Conflicting Rights

Same-sex couples are entitled to get whatever wedding cake that they crave at the bakery of their choice. It's the law. And that right – one they have always had – was granted them as well by our nation when it was founded. The baker has no say in the matter.

Our first document as a new nation – indeed, the one that made us a new nation – the Declaration of Independence, listed both the quarrels we had with the British King and Parliament, and the principles for which we stood. It clearly stated that “all men are created equal.” Not only that, but that they were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and among them was the right to “the pursuit of Happiness.” What else could the Founding Fathers have had in mind but that two men had the right to marry, and they were entitled to whatever wedding cake they wanted from whatever source they selected. It didn't matter what flavor icing they preferred or to have flowers, if they had a yen for them. They could even have two grooms on top (or, for women, two brides – a Constitutional amendment and court decisions have asserted that whatever men can do – as long as it is not proscribed by physical constraints – women can do as well). They were entitled. It was their right. (It's not even explicit Constitutionally that they're required to pay for it, though that is the subject of local laws.) And their Creator was in full agreement, having personally endowed men with the right.

At least that was the initial view of those eighteenth century pundits. They subsequently wrote a Constitution, a plan by which our new nation would function, and appended to it a Bill of Rights which spelled out the limitations under which our government would operate. In that listing, however, they omitted same-sex marriage, while making it forever unmistakable that we possessed the right to practice our religion as we saw fit, and without the interference of that government. That was the first right delineated. It was fundamental to our new republic, and central to our values. Governments had no right to specify where the Creator stood on any matter, nor had the Creator any right to decide right and wrong.

But the courts, as opposed to the Creator, have such a right; they have not only found the “right” to same-sex unions in the Constitution (they had to “find” it since it is nowhere mentioned in the document), but that such a right takes precedence over our government's specified obligation to abstain from interference in the “free exercise” of their citizens' religions. There are instances when rights are in conflict. And the Judiciary has assumed the responsibility to decide what is more important.

Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary was seen by the founders as least important, and its description, in Article III of the Constitution, is the shortest. Over the years, with no protest from the Legislative and Executive branches, although they are (in that order) supposed to hold the real power, the Judiciary arrogated the power. So the courts can decide that the “right” to abortion is more important than the use of speech (irrespective of what you thought, it isn't really protected by the First Amendment) to warn of possible consequences.

In addition to informing us as to which rights are most significant, the courts can also tell us whose rights take precedence. For example, the right of free speech guaranteed, for the courts, the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, a city with a majority Jewish population including many Holocaust survivors. How the residents felt was not relevant. On the other hand, “hate” speech, which may hurt someone's feelings, is impermissible. And an individual with “gender dysphoria” – with the DNA of one sex but a preference for the other – may choose what bathroom to use. It doesn't matter, according to court opinions, if those who properly use that bathroom object. Their rights are trumped by those of the dysphoric individual.

The problems are not simple. There may be no agreement on the issues, but there isn't even agreement on the criteria to be used. Should the justices rely on the Founders' words or what is thought to have been their intent? To what degree is precedent controlling? What is the significance of public opinion and current fashion? Should the Justices base decisions on their own views? Sometimes they aren't even clear what their own views are. Justice Potter Stewart, in an opinion on a cinema pornography case, said

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it (emphasis added), and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

It may not have been clear enough as a basis for future opinions, but it was honest. (Supreme Court) Justices and (Lower Court) judges are often subjective in their judgments, and there are times when their view does not reflect what most people consider to be wise, or to be based on American law and tradition. When matters so basic to American society are involved, some form of review mechanism would be sensible.

The Constitution was written in the name of “We the People.” Changes in it must be approved overwhelmingly by Congress and the States. In selected cases it would make sense to bring Congress and the People into the conversation. Whether that would mean the [binding?] expression of opinion on specific issues, or simply exist simply for the purpose of guiding our representatives on the larger questions of the day isn't clear. Perhaps the People should have input to questions of majority versus minority rights, or the relative strength of the branches of government, or the relationship of the states and the Federal government. The distribution of power is certainly something that the People ought to weigh in on, since perceived abuse of power was one of the primary causes for them to want “to form a more perfect Union.” It's important that some of the power be returned to those in whose name it is being exercised. I'm sure that if we're determined we can find a way to do so. The People have rights, too.

Next episode: “Below The Beloit” – Well, did you ever?

The Final Perek

I wrote a few months ago about my concerns regarding the relationship between Israel and the United States. I'd like to add to what I said then, but with emphasis on what I fear may be the final outcome of the conflict in the Middle East. My fear is based on both history and future demographics, in addition to the attitudes of the world's nations.

One of the most beloved of books in the Jewish literature is entitled Pirkei Avot, literally Chapters of the Fathers. It is, primarily, one of the tractates from the Babylonian Talmud – Avot – and deals with the history of the Torah and the implications of Jewish law regarding right and wrong and proper behavior on the part of individual Jews. The original tractate consists of five chapters but a sixth was added – probably in pre-Geonic times, more than thirteen hundred years ago – when it became customary to read these lessons in the six weeks between Pesach and Shavuot, the period from the escape from Egypt in biblical times until the Jews received the Torah at Mount Sinai. (The work included the period from Moses to the time of the Sages.) The chapters are arranged to educate the Jewish People, and to inspire them and improve their behavior so that they would gain the greatest benefit from the Torah, which we receive symbolically each year.

But in addition to the travails of the Jews before the epiphany at Sinai, the time since as been marked by a long campaign of defamation and oppression. There is no need to review specific incidents, though they were many, for it is clear that the history of antisemitism is a long one. What has become obvious, however, is that the battle against the Jews has entered a new, and perhaps concluding, phase. And Avot is not up-to-date, but it still guides us.

It's interesting, though coincidental, that Islam originated in the same era as the weekly reading of Avot. Islam traces its roots back to Abraham and has adopted Jewish teachings within the Qur’an, though Muslims view the Qur'an as “The Final Testament.”  While he originally admired the Jewish People, when his attempts to convert them all to his faith were unsuccessful, Muhammad formed a less favorable view and his followers have hardened their positions further. Jews and Christians, “people of the Book” (he viewed the “old” and “new” testaments as components of the Bible and the basis for the Qur’an) were considered dhimmis, potentially protected – though second class – citizens of a Muslim state, who were required to pay a special tax. They were tolerated – but barely. We may have had the same ancestor, but we have very different outlooks.

Despite their origin geographically and historically, therefore, there are many differences between Muslims and Jews, only two of which are worth mention at this time because they have implications in regard to the final outcome of the current contention. One relates to the view of life. First, although for Jews a threat to life justifies the violation of Sabbath laws, and self-injury or placing one's life in jeopardy is forbidden, for the Muslim, death is preferable to violation of Shariah (Islamic law). Hence the following from the London Times:

A man was arrested in Dubai after he fought off lifeguards trying to save his drowning daughter, telling them that he would rather she die than be “dishonoured” [sic] by having unknown men touch her.

“Honor killings,” based on the perception that a woman has dishonored her family by being courted by a man not chosen or approved by her family, or even being raped, are, sadly, more common than we might want to believe. And the use of children as shields in some military actions – with their deaths predictable and often desired for political reasons, further reflects a view of life and death different from our own. As does the whole idea of martyrdom and its rewards.  Dying to kill Israelis is martyrdom.

I am also troubled by the whole idea of taqiya. Dan Perkins wrote in “The Hill,” a Washington newspaper “for and about Congress,”

“One of the guiding forces is called taqiya. This principle is sometimes referred to as dissimulation. Dissimulation, is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth from an infidel -- in our case America is the infidel. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth.

Muslims are taught from a very young age, that when they deal with infidels they do not have to do what they have said they’re going to do.

The concept stems from the words of Muhammad in the Qur'an: “War is deceit.” A treaty with a Muslim government is suspect. Relying, therefore, on the Iranians to inspect their own military installation in Parchin, for example, is not wise.

Adding to the deceit that Islam promotes, and the eagerness to die that it espouses, are the realities of Islam's numbers and high birth rate, and the readiness of the rest of the world to please Islamic nations for reasons of their economies and their preference for Muslims over Jews. Although all proclaim that the Jews control their governments, finances, and the press, most of the world's nations oppose Israel, those nations favor the Islamic world for economic reasons, and the world' media is tilted against Israel.

With the world's support, “The Final Testament” appears to be the one that will prevail. No one will fight it, irrespective of the implications for their own countries and religions. There are increasing numbers of Muslim voters who must be courted. Short-term benefits are their goal. Long-term aims must take a back seat.

But Israel cannot accept that approach. Their existence is at stake. With surrounding hostility, and facing an ever-enlarging and more powerful enemy presence, blind trust is not an option. Only certainty, if that can be obtained. The issue is not a two-state solution, but the question of whether there will be any Jewish State.

The final perek in the history of the Jews will either include the miracle of the coming of the Messiah and their rescue from the oppression of those who would destroy them, or the destruction itself. Only G-d can decide what is right. So we hearken back to the words of David ben Gurion: “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.”

Next Episode: “Conflicting Rights” – You're right too.

Emphasis

I used to think that the most important education we could provide our offspring was in science. Other subjects were time-killers, and of little consequence. It was in our nation's interests, and it was our destiny, to stay ahead of the rest of the world in the development of scientific concepts and tools.

And it reflected the American passion to lead in everything we do: to develop the ideas that would be adopted by the rest of the world. It was the American Way. We were the explorers of the frontiers. We were competing with an ever-enlarging pool of nations determined to replace us both economically and militarily, and we'd stop them.

We were entrepreneurs as well. We'd get it done and show the others how; after all, we had (what we thought to be) the best pedagogy in the world as well as wide exposure of our culture to everyone else. The past was over. Why belabor it? Moving forward was what counted. New education, therefore, was paramount – especially that in the sciences. Early and extensive exposure to the nature of the world around us – to science – and the physical problems we faced, would ensure the interest of our children in those fields. Sadly, it was true.

That's what I used to think. But as I get older I'm less certain. Perhaps I should have become suspicious earlier. Music “Appreciation” taught us to recognize great works by the use of silly mnemonics (“This is Jupiter. This is Jupiter,” “This is the symphony that Schubert wrote but never finished,” “Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning”) and the American “history” in our aged textbooks emphasized what we now view as mythologyⁱ and xenophobia. I'm not sure if our teachers thought that was all our young minds could digest, of if that was all they knew or what they viewed as important. But they underestimated us. And we're the worse for it.

It will probably sound obsolete – perhaps even foolish – but I sometimes think that modern education deprives its consumers of the chance to think. We have outgrown the idea of a classical education, and that is to our detriment. And, to a lesser degree, the American concept of science's superiority is international, though educationally we have been surpassed by many countries. Moreover, we don't believe that our citizens don't need to learn the languages of others (and certainly not Latin and Greek) because everyone else should understand English; we don't have to trouble ourselves with history because our focus is on the present and the future; and if there is a literary reference we don't understand we can surely find the explanation on-line. Not that we're likely to care about music or art, but there are “apps” that will help us identify what we hear and see. (We're already familiar with rock, rap, and comic book art.)

And, of course, Mythology is mythology.

But we're now seeing where that leads. It has become obvious to everyone (painfully obvious to many of us) that fiscal restraints govern the range of what we can teach. It is not original to note that education in the humanities (and physical education as well) is being sacrificed to the gods of science – often to the point of anti-theological indoctrination. In fact, with all of the scientific developments of recent years, most of education is being sacrificed. As Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.”

That's the problem. Why is it important to know history? Anything you may want to know is on line. (That was even true in the time of Yogi Berra – actually he's still alive – who taught “Even Napoleon had his Watergate.”) Do you need to know the product of 497 and 2143? Use your computer's calculator.ⁱⁱ If you need to know how a word is spelled, or what it means, your computer – desk top, notepad, or hand-held – can help out. And you can look anything else you need to know.

Actually, that's part of the problem. Those lacking real intelligence can use the artificial variety. Science has replaced actual books, knowledge, and even reality, with the virtual kind. Science is moving fast. In my view, and that of many others, too fast. Even the law can't keep up. As I mentioned, these ideas are not original. They represent the laments of many of us curmudgeons. For us, it's time to take a break. Slow down. We go too fast. Maybe it's risky. Maybe someone will get ahead of us in some area. So be it. If accurate knowledge of the classics and our history, if exposure to the arts and philosophy, will help us understand ourselves, our world, and its people a little better – if it will remind us how to think creatively – the risk is worth taking.

It will be a long time before humans land on and colonize Mars, taking it away from the “little green men” (though why they should want to do so is beyond me), and it's unlikely that it will foil G-d's eternal plan if it takes a few years longer. In the meantime, they, and everyone else, will benefit if the humanities make them more human.

Next episode: “The Final Perek” – The ? State Solution.

I        We have a new mythology of history now. One of affirmative action, multiculturalism, and a gender agenda. It's just as false as the one we were taught, but it's more in fashion. I'll deal with it another time.

 

ii       By the way, it's 1065071.

The Fight Isn't Over Until You Win

Well, the time has passed to disapprove the pact that the President made with Iran. Actually that deadline was last week, and I should have commented then, but [insert your favorite excuse here]. It wouldn't really have mattered though because Europe was rushing to make deals with the the Ayatollah, and they didn't wait for Congress to weigh in. There was too much at stake – a lot of money to be made, and it was important to be fast in dealing with Iran. (Yes, Switzerland was in there early. When it comes to money – or anything else – they don't play favorites. Switzerland is expert in matters of time, and now's a good time to get Rials.) In view of the fact that Iran is building missiles that will make it possible for it to target Europe with nuclear devices – and the agreement doesn't restrict their production – it is surprising that Europe sanctions the deal. But it does. Actually it favors the removal of prior sanctions against Iran.

But Congress does not approve of our largesse. It is simply powerless to stop it. The President's take is clear. “This vote is a victory for diplomacy ...” He clearly views it as a personal victory as well and in a way it is, though in reality it is simply the avoidance of a defeat. The President and his minority party have won a (procedural) victory over the Senate by threatening a filibuster and preventing a vote on a resolution opposing the deal with Iran – a resolution that would surely have passed. By terming this treaty an “agreement,” he has won a victory over the Constitution by denying the Senate the right to advise and consent in regard to its contents. The President waged a fearsome battle and didn't relax until he had the votes to assure his triumph.

Additionally, there were secret side letters and agreements for which we are responsible, but because they are secret we'll never know if Iran is keeping up its part of the deal or not. Nor will we know if any deviations from what we believe to be the agreement were permitted by our President and his negotiators. We'll hold Iran to every word of the agreement, but we don't know what those words are. (Actually we do know part of the “secret.” Iran will be permitted to take some of the samples that will be tested for radioactivity and international inspectors will not have free entry to all of the sites they are responsible for inspecting. But if you can't trust Iran, whom can you trust?) Initial legislation, signed by the President, guaranteed Congress the right to see all documents that were part of the “agreement.” Thus he has won a victory over Congress by ignoring the requirement to reveal all parts of that agreement prior to the vote. Actually there is no reason to expect him to reveal them at all, notwithstanding his obligation to do so.

And he has won a victory over the American People, who overwhelmingly oppose his treaty, viewing it as a threat to America. But the President, in the belief that he knows what is good for us, has signed onto an arrangement that will eventuate in nuclear weapons for Iran, and, in far less time, a windfall that can be used to increase instability in the Middle East. The castor oil the President administers, however, is good for us. We're sure to forget about it by the time the next national election is held. And even if we don't it's not his problem since he won't be running for re-election.

The President has declared one victory but, in fact, he has won several. By extracting support from party members, he has stymied and won a victory over the Senate; by terming his deal with Iran an “agreement” rather than the treaty it is he is victorious over the Constitution; by withholding side letters with Iran from Congress despite his having signed legislation requiring their disclosure he has won another victory – this one over Congress. Additionally, with an American public that overwhelmingly opposes the treaty with Iran, he has won a victory over them too.

And in all likelihood, if judicial relief is sought, the Court will probably decide for the President rather than becoming embroiled in a Constitutional crisis. But the argument for reining in a runaway Presidency is clear.

In the meantime, though, it's a victory for the President and the Democrats. Unfortunately, however, it is a loss for democracy.

[By the way, in case you're interested, the title of this essay is a quotation from “Royal Assassin” by Robin Hobb.]

Writing It Right

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in a homogeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own history and at the society in which Man lives. Both are changing. We know that the first man killed in the American Revolution was a Negro. We recognize the plight of illegal aliens and are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays a man will not pay for his girl's movie ticket – they'll go Dutch treat. We even let our wives pay for our meals when we go to the Chinese restaurant. We've done away with old and outdated practices which we viewed as evidences of our courteous culture. Prostitution, and other examples of sexual activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that we watch. In short, many of our practices have to be disabled and replaced with more tolerant ones. We will not be guinea pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be gypped.  We will not let ADHD, dyslexia, learning disability or other affliction hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of handicap to limit us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the Queen's English.

The thought is noble (if stilted), but the language leaves a lot to be desired. Problematic text is indicated. Talk is cheap, but cheap talk can be very costly. Better to speak softly and carry a big eraser.

But the computer is mightier than the pen, and Moosehead Industries has the answer – “EupheWriter.” It's a program designed to rid your text of any language that may be offensive to anyone.

Thus far there are five modules: GendeRighter, that makes any document gender neutered; ERace, that obliterates any race-based references; UnDocumented, to Americanize those whose citizenship may be in question; Expletives Deleted, which can change “R” language into “G;” and Kinder Gentler Words, which tones down the rhetoric against other targeted groups. The sensitive writer can use more than one module at a time, and in any word processor. An efficient way of accomplishing this goal is to purchase Soft Spoken, which includes them all. More modules are on the way. (The program itself was perfected by Anish Bandopadhyay, a Native American from Mumbai.)

The program functions in accord with your needs. You may choose to have it identify but not change questionable language (for example you may decide that “The Postman Always Rings Twice” should not be rendered “The Mail Postal Deliverer Always Rings Twice) or have such verbiage automatically corrected. Depending on your wishes, the corrections may be marked or unmarked. An example of an unmarked version of the text above might look like that which follows:

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Condemn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in an LGBTgeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own past and at the society in which people live. Both are changing. We know that the first individual killed in the American Revolution was a person of color. Everyone recognizes the plight of those seeking to become American citizens and they are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays an individual will not pay for their date's movie ticket – they'll each pay their own way. Many even let their partners pay for their meals when they go to a foreign restaurant. We've done away with time-tested and outdated practices which we considered as evidences of our egalitarian culture. Sexual work, and other examples of intimate activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that the visually enabled watch. In vertically challenged, many of our practices have to be otherwise enabled and replaced with more sensitive ones. We will not be Italian pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be cheated.  We will not let different learning, different learning, different learning or other different learning hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of physical disadvantage to affect us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the gender dysphoric's English.

As you can see, while it's very good it's not yet quite perfect. What is? (By the way, have you ever read the product of voice-to-text technology?) Version 2.0, on which we're working right now, corrects some of the problems. But individualization will remain a feature.

After all, to each their own.

Next episode: “Emphasis" –  That'll larn ya.

 

Re:

noun: memorandum; plural noun: memoranda; plural noun: memorandums

A note or record made for future use.
"the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on economic cooperation"

That's what I got when I “Googled” “memorandum.” I had been thinking of my days as an administrator when I did so, and I also pulled up a mildly satirical essay that I wrote on administration a few years ago. The main content was a quiz allegedly designed as an examination for administrators. I include here one question – one that relates to memos. Its focus is on the distribution of the document but, unfortunately, it is more realistic than the dictionary definition – at least based on my experience in the field:

5. The primary purpose of copying someone on a memo is

         a. to cover yourself

         b. to get him or her involved

         c. to support the paper industry

         d. I don't understand the question

The Google^® definition is fine as far as it goes, but it only mentions the nominal purpose of memoranda, and is thus somewhat misleading. The actual purpose may be entirely different and I'd like to dilate a little on what is often the actual purpose of this tool. (By the way, the correct answer for an administrative wannabe is d. Indeed, that is the safest answer for an administrator to give to any question.)

It is certainly the nominal purpose (and occasionally the actual purpose) of a memo to convey information from the sender to the addressee, whether or not that addressee is ever furnished a copy of the document (see below). That information may be new or a reminder of something discussed earlier. Ideally, that would be the sole purpose of such a message but, unfortunately, it's not. The definition above, “A note or record made for future use,” is right on the money. What is lacking, however, is a full exposition of what that “future use” might be. And that use may relate to any of three individuals – the sender, the addressee, and someone who is “copied” on the document. I'll deal with them in sequence.

The sender has something to say (if only to cover himself). The initial assumption is that it is true, though that is not always the case. The purpose of the memo is to be sure that the recipient is informed of its contents. In theory the memo will ensure this result, although that is not always the case – especially if the words are ambiguous. Actually, that may be the intent. If the sender's goal is to confuse or weaken the recipient, such language is well suited to that purpose. However unclear the message, though, the addressee is likely to use what he understands to be the information in what he believes to be a productive manner.

If the information is false, however, and the recipient does not know this, it could cause him to make an error. Of course that may be the aim of the sender, especially if the recipient is a rival. There are times, however, when the recipient would recognize the mendacity of the contents but your goal is to memorialize your version without giving him the opportunity to gainsay it. That problem is easily solved by not sending him a copy, but saving the original as “proof” that it was sent, while his failure to deny what was said could possibly benefit you if there would be any dispute in the future – possibly after he has forgotten the entire incident. A memo that contains information that might be harmful to another may or not be sent to him, but should certainly be copied to others (cc – more on this subject to follow). If you don't want him to know that you're setting him up or making a fool of him, use “blind” copies (bcc). Another use of blind copies involves those times when you want him to believe you are on his side although the opposite is the case. (Of course you'll make the recipients of the copies known to him if the goal is to antagonize.)

I'm already discussing the goals of the sender, so let me continue. Apart from designs on the addressee, the author of the memorandum may simply be trying to improve his own image in the eyes of the recipient or those copied. One way he can do this is by correctly “predicting” the results of some action or policy. The best way to do this is prepare contradictory memos and file them for future use. Neither should actually be sent out, even though they should be addressed to someone in authority. When the time is right the “sender” will only pull out the correct prediction and, if the “recipient” claims he never got it, insist that it must have been lost in the mails (or, if the sender can get away with it, that the addressee must have forgotten).

I've mentioned the parties copied, but the context was their viewing pleasure – as they recognized your own brilliance and the incapacity of your target. But listing them as cc or bcc also has the advantage of making them parties to whatever is contained – whether you actually sent it to them or not. That involvement, too, may be valuable for the “future use” of which the definition speaks.

Some final notes about memos are in order. Remember that a memo can be sent electronically or using hard copy. Electronic messages may be the easiest for record keeping and as evidence should it be needed. But that coin has two sides. Depending on the skill and expertise of staff, it may be easier to determine whether electronic messages were actually sent. So when you anticipate a future dispute and you don't want one party or another to know that something was not sent and received, paper may be the medium of choice. Style should also be considered carefully – whether you wish to sound sincere, superior, or snarky. Snarky is ideal when you're in the process of humiliating someone.

And, of course, it's important to decide in advance how you'll respond (if you choose to do so) to a memo sent by someone else, or to the failure to receive an anticipated message. Bearing in mind the possible implications, especially those outlined above, it would be prudent to have a plan of action in mind beforehand – one that puts the other party on the defensive when he thinks he has the upper hand. Memoranda are a minefield. Caution is warranted.

Next episode: “Writing It Right” – “PC Writer?” No. That might result in a lawsuit.

Insanity

There are numerous “Eskimo” words for “snow.” It's not an urban legend. It's a fact. Part of the plethora results from the fact that people whose environment is almost always snowy have developed a vocabulary that distinguishes among multiple varieties caused by different conditions – temperature, humidity, and the like. Also important is the fact that their lives are largely governed by the snow and it is important to differentiate the types better suited to sleighs or snowshoe, those requiring different tools for hunting or other tasks, the varieties which determine where particular fauna may be found, etc. (And, in terms of the number of terms, we should not forget that there are many “Eskimo” languages.)

And there are differences among the snow "atoms" as well.  No two snowflakes are alike. That is both the teaching and the science. The snowflake, or snow needle, has a shape that is governed by the way molecules come together at different temperatures and levels of humidity. And with a virtually infinite number of possible arrangements of molecules, no two have ever been the same.

No two people are identical. Even “identical” twins, though their DNA may be matching, display differences. All the moreso when considering individuals with different genetic patterns.

Indeed, no two of anything are identical. “Real” objects, formed from matter, have differences like those of snowflakes based on differing arrangements of molecules. (We may even wonder if all electrons are absolutely identical, and all protons, neutrons, quarks, etc.) The differences may be minor and require complicated instruments to demonstrate, but they are there. And concepts and words, no matter how similar, carry disparate “baggage” in the form of varying nuances. And that makes accurate translation impossible.

In the words of Albert Einstein, “Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It's pithy, and it certainly is a reasonable view. But it's misleading. I don't question either Einstein's knowledge or his wisdom. However, according to Wikipedia – a source which many dispute – “Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state. Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an measurements of an observable [occurence]. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.”

That's a fancy way of saying that everything is random – it has a probability but we can never know if two situations are the same. And they're not. No matter what we may think or believe. So if “Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” we should recognize that we're (virtually) never doing the same thing over and over. No matter how it may seem and what we may think.

And I think about it. Often. Every time a problem comes up when I'm using my computer I wonder if I should try again. (If you don't succeed at first, try, try again.) I usually do so, and occasionally it works. If not I follow the wisdom recommended by all the computer mavins: “reboot.”

So I reboot and try again. And most of the time the problem is solved. I've gotten to the point that I expect a different result. Einstein would consider me insane, and perhaps I am, but the system works. I view it as black magic and, while I don't believe in magic, I prefer that to seeing myself as insane. I assume that there is some difference between the situation when I failed and the conditions when I succeeded. The difference may relate to the phase of the moon, to electrical impulses, quantum indeterminacy and randomness, temperature and humidity changes, slight variations between electrons, or evil spirits. I don't know.

And I don't care.

I have to run now. The men in the white coats are coming for me.

Next episode: “Re:” Virtual or hard-copy.

The Trouble With Israel

The trouble with Israel is that it's a democracy.

That's a little flat-footed and limiting. In fact there are a lot of troubles with Israel (though not as many as with its neighbors), rather than just one, but I'll emphasize democracy both because it's a problem itself, and because it causes other problems. (I'll add some other ideas in a few months.)

Israel has gotten a lot of admiration and support, especially in the United States, from the fact that it is an island of democracy in a sea of monarchies, tyrannies, and theocracies. At least until recently it has. Under the current administration – one that views dialogue with our enemies and distancing ourselves from our friends as the best foreign policy – some of our identification with it is gone, but that does not change Israel's political structure. Like the United States it is an imperfect democracy, but because of the path we have taken we now find it advantageous to emphasize Israel's faults, real and imagined, while ignoring our own, and to trumpet them to whoever will listen.

And Israel's enemies do likewise. Those in the United Nations have institutionalized the condemnation of Israel. The starting point among the nations are the surrounding countries, which call for an end of Israel's “oppressive” policies. Nations that kill their own citizens, promote terrorist organizations, and make war on their neighbors, call for the destruction of the democracy on which they blame their own problems, and whose elimination they claim would solve the region's difficulties. That is the only message they permit to emanate from their borders. Reporters who state otherwise are subject to penalties, and journalists from outside those countries are openly discouraged. Consequently the only negative stories that originate there are those that cannot be suppressed. And, lacking on-site coverage, little negative information is provided the rest of the world. So the world hears little about honor killings, female genital mutilation, internecine violence, and the oppression of women and members of the LGBT community, among other horrors.

But Israel is a democracy. Freedom of the press is one of its hallmarks. And life there is much more salutary than in the adjacent countries. So members of the press, including those barred from Islamic nations, congregate there, with more reporters than in most of the rest of the world. There is a competition for headlines, and what is negative sells best. Thus, from the comfort of their hotels, foreign correspondents compete to tell the world how bad things are in Israel. It's a story that the world – even the democracies – wants to hear. With little information from other Middle-Eastern nations it is easy to construct the evil straw man that the world seeks. If Israel weren't a democracy – if it didn't allow the transmission of negative information – there would be far less for the world to discuss, although they would probably denounce the country for some press limitations, even if they don't follow that policy for those countries that practice censorship now. (But Israel should act like its neighbors. It should be undemocratic. Tyranny. No LGBT tolerance. It should exclude or limit journalists. It should lower the world's expectations. Were Israel a closed society like its neighbors, with no press freedom, it would be of far less interest to some of those who now fault it.)

The press also ignore anything positive that happens in Israeli society – at least anything that reflects favorably on Jews. But they are quick to focus on the negative. There are no beheadings in Israel, so while playing down violence against Jews, reporters emphasize occasional acts against Muslims. They ignore, however, the condemnation of such acts by the government and people of Israel. Not only is that not done in the surrounding countries, but the killing of Israelis is cause for celebration, and the killers are praised as heroes for whom streets are to be named and rewards given. Were that to happen in Israel it would be justifiably condemned, yet it is considered understandable and praiseworthy among Muslims.

There is a double standard. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation. Even the United States seeks unilateral concessions from Israel, ones it would never accept for itself in similar circumstances. And countries that would never “turn the other cheek” if attacked demand that those who consider themselves the chosen people do so, even though that is not a Jewish teaching and it is certainly not their approach. If Israel were just another tyranny like its neighbors and forbade democratic institutions, less would be expected.

No. That is giving too much credit to haters of Western institutions. The claim that the cause of all the problems in the Middle East is Israel – that Zionism is racism – results from the long-standing hatred of Jews by others. And Zionism is a code word for Jews. In 1929 – long before there was an Israel – Arabs slaughtered large numbers of Jews in Palestine. Between sixty-five and seventy Jews were murdered in Hebron, most of them students and their teachers, with scores of others injured or maimed. The response of British authorities, who controlled the area at the time, was to remove the Jews, ostensibly for their own safety. Jewish victims were exiled from their homes. More recently the world has demanded that the Jews be removed from their homes – and this happened in Sinai and Gaza – for the benefit of the Arabs. There is always a reason to punish Jews.

Antisemitism. The world denies it and accuses the Jew of crying antisemitism whenever Israel or Jews are attacked or criticized. But seeing antisemitism in such criticisms is usually justified. It has flourished through the ages. In the past the accusations were of various types, including the spreading of disease, deicide, and the murder of Gentile children for their blood. In 2001, Daniel Bernard, as French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was quoted as saying: "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" The French Foreign Ministry defended Bernard and dismissed the charges of antisemitism.

And in 2015, a few days after others attacked the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a Muslim terrorist fired on and killed shoppers in a kosher delicatessen. President Obama attacked the [Muslim, though he didn't say so] assassins at the newspaper and the one in the delicatessen as “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The killing of Jews by a Muslim was a random act. They shouldn't have patronized a kosher delicatessen. Jews are belittled, and Islamophobia is to be condemned.

The trouble with Israel is that it is a Jewish state. And the world does not like Jews.

Next episode: “Insanity” – Maybe not.

Condemned

On my way to synagogue each morning I pass the house of a chiropractor who always seems to have an old Chevrolet in his driveway. It's invariably one that needs work and I suspect that it is a hobby of his to restore them. I remember cars like them from my childhood and, I assume, he does as well. That it was his childhood too. We all remember those days fondly and, since our senses and learning ability were greater then, the images from the past are our strongest.

Nostalgia. “Those were the days my friend. We thought they'd never end.” But they did. So we recapture them any way we can. However we adapt to the tools of the present and future, however we observe the norms of our times, we live in the past. We remember the music of our childhood, and the dances, and the events – both personal and national. Just as our children will do.  They will reject the trappings of our youth as we spurned those of our parents. (And, like us, they would be unable to tolerate the way of life of the distant past.)

That spurning made sense. We were smarter than our parents and more “with it.” We knew that the world was changing and that we had to change with it. George Santayana was only one of many who said it, but he is the one most remembered for the idea: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Those are strong words. Especially “condemned.” It is clearly a pejorative, having the same root as “damned,” and we accepted the wisdom of the adage and its denigration of the past without protest. A variant, that lack of knowledge of the past has doomed us to repeat it, is no better.

With age comes experience and knowledge. And, very often, conservatism. In many cultures age is considered to be accompanied by wisdom. The knowledge we acquired when we were young has been replaced by the wisdom that we gained as the years passed. So sometimes we recognize that the changes of our New Age may not benefit us or our children. Some of our childhood experiences and some of the world in which we lived then were preferable to what exists now. Yet we are taught that change is always for the better. Indeed, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The implication is that no one in his right mind would want to repeat it.

Some of those past memories, though, aren't so bad. Nor are the realities they represented. Some of what has replaced them is of questionable value to many, and repulsive to some. We need parental controls on our television sets and on our computers to prevent our children from watching what we believe to be harmful to them, and to keep them from being attracted by individuals who might have a negative influence on them. We have movie and television rating systems that warn us of the threats in popular culture. We worry about our food and our environment, and we fear to let our children experience the world without proper safeguards.

But we can't stop the world and get off. What has happened over the years has come to be labeled “lifestyle creep.” However undesirable the changes that have occurred, they are now part of the scenery. They're background noise. We can't get rid of them. We can't go home again. And, according to Santayana and others, we are damned and doomed if we choose to do so.

The result is a naїve belief that things will get better – that the world of the future is certain to be superior to what we have already experienced. Perhaps that is the case, but accepting change for its own sake rather than learning from the past, is risky. Not all change is for the better. Sometimes it is better to relive a certain and well-defined past than to gamble on a future filled with unintended consequences.

To a degree, Santayana and those who shared his view were right. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned likely to repeat it.” But that's not always bad. There is no single solution or formula. What may have been the worst of times was also the best of times.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Israel” – And why the world hates her.

Heresy

Alright. I admit it. I'm an anomaly.

No! Wait. I'm being too harsh on myself. I'm trying to be politically correct. I'm right and the world is wrong.

These thoughts crossed my mind last night as I had dinner out with my wife. It was at a nearby Chinese restaurant. It was her choice. Believe me it was her choice. My preference is for a steak house, since I love a nice steak with lots of burnt fat. Or a few similarly prepared lamb chops. With a nice glass of wine. Perhaps I'd choose a fancy dessert as well.

But I'm a good husband. So I had skinless fried chicken cutlets with peas and carrots. The name was fancier and, from the endless menu, it sounded tolerable. But it wasn't. Chicken is chicken and peas and carrots can, run but they can't hide. You can serve “snap peas” with grated raw carrots, but it's still peas and carrots. And schnitzel is schnitzel even with “plum” sauce. Moreover I suspect that the sauce was really a commercial combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor – but I have no beef with high-fructose corn syrup and artificial stuff, so I'll let that pass. (Actually I had chicken, not beef, with the combination of water, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color, and artificial flavor.) Fortunately it wasn't organic. (Or, at least, it didn't say so.)

Bottom line, though, is that I had chicken with peas and carrots. And the chicken was already sliced for me. People who eat in Chinese restaurants don't know how to cut food. (And maybe they all have false teeth.) There were lots of other things on the menu, but almost all of them were combinations of small pieces of meat and vegetables in some kind of thick, nondescript, sauce. Page after page of them. Far more than I cared to read. (There were also Thai dishes listed, as well as sushi, but all that proves is that the restaurant was keeping up with the fads. The food itself was no better.)

And, of course, there was a bowl of tasteless rice to fill me up, although there was no lack of food. What the dish lacked in quality it more than made up for in quantity. A big glass of water accompanied my meal. Fortunately it was tap water rather than some of the pretentious and overpriced bottled variety. I suppose I could have had green tea, but there's a limit to my masochism. I can take just so much.

As for dessert, everyone got a couple slices of orange and a commercial fortune cookie which I was smart enough not to eat. I eschewed the pop philosophy and my “lucky” numbers. I'm sure it wasn't my loss.

So where am I going with this? I'm Jewish and I don't like Chinese “food.” It ain't food! I don't care if half the world eats it or something similar (I don't like Japanese or Thai fare either), it just ain't food. Anything you have to eat with sticks isn't worth the time. I'd rather pick something up in my hands. (We're Henry the Eighth, we are.)

I guess this means that I fail in the test of multiculturalism. I'm ethnocentric. I've got teeth. I'm a heretic. A pariah. And I don't want everything mixed together.

But I don't care. Others, and I don't exclude Jews, can eat what they want. Even if it isn't food. And I'll dutifully observe the ritual myself every now and again in order to keep up the ethnic image and maintain family peace, however I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Pass the bagels and lox. And the herring. And the rugelach.

And I'll have a steak tonight.

All Men (And Women)

“[A]ll men are created equal ...” That's what it says. That's what the Declaration of Independence says. Very few people really believe it, but that's what it says. Nonetheless, many assume this means that all their ideas are equal – and equally valid – though apart from its expressions of equality, all the other writings of the Founding Fathers are out of date. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

The bases for their disenchantment with the founding documents (apart from those aspects that are politically correct) are that times change and also that traditions vary in different places and among different people.

Chalk it up to moral relativism.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

There was a time in our history and there were places in our own country when slavery was considered acceptable and, among some, virtuous. While a significant degree of prejudice remains, slavery is gone – at least in the United States and in most other countries. By such a definition as the one above, however, slavery was no less “privileged” then than freedom. In fact, it was probably more appropriate.

Similarly appropriate by such standards were child sacrifice among the Aztecs (and other civilizations), the burning of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands, cannibalism, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, Nazi eugenics and experimentation on prisoners, and a host of similar horrors. I shouldn't have said “horrors” since this suggests a rejection of the traditions of others. It suggests an acceptance of the heresy of “absolutes.” (True as that may be, admitting it is viewed nowadays as jingoism and bias, so don't quote me.) But all these acts were in keeping with the societies in which they existed.

For the last half century, therefore, we have taught our children – and we have convinced ourselves – that there is no such thing as absolutism. Our mantra has been “Live and let live.” Viewing the practices of others in the light of our own morality is judgmental and unethical. Indeed, we have made a point of exposing our children to the practices of others and sometimes espousing them. Ethnocentrism merits condemnation. So we have sacrificed history in favor of equal representation. Or greater representation of the unfamiliar – even if by doing so we create a new mythology. It is the affirmative action of pedagogy. Our own culture and traditions are of less consequence. There is more “truth” to the views of those uninvolved in world history than there is in the relating of what actually happened.

We have been brainwashed into believing that what happened as a result of “colonialism” should be minimized and that the stories of the “oppressed” are more important for us to learn. Thus our children are educated to be embarrassed by our own story (when they are actually exposed to it), and both texts and tests emphasize the virtue of other cultures, while subtly condemning our own. And all of this is taught at a level that will be understandable to everyone. We do not seek the highest truth, but the lowest common denominator. We serve the pablum of “feel-good” exposition rather the pabulum of honest evaluation. And we are left with a generation (and probably more to follow) of our youth and academic communities tainted by the guilt of their forebears.

We have become a nation in which sense is of less consequence than “sensitivity,” and everyone gets a certificate of achievement. Everyone is equal. All ideas are valid. We are all winners. There are no losers.

Except for truth, our society, and our future. They are the big losers.

Next episode: “Condemned” – Those were the days, my friend.