The Age Of Enlightenment – See It Now

There was a time when everyone believed in something. Most people accepted some form of worship, and only a few weren't convinced of the reality of religion.

The Age of Enlightenment changed that. In the view of many it was a change for the better. The exposure to new ideas, and the discrediting of many of the views and beliefs of the past, however, left some confused. To a degree, the same process had already occurred both during the Renaissance and the Reformation, but an entirely new dimension was lent to scholarship during the period of “enlightenment.”

Earlier explosions of learning had helped people understand the past; it had increased their knowledge of the ages that had preceded them – that had helped to form them. Or, when it came to the Reformation, it had rationalized their belief system by providing a group of new theologies more acceptable to a disenchanted populace than what they had been practicing. And in doing so it left them with ideas and faith that were stronger and more palatable than the ones which they had been taught, and under which they had lived.

But the Age of Enlightenment was one that tore down rather than built up. Certainly there was an increase in the appreciation of the natural sciences and of philosophy, however the new knowledge that was being developed had the effect of teaching everyone that what had been experienced in the past was erroneous. Old rules were abandoned, and old governments overthrown.

The American and the French Revolutions provided liberty to people who had been oppressed for as long as they could remember, and the exhilaration of self-rule and of freedom from the control of the unjust system that had enslaved them marked the beginning of a new era of Good.

Good, but not G-d. Nothing couldn't be explained rationally. There was no need for the mythology of the past. And that's all religion was. There was a scientific justification for everything. There was no need for any extra-rational system of thought. Religion was “the opiate of the masses,” and its only value was to keep everyone quiet and subservient. It was debunked. Stephen Hawking has taught us that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” That finished off whatever was left of faith. There was no need for an extra-rational explanation.

While Hawking's “explanation” simply pushes creation back, and doesn't really explain anything, it, and the societal changes and dogmas – Hawking's and those that came before it – that have accompanied “rationality” and the Age of Reason – another term for the period of “Enlightenment” – left many with a spiritual vacuum. Unfortunately it is a vacuum that too many were eager to fill.

For many the path to fulfillment involved a return to the religion of their past and of their family, but others had nothing in which they could believe and they sought both a new set of truths that would make sense of the world around them and a teacher or a guru who would lead them. They were a mass ready to follow a prophet who promised them the foundation they lacked. And they were ready to follow the teachings of their new leader without any thought about their validity. The invalidation of religion was the opiate of these not really liberated masses.

Sadly nothing has changed. We've had Jonestown and Heaven's Gate but people continue to seek the answer to the emptiness they face. And too often the prophets of our day have single item agendas – political, religious, or scientific – and they are impervious to reality; submissive followers are unable to deal with any views but those of their leaders, for those views have been accepted as their own. They are unable to compromise on political or social issues. Or, when it comes to religion, they are unwilling to allow others the choice of accepting another set of beliefs.

An example of such religious intolerance, and of the terror to which it may lead, is the San Bernadino massacre. Tashfeen Malik's allegiance to the Islamic State and its leaders, and Syed Farook's loyalty to a cause, are sad reminders of the power of an idea and the weakness of hollow individual wills. All it takes is a single-minded Svengali and people desperate to believe in something. It is the blindered leading the blind. Unfortunately we have too many of both. And we have too many examples of the violence that accompanies the intolerance of some.

There is no returning to the past. The jinii is out of the bottle. And we see what horror it can create. The Age of Enlightenment solved some problems but caused others. There are many paths to political, social, and religious truth – not a single one that everyone must follow. Until that idea becomes our path to enlightenment, intolerance and the refusal to accept other views will continue to cause societal dysfunction. A new Age of Reason in the future, one that has the dimensions of spirituality and tolerance, will be needed for that.

Fear Of Flying

I hate to fly. Yes I know that, notwithstanding Icarus's disobedience of his father and its disastrous consequence, flying is the safest form of transportation available. People say that takeoff, approach, and landing are the most hazardous parts of the air travel, but I know that the most dangerous leg of my flight is my trip to the airport. Other drivers just can't be trusted. Many more people die in automobile accidents than in those involving aircraft. Even in time of war. And the statistics are even more lopsided when the determination relates to the number of deaths per passenger mile.

Yet I hate to fly. But it's not any particular fear of flying. Certainly not a rational fear. (I'll admit that every now and then I have a fantasy about the airborne bus falling from the sky, but it doesn't really constitute fear, and the image disappears quickly in the face of common sense.) Every now and then there's a story in the media about an airplane disaster somewhere or other, but that's not because flying is dangerous. Quite the reverse. Accidents are newsworthy because they're so uncommon, and because they sound so horrible. What is not reported is that there are about three billion airline passengers each year with a total of 173 fatalities in 2013. That compares to 1,589 knife-related homicides in the United States alone that year. And over 33,000 deaths in American automobile accidents. Worldwide, of course, the numbers are higher.

Still, I hate to fly. And that's a little inconvenient since my daughter and her husband and six children live in Jerusalem. And another granddaughter with her husband and daughter live there as well. (There's also an assortment of other relatives, but I'll spare you.) So my wife and I take a couple of trips to Israel each year. Flights. And we take some other air trips as well, so it adds up.

I remember my first flight, in the late 1940's. It was just after the Second World War and my family flew from La Guardia Field in New York to Albany (NY) on a DC 3. Then I was scared, but by 1950, when we flew to Chicago, that was less of an issue. I can't even remember the flight. It made no impression on me. We took a tour of the States by train from there (train travel is very safe – only a little over ten times as dangerous as flying) and I recall that I enjoyed the trip greatly – especially the sleeping car. Clearly I wasn't devoid of awareness of the world around me, but I guess that flying no longer inspired fear. Even more pertinent, a few years later my brother and I traveled to (and from) Europe on the Ile de France. I did get seasick but I never worried about the ship sinking and all of us drowning, despite the fact that the likelihood of dying while on a ship journey is more than fifty times that of flying. But I digress.

If I'm not worried about flying, then, why do I hate it so? Well, let's start with getting on the plane. No. It begins long before that. The first trick is negotiating the airline's web site, and that of the ticketing agent. Perhaps it's my computer, but the sites never seem to work right. Choosing an airline for me is based almost entirely on the lowest price and flight times most similar to my schedule. I have no loyalty to a particular company so it should be easy. But it isn't. I guess the same is true for those who use other modes of travel however, so I won't pursue the issue. But I do blame the airlines for sometimes forgetting my seat or food choices. They solicit the information from me, but that doesn't always get translated into the right seat or the right meal.

I also blame them for wasting all my time with printing boarding passes which are then redone by them when I check in. And there are delays caused by a long line of passengers waiting to do so, along as well as secondary to the security check-in which requires me to undress first and re-dress afterward. I certainly feel reassured by the security, but I've never been blown up on the subway even though they lack the sophistication of the airlines.

I have other, more significant beefs though. Cabins on cruise ships may be small, but they're luxurious compared to the narrow seats on planes and the lack of adequate leg room. (And the available space – actually its absence – in the dirty toilets.) Each inch that they take from every seat may translate to more rows and more seats and, most important, more revenue for the carrier, but it only adds to the discomfort of the carried. (You can be sure I'm not going to pay the obscene premium that they demand for a first-class seat.) The lack of space also makes balancing a meal on the plane a real challenge. I guess that's just as well though since the food isn't very good. I only wish that they'd pick up the garbage more promptly rather than leaving it for me.

If there was a long wait to board the plane, it takes even longer to get off after the plane has landed. First you must retrieve your carry-on luggage from wherever it is. It's almost a sure thing that the overhead bin intended for your seat will be filled by the time you get there and the space under the seats is inadequate, and filling it with anything makes sitting even more uncomfortable. Then there's a lot of rushing and pushing to get into line to leave the plane, but that's not really of any consequence because it takes a long time for the line to move, and even after you disembark everyone has to wait by the same carousel for the baggage. If yours hasn't been lost, it will surely be the last to arrive.

And then there's the dangerous trip home from the airport.

I haven't mentioned a number of the problems like the crying babies, the cramping caused by the passenger in front of you who lowers his seat back, and the child behind you who kicks your seat throughout the flight. And the people standing in the aisle next to your seat so they can talk with their friends. But by now you get the point. What's a traveler to do?

So the next time I visit my daughter I'll probably … fly. What the hell. It's the only game in town.

The Library

There's an article on the Billboard web page of September 1, 2015. It tells of the discovery of the only known manuscript of “Good Morning to All,” by the Hill sisters (Mildred and Patty), which you know better as “Happy Birthday to You.” It was found in the music library of the University of Louisville. The article dealt primarily with the copyright of the song, but that's not of particular concern to me. I'm more interested in the manuscript itself, a manuscript lost for a long time – over half a century – but rediscovered by chance when a librarian was looking through an old sketch book.

It's hardly the first time a “lost,” or an unknown manuscript has been discovered by chance in a library somewhere. The manuscript may be music or text, but what is most exhilarating is the surprise associated with unexpectedly finding a remnant of the past – often documenting not only the thought expressed, but also the handwriting of an author who may have lived centuries earlier. (It may no longer be the case, but people used to write out their ideas rather than entrust them to a computer. Indeed, there were no computers. So you'll never find an honest–to–G-d undiscovered manuscript using a search engine.) 

Such discoveries tend to be the rarely received rewards of the dedicated researcher, although occasionally they result from a cleaning or an inventory; they're not the reason why most of us go to libraries. There was a time when people went to their local libraries to borrow books, but with the internet and Kindle^®, that use is diminishing. In fact, the sales of print books is decreasing rapidly. Not only that, but the lead of children's and young adults' books is most striking and disturbing. Our youth are preoccupied.

And, despite the treasured beliefs of college librarians, campus libraries are frequently of primary use as meeting places – both planned and unplanned. They're good places to find reasonably intelligent members of the opposite sex (or of the same sex if that's what you prefer).

But there are other libraries – ones of more interest to some of us older folk. (We have memories and longings too.) Perhaps I'm only describing my own fantasy, but the library in which I'd like to find myself has room after room of richly carved woodwork, and more books than I could possibly want, but which somehow provide a feeling of security and stability. The library is warm and quiet (though I can listen to classical music – harmonic and accessible, not discordant and modern – through my earphones) and the chairs are comfortable. The lighting is perfect, and nothing around me moves except for those who are intent on providing for me all the services of which I dream. They're people who exist elsewhere, but in my library their main interest would be in my satisfaction.

Librarians, for example, are not at all the way we tend to picture them. We usually view them as dowdy spinsters who have no life except telling others to be quiet. A more accurate picture is of someone who knows a lot, and knows how to find out what he or she doesn't yet know; the librarian is a person dedicated to helping us find what we seek – whether it's a specific fact or a book. And that's just what the librarians in my library do. Of course they anticipate what will interest me and have it at the ready as soon as I want it. (I'd have to find a way to browse through the books where I might find an unexpected treasure – either a random book or some other goody. An unknown Vivaldi Concerto, for example. But one way or another I'd manage to browse.) And, interestingly enough, the books they hand me, no matter how trashy the contents, are all beautifully leather bound. How much better it is to hold such a book in my hands, and to turn the pages than to simply view the contents on some sort of electronic device.

There are others I'd have in my library – mostly the kind of people who might otherwise find employment in a private club. It would be nice to have someone bring me a snack or a drink and clean up after me when I'm done. In most clubs they'd be spending much of their time delivering and refolding newspapers, rather than locating books, but I'm sure they'd learn. (And every now and then I want to read a newspaper.) You can be sure my library would also have another club feature – a dining room featuring exotic and delicious dishes (kosher, of course) however I'm dismayed at the thought that I might have to get up and walk into the next room. But there would be a way. Better, I'll have the food brought to my chair.

Another model with some of the features I treasure is a monastery (except for the kosher food, of course). Theirs, as far as I'm concerned, is an overly active life, but in a setting in which the monks have taken a vow of silence and there is no socializing I'd probably be very comfortable.

That's the fantasy. It's the dream of a hermit like me. I suspect, though, that if it were real and I had access to it, it would be hard to find the time. I'd have to leave my computer. But it would all be worth it for that dusty sketch book.

Keeping Up With (All The) Traffic (Can Bear)

If it sells, we'll sell it. We'll make it; we'll market it; and we'll sell it.

Good, bad? They're irrelevant issues. How do they affect society? Who cares. And R and D are moving faster than the law, so we can do it, and no one can stop us. In fact they (the IRS and the lawyers) may like what we're doing. Or, a least, the public may. They're gobbling up (Thanksgiving is coming soon ((as I mentioned in the past, I write these long before they're published)) and I like to keep up with the season) all the electronic devices that are produced – especially the ones with the most idiotic gadgets and applications.

Electronics, actually, are (is?) a good case in point for what I'm saying.

Most of the population has some kind of hand-held device. It started with cell(ular) (tele)phones. That was several decades ago. (Portable communications units date back to World War I, but the phones we now use weren't very widely used until they were miniaturized and improved near the end of the last century.) Cameras, wi-fi, streaming video, and other applications were added, making use as telephones a less significant function. And they've swept the world. It doesn't matter where you are. Look around you and there will be someone – probably a lot of people – using their tablets, phones, or other devices to work, communicate, or amuse themselves. It's hard to know how the world got along without them. (Actually, some of us still do, believe it or not.)

The “social media” developed rapidly, relentlessly, and universally, and cell phones became even more the carriers of communications than they had been. But it wasn't as telephones – their main use was for “texting” (and “sexting”). And with that, eye to iPhone contact increased logarithmically. Leading to a problem with a far greater impact: texting while driving – “distracted driving.” And resulting from such driving there were numerous accidents with injuries and deaths. Safety was a major issue.

Of course there are numerous other causes of distraction – the radio, conversation with passengers, thinking, eating, looking at maps (for those who don't have GPS), putting on makeup, etc. – but none entered the popular imagination, and the centers of fear (the amygdala and places like that), as did texting. Something had to be done.

At this time it should be remembered that the automobile has faced safety issues before, but its reaction has been different. When air-bags were first discussed for example, car makers fought the concept claiming that they would raise the cost of cars. Economics was more important to them than safety. When the government forced their adoption, prices did go up (they always go up even without change) but the manufacturers then ballyhooed the safety of their products and made the air-bags into a selling point. Economics remained their primary concern.

Reaction to electronics, however, has been very different. Manufacturers have welcomed the revolution, and incorporated it into their vehicles. They're vying for dominance in the number of digital gadgets they can add. They sell. Blue Tooth has become a major component of the modern automobile. (Not even Pepsodent can stop it – it can only deal with yellow. Buy a vehicle. You won't have to wonder where the Blue Tooth went. It's right there.) And now they're putting wi-fi sources in the cars. That may increase the amount of distracted driving, but it's good for the industry's bottom line. And economics remains the driving (sorry) force. The most logical response to the safety problem would seem to be the removal of these capabilities from cars, or at least their blocking in the front seat (if they can provide bags to keep EZ Pass from triggering, they can block texting and other signals), but quite the opposite has occurred. They've increased the capability to ignore the world. And it's helped their profits. (Coincidence? I think not.)

Don't think the car makers are insensitive to safety concerns though. They just have another way of dealing with them – better and more complex self-driving cars. It may require an increase in the number of gadgets, but people can text all they want, and they can watch movies to while away the driving time. They certainly won't have to watch the road. Perhaps that will cause a further increase in car prices, but sales and profits are likely to go up as well. Everyone gains. It's win-win. It's even good for the banks that make car loans. And electronics manufacturers, insurance companies, and auto repair shops. It's the American Way.

If we hawk it, they will buy. And there's an app for it.

At Least They Tried

About a week ago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed or injured thirty-five people during a rampage in San Bernadino, California. They had several pipe bombs with them and additional weapons, ammunition, and bombs at home. It took less than two days for the F.B.I. to conclude that this might be a terrorist act. Quoting his father, the Daily Mail said of Farook that he “was a 'momma's boy' who supported ISIS [and] wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.” His wife had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook. The President, however, warned Americans not to blame Islam because we should be free of prejudice. It's not the American way.

The President showed admirable restraint and concern about the possibility of Islamophobia, as he had often done in the past. This was consistent with past practices. He opposes the categorization of terrorists, and all other forms of hate speech. When terrorists in Paris had murdered Jews in a kosher supermarket, he properly asserted "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." He carefully avoided any hint of bias by calling the Muslim terrorists “vicious zealots.” And to avoid any suggestion that anti-semitism might be involved, he said that those assassinated were shot “randomly.” They were just “a bunch of folks.” It's legitimate to be “concerned.” As long as we go no further. What a relief.

But that doesn't mean that the leader of the free world didn't have potent proposals about the actions we must take. Although he may not have made any suggestions, or announced any policies (nor even the consideration of them) concerning increased security at public sites, better monitoring of potential terrorists, supervision of threats on the social media, visa procedures, or enhanced review of contacts and of travel patterns of those who might be involved in terrorist incidents, the President was emphatic in his demand for stronger actions in gun control. We all know that guns kill people and we needn't be concerned about terrorists. Our greater fear should be of members of the other party who oppose what we propose.

The New York Times concurs. Noting that some countries have strict gun control laws but have killers who “obtained weapons illegally,” the American newspaper of record reminds us that “at least those countries are trying.” The terrorists in those countries had violated the law when they obtained their guns but fortunately those whom they faced, law-abiding citizens, were unarmed. That is certainly reassuring to the families of those killed. And there is no question that strong gun-control measures are obligatory for backward nations (like ours) in which regulations are either absent or not muscular enough.

But gun control is not a universal solution to violence. In some countries violence has different expressions. For example, Sayed Farook “wanted to see Israel wiped off the map” but there the preference is for stones, scissors, knives, bottle bombs, and automobiles, so different laws would be required. Let me suggest the following:

1. Stone control, making it illegal to use stones without a background check. The check would require a minimum age of four, and a determination that the applicant have no history of mental disease. All stones and sling-shots would be photographed and registered.

2. The user of scissors would have to participate in safety training, including the caution against running with scissors. All scissors would have to have rounded tips and safety catches to keep them closed.

3. The purchase of knives would require a license – whether the instrument is intended for kitchen or outdoor use. Background checks on chefs and all women would be instituted. Knives could not be concealed. The individual implements would have to be stored between murders in child-proof closets. If used for kitchen work as well as murder, washing with an anti-bacterial solution between uses is recommended.

4. Bottle-bombs are complex combinations of glass bottles, inflammable substance such as kerosene, and flame. All require controls. The bottles themselves must be approved by organizations supporting BDS to ensure their origin in an acceptable location; the kerosene would be required to have certification by OPEC; it would be necessary to register the flame. While this may be difficult, law-enforcement agencies must be supplied with tools to detect flames and they must be authorized to confiscate illegal combustion. An exception would be made for cigarettes. The banning of matches would require further study.

5. It is noteworthy that automobiles are frequently used in order to kill Jews. While existing motor vehicle regulations are extensive, it may be necessary to outlaw all motorized vehicles since they are potential killers. Camel travel should be explored.

No change would be made in current regulations involving other weapons since that would limit military training and use and, more important, would impose an unfair burden on smugglers.

In the United States, however, the answer to all violence is gun control. It will certainly be comforting to anyone who has been shot to know that his attacker, by carrying a weapon, was doing something illegal and that no one was so unpatriotic as to try to categorize, or use an illegal weapon in opposition to the attacker.

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

My intent is not to denigrate the importance of reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available, but to suggest that the willing disregard of important parts of the problem in order to remain politically correct and to promote a political message ensures only the opportunity to blame someone else for your failures, rather than policies that deal with all of the causes of a problem will be likely to solve at least some of them. The desire to assign responsibility is probably the case. But the goal has to be to solve problems rather than fault someone else.

People Don't Need People

I lied. Well I didn't exactly lie, but I've changed my mind – and several other things. At the end of my last essay I wrote “Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.” Maybe I'll get around to that and maybe not, but I realized when sitting around that I'd already achieved my purpose.

Since I began spawning these narcissistic forays in October of 2010, I've written close to 375. I've spoken quite a bit of what's on my mind and, by and large, virtually everyone must agree with me since only one person has taken issue with what I've said. I refuse to believe that the reason for this is that no one is interested, but even if that were the case, if others actually read what I write, there would be concurrence with my thoughts.

Anyway, the first of my essays, “Prolegomenon,” appeared on October 5, 2010, and in it I wrote

I hope that others will benefit from my wisdom (which is a given if they read this), but even if not, just putting ideas on screen allows me to consider and develop them. I can confront my own rare logical weakness when I see (and recognize) it in front of me, and, since I always agree with the point I am trying to make, that helps me reinforce and strengthen my arguments. I make no pretense as to fair and balanced opinions. The views are my own. If I present someone else's, it's only to expound on why it is wrong.

I'm sure that the message is clear, but just in case let me explain myself. I've used this tool to help me work out some of the questions that have occurred to me – to try to come up with a better understanding of the issues and to decide on the correct answer (not just for me, but the TRUTH) to the problem I've been pondering. And I did this without even consulting Douglas Adams's computer. The answer – and it is the ultimate answer to cause of the world's problems – is not “42,” but “people,” and the computers they construct and program. If there were fewer people there would be fewer problems. And if there were none, there would be none.

The idea is, at least as far as I am concerned, worth some dilation.

Whatever issue I consider – politics, hostility in the Middle East, religion, constitutional freedoms, or almost anything else – the cause of the difficulty is human. For example, if the government isn't working (“Why,” you ask, “did he use the word 'if?' The government never works”) it's because no one is willing to hear the views of anyone who disagrees with him or to compromise; when (not “if.” I know it will happen, and I know that you'll smirk at “if”) an instance of terrorism occurs in the Middle East, it is because of people's beliefs or fears. Some people who call for freedom of speech demand that right only for themselves and would deny it to those who disagree with them; and those who are believers blame evil on people, who have free will, while those who are atheists have no choice but to agree that people are to blame.

Pogo put it best. “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We're our own worst enemies. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) practices “one-upmanship.” It's as important to us to defeat the “other” as to be right. Too often our goal is not just to help me (a more or less “acceptable” aim), but to beat you (which is more “problematic”). We're always looking for an angle or a loophole. We can't get along with each other because we always want to come out on top. Right and wrong are irrelevant.

Whether you're a Darwinist or a believer, your object is survival. It may be personal, patriotic, or religious – or there may be some other aim. But in order to accomplish it you must conquer your enemies. Life is a zero-sum “game.” Everyone's in it for himself. The one who dies with the most, wins.

The recognition of human responsibility for all our ills confirms my wish to be a hermit on a desert island. The fewer the people the better. The fewer the people, the fewer the problems. Cooperation is an illusion. Some information is OK. It's nice to be connected to the world – to know what's going on – as long as no expectations or obligations accompany that connection. Any interactions with the other participants is certain to lead to disharmony at least, with deception and competition more likely outcomes. Who needs that? I'm from the live-and-let-live school, and that will only work if I stay away from others.

And I've achieved my goal because that's the answer. It's the answer to all our problems. People are responsible. (Other people, of course.) So to have the fewest problems, stay away from people. And recognize their position as the sowers of discontent, as I do. So having clarified the issues I had five years ago, it seems to me that I have nothing to gain by continuing this series. At least not on a regular basis. If there's a particular situation or subject I want to discuss, I'll do so, but there won't be any pattern to my postings.

You're on your own.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, maybe there'll be more.  People may be bad, but I'm not.  And I have more to say.  I can't help it.  Tune in next week ...

Say It Isn't So

According to Reuters (and many other sources) “Princeton University has pledged to consider renaming buildings dedicated to former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in the latest U.S. campus effort to quell student complaints of racism.”

It's about time!

Students have pointed out, quite rightly, that those of the past have not lived up to our twenty-first century standards and should be held accountable.

And the New York Times agreed. “Student protesters at Princeton performed a valuable public service last week when they demanded that the administration acknowledge the toxic legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who served as university president and New Jersey governor before being elected to the White House.” If the Times says it, it must be true.

But the protests do not go far enough. We should begin by renaming our capital's most striking monument. George Washington was a slave owner all his life, only agreeing that they be freed after he died. In fact, we should rename the city itself. Racism is wrong and we cannot condone it, especially in the name of our capital. Instead we should switch to the District of Columbia – except Columbus oppressed Native Americans and took their land. (Indeed, we're obliged to change the name of the school which has hosted so many protests.) That won't do for a country as great of the United States of America. (Actually we'd better rename our great country since Amerigo Vespucci “captur[ed] some 200 Native Americans in the Bahamas to take back to Europe as slaves.” – check the internet and see http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorersection&id=166

Clearly this is a matter that the Democrats should discuss at their next Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner (both were slaveholders), and they should then rename the occasion – except I don't know to what.

Republicans can deal with the issue at their Lincoln Day Dinner (of course the Emancipation Proclamation was a political statement rather than a philosophical one, even though Lincoln favored a policy of no new slavery) after altering the appellation.

Changes in thought, beliefs, and preferences have occurred over time and we must not honor those who shared the views of their times if those ideas are now considered reprehensible. Those who favored expansion of our country at the cost of Native Americans, often breaking treaties with them, should be shunned; slaveholders and other racists should be reviled; religions that proscribe women as leaders cannot be tolerated, nor should we memorialize their members. (We can, however, ignore the fact that President Roosevelt turned away the St. Louis, and the founder of the New York Times was determined “not to have The Times ever appear to be a ‘Jewish newspaper.’” If we were to apply the same rules to anti-semitism we'd wind up with no one to honor. And, as that great philosopher Tom Lehrer said, “Everybody hates the Jews.” Always have, always will. Let's let that one pass.)

Our problems are that we're arrogant and we're revisionists. We're convinced that our principles are absolutes, and violation of them invalidates the rest of someone's life. We second-guess the past in the light of current beliefs and rip pages from the history books if they don't conform to our standards. We don't want to see and honor the past, we want to transform it into a prior present. Dogma trumps education and achievement.

But we shall be judged by the standards of others in the future as we judge those in the past. Perhaps our descendents will consider abortion to be murder, or our attitudes toward prostitutes to be too restrictive, or too lenient. Perhaps they'll feel that those who favor incarceration of criminals or the use of service animals are wrongly restricting the freedom of members of the animal kingdom. They might even consider protesters to be disrupting the freedom of others. And they may obliterate any reference to anyone holding such views, or tolerating those who do so. They might require a “donor's advocate” to defend the placing of a philanthropist's (or anyone else's) name on a university building, in order to prevent the pollution of future seekers of truth.

Or perhaps we should recognize that times and prejudices change, and that we only harm ourselves when we suppress the knowledge of what actually happened before, and when we deny honor to those who may have accomplished great things but who had opinions that differ from ours.

The Earth Moved

“What these streets need are new streets.”

That's what my wife said as we were driving along in our community. The street was bumpy. In part that was the result of some work by Con Ed, who had put in some new gas lines recently (allegedly repairing the roadbed when they finished – however they left the streets far worse than they found them), but there were also numerous contributions of the weather, age, and previous repairs of various types. So after all the years, the street was a mosaic of different materials and levels, with potholes, cracks, and broken asphalt and concrete.

No, that's being too generous. “Mosaic” suggests beauty, and the road is anything but beautiful. It's literally a patchwork, disturbing to the eye, to the rest of the body, and to the vehicle. They didn't patch it very well. In addition to wreaking havoc with the automobiles, it also punishes pedestrians, who often choose the street as a pathway to some place or other. It's especially hazardous at night when, because the holes sometimes go unobserved under non-functioning street lights, tripping and falling are especially common.

But sometimes people use the streets because the sidewalks are similarly dangerous. Since they're maintained by the various landowners, they aren't all of the same material. And many of them are broken. Some portions are at different heights from the adjacent sections – either because of tree roots or aging – and they're very narrow in spots. In autumn, when they're covered with leaves, you can't even see them. And when, after a storm, they're covered with broken tree limbs as well, they're all but impassable.

So I was relieved when I saw construction vehicles and repair trucks appear, though I didn't know where they'd start with all the work that needed to be done. It didn't take long to find out. Their work was at the corners, where they were constructing ramps from the impossible streets to the impassable sidewalks. Some of the ramps weren't even down to the level of the streets, ending an inch or two too high. Some terminated in broken areas in the street. They had been built, presumably, to ease the transit of wheelchairs to and from the sidewalks, but the poor construction, and the fact that they were only on some of the corners, made them ill-suited to the task. Because there were sewer grates at some of the corners and obstructions at others, the construction seems to have been done only where it was convenient.

But that was okay. I've lived in my neighborhood for nearly fifty years and I can't recall ever seeing a wheelchair – motorized or manual – on the streets. I suppose there are some and I've missed them, but there certainly aren't many. I'm reasonably observant, having earned my living as a radiologist, and I've spent my life seeing large things and noticing small ones. There was, however, an alternative explanation which should have been obvious to me. Those who cannot get around without a wheelchair were simply staying home because of the lack of ramps. They would come out when the work was done.

Unfortunately they didn't. I looked for them but my search was futile. Actually that didn't surprise me all that much. I sometimes deliver meals to the home-bound, and I've never seen a wheelchair in any of their homes. I don't think they hid them when I came, however I can't be sure. I guess it's just as well, though, since it would be a rough ride for them.

However that leaves open the question as to why the ramps were built now. And the question of why there was no repair of the streets and sidewalks. For those befuddling mysteries the only conclusions I can come up with are that there was money available for this specific project, and the deadline was coming up soon. Or another possible explanation is that the Federal (Feral?) Government mandated them everywhere – whether they were needed or not; they were required whether it was a wise use of taxpayer money or an offering to the gods of political correctness. The differently abled (see, I know the drill) among us are entitled to help, no matter what it costs us. (The politicians certainly won't pay for it, though. We will.) It might be cheaper in some locations to purchase chairs that can climb a step (and if they don't exist commercially I suspect they can be constructed for far less than the cost of the ramps), but that probably is not an approved use of whatever grant is paying for the work. (I hope the next grant of tax money isn't for “wheel” as well as “walk,” buttons to stop the traffic at all corners. Of course the buttons would have to be built low enough for the wheelchair bound to reach, and also made child-proof.)

Nonetheless, we can all be relieved that our leaders are taking responsibility for those who require help. And I'm glad my car isn't disabled yet, so I don't need smooth streets.

Yet.

Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.