Me, Too

The hot topic at the moment seems to be Iran, so I though I'd comment on it as well. I oppose the treaty for a wide variety of reasons – it's a bad deal, parts of it are being kept secret from those who have to evaluate it, the President has termed it an “agreement” rather than a treaty to evade the Constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent – but they're not really the point. What I've really been mulling over is the reaction to the treaty. On two levels. What are the feelings of Americans and how will our representatives vote, and what are the reactions of other nations and why?

It seems clear that the American public opposes the pact – in part, perhaps, because of Israel but moreso because of mistrust of Iran. The agreement is viewed as a defeat for us, and it is with a country that calls for our destruction and doesn't hesitate to brag of accomplishments that seem to us to be in violation of the published agreement. And some Americans are concerned that Iran may not even adhere to its terms. Taquia and all that.

It is equally clear that the President is not concerned about the people's opposition. Only that in Congress. He continues to maintain the position that the agreement is good and its implementation is warranted irrespective of any concerns. It is crucial to his prestige and his “heritage,” and any faults will be the problem of one of his successors (and all of us).

From the perspective of the Representatives and Senators, the conditions of the treaty are important, but not as important as several other considerations. Perhaps the most important of these is party loyalty. It may be blind loyalty to the party and the President, or it may be forced loyalty based on future campaign support, projects, vote trading, misinformation, or other forms of pressure. Members of Congress are also responsive to the preferences of their constituents because they want to be re-elected. And, of course, they are human like the rest of us and have their own biases. For better or worse, antisemitism remains in our country.

It has certainly regained its strength around Europe, as “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism) is gaining in power there, and elsewhere. Increase in the numbers of Muslim immigrants around the world is contributing to a political response which caters to their prejudices, those of the media, and the various governments as well. Add to that the interest they have in gaining the favor of the Arab bloc in the United Nations, as well as their craving for oil and economic opportunities, and the perceived benefits are numerous.

What seems to be lacking, however, as they all fall in line is, to a degree, the same situation we see in our own country, and that is a consideration of the long-term effects of the treaty. What will be the results of Iran having nuclear weapons and the missiles required to deliver them anywhere in the world? Short-term effects should not be permitted to blind our eyes to the predictable results of a surrender to Iran. Adopting the attitude that the situation will be different by the time the treaty expires is a struthious response to an ongoing threat.

In short, it seems likely that one way or another the treaty will be put into effect in the United States as it has already been in some other countries. The Satans, great and small, will be repudiated by the rest of the world. And our country will contribute to its own humiliation. We're our biggest enemies. It's the American way.

Time Out

There's nothing new under the sun. You know that. I've cited King Solomon on several occasions since the words were his, having appeared in Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), thousands of years ago. They probably weren't new then, but I don't propose to look into them any further. However old the idea, it is always true. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Every now and again I interrupt the egotistical publishing of my thoughts and embark on the even more egotistical exercise of evaluating the process of their writing. The usual result is that I am struck by the frequency of my own repetitions. My essays fall into three categories. The first of them is try to convince others of the truth of my own thoughts – thoughts that I know to be valid. (Since I know more than anyone else, I'm convinced that everyone would benefit from my wisdom.) They include my own political philosophy – relatively conservative – which glorifies the past while bemoaning the changes that have taken place over the years. I'm patriotic (chauvinistic?) and I admire greatly the contributions of the Founding Fathers. Such a stance is bound to be critical of those who promote change, and of the changes they have promoted. I also belittle modern technology (though composing this on my computer, I reject “smart” 'phones and similar devices) and modern culture.

I also castigate those people, nations, and organizations that substitute “pragmatic” for “honorable.” Surely they consider their views and their actions to be the appropriate ones to achieve their ends – and that may be the case – but they don't see “right” and “wrong” as relevant factors when deciding on the means. They either don't recognize, or don't care about their own biases.

The second category of my ramblings relates to those areas in which I am less certain. I originally described this effort as one that gave me the opportunity to work out ideas that were confusing to me or troubling – ideas that left me unsettled; ideas that had not gelled into “knowledge.” Most prominent among these were those relating to belief. Since belief is, virtually by definition, non-rational, there is no likelihood that I will ever reach a firm conclusion about it, since when I do it will cease to be “belief” and will become “knowledge.”

Everything else, irrespective of concept or format, falls into the third category. That applies, among other things, to subjects chosen because they interest me even if they're of no consequence to anyone else, pure fiction, and my personal blather. By now I suspect that you've accommodated yourself to all of these.

You may view today's message as an example of personal blather, but I consider it to be an update on the style of these essays. I have, in the past, relied on the use of footnotes to convey my thoughts. Sometimes these served to advise the reader of the source of a quotation or fact that I included; sometimes they served as a site for the presentation of an idea that didn't fit conveniently in the primary text. This kind of format seemed obvious to me since most of what I read is heavily-footnoted non-fiction, where it serves a useful purpose. I need time to consider what I have just read, and the footnote provides the “time-out” that caters to this need.

I recently read a non-fiction book, however, that eschewed such devices, and I found it to be delightful, and much easier to digest than my other “reads.” Clearly the nature of the subject material was receptive to such a presentation, and the author's ability to convey information interestingly had more to do with the success of the venture than the lack of footnotes, but it became clear to me that my future essays should lack such “aids”so I shall never use them again.ⁱ As it says in Pirke Avot, though the context is different, the “loss disappears in [the] gain.”

So when I return with the next episode, don't look for any help in identifying the source of my ideas – and I probably stole them anyway. Don't ask, and I won't tell. As for my other thoughts, you probably don't care.

Next episode: “All Men (And Women)” – And anyone who doesn't feel “himself” covered by those designations.

I        Never say “never.” There will be rare occasions when I might throw in a footnote because I feel I can't avoid it, but I'll try to limit those occurrences. You're on your own.

The Constitution And The Second Law

“[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...”ⁱ

“Lawmakers are weighing their options following the announcement by the Obama administration that it will not enforce a provision in a recently signed trade bill that combats boycott efforts of Israel when it comes to settlements beyond the green line.”ⁱⁱ

The Constitution established clear rules for the three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in that order, which the Founding Fathers considered reflective of their importance. And their powers were separate, as they protected their own turf and supervised and regulated each other. Indeed, the separation of powers was the crowning achievement of their effort, and even had an echo in the Legislative branch, whose bicameral construction allowed for two distinct groups of representatives that balanced each other. The specification of the limits of Federal authority protected the dominion and responsibility of the individual States. It was a delicate balancing game, but it worked.

Now, however, it's broke. The Constitution. Our Constitution is broke. The Executive has grabbed powers not assigned to him, and, contrary to his oath of office, refused to enforce legislation he does not like; the Legislative branch is more involved in lecturing than legislating, and, since popular election of Senators became the practice, the two branches of Congress have come to look like each other and there is no protection of States' rights; in addition, the Legislative branch has handed much of its power to unelected civil servants who make rules that they themselves enforce, without appeal, except to them; and the Judiciary has assumed legislative duties by deciding what it wants to discuss, which laws are permitted and which are not, as well as “interpreting” Congress's laws to mean what the Court wants it to mean, irrespective of what Congress said.

What happened? The inevitable. Although it wasn't known at the time. The Laws of Thermodynamics weren't fully codified until the following century,ⁱⁱⁱ and the founders weren't aware that the second law doomed their efforts. According to that law, thermodynamic systems progress to an increase in entropy – disorder. And that concept pertains to all systems. As time goes by, orderliness is lost. In terms of the Constitution, the orderly system formulated by the founders is foundering. And our leaders, in their quest for power, are hastening the rearrangement of law and the disorder which was already predictable. The clear cut distinctions between governmental branches have become blurred. The carefully wrought system has been compromised.^iv Human nature and the Second Law of Thermodynamics have caused changes which the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen.

There is an old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” Presumably, though, if it is, do. And that was pretty much my conclusion in an essay published on July 26. As I wrote in the final end note,

“Of Thomas Jefferson, Cass R. Sunstein wrote in BloombergView,

'In a 1789 letter to Madison, he argued that 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.' Every constitution, he held, 'naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.'

'In 1816, specifically rejecting Madison’s hope for veneration, Jefferson lamented, 'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.' He feared a situation in which people would 'ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.'

'Trying to humanize the founding generation, he said, “It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present.' When 'new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.'

'“'The dead,' he contended, 'have no rights.'”'”^v

Our third President, the author of the Declaration of Independence, thought that regular change was necessary and it's hard to disagree with what he said. But brilliant as Jefferson was, I'm no longer sure that his conclusion does not, itself, bear rethinking; that the “perpetual” truth that the constitution has expired and change is mandatory. Or possible. Or wise. And we may well wonder if it would succeed.

Certainly not as a wholesale action – a Constitutional Convention. The reasons why the one in 1787 worked no longer apply: having recently declared independence, and having decided to replace the Articles of Confederation, they were starting from the beginning. They had read Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau, and many other political philosophers, but they were writing on a blank slate. And while there were many different opinions about what the final product should look like, the were committed to its production, even if they had to make compromises. There were no political parties at the time – only philosophy and the will to come up with a document with which they could all live. And they came up with one that was elegant, concise, and well designed for our new republic. It dealt with their current needs while anticipating future problems and providing guidance for their management, and tools for doing so.

Sadly, human nature works against us and our present lawmakers, bound by party affiliations and the inability to discriminate between their own personal needs and those of the nation, would not be able to duplicate this feat, yet they would be the delegates to any convention. And that means chaos and roadblocks with, in the end, no agreement. Our only option is the one proposed originally – amendment. I won't suggest what specific changes are necessary^vi but, in the interest of order, I'm convinced that a slow and well-considered rebuilding by the amendment process is far better than descent into a convention charged with complete revision of the laws by which we've lived. An orderly reconstruction, however long it takes, is more likely to yield a meaningful result than the chaos and entropy our politicians would cause.

The laws of thermodynamics cannot be changed, but we can learn from our history and from them that what happened when our nation was formed – when our Constitution was written – represented a brilliant response to a unique situation, and that while we can anticipate eventual deterioration, it would be a mistake to hasten the process as our leaders in all three branches of government are doing. We may be able to limit the damage that time and the laws of Nature^vii impose on us, but not the ones we, and our politicians, impose.

Next episode: “Time Out” –  Change of plan.

 

 

 

 

i        Constitution of the United States of America, 1787. Article 2, Section 3.

ii       Melissa Apter, (Philadelphia) Jewish Exponent, July 7, 2015

iii      The laws are complex, but their implications are straightforward and have been parodied on many occasions. According to Ginsberg's Theorem, the first law could be summarized as “You can't win.” And the second law tells us that you can't even break even. That's the one of interest to us. We're also informed by the third that we can't get out of the game.

iv       “Compromise” here indicates not the process of negotiations toward a mutually acceptable middle ground, but the destruction of the ground itself.

v        I'm all confused and I'm not sure I have all the quotation marks correct. Live with it.

vi       I have some ideas, but they are not the focus of this essay. Right now I'm more interested in the cause of our problem and in the process of repairing it.

vii      And “Nature's G-d.”

The Lesser Of Two Evils

Well, the political season is starting again. No, that's not really the case. It's been going on for a long time already. Years. And people are positioning themselves for 2020 right now. Or even beyond. Someone running for local school board this year will some day be a candidate for President. And chances are that he or she will be a crook, or at least someone who has, by that time, bent the rules or favored a campaign contributor.ⁱ Even if that's not the case and he's completely honest, his opponent will advertise his many crimes and tell us why we should not vote for him.

More likely, though, the accusations will be true. But they'll be just as true of the individual opposing him – the one proclaiming his faults. That's the nature of political ads. They tell us why we shouldn't vote for someone else, rather than why we should vote for the advertiser. The answer, however, is clear. There is no good reason to vote for him. Or for any of the others, if there are more than two in the race. So why bother?

That's a pretty cynical assessment from someone who votes in almost every election – even for school board. Believing what I believe about elections, participation doesn't seem to make much sense. The results will be bad no matter who wins. No one believes in the “Greater Good.”ⁱⁱ

But someone will win. So though I might wish to vote for the candidate most likely to do good for my community, I have to try to decide who will do us the least harm. And, consequently, my criteria for choice have to change. Decisions regarding right and wrong are irrelevant. Integrity is no longer an issue. We're left with reality. And the reality is that, for the candidates, election is the first priority, and reelection the second.

What are we voting for? Nominally it is someone who will support our positions and help to enact policies that correspond to our wishes. We are a democracy and our will is considered to be the basis for our society.ⁱⁱⁱ That's often not the case though. Our “representatives” tell us that while they have our interests at heart they are duty bound to vote their own consciences. And with Representatives whose constituencies may comprise hundreds of thousands of views – millions if they're Senators – it's unrealistic for any voter to actually believe that his perspective will always be followed.

Makes sense. But too often the argument only provides protective cover. Because an incumbent's primary interest is in reelection, his main concern is the view of what he perceives to be the majority of voters^iv – whether or not that is the majority of constituents. And party loyalty is an important interest. What may result is the trading of votes by Representatives or Senators – votes by each participant for the project of the other. Whether voters would approve of either “representative” is irrelevant as long as it is perceived as a vote-getter by the one proposing it. So if he can't convince his voters that it's in their interests, or if it isn't, he'll be sure to let them know that it it is good for America.^v Perhaps he told his district that he had their backs, but they're ignorant and trusting voters. The message to other politicians is “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.”

The primary goal of the insurgent is to be elected for the first time. His best weapon is often a smear of the incumbent since he usually has no record of his own to trumpet. His justification of this tactic, apart from the claim that he is telling the truth and the other candidate has demonstrated why he is unfit for the position, is that he cannot improve the lot of the voters unless he is elected, and if this is what it takes, so be it. And that is his message to voters – and the rationalization that he uses for himself. No matter. We don't really expect anything else. We don't expect honesty of politicians.

So in the end it's our fault. We don't make more demands of our candidates, if we vote at all,^vi and voting is becoming less and less prevalent. And we don't vote out of office incumbents who aren't really doing their jobs. We compartmentalize integrity and reality. But we don't really understand either. Voters tend to pick apart Congress in general but favor their own representatives. Others don't compromise – and they should. Ours doesn't give in to pressure^vii – and they shouldn't. After all, we're (more or less) honest and so should they be.

In the end, we get what we deserve – a Congress which is not trusted by the public, and which doesn't accomplish anything anyway. We may not make demands of them, but they make demands of each other. They want their way. And roadblock is their tool. It's “my way or the highway.” Unfortunately the highway usually wins. “Compromise” is not in their lexicon. From their perspective they are right and those who disagree with them^viii are wrong. With that knowledge they can never reach any agreement with them. A compromise between right and wrong is wrong.

And the lesser of two evils is evil. But you can't beat City Hall. So why do I vote?

My approach to life has always been that I play the hand I'm dealt – whatever the game. And it's the only game in town.

Next episode: “The Constitution And The Second Law” – A reevaluation of a previous view.

 

 

 

I        For the moment, though – when running for school board – he's probably reasonably honest. The more he participates in the political process, however, the more he will accommodate to it and to its methods.

ii       Or, as Jeremy Bentham put it, "The greatest good for the greatest number."

iii      There are some limits on the expression of our will as the sole criterion for the determination of our nation's course. Protection, at least to some degree, against the “tyranny of the majority,” is built into the system, and there are other governing factors which I shall discuss either later in this essay or in a subsequent post. I haven't decided yet.

iv       Determined by poll or panel.

v        As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

vi       Though we're happy to accept any time off for voting or for Election Day.

vii      At least that's what we want to believe.

viii    “Those who disagree” are those who answer to a different lobbyist or are members of a different party. Or those who threaten their reelection.

Identity Unknown

It all started with religion. It often does. That's not to say that it isn't built into us from the beginning. It's in our DNA. But it's probably expressed more now than in previous times. No big surprise. Society promotes it. To one degree or another we're all unhappy with things as they are. And we're not always happy with who we are. Things can always be better. It's time for a change.ⁱ

Remember Abram?ⁱⁱ He was raised as a pagan. His father made and sold idols.ⁱⁱⁱ But Abe viewed idol worship as misguided. He rebelled, and he destroyed his father's constructions. Then, following the direction of G-d, he left his father's homeland – his homeland. He had adopted a new faith, the belief in a single unseen deity Who had created and Who ruled over the entire earth. And Abram spread his new faith wherever he went. He proselytized and converted large numbers of people, the first neophytes of the new “Abrahamic” religions.^iv

Many people subsequently changed both their outward identities and their internal beliefs and views of themselves. They did so voluntarily, based on an altered view of truth and reality. But religious conversion, which has a long history, arose from many causes – violence and military conquest,^v,vi political changes,^vii prejudice,^viii and convenience^ix are among the reasons in addition to conviction. Assimilation, and the entire concept of the “melting pot,”^x produced innumerable “self-reinventions.” And there were those who rededicated themselves to the religion in which they were born but which they had not followed. They were “born again.”

Personal reinvention, however, has a long history and has many faces. There has been rebellion against the ways of parents^xi since there have been children. The goal is often for children to be as different from the parents, and from the way they were born, as possible. It has resulted in different political philosophies, life-styles, food and clothing preferences, and the like.

People also change because of dissatisfaction with themselves. Charles Atlas made a fortune catering to the insecurity of “97 pound weaklings,” and nowadays plastic surgeons remake many who are dissatisfied with their appearances. As Tom Lehrer said, they “do well by doing good.” Cosmetics manufacturers and those in the fashion and clothing industries also profit from the desire of so many to be other than they are.

More radical are those who those who are, to one degree or other, unhappy with their gender or with the expectations that accompany it.^xii Some feminists fall into this latter group, the group that questions the expectations associated with their gender,^xiii but so do some men who would rather stay home and be supported by others. They argue – and their argument is not completely without merit – that the expectations are societal and are unfair and unrealistic.

More extreme in their rejection of usual gender roles are gays and lesbians. Bisexuals have the best – or worst – of both worlds. Proud declarations of their sexual preferences have become common. Their desires are different from what others may expect, but they demand that their practices be validated and considered unexceptionable.

And we accept those desires. We are sympathetic to them and sensitive to most of those whose self-images require changes in ways we may have once questioned. We were wrong. They are right. (Anyone has the right to define himself.^xiv At least to a degree. There has long been concern over immigration policies and the current bugaboo in this arena is that over “illegal immigrants.”^xv Admittedly many don't seek citizenship, but others do wish to change who they are.)

More radical among those wishing to change who they are are members of the transgender community. Reinventing their identity is a prime concern and, since Christine (George) Jorgensen's pioneering efforts, an identity change including anatomic alteration is possible. The reality, however, is that they may change their identities, but their DNA remains the same. One can make up a new identity, but not change genetic makeup.

The same holds true for race. However one may “feel,” however he may identify, his race is the one of his birth. We may admire people who choose the lot of those they consider less fortunate, or those oppressed by society, but they fool themselves – and, perhaps us – when they pretend to be other than what they are. The same is true of those who try to “pass” as members of another race, though we must recognize that our prejudice is usually the reason.^xvi

So who are we? It's not an easy question. We're lots of people – some are adopted identifications that we can change for whatever reason whenever we want, and some are inborn. The real problems arise when we can't distinguish between one and the other.

Nor between ourselves and the other. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

And give us the disposition to accept it of others.

Next episode: “The Lesser Of Two Evils” – Life as it really is.

 

 

 

 

I        “Mid-life crisis” is one example of identity crisis, but there are other reasons.

ii       He was later renamed Abraham.

iii       You won't find that information in the Bible. Much of what we are taught about our biblical ancestors is derived from Midrashim, explanatory stories that fill in the gaps left by the biblical narrative. If you can't find in the Bible some of what follows which refers to biblical characters, it is based on Midrashim.

iv        Initially Judaism, but, millennia later, Christianity and Islam.

v       Islam spread largely as a result of conquest and violence, and violence and terrorism remain striking features among many Muslim clergymen and their followers.

vi       Interestingly, some who are oppressed begin to identify with their oppressors. It's called the “Stockholm Syndrome.” Thus many of the conquered were forced to convert, but some did so willingly, even eagerly.

vii      The rapid growth of Christianity was aided by its adoption by Armenia as the state religion in 301 CE and, shortly thereafter, in 313, by its legalization in the Roman Empire. In later centuries, whatever variety of Christianity was followed by the ruler was often accepted by his subjects – voluntarily or otherwise.

viii     Because of societal biases, it was necessary for many to convert in order to gain benefits. Thus Mahler converted to Christianity because the law of the time barred Jews from directorship of the Vienna Opera. Such laws and various prejudices forced many others (for example the Mendelssohn family, including musical greats Felix and Fanny) to convert. And some of the later generations accepted the beliefs of their new faith, such as the Marranos who converted rather than leave Spain. [Apropos this situation, a Spanish village named Castrillo Matajudios (“Camp Kill Jews”) has officially changed its name back to Castrillo Mota de Judios (“Jews’ Hill Camp”) following a public referendum and approval by the regional government in 2014. The original change, in 1627, reflected anti-Jewish bias and has taken nearly four centuries to correct.]

ix        As an example – one of many – some convert for the purpose of marriage. Change is not always based on an inner need. Some make changes to please those with whom they wish to associate.

x        Popularized by Israel Zangwill's play of the same name in 1903.

xi        Including their religion.

xii      A good example can be found in Isaac Bashevis Singer's “Yentl der yeshive-bokher.”

xiii     They agree with Sigmund Freud's dictum, “anatomy is destiny,” and resent the situation. Not everyone accepted Freud's view. Karen Horney was one of the leaders of the revolt. She attributed the “destiny” to beliefs of society, not to any inherent quality of women. (Freud was speaking of women when he chose to attribute personality traits and their consequences to sex.)

xiv      Political definitions, like nationality, are, at least for the moment, somewhat different.

xv       Not that there shouldn't be rules and a clearly defined path to citizenship, but the long-standing fear of “foreigners” that has long permeated our society – a country of immigrants – requires education and change. Still we're more sympathetic to those who follow our immigration laws.

xvi      The problem of people trying to adapt to society's biases is the same as that of those who try to “pass” as members of another religion.

Past, Present, And Future

Arnold Toynbee, British historian (and well-known anti-semite: his most notable views expressed after the Holocaust were condemnations of Zionism and Israel for “the vicious disease of nationalism” and for committing atrocities on the Arabs, in addition to numerous references to “Judaic zealotry”) amazed by the longevity of the Jewish People, viewed it as anomalous. In volume 1 of A Study of History (1934), he wrote:

“There remains the case where victims of religious discrimination represent an extinct society which only survives as a fossil. .... by far the most notable is one of the fossil remnants of the Syriac Society, the Jews."

“Fossil” was one of the less pejorative terms Toynbee used, but Ezekial's prophecy was more accurate than Toynbee's history:

“I prophesied as I was commanded and the spirit entered them [the bones which represented Israel] and they revived. They rose on their feet, a very great multitude.”

That spirit has reentered the Jewish People, but the world is not happy about it.

Toynbee's bias, though shared by much of the world, was not universal. Eric Hoffer wrote,

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Earlier, Mark Twain had written

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.”

“The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all [and] survived them all.”

And even earlier, our first (and arguably our greatest) President wrote of the Jew

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

But I am afraid.

Since its founding, the United States has had what can only be viewed as a sympathetic relationship with the State of Israel, and one that is mutually beneficial. And there has been a great deal of identification with Israel by the American public. In Gallup Polls, there has been a consistent preference shown by our citizens for Israel over the Palestinians, with the edge shown in 2013 as 64% to 12%.

Foreign policy, however, reflects the preferences of the President, rather than the people. During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration denied Jews on the St. Louis the opportunity to save their lives by entering the United States, and Roosevelt refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz – another course that would have saved Jewish Lives. On the other had, his successor, Harry Truman, recognized the State of Israel only a few minutes after it was proclaimed.

When Israel, in response to the request of Britain and France, joined in the effort to retake the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it, President Eisenhower threatened sanctions. But more recent Presidents have been increasingly sympathetic to Israel and have supported it. As Lord Palmerston said, however, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” In our country, those “interests” are decided on by the President, and our current President has decided that it is in our interest to side with Israel's enemies. As the President's Secretary of State put it, "We are gathered here because our leaders made a courageous decision to stop being prisoners of history." He spoke of Cuba, but it has been a hallmark of this administration to ignore past principles and seek “courageous decisions” which the President hopes will form a heritage for him. Agreements with Iran and other tyrannies in the Middle East, he feels, are among the “permanent interests” of our country. Our people's views and our history are irrelevant. Whether or not that history is principled, it is now inconvenient.

Perhaps the policy reflects his personal worldview, or perhaps it reflects a changing world – one in which the Muslim population, already very large, is increasing faster than others, a world in which there is extensive anti-Israel sentiment everywhere (especially among academics and their students), where antisemitism, one the world's few constants, is increasing in strength, as is the need for oil.

Our adherence to Palmerston's philosophy, however, is likely to make our other “friends” and “allies” nervous, since we have demonstrated that we place expedience over principle; we can't be trusted. And if Israel cannot rely on its most trusted ally, I am worried.

My Ideal

I weigh 180 pounds. I'm five feet, eleven inches tall.ⁱ All the listings of ideal weight tell me that I'm overweight. At least I weigh more than is ideal. I know. I checked.ⁱⁱ The closest I could get (and it's top of the scale) is a little over 179 pounds, but that seems to be a minority opinion. Still, I feel fine.ⁱⁱⁱ

I don't know what triggered this revelation – this insight into my body mass. I always thought I was ideal but now I've been disabused of that illusion. Not that there aren't ways to deal with the problem. Like (ugh) dieting.

Instead I decided to convert.

No, not that way. My weight. It's 81.82 kilograms or 12.86 stones.^iv But it's still 180 pounds, and it's still more than ideal.

Wait. What does it all mean? With all the disagreement about what mine should be, I wonder if there is such a thing as “ideal” weight. And how is it determined. Even if there is such a thing, though, is it important?

According to The Fiscal Times of June 19, 2014

Until now, Americans have been losing the battle of the bulge. 

More than a third of all adults and 17 percent of young people are obese, according to the experts, and many of them have been consigned to troubled lives with obesity-related health problems such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, hypertension, arthritis and even cancer. Without major government and private intervention and a sea change in many Americans’ unhealthy eating habits, the adult obesity rate could reach 50 percent by 2030, according to one study.

The cost to society in terms of damaged lives, soaring health care costs and diminished economic growth and productivity is staggering.

A new analysis prepared for The Fiscal Times by Scott Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight & Wellness at George Washington University, pegs the total cost of obesity – including direct medical and non-medical services, decreased worker productivity, disability and premature death – at $305.1 billion annually.^v

Other studies, including one I heard about yesterday that cited JAMA, put the numbers of overweight and obese at 65 to 75% of our population. In addition to the loss of productivity and death, the costs may be secondary to the medical costs of the obesity and resulting diseases,^vi the direct costs,^vii and the costs of various therapies (both established and those that are promoted by get rich quick artists)^viii and their results.^ix There are costs as well to vendors^x whose products may be banned or restricted by government edicts, or when relabeling is required.^xi

I shouldn't overlook the psychological basis of some obesity, but I leave it to the psychiatrists to expand on that.

That's not the whole story, though. “Up to 30 million people of all ages and genders suffer from an eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorder) in the U.S.”^xii And “[a]ccording to a study done by colleagues at the American Journal of Psychiatry (2009), crude mortality rates were: 4% for anorexia nervosa, 3.9%  for bulimia nervosa, 5.2% for eating disorder not otherwise specified.”^xiii

As with obesity, the reasons for (and results of) under-eating may be medical or psychological^xiv – or perhaps even the psychological is medical. It can certainly result in medical problems. But it is very good for the fashion industry.^xv Some of the thinness that is apparent, and perhaps admired, is the result of chronic disease. Cachexia secondary to cancer is something not to be envied.

It's a little confusing. I know that I shouldn't weigh too much, but I'd better not obsess over it if I know what's good for me, and nothing related to weight seems to be good for me.

So the only logical conclusion is that I should go on some kind of a diet. Or maybe not. And that's exactly what I'll do.

Tomorrow.

Next episode: “Identity Unknown” – I am what I am. Unless I'm not.

 

 

I        And a quarter of an inch (but who's measuring?). They take age and sex into consideration as well so let me inform you that I'm 76 and was male the last time I looked.

ii          Based on the Robinson formula (1983), your ideal weight is 160.7 lbs
Based on the Miller formula (1983), your ideal weight is 158.1 lbs
Based on the Devine formula (1974), your ideal weight is 166.0 lbs
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), your ideal weight is 171.3 lbs
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, your recommended weight is 132.6 lbs -   179.2 lbs

         The numbers are based on various formulae.

iii       Actually, I'm hungry.

iv       I even tried Celsius. It's 82.22.

v        It's important to remember that there are psychological costs as well. In fact, some of what is viewed as “obesity” is imagined. It may be treated also. Add that to the price tag.

vi       Diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, etc.

vii      More food, larger (more expensive) clothes, increased insurance costs.

viii     I leave it to you to decide what's established and what results from the efforts of get rich quick artists, but they include surgery, medicines, diets, supplements, diet books and programs, prepared diet meals delivered to your home, etc.

ix       If you actually manage to lose weight you'll need new clothes or alterations in the ones you have.

x        And negative effects on citizens' rights.

xi       For example soda, as well as sugar, fats, salt, and the products that include them.

xii      Wade, T. D., Keski-Rahkonen A., & Hudson J. Epidemiology of eating disorders. In M. Tsuang and M. Tohen (Eds.), Textbook in Psychiatric Epidemiology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 2011. p. 343-360.

xiii     Crow, S.J., Peterson, C.B., Swanson, S.A., Raymond, N.C., Specker, S., Eckert, E.D., Mitchell, J.E. (2009) Increased mortality in bulimia nervosa and other eating disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 166, 1342-1346.

xiv     Or even economic. Poverty, especially in the Third World, is a major cause of starvation.

xv     From the pictures of models that I see, especially their expressionless countenances, I suspect that the drug industry is a large contributor to the phenomenon.

Burke, Paine, Freud, And Clerow Wilson

I'm not a philosopher. At least not any more than the other guy. But I see myself in a society I did not make, and doing things for reasons I don't always know. And I wonder why. I'm sure there are people with answers to all my questions, but I don't understand them. We live in the “post-modern”ⁱ age and I can't understand the philosophical dialectic of our times.

In truth, I find most philosophic arguments somewhat opaque. Often the players seem more interested in “one-upping” their colleagues than in helping the rest of us. Practitioners use language which I understand, to formulate concepts which I don't. I'm not an insider regarding the newer ideas, so I use as my guides to secular thoughtⁱⁱ (especially political thought) Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, whose ideasⁱⁱⁱ are, arguably, the source of current conservative and liberal philosophies.^iv Many, I'm sure, see their views as out of date, but I live in the past.

Although their philosophies are complex and nuanced, I'll try to summarize each in just a few sentences.^v Paine was a revolutionary. He was a believer in equality and liberty and in whatever was necessary to achieve them. From his perspective when action was required we should not refrain from it. Sometimes the necessary steps worked, as in the case of the American Revolution, and sometimes, as was true regarding the French Revolution, they didn't. Sometimes they got out of hand. Although modern liberals diverge from some of his teachings, the “left,” today, shares many of his views.

Burke shared his English heritage with Paine, but disagreed on a number of points. Most important was his acceptance of the idea that the reality is that there is inequality, and that is appropriate. He saw this as most significant, and as a justified construct, in the English monarchy^vi and class system, and in Parliamentary rule.^vii,viii,ix While he supported American independence it was because that system had failed the colonies. The system was not inherently wrong, but functioned poorly when applied to the other side of the world. History and heritage were the important sources of our societies, and deviation from them should be done slowly and carefully, and following the rules. In current terms he was a “rightist.”

One way of looking at their approaches is through Paine's lens. He believed in reason,^x and that humanity, observing reason, could achieve peace and justice. He believed that reasonable men (people) would respond positively to the facts.^xi They would reach a common conclusion about the causes and cures of problems. And they would act to solve those problems.

Some, and Burke was among them, felt that reality and human nature were much more important motivators in human decision making than was recognized by those who turned to reason. He was more conservative in nature and looked to the past, to how people have acted before when faced with a similar situation, to the rules of the game, and to a full analysis of the current situation, as guides when considering the next step. It was an approach that placed greater emphasis on the “is” than the “ought,” believing that approach was more likely to be productive.

Perhaps politics was not the most important subject on Sigmund Freud's agenda, but his teachings accurately reflect past as well as present political philosophies. Paine believed in the immediate identification and rectification of problems by whatever means he thought might work at the time. It is still a common method of operation – recognize a problem and solve it. And by using Reason, you can certainly identify those things that are unfair or wrong in life.

Whether the therapy works or not, it is a start. Even if some of the results of the solution are problems greater than those which initiated the action,^xii it is a start, and if changes are needed they can be made in the proposed remedy. Don't just stand there, do something. Fix the problem. Right the wrong.

The process is the equivalent of a person following the directives of his Id. It is the unfiltered and, often, the incompletely evaluated reaction to situations which, themselves, may not be what they seem.^xiii And there may be disagreement on the nature of the problem, even among reasonable people.^xiv Hence there will be disagreement concerning the solutions. And since we are dealing with ungoverned Ids, the solutions, themselves, may be in conflict – possibly even resulting in deleterious results. Too often they act too fast.

Those who rely on history and human nature, on doing good while observing past precedents and proprieties, seem to be more significantly controlled by their Superego. But that Superego tells them to act slowly and deliberately and to do their best not to violate those principles that have been reliable guides in the past.^xv And it may be the cause of delay in action when more speed is warranted.

For Aristotle it was the “golden mean.” For Maimonides it was the “middle way.” Our solution to the problem, as named by Freud, is the Ego. Not the boastful and self-centered pride that rules too many of us, but the integration of our urges with the constraints that govern them. And, for the most part, it works. In politics it's called “compromise.”^xvi While there are times when “no deal” is better than a “bad deal,”^xvii it is usually the case that compromise can serve both sides: generally the truth lies somewhere between the extremes – though not always in the middle. Even the Ego can temper justice with mercy – or, at least, the Superego with the Id.

Reason and human nature may not be simple concepts, but we know what they mean and we can deal with them even if we can't work out every problem. They're far more understandable than complex philosophies that consider many issues of no concern to us, and that turn our vocabulary into a playing field of the cognoscenti. But I know where the philosophers are “coming from.” As I said, I have a grasp of reason and human nature.

Next episode: “My Ideal” – Wait until text time.

 

 

 

 

I        Actually, there's probably a new designation for it. Or perhaps that age is over and there is currently a new one. Either way, however, it's not the age in which I grew up.

ii       I have to admit to what would, nowadays, be considered old fashioned. I still use the Bible and some of its expositors as the basis for my religious ideas – but they're even older than Burke and Paine.

iii      Or, more accurately, whose predispositions led them in different directions though they may have dealt with identical facts.

iv       A fascinating book on the subject is “The Great Debate,” by Yuval Levin. (New York, Basic Books, 2014). The designation of conservative and liberal is, admittedly, an oversimplification. The two agreed on many points though their premises and approaches were divergent.

v        I apologize for the hubris, but space requires it, and because I only want to use parts of their opinions as starting points. I'll try to expand a little at some time in the future.

vi       And other monarchies as well.

vii      Other obvious inequalities – physical, intellectual, and socioeconomic – are less relevant to this discussion.

viii     Burke didn't completely repudiate the idea of equality, but his approach, in modern terms, would be the acceptance of equality of opportunity rather than outcome, which was more in keeping with Paine's outlook. In both cases, however, it would take long explanation to clarify their positions.

ix       Apart from differences noted above (end note vii), a 3 year old doesn't have the knowledge he will have following an education; nor does a 25 year old have the wisdom, insight, or experience he will have a half-century later.

x        Indeed, he named, and believed, that he lived during “The Age of Reason,” and he even wrote a book by that title.

xi       It's hard to ignore the fact that both Paine and Burke were highly intelligent men with good stores of reason. Yet they argued. But that's human nature.

xii      It may be “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness” (Watkinson), but if the match used to light the candle also sets the house on fire there is a worse problem than there was before. While that new situation teaches an important lesson, and may lead to changes, it would have been better to hold of on action and to take a little time first to find the light switch.

xiii     What you see is not necessarily what you get, and it may be seen differently by others.

xiv      While virtue is assumed to be the justification for most of the doings of those who rely on intellect, some reasonable people will personalize the problem. They will see only injustices toward themselves, and act to optimize their own position. Clerow Wilson (“Flip” Wilson to the initiated), when his character Geraldine was found to be acting out of concern for herself, was wont to have her claim “The Devil made me do it.” Her Id prescribed behaviors that solved her problems, even if at a cost to others.

xv       Of course many of their acts are based on human nature too, so self-interest will also be on their agenda.

xvi      Unfortunately, politics, for the most part, doesn't work. That's as a result of human nature. Certainly not reason. They clothe their refusal to compromise on “principle,” but too many of them lack the principles necessary to support such a claim.

xvii     Indeed, Maimonides taught that when it came to anger or pride there was no justice on their sides.