One, Two, Three … Ten

It's time for a little musar.ⁱ

I try not to be preachy. Even though I know that I'm always right, I try not to sermonize. I try not to guilt the reader into following “the true path.”

Today,ⁱⁱ however, the format changes. Today I'm a sentimental do-gooder. A few days ago I didn't do something that I knew was wrong.ⁱⁱⁱ Instead I did something I should.^iv It wouldn't have made a difference to anyone else but, while avoiding it made things a little more difficult for me, doing “the right thing” made me feel better. My “good angel” won out over the bad.^v

It will help to back up a little. Actually, more than a little. Nearly four millennia. Back to the time of Abraham who, according to the Bible, was the first to formulate the concept of a single G-d. That idea led to the establishment of Judaism, and from that sprang Christianity and Islam. In the first book of the Bible is a description of the “sacrifice”^vi of Isaac by Abraham. G-d “tested”^vii him, but when it became clear that he would carry out the command, an angel was dispatched to stop him. It was the last of ten tests, and Abraham passed them all.

But a better word to depict the situation would be “challenge.” A “test” usually has unknown results and is employed to demonstrate ability, or something else, to a third party – an outside judge. In this instance it seems clear that the point was to demonstrate to Abraham that he would obey G-d's commands. It was a challenge to him. The omniscient G-d knew what the result would be. He didn't need a test to determine that, but Abraham needed to gain the insight. He had to face up to the challenges put to him, and to be aware that he had done so.

And so do we. Whether in school or on the job, in a house of worship with a clergyman or at home with a spouse, or just among friends, we're challenged every day. Often the challenges represent goals set for us by others, sometimes they're just tests. I don't mean to minimize the significance of the expectations of others – often goals that they'd like to see us fail – but sometimes they're valid challenges. More important, though, are those we put to ourselves.

Perhaps we make resolutions each year that we're quick to violate – usually without much thought. All that's likely to cross our minds is that the resolution itself was dumb, ill-conceived. We should never have made it. It's impossible to keep and not really worth the effort. We lack discipline. We cannot achieve the important, but daunting, goals we set for ourselves. We aim high, but that may be the problem. It's easier to lower our expectations.

None of us is Abraham. Not even close. We'd never be able to confront the challenges imposed on him, but we don't have to. The ones that we can set for ourselves, our personal challenges, however, are difficult enough. They don't seem very exciting. And they sound like Sunday School lessons, but there's no minimizing either their difficulty or their importance. And even if they seem self-evident – things that everyone does – the chances are good that they don't do them, and neither do you.

Sometimes they're difficult, but often they're easy. Do you see a piece of paper on the floor? Pick it up. You don't have to tell anyone that you did it.^viii You know, and that should be enough. Or perhaps a closet door is open or a light has been left on in a room that's now unoccupied. Dealing with both those situations, and many more like them, is easy enough and helpful to someone. You may not know who, and that's not really important. You know that it is. When my children were growing up I made a list for them. It was a list of jobs that had to be done before Shabbat.^ix There were many specific jobs enumerated, but at the end of the list was one that was a little more free-form: “Whatever isn't on the list but you know deep down has to be done.” They had to identify the problem and solve it.

Some of the things that ought^x to be done provide a little more of a challenge. The temptation to cross the street against the light when there is no traffic is great. And you may feel like a fool for not doing so, especially since the purpose of any such law is to guarantee your safety and you know that it's safe. However the law is the law.^xi It's more difficult to make a full stop when you see the sign, to stay within the speed limit, and to remember to signal every time you change lanes or turn, but that's the law too. No matter how careful you are, breaking the law is, in its way, an act of anarchy.

Perhaps the biggest challenges, however, are when it comes to money. Not just in business, but even when you're filing your income tax.^xii And they're also there when you get too much change when making a purchase. You may discover it after you've left the store, but returning and repaying the cashier who made the mistake will help that person to keep the books straight and to keep his job. You may feel dumb, but you'll have accomplished a lot.

And a smile. I know that sounds stupid too, but it doesn't take all that much effort to cheer up those around you, and that will cheer you up too. The way you relate to those people is probably the best benchmark for proper behavior. That means no gossip – a very difficult challenge. It also means that you don't trade insults with others, or even answer back to their comments when they say something dumb – especially when it relates to politics or religion. Remember that you won't convince them and they won't convince you.^xiii All they can do is cause ulcers and enmity.

Sanctimonious? Holier-than-thou? Yeah, I know. Preachy?^xiv Sorry I subjected you to it, but I feel better now. I got it out of my system.^xv It won't happen again. I'm cleansed. I know some of the challenges I have to meet. Perhaps I'll even be successful some of the time.

How about you?

Next episode: “What To Do When The Envelope Pushes Back” – Not that anyone cares.

I        Ethical teaching. The word appears in Proverbs, 1:2, and is translated as “discipline” in “The Stone Edition Tanach” published by Artscroll/Mesorah, Brooklyn, 1996. Google^® it for more information.

ii        December 9, 2014

iii      What it was is really irrelevant.

iv       “Should,” itself, is a preachy word, but it conveys the sense I intend.

v        In the Jewish tradition, the terms are “good inclination” and “evil inclination” – yetzer hatov and yetzer harah. Freud would know them as superego and id (sort of). Nowadays we talk about “executive functions” in the frontal lobes.

vi       “Tested” is probably not the best word that could be used, but it is the translation generally encountered.

vii      Genesis, 22:1. According to Jewish tradition the Akeidah was the last of ten tests of faith

viii     As a matter of fact, acts like that have a greater significance when you keep them to yourself.

ix       The Jewish sabbath.

x        Another judgmental word.

xi      There's a basic precept (which is often ignored, but that's for another time) in Judaism that “the law of the land is the [religious] law.” While the situation may become somewhat more complicated when there is a conflict between secular and religious law, in most cases no such conflict exists, and we are obliged to follow the local and national regulations.

xii      Or when you're paying cash in order to avoid tax.

xiii    And whatever you do, never back anyone into a corner. All that “gotchas” produce is enemies.

xiv      Actually, preachy is in the ear of the beholder.

xv       Now I can be a curmudgeon again.

NYT – Politics As Usual

The day before yesterday President Obama delivered the 2015 State of the Union address.

Yesterday morning the New York Times, in its lead editorial,ⁱ commented on it. The editorial was strident, and while criticizing the Republicans for not “cooperating” (compromisingⁱⁱ) it warned against accommodation, and counseled the President to stand his ground; it recommended confrontation.

The approach it favors might be viewed by some as one of “my way or the highway,” cautioning as it does, against compromise.ⁱⁱⁱ Compromise, after all, is a “false promise.” Only Republicans should be expected to accept such a false promise since they cannot be trusted anyway.

While the Times supports the President in his dealings with Iran and with Palestine, that is consistent with this policy since he is not compromising – simply letting them have their way and follow their own timetables as they string us along.^iv Sadly, similar action is all too common. But discussing problems with Republicans is a step he should not take. He must not let them have their way^v and he should certainly not compromise. Whoever said “politics is the art of the possible”^vi was too willing to cooperate. Ideological purity is more important than accomplishments that may help your constituency.^vii At least for the Times. The preparation of a platform for the next election is the highest priority. The country be damned.

My letter of response appeared in today's Times.^viii

i         The circumstances facing President Obama as he delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday night could not have seemed less promising: a presidency with only two years left to get anything done in a Congress that is now totally in the control of a party that has routinely ignored his pleas for cooperation. So he chose wisely to send a simple, dramatic message about economic fairness, about the fact that the well-off — the top earners, the big banks, Silicon Valley — have done just great, while the middle and working classes remain dead in the water. His remedy: skim from the rich and redistribute to those below, while deploying other weapons to raise wages and increase jobs.

 

He did not frame the debate over inequality as starkly as many economists have, preferring instead to talk about the virtues of “middle-class economics.” But he came close. “It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years, and for decades to come,” he said. “Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?”    

 

Mr. Obama knows his prospects of getting Congress to agree are less than zero; Republicans dismissed his ideas before he even voiced them. That does not make them irrelevant. Mr. Obama was speaking not just to the present but to the future, to the 2016 presidential elections and even beyond. By simply raising the plight of the middle class (and, looming behind it, the larger issue of economic inequality), he has firmly inserted issues of economic fairness into the political debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton or whomever the Democrats nominate cannot ignore them now. Even Republicans, disinclined to raise taxes on top-tier earners, may find attractive the idea of doing something for those in the middle.

Further, while the rhetoric was combative, even defiant in parts, the president’s proposal is hardly radical. It would raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent — which is where it was in the Reagan era. It would impose ordinary income tax rates on dividends and end a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs. These changes, plus a new fee on big banks, would finance a set of tax breaks for middle-income families, including credits for two-earner couples, increased child care and college tuition credits, as well as other programs, including two years of tuition-free community college for some students. And the whole thing is designed to be revenue-neutral, the tax increases paying for the new programs to avoid the endless wrangling over deficits that have exhausted both political parties as well as the American public.

It was hardly surprising that a president who expects so little from Congress devoted some of his speech to celebrating the things that he has accomplished against considerable odds. With Congress’s help, he rescued the automobile companies, jump-started the renewable energy industry, imposed new rules on financial institutions and, most dramatically, engineered a major overhaul of the health care system. On his own initiative, he ordered major reforms in immigration policy, forged a landmark agreement with the automobile companies on fuel efficiency and proposed tough restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

His task will be to defend these initiatives from almost certain congressional attack, wielding his veto pen, or threatening to wield it, much as President Bill Clinton found himself doing after Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority took over the House in 1995. President Obama should also seek out opportunities to use his executive authority to improve conditions for the middle class and for workers, such as fixing overtime rules, and, at every opportunity, use the bully pulpit on important matters like improving the minimum wage.

 

There is one other thing he must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise. Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable. Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies.

  

ii       Actually what the editorial meant was not that the opposition didn't compromise, but that they didn't “roll over” and do whatever he demanded.

iii      By him.

iv       Despite their moderate pronouncements, they are certainly not compromising.

v        “Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable.”

vi       It was Otto von Bismarck, but it's so much more dramatic to put it this way.

vii      Hence “Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years.” Indeed, if the President follows the Times's directive, gridlock is foreordained over the next two years.

viii          “A President Outgunned but Combative” (editorial, Jan. 21) begins and ends on the subject of presidential compromise. Describing the Republican Party as one “that has routinely ignored his pleas for cooperation,” there is no mention of President Obama’s own refusal to give ground to the Republicans, nor of his threat to veto legislation he has not even seen yet.

The Times, however, approves of that position, and urges the continuation of a hard-line approach. Rather than consider any views other than his own, the “outgunned but combative” president is advised to “resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise” so as not “to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies.”

But the voters already know. That was evident in the 2014 election.

Give 'Til It Hurts

President Obama will give his State of the Union address later today, but he's been advertising its themes on social media and in speeches for several days. He will propose a variety of programs and benefits aimed at propping up the middle-class and the poor. The purpose of his proposals, we are told, is to set his agenda for the coming years and to initiate action so that we will know it, as will Congress, with which, he asserts, he is ready to work.

For the first time in many years both houses of Congress are Republican. The likelihood of passage of these measures is minimal – especially since his plan for funding them is to increase taxes on the “rich.” Remembering the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the demands of large parts of our population for more benefits and entitlements, and the threats of action by unions around the country, it cannot be denied that there is a pervasive feeling that American society is divided between the few who are rich and the many who are struggling at best, or flat out poor. The number of voters who feel put-upon is huge.

As far as cooperation with Congress, he has already threatened to veto several measures which as yet aren't even on the table. His vow to work with the Republicans, therefore, is one which many people question. The agenda he is proposing seems to be both the beginnings of a platform for 2016 and a populist heritage which the President would like to leave for the history books. It seems likely that he has neither the possibility nor the anticipation of accomplishing what he states to be his agenda, and that of the Democratic Party, but it appears to be aimed at getting votes in the next election.

Raising the stakes is Oxfam, which announced yesterday that the “Richest 1 Percent [around the world] Will Dominate Wealth Next Year.”ⁱ The problem of income inequity is international. Not only are we concerned about the one percent and the ninety-nine percent in the United States, but it is a problem everywhere.

In the article announcing the sitution, it was noted that “More than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.” That's $456.25 per year. In addition to other amenities which the President receives,ⁱⁱ both during and following his service, he gets a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.^iii,iv In terms of the global one percent with which Oxfam is concerned, the President is certainly a member.^v

And so are all those in Congress, for their base salary is $174,000 annually. Add in all the sports and entertainment personalities who earn far more than the rest of us.

But speaking of “the rest of us,” it's worth mention that the majority of all Americans are members of the international one percent^vi so, in Oxfam's view, we're part of the problem. And if the “rich” of America should be taxed to pay for support of our own poor, it is reasonable to wonder to what degree the United States is responsible for ameliorating the world's poverty. Should the programs which we seek for ourselves be offered on an equal basis to all the people on earth? Should that be part of our heritage?

But there is more. There is an important, if undiscussed aspect of this situation which should be considered before we fund our own programs and spread our resources around the world. What will it accomplish? Can we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide housing for the homeless, or is all we're doing punishing those who have more than we do? Might we anticipate other negative effects of such policies: whether the impoverishment of our own people – the poor as well as the rich – or the removal of the stimulus to succeed? Some – Conservatives of course – question whether taxing the rich will solve America's problems. Even if they're wrong, having only five percent of the world's population, it doesn't seem probable that our resources can solve everyone's problems. But we are the one percent. And if we are responsible to our own citizens, we have a similar obligation to all who share the world with us. If I have the right to decide that anyone with more than I is rich and should help me out, don't others have that right as well?

The problem is clear. There isn't enough to go around in a would of over 7.2 billion people. The solution is not obvious. As I pointed out, if we can decide that those who have more than we should share what they have with us, aren't others entitled to call upon us and our resources to support them? According to the Bible,^vii “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land; therefore I command you, saying 'You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to the poor, and to your destitute in your Land.'” Charity. It's not a very good solution since there are many who don't believe (and never will) that they have enough for themselves. But it's a solution in which each of us retains the right to decide for himself – not to have others^viii decide for him. Once people lose this right and once everyone has the “right” to decide what he needs and who will pay for it, we face the anarchy of competing demands.

It is a sad reality that short of relocating billions of people from areas in which weather conditions make them vulnerable, increasing food production, and providing sufficient industry to guarantee jobs for all – goals that are, at least for now, unattainable – we are left to rely on the hope that charity can provide some of the needs of the poor. Or we can allow others – who have their own agendas – to make all the decisions about reallocating the resources of those whom they accuse of responsibility for the world's ills.

As I noted, the solution isn't obvious. But I'm not convinced that the best way of dealing with the problem is to pander to populism.

I        © Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

ii       Lodging, food, health care, transportation, pension, security, etc.

iii      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

iv       Whether this level of compensation is justified is not for me to judge. The point is to put matters in perspective.

v        Indeed, his salary and benefits put him in the top one percent of American earners as well.

vi       Even our poverty-level income is more than eighty-seven percent of the world's population makes. See http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/ Admittedly the article comes from a Conservative publication and the numbers may be off a little. But the problem cannot be denied.

vii      Deuteronomy 15:11. The translation is from the Artscroll edition.

viii     All too often a faceless bureaucracy.

I Am What I Am

Give me Affirmative Action credit. I may be white outside, but I feel black inside.

Let me be a fireman. Perhaps I'm quadriplegic, but I feel strong inside, strong enough to rescue people.

I want a Senior Citizen's discount. I may have been born only thirty years ago, but I feel like I'm seventy.

Admit me to medical school. Everyone says I'm dumb, but I feel smart.

Bizarre requests, aren't they? No one would take those self-identifications seriously and no one would act on any of them, but here's another.

PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday guaranteed the right of a transgender child to use the school bathroom designated for the gender with which he or she identifies.... ⁱ

Actually, that item is a little old, dating back to January 30, 2014 so I'm adding the following from the Portland Press Herald on December 2, 2014:

Court orders Orono school district to pay $75,000 award in transgender girl’s lawsuit Nicole Maines and her attorneys will share the payment, concluding a precedent-setting case over denied access to a student bathroom.

The original suit stemmed from a complaint by another boy that he wasn't allowed to use the girl's bathroom at the school, although the child named in the suit (not the complainant but the one he used as an example), who identified as a girl despite his/her birth sex, was permitted to do so. That other child felt like a girl and wanted to be treated as one. And the court agreed.

The case, not surprisingly raises many important questions. One relates to the feelings of others, and to their rights – both those of the other boy and those of the girls using the bathroom. Only the “rights” of the transgender child, however, seem to have been supported by the court. And that leads to the question of whether the courts have (or should have) the authority to make such a decision – to decide that feelings rise to the level of legal realities, and that such feelings are accompanied by rights. And, it appears, they take precedence over the rightsⁱⁱ of others. It seems that wishing will make it so.

What is reality? And who decides what it is? All of our laws are based on it. If, for example, a thief believes that his act is just,ⁱⁱⁱ if his “self-identification” is that of an honest man fighting for the rights of the poor, does that make it reality? Are the thief's rights to freedom, and to the money he may have stolen, the new reality that takes precedence over the views of the victim and of others who may have been involved in the situation?

My intent is not to belittle the feelings of this, or any other, transgender individual but to inquire about whether the problem belongs on the court docket or the schedule of the psychiatrist. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), however, has concluded that gender dysphoria is not a psychiatric disorder,^iv so I can only conclude that the courts are right to act. I'm not sure if the APA considers gender dysphoria a normal condition, but they have concluded that it is not a psychiatric disorder. And, as I noted earlier, the courts have decided that those with such dysphoria have rights which trump those of others who lack it.

There is a song in “La Cage aux Folles,” a 1983 Broadway musical, entitled “I Am What I Am.” In that song Albin, a drag queen, expresses pride in his feelings and disdain for the views of those who question that perspective. But the song is not completely true. It really proclaims “I am what I feel I am.” That's not reality.

“Self-identification” can be a denial of society and its rules and norms. We cannot all make our own definitions and laws. And society – we – cannot accept that position without risk. A system in which every individual has a right to decide who he is, what he wants and what's good for him, irrespective of what others may want, isn't democracy. In a way it returns us to the state of nature. It may not be anarchy, but it's a world in which we all make our own rules and we cannot accept all it implies.

Indeed, we have taken that position in the past. Does a smoker have the right to smoke in the workplace? The courts say no. While the smoker may have the right to pursue his passion, the smoke offends and threatens others. People may drink. They have that right. We've rejected prohibition. But drunk driving isn't permitted. The benchmark is not the drinker's right, but the concerns of others. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.”^v When your action affects me negatively, it is no longer a victimless one. Self-definition isn't good enough. A problem exists when that definition impacts negatively on others. And that impact may be psychological or it may involve the “right” of privacy.

In Roe v Wade, the United States Supreme Court identified a right of privacy by reading between the lines of the Constitution. And, as an extension, in Lawrence v Texas it was their view, and hence the law of the land, that actions in private between two consenting adults are legal. They're no one else's business – especially not the government. I'm hard put to find it in our founding legal document, but I cannot fault the principle.

Two consenting adults. Makes sense. But in this particular case the privacy of others was not considered. The “rights” of only one, the transgender child, were involved. Whether some or all of the others who used the rest room consented to his/her presence was not the issue. And the people who might consider their privacy compromised were children. The court was not considering any act of two consenting adults. Clearly privacy could not be invoked as the origin of this “right.”

So the lower court in Maine didn't follow the lead of the “higher authority” unless it believed that it was being led to expand rights and find them where they had never been seen before. And that seems to be what happened. “Lawyers representing Nicole Maines, who is now 16, said the decision could lay a foundation for other states’ courts that are facing questions about the emerging rights of people who identify as the opposite of their birth gender.”^vi Reality must give way to “the emerging rights of people who identify as [whatever].”

There are many who rail at those who speak out for “law and order.” They attribute it to Tea Party members and other fundamentalists. If we don't jettison our standards entirely though, does that mean we won't punish what we consider wrong? Does it mean that we change our standards with the times, in the name of “sensitivity,” so that unorthodox behavior is acceptable? Do we force others to accept that behavior and agree that it is more important than their own?

It is our tradition to prevent the majority from suppressing the minority, but it is not our tradition to give the minority the right to subdue the majority. And it is certainly not our tradition to ignore reality in order to do so.

Next episode: “Testing – One, Two, Three … Ten” – Musar time.”

I        Dispatch from the Bangor (Maine) Daily News. There are many other stories you can read on the subject. Just do an internet search.

ii       That may be an overstatement. It's not clear that those who are not transgender have any comparable rights.

iii      Clearly Robin Hood was so persuaded.

iv      http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/03/1271431/apa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder/

v        Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime," 32 Harvard Law Review 932, 957 (1919)

vi       Portland (Maine) Press Herald, January 30, 2014.

Je Suis An Islamophobe

There are lines between fashion, fawning, and fear. They're almost invisible, so you don't always know when you're crossing them. And there are times when they become irrelevant – it doesn't matter what the motive is, as long as the action is suitable. Now is one of those times.

Several decades ago – it's not clear when – it became fashionable to substitute euphemisms for the terminology that most people used. Whether it began with “gender neutrality” or in response to other perceived slights, political correctness became the answer selected to deal with the hurt feelings.ⁱ It was trendy to speak of postal workers instead of mailmen, Native Americans instead of (American) “Indians,” Afro-Americans rather than blacks – at least in this country, “special needs” as an alternative to mental or physical disability, and visually challenged rather than blind. And there were many other terms – some facetious – to describe individuals or groups that might object to existing terminology. Short people were “vertically challenged,” deaf people were “hearing impaired,” and French Fries became Freedom Fries.

It may have begun as a fad, with the “correct” people as examples for the rest of us, but it soon became virtually mandatory. The practice of using the new jargon became an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with everyone and those who didn't follow the trend were considered insensitive and prejudiced. It was, and is, especially prevalent in academiaⁱⁱ – in its practices and in its publications. They were catering to anyone who might be offended by something someone said or did.ⁱⁱⁱ Well, not “anyone,” but to certain groups. It was again a matter of fashion. For a long time the catering was to blacks, and one of its major manifestations was affirmative action. The tool has been applied to other groups as well – women, the poor, people from particular areas.^iv

Fear came into play when some of those groups took offense to something they viewed as a manifestation of prejudice or blasphemy and responded with violence. The tactic was often effective, and following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims viewed as blasphemous there was rioting and killing. Out of fear, many newspapers would not reproduce the cartoons to prevent the violence from affecting them. Yale University Press would not allow their inclusion in a book specifically about them.^v

Ever since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, anger at Muslims, and fear as well, have been increasing. So has our vigilance. But the response to increased security efforts – a response by non-Muslims as well as Muslims – is that they represent Islamophobia and should be discontinued.

The recent events in Paris and elsewhere in Europe, suggest that preoccupation with the Danish cartoons and those of a Paris magazine justify additional violence. And there have been numerous other terrorist incidents around the globe, including the United States. One common feature of such terrorism is that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims.^vi And the attacks do not have to be aimed at those seen as the attackers of Islam. They are aimed at terror, and unpredictability is a feature of terrorism. And they are justified by the belief that there are Islamophobes everywhere.

But what is Islamophobia and is it justified? A phobia is a fear. It is not opposition or hatred. As such, it may be justified. “Anti-” signifies such opposition, and often hated. Someone with acrophobia is afraid of heights. An antisemite hates Jews. So Islamophobia is not a manifestation of an anti-Muslim philosophy, but a fear of Muslims and of the religion that teaches its children and its adults that killing, and dying as martyrs, are worthy goals.

Is it irrational to be afraid of those who may be infected with this philosophy as we are afraid of those with an infections disease? That's all Islamophobia is. And to that degree Islam is winning. It is inspiring fear in many people who realize that a terrorist attack may come at any time, and if it does, it will most likely be caused by a Muslim. The fear may be irrational and the likelihood of harm may be overstated, but that fear is caused by those who are working to provoke this reaction.

I am not anti-Muslim. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims, whatever their personal concerns about the world around them, do not represent a threat. But a few do. And they are unpredictable. And I am afraid.

I       Actually the term was used much earlier, although it's original citation (see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. {2 Dall.} 419, 1793) gives it a straightforward meaning, speaking of conformance with existing political doctrine.

ii      Most recently, Duke University wanted to let Muslim students use the tower of the church on campus for heir call to prayer. After protests the decision was revoked.

iii      Those who opposed this form of censorship were considered reactionaries and right wing crazies for their criticism of this form of censorship.

iv       Affirmative action has a long history, apart from its use racially. For example, donors and alumni get preference when it comes to college admissions and veterans often get extra points in examinations for jobs.

v        See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=0 The report in the New York Times is interesting since the “Gray Lady” also kept the cartoons off its pages.

vi       Jews have been described as the world's canaries. What happens to them will ultimately be visited on everyone. (A recent citation – one of many that have appeared over the years – is http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Canary-in-the-coal-mine-387914) Muslims have long tried to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Now their terror attacks are affecting others.

Nota Bene 2

 

A few weeks ago I admitted that there were subjects that I had wanted to cover but lacked time. The list is long and it's growing. At that time I solicited your help but (no surprise) didn't get any response. That, however, won't stop me. I intend to continue every month or so (or at any other time I feel like shortening my list) by describing the areas of interest. As I noted last time,^I  it may be in the form of fiction or non-fiction (actually it may be a question or comment, or there may be a longer description of the issue).  I explained then that the kind of format for its use was up to you.  I also requested that you let me know if you were using one of the ideas, and what I said then applies here. I won't bother you with it now.
 

In any event, here are some of the topics I don't have time to cover at the moment:

1. It's said that a child who learns a second language while his first is developing may become fluent in both, but his vocabulary in each of the two is likely to be smaller than it would have been if he had only learned one language. I don't know the specifics for three languages, but it seems likely that all three vocabularies will suffer. He'll be able to think in all three languages, but, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesisⁱⁱ is correct, his ideas will be somewhat limited in all of them. What are the other implications of multilingualism? Although Americans tend toward knowledge of a single language,ⁱⁱⁱ elsewhere in the world it is common for people to be multilingual. Do Americans think differently or more expansively than others?

2. If you believe that there are absolutes (as opposed to culturally defined standards) which you must follow, may you choose the lesser of evils?^iv Is it ethically possible to compromise between right and wrong?^v Is your Representative morally bound to do what you think right or what he does?^vi If an individual considers himself bound to follow particular paths and not deviate from them, is he obliged to establish a third (or fourth, or whatever) party when no one is expounding the idea that he considers “right?” Is voting itself an absolute?^vii

3. What are the limits of peaceful and lawful demonstration? For example, the Brooklyn Bridge was closed on December 4, 2014 by demonstrations protesting the decision of a grand jury not to indict a white policeman who had killed an unarmed black man with an “illegal” choke hold. Whether or not he should have been indicted, do demonstrators have the right to inconvenience others? Are there times when they have the obligation to do so? What should protestors do and what penalties should they (be prepared to) face? Should the penalties be different for “agitators,” especially those from elsewhere, and especially those who go from demonstration to demonstration around the country in order to lead any fight that is in the offing?

4. Suppose an archaeologist discovered a scroll that either supported or cast doubt on an existing religious narrative. How should/would the new information be treated by a supporter or opponent of (any or of a specific) religion. Clearly the “right” thing to do would be to disclose the information whatever it is, but suppose the archaeologist feared that this would do more harm than good. Suppose he feared, for example, that the information might provoke a religious war, or that it would be the cause of prejudice.

I noted last time, “I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner.”

The topics are not new. They've been discussed innumerable times. But I still find them vexing. There are so many other issues, however, that I don't expect to have time to expand and expound on these for quite a while. And there will be more to come. Perhaps someone can spend some time on one or more of them.

Next episode:  "I Am What I Am" --Whatever that is.

I        Nota Bene, December 14, 2014.

ii        Look it up.

iii       Usually the language is English, but for some immigrants who have not learned English, and who never studied a second language in their country of origin, their only language may be that of their native land.

iv        Which is, of course, evil.

v        To do so means that you're willing to accept something that is not completely right, even if it is not completely wrong.

vi       Indeed, representing hundreds of thousands of people, how can he possibly support all of their positions?

vii      Is it better not to vote than to support an individual or an idea that is abhorrent to your principles?

Nostra Culpa

Yesterday some Muslim terrorists killed at least twelve people in an attack on a French satire publication. The search is underway now for the killers, and there is fear that additional attacks may occur. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, while condemning the attack, urged readers to “avoid religious profiling.” Specifically, he cautioned against blaming Muslims, “the most courageous, peace-loving people in the Middle East.” Since they are by far the most numerous people in the Middle East, it is likely that there is peace there.

But wait. There are also Jews there, and everyone knows that they are neither courageous nor peace-loving. That's not religious profiling. That's fact. (If there is not peace in the region it must be their fault.)

So when an article appeared this morning in the International Business Times (India edition) that suggested that Mossad was responsible for the attack, it put matters more in perspective. The story was subsequently removed but it is likely that the action was taken because of pressure brought on the paper by the Elders of Zion.

It is sad that antisemitism, an irrational stance that had for so long been the domain primarily of the Church, has taken over the world's politics as well – largely promoted by supporters of Islam. The world has no interest in reality when it is in conflict with prejudice and politics. And as long as there is a convenient scapegoat. That's all Israel has going for it.

Do You Really Think So?

I don't speak for men.

I don't speak to them, so how could I possibly speak for them?

I don't speak to women either. In fact, I try very hard not to speak to anyone. Of course I exchange the usual pleasantries. How can I avoid them? But I don't take them seriously. Nor does anyone else. They're void of content and they're void of truth. When was the last someone answered you honestly when you asked how he and his (or she and her) family were? And I avoid parties like the plague.ⁱ No. Scratch the simile. They are the plague. They're places where people dissimulate or get drunk and brag. Sort of like bars but more genteel.

Anyway, though, when I occasionally speak to my wife about all the things women do wrongⁱⁱ I usually tell her how men think or what they do. It's a cover for expressing my own feelings, since it's hard to talk about myself openly. But that's what I'll do here. So if you catch me talking about what men think you should know that the only male mind to which I have access is my own, but I have trouble phrasing things that way. (Be aware, though, that some of the problems I face are not unique. As much as I try to avoid the thoughts of others, I know enough about men to realize that many of the views I have are shared by lots of them.)

Men are transparent. When they ask a question it's usually because they want to know what the answer is. Looking for an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda rather than answering the question is not likely to be productive, though it will be irritating. A “yes-no” question is best answered with a “yes” or “no,” not an endless explanation or analysis. Yet when a man asks a woman a question,ⁱⁱⁱ it's likely that rather than an answer he'll get an interrogation; why he asked the question takes precedence over giving an answer. Makes sense. Who knows what was going through his mind? It might be prudent to change the answer depending on what he's thinking and what his real question is. He's hiding that.^iv And it's the obligation of a woman to know what a man is thinking.

Another potential area of conflict is the dispute about who is right and who is wrong. But that's easily solved. The man is always wrong – especially if he's right. “If a man says something in a forest and no woman hears … 'He's still wrong.'” I'm always wrong. That's the assumption, and I'm used to it. Her default is to disagree with me even before I've had a chance to express myself. That's not unreasonable since I've always admitted being wrong when we disagree, whether I believe it or not. It's better than arguing and easier to recover from. An apology is better than a fight.

A woman assumes a man always knows what she's talking about, even when she's changed the subject without saying so. If it's clear to her, it should be clear to him. And she assumes that if he didn't hear what she said, he wasn't listening. Sometimes she “remembers” what she or the man said and he doesn't recall it.^v There is sometimes reason to suspect that her “memory” is a wish rather than a fact, but he'll never win the argument if the man says so. It's better to apologize. She won't.

Women are far more curious than men. They want to know everything that's going on. And they feel obliged to offer an opinion on everything. And a recommendation. Whether or not it's solicited. For example: A few months ago I went to a (female) dermatologist about a minor problem. Noting a hole in my undershirt, she told me that I should buy new underwear.^vi My (male) internist has never suggested that although he's had many more opportunities.

I've also noticed that my wife interrupts me a lot. Mostly I'm used to it and keep myself from interrupting her interruption. I'm bothered, but I can deal with it. There are times, however, when I really get annoyed – like when I start asking a question and she interrupts after a few words, providing a long answer before I finish my inquiry. The answer sometimes has nothing to do with the question I wanted to ask. She's convinced, though, that she knows what I'm thinking and she can respond immediately to the stupid question she anticipates I'm going to ask. She can read my mind just as she is certain that I can read hers and know what she is talking about, even if it doesn't relate to anything that has come before. But I need space. Intellectual and emotional as well as physical. My thoughts are my thoughts, unless I want to reveal them.

I may love her but the reality is that I don't understand my wife. Sometimes. But that's OK. At times she doesn't understand me either. I'm sure that a list of particulars like this^vii will be answered by a bill from her that's far longer. After all, men have many more flaws than women, and the misperceptions on my list simply reflect my inability to think clearly, or remember all of the ignorant statements I've made, and foolish things I've done.

It has nothing to do with men's inability to understand women^viii – though that is certainly the case and can muddy the waters tremendously. It's more that neither of us can read minds, and much of the misunderstandings arise from a presumed understanding of what we're thinking or what immediately preceded the statement or question that was not clear.

But that shouldn't be a surprise. Men and women are different. Vive la différence. Their bodies and their minds are different. Their abilities and their interests are different. They'll never understand each other, however much they may profit by their interactions.^ix Live with it.

I do. I said it^x and I'm glad.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 2" – More grist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I        And organic food.

ii        In my opinion.

iii       Enough artifice. When I ask a question is what I really mean.

iv       It's interesting that women seek conversation and socialization from men, but discourage it be analyzing whatever the man says. Why open your mouth if whatever you say will be analyzed or spun rather than accepted?

v        If she didn't hear what he (thinks he) said, it's because he remembers wrong. He never said it. And if he did, he was speaking too quietly, or there were distractions, or he was facing in the wrong direction, or … And that's not what he said anyway. Fortunately she was smart enough not to act on it because what he said was wrong. Like everything else he says.

vi       At this point let me apologize to my wife. Mea culpa. If she reads this it's likely she'll be embarrassed. That's why I haven't told her about the incident.

vii      These are just a few of the issues between men and women that come to mind. There are many more that I won't mention like “multitasking,” a flawed issue if ever there was one (see “Two For The Price Of One,” published May 1, 2011), and the idiotic dispute about whether a toilet seat should be up or down – as if there is only one correct answer. Whoops! I mentioned some of them.

viii     And vice versa.

ix       You thought I was going to write something else, didn't you.

x        Actually, because of the nature of the ceremony, what I said was different, but, happily, it sealed the bargain.