because they're public-spirited. They do it to get in on the good things that people in the know can wheedle. They do it to become part of the vast network of cabals all around us. We may not know about all of them, but those in politics are in on how they work, and how to get a piece of the action. Sure there are all sorts of investigations, but they only target the low-level types; the people really responsible are never revealed or, if they are known, they're never convicted.

And don't get me started on Area 51 and Roswell, New Mexico. The government doesn't want us to know the truth about the aliens. Perhaps they think it's for our own good^iv that we don't find out, but they've a lot of our fellow citizens involved in the coverup. “Transparency” may be the buzzword of the day, but don't expect government officials to reveal their co-conspirators. The business they're in is too satisfying and too rewarding.

But I sell the others short when I suggest that conspiracy is an American invention. There are too many coverups of which we know, and too many that we don't. For example, everyone is aware that aliens have been coming to earth for millennia. The crop circles, cave paintings, rock formations, and possibly even the introduction of human life, attest to the visit to earth of outsiders. Contrived explanations just don't wash.

And what about the Jews? There's a group of plotters if I ever saw one.^v After coming up with a fake religion and engaging in deicide, they moved on to poisoning the wells, starting plagues, and killing Christian children for their blood. Nowadays they're giving AIDS to the Muslims and killing them whenever they can make up an excuse. It's part of their plot to take over the earth. They already control most governments, the banking system, Hollywood, and the media. We only know what they want us to know.

Even they have competition though. Other schemers include the communists and the CIA (who are probably working together) and people like Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Abraham (does that name tell you anything?) Quisling, Kim Philby, Deep Throat, Bradley (Chelsea!) Manning, and Edward Snowden. They're all around us and spying on us. We can't trust Google, our GPS, or anyone who has a computer. Or anyone who doesn't.^vi

We need an orderly society, one where everyone is in agreement, like the one described by George Orwell. We need a big brother who will protect us from all of them. But they won't let that happen. You never know who they^vii are but they're all around, whether we recognize them or not. And its them against us, so arm yourself.

Next episode: “The Death Of Archie Andrews” – I saw it in the funny papers.

I         I mean that figuratively, although I'm sure that sometimes it's literally the case. But I'm not discussing organized crime here. Lots of others also engage in this method of commerce.

ii        And their deep pockets. My lawyer tells me that they can afford it, and he'll be happy to help me fight the injustice.

iii       See “10 Things Amazon Doesn't Want You To Know” in the Huffington Post, June 25, 2012.

iv       Let's get real. They never do anything for our good. One way or another it's helping them – if only to avoid the embarrassment of the truth. Or maybe their supporters are worried about business losses that might result from people hunkering down. Never cross a lobbyist. Especially one who's supplying you or your campaign with money.

v        Lots of them change their names so you won't recognize them. They call it “assimilation,” but it's really infiltration. The goal is to take over our countries and it's easier from the inside. They try to pass as loyal citizens wherever they are, but we know better.

vi       You don't really believe them, do you? They're lying to you. Of course they have one. And it's connected to a cloud that's not accessible to you.

vii      That's why I haven't said who “they” are. I don't know who they are but I know they're there. Their actions are a tip off.

The Science Of G-d

I used to be confused.

I used to wonder about the evidence that put all that I had learned about my religion into question; about the “higher biblical criticism” that tried to tear down the meaning of the Bible and convert its contents into a work of literature. There were also occasional archeological findings which corresponded to biblical accounts, but a lot of questions remained unanswered. So I continued to wonder.

Then I read a book entitled “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroederⁱ and I no longer wonder. My attitude has changed.

Schroeder demonstrates, using Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics that the gulf that I once thought existed may not be as real as I had believed (!) – that the two are compatible. I no longer wonder. Science has provided the tools to show that belief is not irrational – that there is evidence for biblical claims and a reasonable and logical explanation for some of the most troubling assertions which may be found in the Bible.

But I regret the work I just read because it is an apologetic which is based on a perceived need to show that compatibility – between science and religion – and it is an attempt to show that belief is factually justified.

That, however, changes it from belief to knowledge. So as reassuring as the “facts” are, I resent them. They make religion rational, and that's not what it's all about. Schroeder has picked up the scientists' cudgel, rather than throwing down one of his own. He has accepted and validated their language and decided that theirs is the appropriate playing field. He leaves room for scientific refutation of his views when he might have pointed out that such arguments are irrelevant. And that's a mistake – it's better to accept “their” scientists' problemsⁱⁱ than “our” scientists' solutions.

Can we “know” what Hashem “wants?” No. Can we figure it out? The more scientific discoveries that are announced – discoveries which demonstrate a correlation with the Bible – the more it becomes obvious that belief, not science, should be the benchmark. Science is merely catching up. Yet we glory in those discoveries, and that defeats the entire purpose of religion, for we have accepted the scientific point of reference. We've “shown them,” using their own tools.

Of course the rationalists find the religious perspective incomprehensible. They have challenged believers to demonstrate its rationality.ⁱⁱⁱ But they have not been challenged to adopt a spiritual approach to their positions. We accept their perspective while they reject ours. It's not what is currently referred to as a “level playing field.” Scientists, although they rely heavily on belief today,^iv contend that no belief makes no sense. Theirs certainly doesn't, for while living by it, they deny its existence.

There are three kinds of belief. Belief is not monolith any more than science. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The first type of belief (literally) is the kind demonstrated by a child. It reflects an acceptance of what he was taught by parent or teacher. It was usually presented without any counter argument and there was no reason to question it. It is fact! “How do I know? The Bible tells me so.” For many, this childish kind of belief persists throughout life. There are certain unquestionable truths which you believe (know) to be correct because that's what you've always been told and in your circles it's an accepted truth.

Others see “facts”^v as the basic building blocks of belief. Indeed, they actually reject the term “belief,” preferring to designate their views as “knowledge.” It is the belief of the scientist. It is “adult” belief, requiring proof.^vi But it's really not very different from a child's belief. It's an unshakable conviction based on what you've been told “and in your circles it's an accepted truth.” The one major difference from the certainty of a child is that this scientific “belief,” however convincing it may be, is subject to change at a moment's notice. All it takes is a new fact, and a new belief will be substituted for the old. Without second thought or embarrassment. Belief is both absolute and infinitely changeable.

There is also the belief of the convinced convert, and the individual who has “strayed” from the path which he may^vii have been taught as a child. Many of these people have come to the conclusion that the path they have chosen to follow is the “true” one. Whether or not they have good evidence to support their new beliefs, they have no doubts about their veracity.

And so it seems that everyone has some belief about religion – whether it is a belief in it's validity or it's falsity; whether a belief that spirituality or science holds all the answers.

But that's not the case. There are many who aren't certain. We call them “agnostics” (without knowledge) because we are wedded to fancy Greek terminology, but suggesting that they uniformly lack knowledge or belief is not accurate. Indeed, some of them are very well educated on the issues, but confused about the ultimate answers. And some of them are very observant of their religions, whether from a desire to maintain traditions, even if they don't fully accept them, or out of the hope that they are correct and the wish to be on the “winning” side.^viii

But many agnostics believe that no one can have actual knowledge of the existence or absence of G-d. And in this respect they're right. After all, that's what belief is. There's no point in using science to give evidence one way or the other. Even if that were possible – which it isn't – it would be counterproductive. Efforts to do so, like those of Schroeder, may have some didactic value, but they have noting to do with belief.

So I remain confused. But I now realize that I can never have answers, and that that's the way it should be.

Next episode: ““Rules” – They're clear but you're not.
 

I        Broadway Books, New York, 1979.

ii       The scientists can't really explain the origin of the laws of science which they expound, or the source of the speck which, at the time of the “Big Bang” served as the “ancestor” of the universe. They dance around their problems or leave them for future generations.

iii      The idea that they challenge believers to prove the rationality of their religious views is silly, and simply shows that they have no concept of what religion is.

iv       “Logic,” “evidence,” and “theory” are among the terms scientists now use to reflect belief just as they once believed in alchemy and the like. As it says in Ecclesiastes (which, by the way, is a religious book), “there is nothing new under the sun.” That's the same sun that they once believed rotated around the earth.

v        What is a “fact?” That requires a separate discussion, which I plan to engage in sometime in the near future. But, in short, it's something its proponent believes to be provable, or so obvious that it requires no proof.

vi       As such, of course, it is not more than belief in the actuality of what they consider facts. As we have seen, today's facts are tomorrow's “old wives tales.” (N.B. I do not wish to demean old wives. Nor, for that matter, old husbands, of which I am one.)

vii      Or may not. The childhood religious education of some is lacking. But after considering the various options, and often based on study on their own, some decide that their own religion makes the most sense.

viii     Pascal's Wager is an example of this kind of approach.

What's In A Name?

 

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's a long monicker for a newborn baby, but that's the name that my daughter and son-in-law, who live in Jerusalem, chose to hang on their youngest son.

It happened just a few days ago at his bris — a ritual circumcision which is the first rite of passage of a Jewish boy. The ceremony, on the eighth day of his life, is one in which he is welcomed into the religion and the time when he is named.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's likely that he isn't the only child so designated, for it contains the given names of the three boys murdered a few days earlier by terrorists in Israel. It was the trigger for the fighting that followed, although in reality there had been much provocation earlier with rockets sent from Gaza to kill whatever Israelis they might find. Precise aim was not an issue. It was not a critical capability of the weapons of terror, and it wasn't all that important who got killed. The more important point was that those rockets were intended to attract return fire, fire that would kill and maim those in Gaza — both terrorists and the civilians they used as shields — in order to attract the world's attention. Those killed in Gaza would be "martyrs," and they should be grateful that they were accorded the "honor" of dying in the war against Israel.

All wars have soldiers, and many are volunteers. But there are also a large number who are drafted. The typical draftee is young, in his late teens or early twenties, and male. He is chosen because it is assumed that he will be a fit warrior, and he is trained for this task, as well as armed for it. In this instance there are numerous unnamed draftees, civilians neither trained nor armed for their duties.

And all wars have what is euphemistically called "collateral damage," those inadvertently killed while the battle is raging. Inadvertently. Their deaths may be inevitable but are unintended and undesired. In this war, however, the collateral damage is the goal. The fewer fighters among the terrorists who are killed and the more civilians the better. They, the unwilling draftees, are the martyrs who will show the world the justice of their cause. They may not choose such a role for themselves, but the choice is not theirs. And the presence of any protection, such as shelters, would be counterproductive — so none are available.

Accordingly, three teenaged Israeli boys were abducted and murdered. It was one of many provocations but the one that led to the current hostilities. And it was one that brought all of the citizens of Israel together. It united a country that had many internal disputes. Political disagreements and religious differences in Israel were of no consequence. Everyone prayed for them together when they were reported missing. And everyone mourned them when their fate was known. We do not know the names of their killers because that is irrelevant. We will name no streets or squares after the boys or after the terrorists who killed them. That may be the practice of those who would like to see us destroyed, but it is not our way. We will name babies after our sons, and we will do our best to ensure the safety of our other children. And we will punish those among us who adopt the inhuman practices of our enemies. They are not our heroes. They are our enemies — the adversaries of all we believe.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. My youngest grandson and, I hope, a representative of a future of peace in a region that has always known war. My children and grandchildren live each day in the midst of the war, as do millions of others. And they bear and rear children despite it. It's a fact of life. I only pray that those who place death before life will realize the folly of their acts and renounce them. I'm not hopeful of such an event, but prayer is all I can offer.

I Was Wrong

It's hard for me to admit it, but that's the reality and I have to fess up.

I believed that notwithstanding the corruption and immorality in which they participated, politicians were basically good people, like the rest of us. Any missteps simply reflected their humanity. As I said. They were like the rest of us, and they were basically good people.

I used to believe that their major advantages over us – the ones that helped them to succeed as our representatives – were that they were knowledgeable about the way government should work and the way it does work. And they were well informed about the issues that confronted us – so much so that they could lead us to a higher level of humanity, and fruitful participation in world affairs, and they would do so even if they had to disregard our views in the quest of our betterment.ⁱ I believed that their actions would be well-considered and the result of honest deliberation and the agreement of all parties.

My failure resulted from trust. Like all good liberals,ⁱⁱ I believed that human nature was something that was inherently good, and would lead us to better ourselves. And I believed that our leaders actually wanted to encourage us in this aim. Perhaps some do, but more and more I see them as the minority.

So however sad it made me, I was only a little surprised when I saw a headline in an inner section of the Wall Street Journal todayⁱⁱⁱ that read: “Senate Coalition Ends, Independent Democrats Shun GOP as Threats of Primary Election Loom Large.” As it turns out, the article was addressing the situation in the New York State Senate, not the national Senate, but the principles are the same. I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs because I know the Journal to be as opinionated as all papers, and, knowing its politics, the rest of the article was predictable.^iv And I suspect that the facts it described were true, though I may have questioned the conclusions the reporter drew.^v

Actually, although I've always tried to repress it,^vi the truth is that we get what we deserve. And in one respect our representatives are just like us: their main philosophy is “I'm for me first.”

The first rule of politics is “Get elected!” The second is “Prepare for the next election.” If, in order to be reelected, you vote for something beneficial to your community, so much the better – especially if, because of that, more of your constituents will vote for you next time – but even so, that isn't nearly as important as whether the legislation improves the lot of your donors or, better still, you.

And it's also important to be sure that any high-minded legislation – designed to require citizens to help other groups get what they view as benefits^vii – doesn't apply to you.^viii Exemption from the laws for which you vote is often required.^ix People should do what you say,^x not what you do. Because of the importance of your position, you're entitled to some benefits they'll lack. And taxpayers should be generous, especially to influential people and voting blocs, so if they don't see it that way, you should be generous for them. Benefits for large groups are certain to earn you their votes, and that's what it's all about .

So where was I wrong? I was too trusting. My belief in human nature was misplaced. The idea that politicians would impose on us the measures needed to improve our country were naïve. As I noted before, they're just like us and our inclinations are too venal. And the pols follow our lead. If the polls indicate that the public opposes something that would help it,^xi there's no politician who will vote for it – unless there's something in it for him or his supporters. And if, because it will be useful to vote for the legislation, he mustn't risk alienating the voters, so it's important to support some amendment that they'll see as benefiting them^xii – whether it does so or not. The politicians don't lead us to the Good. Only to their Good. Otherwise they follow us wherever we go.

Perhaps it's cynicism, but I'd always assumed that their basic inclination was to make things work. After all, as Bismarck said,^xiii “Politics is the art of the possible.” But less than two years later he said, “He who has his thumb on the purse has the power.”^xiv And that's the message the policians picked up on. I wasn't cynical enough. Doing the possible is not the goal. The purse^xv and the power are paramount. Doing the possible is counterproductive if it muddies the message that the voters want to hear. Ideological purity is to be preferred over cooperation with those having a different point of view with only two exceptions: when the cooperation will bring the politician or his backers a particular benefit, or when the polls indicate that it is for the purpose of achieving something that the voters want and which will prompt their support in the next election.

I trusted our representatives to combine their corruption with some regard for the voters as well as their votes. I was mistaken. It won't happen again.

 

Next episode: “How To Lose Friends And Influence Nobody" – No more Mr Nice Guy

I        “[Bill] Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, 'he only needs 51.' 'Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent — sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country — he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them.'” I may not agree with Maher on the issue, but the principle of politicians following their consciences rather than the views of their constituents exemplifies what I thought was the approach of most of our “representatives.” It's the “liberal” approach. Do for (to?) the people what you think is good for them, whether they like it or not. But I had hoped for more good will than I see there. And I had hoped that politicians would have a higher regard for the American People than Mr. Maher seems to have.

ii       I may have lapsed but that's the way I was brought up, and some beliefs from early childhood are hard to shake.

iii      Today is June 26, 2014.

iv       Since I didn't read the article I can't be absolutely sure I'm right, but I assume the Democrats were blamed for their partisanship. As I suggested, however, all papers prejudge situations and their reporters write stories that reflect the paper's slant. Had the article appeared in the New York Times with the same headline, the blame would have been laid at the feet of the Republicans.

v        When consulting the media for information (and when reading web-sites as well) the most important first step is to try to determine the source's perspectives and its biases. Everything it says – even if it sounds like a simple recitation of facts – will be spun to correspond, and should be understood to reflect those preconceived notions.

vi        And I was fooling myself when I did so.

vii     However harmful those “benefits” may be after the bureaucracy begins formulating rules for its administration. It's possible that they may be more restrictive than beneficial – but they sound good.

viii     You don't want for yourself the idiotic things uninformed voters demand. It doesn't matter if you restrict the voters. They're asking for it.

ix       They elected you. They deserve you. Make the rhetoric appealing and it doesn't matter what the facts are. But make sure that you don't suffer from their poor judgment. Leave an escape hatch for yourself.

x         Make them believe it was their idea.

xi       Never forget that the better the medicine is for you the worse it tastes, and the more you rebel at its administration.

xii      A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

xiii     In German: “Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen.” August 11, 1867. Cited inWikipedia.

xiv      May 21, 1869. Also said in German.

xv       Not just the money, but the votes that get them the job that will bring them the power and the money.