Rest In Peace

A few days ago, on the Op Ed page of the New York Times, there was a column by Gail Collins entitled The Senate Bathroom Angle. In it Ms. Collins related the tribulations of Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. (It will be soon be former senator, Mikulski having retired after four terms representing her state.) The senator bewailed the lack of adequate rest rooms for women in the Senate and the column's author, in fact, noted that “Almost every veteran woman legislator, in every level of government, has a story about the shortage of bathroom facilities at work.”

It's a valid criticism. When the original government was formulated, and when the government buildings were first designed, the idea of women in the government was not on the radar (and neither was radar). In relation to the particular situation, no one conceived of the idea that there might be a woman senator. So no rest rooms were included to meet the needs of a group of people that no one expected to exist. There were, of course, facilities ultimately constructed to serve senators' wives, and for tourists, but none for woman legislators. The public rooms, and the one meant for Senate wives, became the place for female senators to rest.

But with increasing numbers – about a fifth of all senators now are women, and it's likely to increase – a more fitting solution was necessary, and, in its wisdom, Congress authorized a rest room with two stalls to satisfy the women, and perhaps there will be more. Wait and see. But in the meantime, just wait.

It doesn't seem adequate, but perhaps it's excessive.

The same issue of the Times held an article entitled North Carolina Fails To Repeal Measure That Caused Boycotts. It lamented the fact that North Carolina didn't overturn legislation (H. B. 2) that “requires transgender people [and everyone else] in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender [sex] on their birth certificate.” It's a touchy subject.

Elsewhere in the article it notes “Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed H. B. 2 and helped to organize the economic backlash to the law, said on Twitter that Mr. Berger's measure 'doubles down on discrimination … '” (Phil Berger is a state senator who had offered a compromise bill.) The Human Rights Campaign, which has, as its motto “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights,” had this to say about Senator Mikulski: Sen. Mikulski received a 100% rating on the HRC Scorecard for the 113th Congress. The scorecard rates members of Congress on their positions on LGBT-related legislation.

With the knowledge that Congress is a government institution, and is housed in public buildings, I cannot but wonder that the senator sought additional, and separate, rest room facilities for women. Senator Mikulski's support for LGBT positions in the past suggests that a better solution from her point of view would be an elimination of the entire notion of sex-limited rest room facilities, and I'm inclined to believe that even for Senators and Representatives there is no reason why “people in public buildings [should have to] use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate.” Whether they're LGBT or not isn't the issue, and making it such is a disservice to the public that Congress serves.

It's a foreign concept I suppose, but shouldn't our representatives have to follow the same rules that they say should govern the rest of us?

We Will Survive

I lit the first Hanukkah candle last night and today's the first day of the holiday. It's also Christmas. According to the radio this morning, this is the first time in forty years it's happened. And that started me thinking about the two holidays, and about Christianity and Judaism in general.

The notice of the coincidence that I heard on the radio isn't really surprising – especially in America where we try to be “diverse,” and to recognize the holidays of even those we disdain. And American Jews, attempting to retain a little of their heritage as they assimilate, and to find a reason for giving presents at a time when others do, have emphasized one of our minor holidays, giving it a prominence that exceeds its importance. The major holidays – the ones that are “difficult” and associated with “unnecessary” ritual – are of far less interest. They're not relevant in modern society.

These two holidays, Hanukkah and Christmas, are very dissimilar and they demonstrate one of the main differences between Christianity and Judaism. Apart from the specifics of observance, Christmas demonstrates a focus on an individual and the celebration of his life. In this particular instance it celebrates his birth. And a similar focus relates to the other major Christian holiday, Easter, which commemorates his “rebirth.” The interest is in an individual, and the memory of the events of his life. Little emphasis is placed on Christianity.

I mentioned that Hanukkah is a relatively minor holiday. And it is. But in a way it symbolizes the way the sages thought, and the way they chose to commemorate our history. It is a holiday that celebrates our survival as a nation. It's about us, not Him. We acknowledge G-d and are grateful for rescuing us from the end toward which we were headed, but we celebrate our victory and our survival. That's the main theme of the holiday.

And it's the same with many of our other holidays – important ones like Passover and Sukkot (Tabernacles), and some of the minor ones as well. Purim, for example, recalls our victory over the Persians, but the biblical record, the Book of Esther, doesn't explicitly mention G-d. What is most important is that our nation was victorious.

Such a focus is not surprising, and it's served us well. We're a small nation and we've always been so. But we've survived through time. We've survived because our focus is on our nation. On earth. It doesn't matter if we're less interested in the transcendental. We're still here.

We face a new terror though. Antisemitism, primarily a product of the “religion of love,” a creed that focuses on the hereafter rather than the here, has become a major message of Islam. They usually frame it as a reaction to Israel's presence, but it's a bias that long preceded Israel. It is antisemitism. Perhaps it's framed in a way that is more acceptable to the world, but it's antisemitism. And like Christianity, Islam is a religion that focuses on an individual and on the hereafter. What happens on earth – what happens to believers – is far less consequential than any acts done in adoration of him. The world's two largest religions – Christianity and Islam – have in common both a focus on an individual and on the end of the religion from which they are both descended.

Hanukkah teaches us that our nation, with G-d's help, must and will survive. Small but united, we, and Israel, will survive. G-d has promised us that. But we must act together. We must be united. We must be a nation.

Happy Hanukkah.

Mixed Grill – III

Here [we] go again – Paraphrase of (then) candidate Ronald Reagan (October 23, 1980).

Well. Not exactly. The format may be like what I've published before, but the content is a little different. It's a way of emptying my files of individual lines (or more) that I entered on my computer, but for which I have no particular use. So you're the patsy. Quotes, puns, and other waste matter. Give it its due – whatever that is.

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

I want you to remember, that no poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it, by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.— George S. Patton Jr. (War As I Knew It)

Kitsch Cabinet – Modern presidential advisory body chosen for public relations benefits

Hairy Plotter – J. K. Rowling villain with dread locks

Entry forbidden – No entry – Statute enforced by SVU

Sub-four minute miles – These are the times that try men's soles

Fear The(e) Well – Latest Stephen King novel – (Deep)

We're all corrected – Theme song of Sing-Sing Singers

New York Minus – The recent passing of Mary Ann Madden – A real loss.

This is the winter of our discontent – New York, 1947 – Rio, July

Internet shredder – For those incriminating e-mails

Self-driving cars – So you can text while driving

Does “get a life” have fewer than 140 characters?

Bell, Book and Scandal – Witch? Bitch? Never learned to spell.

I. E. – Latin, id est 1856 – Freud born

A few good men – A small minority of Marines

Money Burns A Hole In My Pocket – So I'll use it to buy e-cigarettes

Whither thou goest, I will go – Mr. Keen, Tracer of Lost Persons

I regret that I have only one life to lose for my country – Even worse, I regret that it's not yours – Nathan Hale

Keep the home fires burning (not) – California, Summer, 2016

Deck us all with Boston Charlie, Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo! Nora's freezin' on the trolley, Swaller dollar cauliflower alley-garoo! Don't we know archaic barrel Lullaby Lilla Boy, Louisville Lou? Trolley Molly don't love Harold, Boola boola Pensacoola hullabaloo! Bark us all bow-wows of folly, Polly wolly cracker 'n' too-da-loo! Donkey Bonny brays a carol, Antelope Cantaloupe, 'lope with you! Hunky Dory's pop is lolly gaggin' on the wagon, Willy, folly go through! Chollie's collie barks at Barrow, Harum scarum five alarm bung-a-loo! Dunk us all in bowls of barley, Hinky dinky dink an' polly voo! Chilly Filly's name is Chollie, Chollie Filly's jolly chilly view halloo! Bark us all bow-wows of folly, Double-bubble, toyland trouble! Woof, woof, woof! Tizzy seas on melon collie! Dibble-dabble, scribble-scrabble! Goof, goof, goof!

                           Pogo Possum (Walt Kelly) 

Distracted Diving – The new waterproof iPhone will allow texting while snorkeling

Happy Hanukkah

E Pluribus Plus

Some time today – if they haven't done so already – our electors will designate Donald Trump and Mike Pence as their choices for President and Vice-President of the United States. Mr. Trump will be the forty-fifth (or maybe the forty-fourth) President. The count is tricky since Grover Cleveland served twice, but his terms were separated. He was, however, only one man and Benjamin Harrison's presence did not change that fact. Apart from the variations that occur in anyone's mind from time to time, the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth chief executives had almost everything in common.

We are a nation in turmoil. It is commonly held that Mr. Trump has divided the nation. But that is not the case. Although we have managed to cover it up, we have been a divided nation for a very long time. People differ concerning the benefits of such a designation, however it cannot be denied that this is the case.

We have always been a nation that welcomed newcomers, although we sometimes favored one group over the others. To a degree that has been our undoing – the favoring, I mean. We like to think of ourselves as taking in, on equal terms, all “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Unfortunately, however, fear, favor, and politics have played a large part in our choice of those who will share our land. And we have not hesitated to show discrimination when it served our purposes. The treatment of native Americans and of imported Africans was shameless, As were the internment camps during World War II (sixty-two percent of those confined were American citizens) and the prejudice “real Americans” have shown toward the Irish and the Italians, to Catholics, Jews, and, most recently, Muslims. We encourage class warfare by emphasizing economic and social differences.

And we have also shown favoritism. We defend it as “the American Way,” congratulating ourselves on our support of minorities, making sure that they are not “oppressed” by the majority. That, too, however, involves a large political component. By catering to particular groups some hope to get their votes. It's been going on for a long time. We praise ourselves for our openness to opinions other than our own but it's more show than generosity, – we expect the support of the others in return. And it's our way of placing burdens and blame on those we dislike.

But the worst part of such behavior is that it divides us. We celebrate “diversity” and “multicultural” values at the expense of unity. There was a time in our history when we emphasized acculturation and assimilation. People were free to keep their own heritages but it was clear that there were national values that came first. Our laws weren't always just, nor were they always justly applied, but they were our laws.

The time has come when we prefer to encourage favoritism, division, and polarization. It's been going on for years, but recent political developments have made it more obvious. And the media have contributed to the situation by emphasizing conflicts wherever they can find them. And violence sells, so that disagreements, especially big ones, get their attention.

That's where we are now. One party claims to speak for those whom they consider the disenfranchised – who need protection from the majority. They claim to represent the poor and the “middle class.” The other argues on behalf of “American Values.” They contend that too much emphasis has been placed on creating a secular American society where rules are made to satisfy the needs of each voting bloc. And they're both wrong. Their visions are very different – not like two incarnations of Cleveland divided by a Harrison, they are two completely different views of America and the divisions between them cannot be bridged.

In the most recent election the extremists of both parties – the ones who emphasized the differences between them – the issues that divide Americans – took over their parties. Both candidates were disliked, distrusted, or feared by a majority of voters. But no one spoke for the large number of citizens in the middle. Our differences had been emphasized, rather than the principles that bring us together. The election and the election process divided the country – not either candidate, although both were, in their own ways, divisive. We were left to decide between the lesser of evils – and both were evil – because we were unable to present ourselves with more reasonable – less discordant and more acceptable to all – choices. And they and their supporters emphasized the rhetoric of division. We've been so for a long time, but for the most part chose leaders who would make the system work.

Perhaps at some time in the future we'll be able to do the same again.  First we'll have to recognize our situation rather than deny it. Then we'll be able to admit that we're all to blame, rather than try to find an individual to fault.

Objective Standards

There ain't no such thing.

That's a rather flat-footed statement. It's dogmatic. But, like (almost) all of my words, it's true. There ain't no such thing as objective standards.

We use them to determine which candidate for a particular position should be selected; who's smart and who isn't; whether a violation of the law can be documented; if a specific individual is qualified to be a firefighter; what frequencies can be used for transmission of internet messages; and similar decisions for which measurable criteria can be determined.

“Can be determined.” By whom? “(A)y, there's the rub.” For the specific “objective” criteria were dreamed up by someone. In reality, however old and honored they are – and some of them seem to be eternal truths – they're really subjective. They're codified subjectivity. For example, Madison, Wisconsin limits the volume of air compressors to 88dB at 50 feet. Miami, Florida Is also troubled by the noise from such devices and forbids it from 6 PM to 8 AM on weekdays and any time on Sundays. They're objective standards which mean that you're violating the law if your air compressor emits a volume of 89dB (at 50 feet) in Madison, or if you use one at all in Miami on Tuesday at 6:15 PM. Better to use a compressor that registers 87dB (at 50 feet) in Madison on a Sunday at midnight, or one that pollutes the ear at 89dB on Tuesday afternoon in Miami. Otherwise you're violating the law. Clearly there are different sensitivities depending on where you are. But it is less clear whose sensitivities they are.

They're subjective, not objective. They're formalized subjectivity, though after a while they take on a patina of objectivity. Everyone knows that those who don't abide by the rules are, in fact, lawbreakers. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for crime.” (Actually, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the regulation is that Ignorantia juris non excusat – “ignorance of the law doesn't excuse.”) But someone made that rule, and someone wrote the laws that it defends. And a precedent solidifies a position's correctness. It sets the standard. When was the precedent set? A while back – though we may not even know when. And who set the precedent? Judges and lawyers. People. People who believed that what they considered right and wrong were, in fact, right and wrong.

But people tend to have different opinions. Calendars ought to be objective, but they differ from place to place and time to time. Rules regarding sexuality may differ between Samoa and Saint Louis. But the local rules pertain in the different places. It's far more of a problem than different perceptions of noise in Madison and Miami. And the “objective” standards to permit carrying a gun in Dover, Delaware differ from those in Dover, England. (Or, for that matter, in Dover, New Jersey as contrasted with Jersey in the Channel Islands.) Concepts of cultural relativism abound, and with them there are variations in objective standards.

Do secular “objective” laws trump the standards set by “divine” law? That, too, is a subjective decision. Both may have fixed, “objective” standards, yet they may disagree. Still, within the context of each system, it has somehow been ordained what is acceptable and what is not. Indeed, those following what they accept as divine laws, and the standards that accompany them, may have different views about what they are or should be. Even within a religion (and much more between them) there are different traditions which provide standards for “proper” behavior. Traditional Judaism requires a minyan (quorum) of ten males over the age of Bar Mitzvah (13) in order to say particular prayers. Other branches may be less choosy, if they seek a minyan at all.

There are different objective standards. And they change. Today's fashion standards would have been belittled in the past and they certainly will be in the future.

If subjective views are the basis for the designation of objective standards, it is important to consider who is setting those standards. It's usually the higher-ups in a hierarchy – for example G-d in religion – but those on lower rungs often flesh out the meanings of the laws. Over the millennia men have been the rule-makers in most of public life, which means that in many areas women cannot meet the standards they set. That doesn't mean that the standards are wrong, only suspect. But, in all honesty, I'd rather have a 220 pound male policeman defending me than a 120 pound woman, or a firefighter carrying me who can lift 175 pounds rather than one who can't. I'd rather be defended by an attorney with an IQ or 140, than one with an IQ of 115, even if both have passed the Bar examination and are, objectively, equal. Maybe that's wrong and those ideas are only a product of my own subjectivity. (Perhaps I disagree with those setting them regarding what the objective standards should be.) And in the United States, regulations are often determined by unelected bureaucrats who have been left to do so by a Congress not interested in getting involved in the details As long as our representatives, themselves, are exempt it doesn't matter what objective standards are set for the rest of us, so there is no need to review them. They can live with subjectivity to which they aren't subject. So for others it is reasonable to accept “zero tolerance” criteria. Deviation from some “objective” criterion is a violation of standards and not to be tolerated. That's certainly the case when particular standards are set for inclusion in a group or in a profession, whether according to a rulebook or according to licensing procedures.

That doesn't invalidate standards. It's good to be able to rely on a train schedule, or any other schedule (although there are many who are lax about following them). And it makes sense for scientists to set strict criteria for the determination of principles or properties in their fields. But it is foolish not to recognize that the standards they set are subjective, and might be different if others were to set them. And it's legitimate to review such standards from time to time and place to place if any question exists about their applicability. Which doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that most are the result of human biases. The only ones that may have validity beyond those human biases are any that are of divine origin. There are absolutes.

But otherwise there ain't no such thing as objective standards.

Trick Or Treat

I heard on the radio a few days ago that Americans will be spending 3.1 billion dollars on Halloween costumes this year.

For children and adults, as well as dogs and cats and other pets. 3.1 billion dollars.

People around the world are starving, thirsty from lack of clean water, suffering preventable diseases – and we have set aside 3.1 billion for Halloween costumes.

Our problem is focus. We think, primarily, about ourselves. We rarely pay attention to the problems of others. If we tolerate someone else telling us about his problems, we're not really listening: we're mentally preparing what we'll say about our own difficulties – a description intended to show how much worse off we are than he. We have to be better – or in this case worse – than anyone else. We're always competing.

So it is with our Halloween costumes; and fashion; and technology and everything else. We have to be best. We have to be better than anyone else. It's not enough to keep up with the Joneses, we have to do better. The cost isn't important. Nothing is too good for us. And there's nothing left for others – for the Smiths locally or for the poor elsewhere. Charity? It begins at home.

I'm not a fan of the UN. It exemplifies bias and Realpolitik. Right and wrong are irrelevant to it. But they got it right with “Trick or Treat for UNICEF.” (Actually they get credit for something they didn't really do. The event was created by the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.) Not that it's so successful – they've raised 188 million dollars since 1950 which is far less than we spend on ourselves – but it has taught the lesson that even when we're celebrating we should be mindful of those who are suffering. There is a concept of hiddur mitzvah in Judaism – of enhancing or beautifying the observance of a commandment or “good deed” that this represents (even though Halloween is emphatically not a Jewish observance). An observance is enhanced by caring for others, not just for yourself. Perhaps the extra money that we spend to beautify the commandment would be better spent if we used it to better the lives of others.  Sadly, however, a concern for others is far from universal.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we don't think about others and the difficulties they face. Perhaps we'd be more generous if we faced the problems which confront others daily. Every year in my synagogue, and in many others, on Yom Kippur, a fast day on which we seek atonement for our sins, there is an appeal for support of charities that have the mission of feeding the hungry. On a day that we are hungry we can better relate to the issue and the people who suffer from it. Our hunger is but a “taste” of theirs, yet it is enough to remind us of its pain, and to prompt us to do our part to help those in need. However we should not need such prompting; we should be concerned about all of the needs of others at all times. And we should not only be concerned, but we should offer help to those who require it – wherever they are, and without the prompting to do so.

On January 20, 1961, John Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, said

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The same is true of our other obligations. It is a challenge to fulfill our human obligation to others not as fortunate as we. People as well as country. We're blessed to be in a rich country, not controlled by a dictator and, for the most part, not subject to the hardships faced by so many people around the world. It is our obligation to help when we can. It is better to be a superhero than to dress up as one.

Call On Your Cell Phone ...

I heard it on the radio. Not the grape vine. It was part of some kind of advertisement or announcement. I don't remember which, but that's not important. What mattered was that for participation in the particular program all you had to do was call or register on your cell phone.

And only a few days before that I received an announcement from the Social Security Administration that they were implementing a new program that was designed to increase security by posting passwords to your cell phone. (See "Simplify, Simplify, Simplify," – August 1, 2016.)   The password would change with each use, so it would make hacking more difficult. All you had to do was request a password on your computer when you wanted to access your mySocialSecurity account, and they would send a one-use password to access the site. Brilliant.

Unfortunately there are problems. I don't have a cell phone. They've developed the program with the assumption that everyone has one, and it just ain't so. (They also require texting ability which limits the audience still further.) Even a computer is considerably less than universal. I suspect there are other ways than cell phones with texting to get the information provided, since there is a question in their FAQ section dealing with this particular issue. However when that question is “clicked” all that is provided is information about how to contact them. No answer to the question. I didn't pursue the issue because I didn't really care. I don't have a “mySocialSecurity” account. Actually I didn't even know those accounts existed – though the program probably provides lots of taxpayer-supported jobs for voters – and I've done very well without participation.

That's not the point, though. What is really involved is the assumption that everyone has a cell phone, and knows how to text. It's called “progress,” and it's clear that it's the way we're headed. There was a time when the assumption that we had a refrigerator, or a telephone, or even electricity, was unreasonable, but they are now, along with television and such things, the basic implements of our culture, and soon enough the texting telephone, and devices we haven't even thought of, will be ubiquitous as well.

But we're not there yet. Every other day we hear about a computer system that's been hacked or fails for some other reason. A few days ago I heard on a travel program that it was best to make a hard copy of your airline boarding pass before going to the airport and not relying on what's on your cell phone. That would allow you to check in even if there's a computer failure.

And, as if on cue, Delta's computers were down this morning – they blamed it on an electrical problem – and they were forced to delay or cancel numerous flights. I don't know if the paper boarding passes were of any value, but the situation demonstrated the risks of relying on computers and cell phones. And it's hardly the first time this has happened. It seems that every couple of weeks there is a problem with the computer system of one airline or another, or the hacking of some business's computer system, along with credit card and Social Security numbers. Plenty of room for identity theft, the crime most in vogue right now. As is the theft and ransoming of data on a wide variety of devices.

Even worse is the hacking of the computers of Government bureaus and public officials. Much of it is done as part of spying programs – both political and industrial – and the identification of agents has cost the lives of many on all sides, along with other necessary state secrets. (We pride ourselves on “transparency,” but there is probably no greater enemy of international diplomacy than that. Nowadays WikiLeaks is providing the transparency.) Of less human consequence is the loss of industrial secrets and intellectual property, though these are also significant casualties in the modern competition between good and bad.

I don't mean to suggest that modern technology is bad. While I may be a troglodyte, I recognize what is happening. And I guess it's a good thing. (I can't stop it anyway, so why waste my time? Que sera, sera.) Just as telephones became standard, so will computers and cell phones. But perhaps we're moving too fast. We're responding to marketing rather than common sense. Perhaps we're so determined to have the latest and the best that we're less concerned about the safest. And we're suffering for it. It's time to stop, take a deep breath, and count to seven (we rush even that).

It's one thing to perfect our spying in order to deal with other countries and to protect our own security and systems, but it's quite another to put our own data and civilization at risk. However important progress is, we're better off if we devote our best brains to protecting ourselves before we let the glamour of modern toys make us vulnerable to those who would take advantage of us.

Can I borrow your cell phone to report the problem?

We're All Killers

            All men like meat and potatoes.

I am a man.

Therefore I like meat and potatoes.

The logic is irrefutable. And the reality is that I do like meat and potatoes. It works. Well, maybe it works. But there are problems of various kinds.

To start, you may not accept the premises on which the logical conclusion is based. I'll agree. Not all men like meat and potatoes. (And, although I maintain that I am a man, the definitions of the sexes nowadays are becoming a little trickier. I won't deal with that question now.) But that's only one issue.

You may object to the meal itself. If you're a vegan you certainly will. You'll object even if you're a run-of-the-mill vegetarian. You'll consider the killing of any animal wrong, let alone eating it. (If you're a vegan you'll take issue with any “ab”use of an animal – all use constitutes abuse – but that's not the point of this essay so I won't pursue it.) Which brings us to the question of what constitutes “killing.” Let me provide one dictionary's definition:

Kill – cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

The definition, however, is not explicit enough. I'm not much of a gardener, and I've killed many a plant. They're “living things” as well, and it's hard to be certain where to draw the line. So we use objective (I'll deal with the differentiation of “objective” and “subjective” in another essay) criteria. For that we're aided by the work of Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus who (sort of) solved the problem for us. Linnaeus (1707-1778) classified all forms of life as he knew them. His classification was based on observation, and he relied on the physical characteristics he could identify using the instruments he had available. Subsequently his categorization has been modified, but we still use a differentiation between animals and other kingdoms, as did he.

Here's the Merriam Webster view of an animal:

any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

As for plants, another dictionary sees one as

any member of the kingdom Plantae, comprising multicellular organisms that typically produce their own food from inorganic matter by the process of photosynthesis and that have more or less rigid cell walls containing cellulose, including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, and hornworts: some classification schemes may include fungi, algae, bacteria, blue-green algae, and certain single-celled eukaryotes that have plantlike qualities, as rigid cell walls or photosynthesis.

We presume that all life is descended from the first single-celled organism, whatever that was. “Life,” therefore, includes not only what most of us think of as plants and animals, but also bacteria, fungi, and everything else that scientists may describe. So we have a problem concerning our distinctions. We can use the scientific definitions, but we know that they are, to a very great extent, artificial. (Remember that these definitions are man-made and arbitrary.  We could have defined animal and plant differently if we so chose.)   The steak we eat and the streptococcus we treat have a common ancestor. And so does the nail fungus that embarrasses us so. Are we any more justified in killing that fungus, or a malarial parasite, than a calf? What should we do about termites, mosquitoes, and rattlesnakes? Is it legitimate to use antibiotics to eliminate deadly bacteria? Are we allowed to wash our hands and brush our teeth? They will kill bacteria as well.

And what about the potatoes I eat with my beef? Linnaeus lacked access to, among other things, the microscopes we use now and to DNA analysis, so his classification has required modification (as ours will be modified by future scientists, who will consider our tools to have been primitive). But we know that we can change the definitions of the specific kingdoms at will while accepting the idea of a common origin of all life. And Darwin has instructed us on how it all came to be. Evolution presumably began with that first organism.

You don't have to bounce a ball on an ant (or step on one by accident) to kill – to end life. You can do so by stepping on one while walking or by uprooting a stalk of wheat to make “the staff of life.” And is the cause of dysentery, an amoeba, a one-celled animal, more precious and worth preserving than an oak tree? After all, an oak is only a vegetable.

Our differentiations are artificial. There are some “plants” that move and others, like the pitcher plant, that eat animals. There are “animals” that contain chlorophyll. Can we really draw fine lines concerning what constitutes life and what constitutes killing? Can we differentiate the important from the unimportant? Am I just as “guilty” for eating the french fries as the steak? And is killing and eating that potato a form of cannibalism? (I usually have tomato ketchup with my fries. Where does that fit in?)

I think I'll stick with logic. Right or wrong, it's more understandable. I know I'm a killer, but so are you.

Mixed Grill – II

More “stuff.” Some are funny (at least to me). Some are bad. Some are intended as jokes, others as “food for thought.” Some are original (at least I thought of them without reference to something else) and others are stolen. Whatever I said in the first edition of Mixed Grill (October 23rd) applies here as well.

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

Kars 4 Kids – Toy kars?

Speak truth to power – Report out(r)age to Con Ed

Mammarazzi – Annoying female photographers. They post boring pictures of their children on Facebook all the time.

Who is the “responsible man” person referred to in law? Are women irresponsible? (No comments please.)

Suni side of the street – Undesirable neighborhood in Tehran

Acme Door Company: We stand behind every door.

Pigeon-holing is an activity of the bird-brained

You can't make a sow's ear out of a silk purse – Antony Scalia (who chose clerks primarily from the best law schools irrespective of their individual qualifications)

Somewhere Over The Rainbow – LGBTQ bar in Topeka

Catch as catch can – A province or a city in Canada. I don't remember which.

A wag tells tails

Flute of the room – Flauto da camera

I never met a man I didn't like – Sign at Stonewall Inn

Unauthorized entry forbidden – Stay our of my diary

Mite makes rite – David defeats Goliath, becomes king, and authors Psalms.

Illiterati – My critics

Rohypnol – Make love, not war

Ignore political statements during a campaign! – But you don't need me to tell you that.

Who enforces Right and Wrong?

Dearth and the Maiden – The plight of a poor young girl

Claptrap – Prostitute

The Egg and I – Autobiography of Margaret Sanger

Dyslexicon – They deen one too

Henry VIII for Divorce Court Judge

The more things change, the more some of them change while others remain the same.

Thank You For Asking – As if you really care.

Requiem brass – Part of a church orchestra

Equality is the opiate of the masses – and of those who believe it

Hashkamah minyan – Prostate minyan

Nouvelle Cuisine – It's so beautifully arranged on the plate, you know someone's fingers have been all over it. – Julia Child

The OED never forgets

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

That's all for now. More next month. Maybe it will be better.

Plus Ça Change

Gustav Mahler was born a Jew in Vienna in 1860. Having written symphonies and other important musical works, and acted as a conductor, he was appointed director of the Vienna Court Opera – assuming he would convert to Christianity in order to gain the post, since no Jew would be so appointed. He did. But despite his conversion he continued to receive abuse at the hands of an antisemitic press. And for similar reasons his music was banned by the Nazis. He was born a Jew and would always be a Jew.

Louis Armstrong, another musician, always claimed that he was born on the fourth of July in 1900. That, however, was primarily a publicity ploy. He was born on August 4, 1901, and the fourth of August would forever be his birthday, whether he celebrated it then or not.

People change their names, religions, and other defining features, often for professional reasons. Those causes are external. However they may feel about the changes, they're advantageous when it comes to dealing with the world around them. (And sometimes they're even pleased with them.)

But there are internal causes as well. More and more cases are arising of individuals not satisfied with their “birth sex” (they prefer to call it “gender” which is really a linguistic term, but many of them feel that the language is biased against them) as dictated by their genetic makeup, and duly recorded on their birth certificates. There are several ways of dealing with this dissatisfaction, but I will only raise one of them at this time (there'll be another a little later). It is the response of some who believe that their anatomy doesn't accurately reflect who they “are.” They are really members of the opposite sex. And they demand to be treated as members of that other sex.

The implication of this view most obvious to others is that the dissatisfied ones may seek to use the public toilets assigned to the sex of their choice. Although some jurisdictions have tried to limit toilet use to those whose birth certificates attest to membership in the group for whom the facility was designed and designated, the courts have tended to yield to the feelings of the afflicted or confused – a small “oppressed” minority with a discrepancy between their psychology and their chromosomes. The feelings of the majority are not relevant, nor have they the right to object (although it is undeniable that some “straight” people do accept their views). What is written on the birth certificates is not dispositive.

But why does society limit personal preference to sex alone? Actually we don't. We allow people to change their names and “divorce” their parents, so it would make sense to allow all those interested to alter their birth certificates to reflect desired places of birth, preferred dates of birth (which means their age), their parents, race, religion, doctor, and anything else that might appear on the certificate but wasn't consonant with their feelings. Because those feelings – their psychological needs – are of greater significance than reality. And if a thirty year-old considers himself fit for the presidency, shouldn't he be allowed to run – even if he wasn't born in this country? But the implications of such changes would be extensive, like those of sex changes, and would involve both the economy, detrimentally, and the legal profession, most positively.

Indeed, why should we limit those changes to birth certificates? Why can't we decide, if we so choose, that we're minority members, and entitled to the benefits of Affirmative Action; why can't we hold that our IQs are higher than what may be measured, or that we're qualified for a particular position because it is our belief that we are – and the refusal of that position is a challenge to our rights; why don't our passports, or our marriage licenses, or our credit reports, or, for that matter, our mortgages, contain the information we feel they should have? Why shouldn't others be obligated to accept our views? What's so great about reality that it should take precedence over what we feel or what we want?

But though you may alter and adjust matters more to your liking, you haven't really changed anything. Your “corrections,” alas, are irrelevant.

Even so, the choice of sex will remain while other choices will be denied. A ten-year-old who reads the newspapers and feels mature enough to vote will neither be able to change the state law that prescribes a higher lower limit, nor adjust his birth certificate to indicate a different birth date. There are vogues and prejudices that govern our behavior, and that's not one of them.

But vogues are not reality. Someone born with XX sex chromosomes is female; someone with XY is male. Period. All the rest is psychology and feelings. Albin Mougeotte (in La Cage aux Folles) had a healthier and more down-to-earth approach: "I Am What I Am." It is an acceptence of reality with a “rest-of-the-world-can-take-it-or-leave-it” attitude. Procaiming it proudly and loudly he doesn't require that others change their ways, but he has no hesitation about living his life as he sees fit. There's no need to revise their views or anything else.

If, however, society, with the imprimatur of the courts, decides that it is legitimate (and privileged) to alter what it says on a birth certificate and reinvent yourself, it's hard to justify limiting that “right” to sex, although it's hard to deny that our society is preoccupied with sex and our courts preoccupied with “rights,” actual or what it considers desirable. But it seems more logical to recognize reality and deal with it than bend to the winds of culture-war. Perhaps you believe in miracles. Perhaps you believe that “wishing will make it so.” But it won't, and you might as well get used to that truth.

Mahler was Jewish. And attempts to change that reality may have provided some benefits, but they came with damage as well – some in his lifetime and some after Mahler died. Some to him, and some to other Jews. The implications of an act often outweigh the intent of the act.  What is, is. The more things change, the more some of them change while others remain the same.

He's Not My President

Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election sparked protests across the nation Wednesday, with crowds marching through city streets, rallying at college campuses and staging walkouts at schools in an open disavowal of the president-elect. (Los Angeles Times web site, November 9, 2016, 9:00 PM)

It wasn't so long ago. People predicted rioting in the streets after Trump lost. His supporters – the mob – wouldn't consent to the decision of the voters. That was the fear.

And they rebuked Trump for not guaranteeing that he would accept the results of the election. It was not the American way to disregard the results of the democratic process. Al Gore had disputed the results of the 2000 election, but that was acceptable because of claimed miscounting in Florida by those who opposed him, while Trump reserved the right to dispute because he asserted that the election was “rigged,” and such a view was ridiculous.

We live in a democracy. We're a country of laws, not, as the cliché goes, of men. We respect the process. And that process was largely decided in the eighteenth century by the liberals of the time, the Federalists, who favored a strong central government. But just as the constitutional rules they devised applied to both the liberals and the conservatives of that age, they're binding on all of us. The greatness of our nation results from our adherence to our constitution, and to the observance of the democratic process.

The election has taken place, and, as predicted, there are protests from coast to coast. But they're not protests of those who supported Trump, who was elected President, but of those who opposed him. Those who, prior to the election, spoke on behalf of the democratic process are now denying its validity. The election didn't go as it was supposed to. They didn't win. So if they protest, if they refuse to accept Mr. Trump as President, they're entitled to do so. It's their right as American citizens, and they've been raised to believe that they should always get their way.

I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but he's my president [elect]. I don't support most of what he advocates, but he's my president. I didn't support his predecessor either, but there was no denying that he was the leader of my country. My country. Our country.

During the period when we were engaged in Viet Nam, many Americans protested by moving to Canada. (Of course we later forgave them for their disloyalty.) And there are now rumors (I suspect they're apocryphal) that Canada has closed its borders to US immigrants because there are so many of them. When liberals take issue with American policy they riot, burn our flags, or leave the country. They practice a politics of entitlement or revolt – “my way or the highway.” Even if I have to take it. If conservatives were to do the same they would be scorned by those who are employing such remedies now. They would be scorned as we condemn those whom we accuse of having divided loyalties simply because they are concerned about the fates other countries as well as that of the United States.

Secretary Clinton and President Obama have accepted the election's results. They have issued eloquent pleas for unity and cooperation. Certainly they are unhappy about the result of the election, but, as good Americans, they will abide by the process. They're ready to move on.

And happy or not, we should, too.

The Loser

My candidate lost. Gary Johnson got only 3% of the presidential vote nationwide. So he lost.

Not a big surprise. I didn't expect him to do much better, though I was hoping for 5%; in protest of the two major party candidates. (My older son voted for Vermin Supreme who promised everyone a free pony. He lost, too.)

But one of the contenders got the most votes. It was a plurality, not a majority, and he did very well considering the fact that the majority of the voters didn't trust either of the two contestants. (I use the word “contestants” because it was more like a reality show or an “Ugly” Contest than an election. And the voters tweeted in their choices on paper ballots.)

Unfortunately one of them had to win. And it was (President Elect) Donald Trump. He got more votes (electoral votes – though they won't be officially cast until next month) than Secretary Clinton.

Neither held out any hope for making America great, notwithstanding all the claims to the contrary. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when discussing the Iran-Iraq War, gave, as his appraisal of the situation, "It's a pity they can't both lose." That was the view of the majority of the electorate in regard to this election. But the reality was that they couldn't both lose, and Trump got more votes than Clinton. So he'll be in charge for at least the next four years. (I hope that by 2020 our vision for our country will improve and we'll see a more qualified candidate for the post than the ones between whom we were forced to choose this time.)

In the end, however, the know-nothings out-polled the know-it-alls. It's likely that his supporters recognized his flaws and his deficiencies, but they didn't let them affect their votes. After all, he was one of them and, as Thaddeus Stevens said in 1877, "He's a damned rascal, but as he's *our* damned rascal we must put him in."

And they put him in.

Pinocchio And The Pirate

It will all end tomorrow. The election, that is. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And then we'll see the beginning of a presidency that most of our citizens fear. They'll vote alright, but there will be apprehension over the state of our country for the next four years.

The contest is between Pinocchio and the Pirate. Two candidates with massive egos. Of course you have to have a big ego to believe you can do the job of President, but our current alternatives are flaunting it. They're making previous aspirants look reluctant. One of those on the ballot has a foul mouth and an overinflated view of his own abilities, and the other has a past history of a long nose and of responding only to what is politically advantageous. And the voters are inclined to distrust both of them. It seems likely that whoever doesn't lose this election will lose the next.

There are many important issues at stake, but these are not on the minds of most voters. This has turned out to be a decision based on ad hominem arguments rather than any real discussion of policies. We face a choice of the lesser of evils – and they're both evil – rather than a selection of the better candidate. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the negative campaigning, but more is being spent this year on these tactics than ever before. Inflation certainly accounts for some of the increase, but the desire for power of both candidates and of those supporting them is also responsible.

Still, however, someone will eventually win. Whoever it is will face a hostile, and probably divided Congress. And whoever wins will attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with an ideology matching that of the winner's party, with a long delay before anyone is approved for the position. The economy, health care, taxes, and a host of other considerations are important nationally, but there hasn't been much discussion of these topics.

There is a wide range of international considerations as well, and the most important of these is the ability of our new President to deal with leaders of other nations. In all likelihood, they would be apprehensive about a boastful and impulsive leader of our country, fearing what he might do without considering the consequences. They'd probably be far more comfortable with someone known to lie and to make political advantage the touchstone of decision-making. In short, they'd prefer someone more like themselves. As boastful and impulsive as they might like to be, they're more likely to take the advice of advisers and to use diplomatically acceptable language than at least one of our candidates.

It's truly a distasteful election with candidates we'd prefer to have been defeated in the primaries. That's our bad, and there's nothing we can do about it now. With any luck at all we'll go back to a system in which politicians in smoke-filled rooms – no, we no longer permit smoking – choose candidates whom they believe party members, and many independents, can support. The current system may be what we've chosen for ourselves, but it's not what our country deserves.

But Election Day isn't all bad. Apart from getting some free time for voters, and a holiday for many, it will mark the end of the current silly season and of robocalls that urge us to hear the platforms of particular candidates and support them. Or, at least, to vote against the opposition.

The end of those calls will be the most positive result of the election.

November 7, 2016

Enhancing Performance

[June 16, 2016 – This essay was originally written in 2007, during the Barry Bonds controversy. The Olympic “doping” situation brought it to mind (though by the time this is published that will have been resolved one way or the other) and I am reprinting it. (It was originally published in a local newspaper.) Other sports are involved as well and by the time this appears the issue will probably no longer be of interest, but that's your problem, not mine.]

Mark Rothko committed suicide. So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a "divine madness" is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His "divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs. Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking "performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

"Performance-enhancement” is perceived as the great evil of our times. It is exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He "cheated." For this he is condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and "cheating."

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are "cheating."

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to calm himself before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement? If, before a battle, an officer "psyches up" his forces, is he doing something wrong?

And when candidates prepare for a debate "when they practice their "spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to comments by their opponents "is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed in "their" musical numbers. And with no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius, we don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Blanc, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans and that's what's really important, so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more "bouncy" to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, "everybody does it" is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether "it" really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate what we simultaneously, if quietly, encourage. Perjury is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. If one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable even if inexcusable.

But is "performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no.