Ya' Wanna' Know What I Think?

Probably not. But I won't let that stop me.

There's no end of polls. You can't open up a newspaper without seeing the results of the latest survey of our opinion. They're often color-coded – blue for the Democrats and red for the Republicans – so you don't even have to read them to know what we're thinking. You don't even have to know how to read. And the more I hear of American public opinion, as conveyed by these polls, the more convinced I am that many of our voters don't know how to read. I know I became convinced long ago that most of them don't know how to think.

The presumptive candidates for the Presidency from the major parties are, apparently, both disliked and feared by the majority of voters, but that doesn't stop the electorate from expressing a preference when asked. Both candidates reflect the views of many of our citizens: one says whatever comes to mind. He doesn't waste his valuable time thinking about what he's saying or contemplating the implications. He has no interest in promoting the views of his supporters – only in expressing his own prejudices. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.” Fortunately for him there are a lot of people who think the same as he, and will fight for their unconsidered views. So he is, strangely, representative of much American opinion.

The other candidate is focused on the wishes of a large number of voting blocs and, does her best to vocally support them all – after finding out what they want. Not surprisingly, then, she, too, speaks for a significant number of citizens – since she is leading them. From behind. “Look before you leap.” In the past she has made many errors of her own, but strives to ignore them and show how she supports everyone else. And her position has been (adversely in my view) affected by the stands of an opponent in the primaries with a large number of outspoken and opinionated supporters who place “intellectual opinions” above intellect – who also don't consider the implications of their positions, though they are ready to fight to defend them.

Of course no one has bothered to ask me what I think. I'm not sure, however, whether that pleases or disappoints me. As I look at the published polls – and they must be right or they wouldn't be in print (“Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.”) – the pollsters choose not only the questions they ask, but the acceptable answers. So participants are forced to decide between the alternatives they're offered. I guess that's necessary for the pollsters, but it really doesn't give the people whom they question the opportunity to say what they actually think. Instead they are faced with Yes/No questions (most of the choices are binary) or ones determining the degree of agreement or disagreement an individual has with a specific statement. I guess I'd be flattered to be asked my view, but frustrated at the limitations in being able to offer it.

I must admit, therefore, that I was delighted when I came across IStandWith (https://www.isidewith.com/) on line. I suspect that there are many other sites like it to help inform the voter of available choices, but they would be difficult to summarize for the media, so they're not the ones that make the news. Perhaps that's the reason that published polls are sometimes in error.

In any event, this poll not only offered the polarized choices, but both a variety of more nuanced views ("other stances") and the opportunity to state one's own thoughts ("add your own stance") on a very wide variety of issues (and their questions change from time-to-time). At the end the computer will compare your views with those expressed by the candidates of all parties, allowing you to determine how your ideas compare with theirs. It also lets you designate the level of importance of the various issues and breaks down opinions on those matters separately.

I'm not sure that I'm always happy with where my own views lead me, but it's a better start on informing myself than seeing the latest pol poll in the papers. I can't be sure the site doesn't have its own biases, and an algorithm that is designed to convince me that I favor some particular candidate, but it's a good start and spells out some of the candidates' views as well. Now if I make a bad choice, I'll be better able to defend it.

The Truth

At a time when she lacked the trust of most Americans, when indictment was being considered against her, President Obama said of the former Secretary of State

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton, and that's the truth. That's the truth.

He said it at a rally in North Carolina.

George Washington always told the truth – we're informed that “he couldn't tell a lie” – and he was an above-average president. According to the incumbent, however, he was less qualified than the current Democratic candidate. While it may be true that she is more capable than the one praising her, it's hard not to wonder if Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, or a host of others might not have had a better résumé or greater reliability than the former Secretary.

It's easy to chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. You'd have to. After all, in 2008, the candidate Senator Obama, maintained that she, (then his colleague in the Senate) Hillary Clinton, was “willing to say anything [in case you didn't get what he meant, that's a euphemism for “to lie”] to get elected.” He had other reservations about her qualifications then. Now – perhaps feeling a debt incurred by her service to him – he seems willing to say anything to get her elected. (Neither her, nor his, lying seems to be a disqualifying feature.) That's what makes America great. Loyalty. To party members if not the Constitution, the citizens, and the country.

It's an effort to inspire confidence in her at a time when she lacks the trust of a majority of our citizens. Perhaps it's her own fault, perhaps it's his. Perhaps it's the fault of the American people at this point in history, but there's no denying that she has neither their friendship nor what they consider the qualifications to lead us all.

Nor does her opponent.

Sadly, it's a given that we cannot believe what politicians say. In theory their calling, their burden, is to perform service for their country – to improve the lot of their people – even if there is a cost to themselves. Just as our “citizen soldiers” have fought to protect us, our “citizen politicians” claim to be willing to sacrifice for us, and it's something we need them to do. The reality, however, doesn't match that theory. The driving forces are, more often, ego, lust for power, and money. These are the rewards of office. And too many of our leaders are in it for the rewards rather than the burdens.

And we are willing, though unindicted, co-conspirators. We accept their words, if not as the truth, as unexceptionable rhetoric. We expect it. (All politicians are liars.) True, some of the media do some “fact-checking,” but who cares? We continue to elect those we know to be falsifying, “spinning,” or inventing “facts.” They're flexible and so are we.

The time has come, however, to fight back. It will probably be a losing fight – certainly initially it will be – but it's a necessary one if we are to restore “a government of the people.” The time has come when people should vote their consciences – not according to party line. It may be easier to have only two parties from which to choose, but it forces us to accept “the lesser of evils” too often – to brook evil. This is a democracy, and we are free to choose.

But we're not the only democracy. There are countries in which parties are formed based on beliefs that may differ from the mainstream; where a difference of opinion, or an antipathy to those running, may inspire the formation of a new political entity, more suitable to public wishes. There's no guarantee that its leaders won't lie, but when it's discovered that they can't be trusted there's precedent for dumping them and starting again. It's messy, but democracy is messy. (Mussolini may have gotten the trains to run on time [actually, he didn't] but it was at great cost.)

In the United States the step to take is to vote for a third party (as I intend to do). There aren't many around, and they're not likely to win, but votes that don't go to major party candidates are a message – one that we hope ultimately will be heard if sent often enough.

As Pogo (the voice of Walt Kelly) said

We have met the enemy and he is us.

And those we're willing to elect.

The Latest News

A few tidbits about what's going on now.

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

There's a lot going around about whether the Russians were behind the WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its actions in favor of Clinton over Sanders. The charge has been made that the leaks are helpful to Trump and that is the goal of the Russians.

Except for some Sanders supporters, few are discussing the veracity of the contents. In a nation that promotes fair play and “transparency,” little attention is being paid to the efforts of the DNC to sabotage Sanders's candidacy and its campaign to hide their actions. The fact that what happened was revealed is the only honorable part of the story – transparency was restored, and the conspiracy was made public. The story is not that the e-mails were made public, but that the conspiracy existed.

I'm not suggesting that hacking is a legitimate tool, or that the Russian government may not have been involved. I really don't know if Trump is their preference or if he will benefit from the leaks. And I don't care. My view of the two major party candidates parallels Secretary Kissinger's comments in 1980 on the Iran-Iraq war: It's a pity both sides can't lose. (More on that tomorrow.)

But if there had been no conspiracy – if the Democratic Party had acted in a more democratic way – there would have been no messages to hide and none to reveal. And America would have been the better for it.

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

There have been reports that Donald Trump, Jr. will be running for the New York City mayor's office. They're based on his speech at the Republican convention last week.

This morning I heard on the radio that Anthony Weiner had a lot to say about this possibility. He would oppose such a move. I'd come out of retirement just to beat him like a rented mule. And, quoting his father, he also said We like to keep all our options open. One wonders what former Representative Weiner would use to beat Trump, and what else might be kept open by him.

But such a discussion is out of character for me (please accept my apology) and I leave it to the late night TV hosts to review the issues.

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

Having donned the glass slippers – the ruby slippers as well – former Secretary Clinton declared that the glass ceiling was at last cracked. In fact it was actually broken. That's what happens when you throw stones.

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

More is going on, but focusing on the news is depressing. (Whatever the alternatives) I have better things to do.

Equal Time

Last week I wrote about Donald Trump, concluding that he was not fit to be president. So today I'll comment on the other major party candidate. I made two mistakes last week and I'll try not to repeat them. First of all, I waited for his acceptance speech to make my judgment, but all that did was to give him some extra time to smooth out the rough edges. He didn't, but even if he had accomplished the rhetorical feat, it wouldn't have changed his previous record. In addition, I saved my conclusion for the end, as I was instructed to do by a high school English teacher. It's good advice to let the strength of the arguments make the conclusion inevitable, but WYSIWYG, “truth in advertising” and similar issues mean that I should tell you my view, rather than put you in the position of drawing your own conclusions. After all, you may make a mistake. If my arguments are not powerful enough to lead you to the Truth, I don't want you to draw the wrong conclusion.

To reveal the punch line first, then, the former Secretary of State is not fit to be president either. In fact, she wasn't fit to be Secretary of State. Even her nomination is tainted by the leaks of e-mails demonstrating efforts to undermine the candidacy of Senator Sanders. (Lest I be misunderstood, it's my view that his nomination would be a disaster as bad as that of the Secretary of State.) It appears that the Democratic Party is somewhat less democratic than we have been led to believe. But we were foolish if we accepted the idea that either political party was really interested in us.

But, as William Claude Dukenfield said, “I digress.”

Our questions begin with Whitewater and Castle Grande, the business dealings in which she participated in the 1970s and 1980s. While despite her involvement, no charges were filed against her, according to Breitbart (and I leave it to the reader to evaluate the source),

In the mid-1980s, federal bank regulators started taking a closer look at Madison Guaranty [a bank she represented] and concluded that Castle Grande was a sham, a crime, and part of a pyramid scheme to enrich insiders and hide the S&L's disintegrating finances. According to the newly obtained document [an unredacted version of the “original Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) memorandum in the Whitewater affair obtained by Judicial Watch.”], “Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell [an Arkansas businessman also involved in the “sham” deal] concealed their involvement in Castel Grande.”

Despite contrary documentary evidence, Ms. Clinton denied any involvement. “I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.” Memory is a strange thing.

Similarly, when questioned about her own e-mail server and the transmission of secret documents on it, her defense was that she didn't know the documents were classified, and besides, those before her had done it too. It is troubling that someone with her security clearance could not recognize a sensitive document (some subsequently judged too secret to reveal in the report of the problem) and take the proper precautions, and that she wasn't aware that the practice was then illegal though it had not been so during the terms of her predecessors. In terms of both the Arkansas business dealings and the e-mail controversy it is worth remembering that President Nixon was almost impeached not for the Watergate break-in, but for trying to cover it up. Ms. Clinton worked hard to cover up her involvement in the two scandals.

Another concern relates to the Secretary's performance during the episode in Benghazi, Libya. During the entire period of its happening, the State Department took no action. What it might have done would possibly have failed, but it did nothing, so we'll never know if the deaths could have been avoided. And, at least initially, the Secretary blamed conservatives in the United States (who had produced an anti-Islamic video) for the whole affair, although based on e-mail she sent at the time she knew that wasn't true. Another cover-up.

Ms. Clinton would have us accept her judgment that these matters have already been discussed, and “it's time to move on” from them – they're past performance items that we should ignore when we evaluate her – while she raises questions about decades-old business practices of her opponent.

Her past performance raises questions about her judgment and her trustworthiness. This is not an example of “genderism.” (More on that term in “Mixed Grill” which will appear on October 23^rd.) She should not be elected president for her service in that office would put us all at risk. But that leaves us with unfit nominees from both the Democrats and the Republican parties. Where do I go from here?

I'll have more to say on that subject in my next essay.

OCD

My “welcome” mat reads

“I have CDO. It's like OCD but the letters are in alphabetical order, As they should be.”

The sentiment is one found on T-shirts and other items as well. The aim is to be cute, but the idea raises some interesting questions.

The basic one is “Where do you draw the line between obsession and compulsion?” Only your psychiatrist knows for sure. Or at least claims to know. But that “knowledge” is really little more than prejudice, judgment, and guesswork. The diplomas on the wall are all that give the diagnosis its validity.

We all do things in particular ways. For many the choice of action is called habit; for others it's because “that's the law (secular or religious)” and violation of law is anathema. Still others act in a particular way because of memory or tradition – or even obsession or compulsion. We're governed by what Freud called our “superego.” I'm not quite clear how he differentiated between ego, superego, obedience of whatever law we followed, timidity and inhibition, societal taboos, peer pressure, and a whole host of other governors. They're all part of a spectrum of controllers, and where you draw the line is as much dependent on your own place on that spectrum as the place of the individual whom you are evaluating.

Or is there a spectrum? The whole idea of a spectrum suggests a progression from one to another – either increasing or decreasing in force. And there is an overlay of “better” and “worse.” But I'm not sure that's the right way of viewing the situation.

We do things in a particular way because, well, that's the way we do them. (How's that for a truism?) The judgment as to whether or not they are pathological may be less based on us than the biases and guesses of those who would judge us. That's not to suggest that our actions may not be irrational, but what is viewed as irrational isn't necessarily pathological.

A view that rules or dogma should take precedence over thoughtful evaluation may reasonably be seen as fanaticism, but that, itself, is the rule rather than the exception. In our country we're divided into two main political factions and, for the most part, we vote according to our affiliations, finding justifications for positions that we would condemn were they taken by our opponents. Is the compulsion to vote according to party loyalty any less unhealthy (to our country as well as ourselves) than that to put letters in alphabetical order?

Perhaps it's unhealthful and, indeed, foolish to fear germs lurking wherever you look, but it's true that they're there. And a preoccupation with them, however distracting it may be to the obsessive, doesn't harm his country and his fellow citizens. When we label him however, we lessen the need to examine our own biases, fetishes, and foibles. We're normal. He's crazy.

Are We Great Again Yet?

Donald Trump, the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, delivered his acceptance speech last night, and I learned that he speaks for me. He said so, and he wouldn't lie about something so important. He said so, so it must be true, but I must admit that I have reservations about his candidacy. I certainly agree with some of his criticisms of what is happening in our country, but I'm less confident that he is the person to solve them.

My concerns begin with what we've all observed during the campaign thus far: Mr. Trump is quick express his perspective. His views are often critical of others – no, they're almost always critical of others, with special venom saved for his soon-to-be nominated opponent, and the President under whom she served. Whatever the validity of the criticisms, it is apparent that his words are unfiltered. There's a lot to be said for “transparency,” but much can also be said in favor of analysis of people and issues before offering opinions – before shooting from the hip – before shooting your mouth off.

The disposition to offer publicly his off the cuff opinions may play well with his numerous supporters – he is, after all, a populist – but it is less likely to be appreciated by the rest of us, and especially by the leaders of other countries. Confidence and boldness are important in a president, but they should be based on experience, analysis, judgment, and maturity. Unfortunately Mr. Trump seems to lack these qualities, and his entire appeal is based on bluster. He has yet to give any indication of how he would reach his goals, or of who would keep him informed and grounded. It's one thing to enunciate objectives, but quite another to accomplish the tasks you've set for yourself.

In short, I don't trust him. And, I suspect, neither do many of our voters.

Equally important, however, is that I doubt that he has the trust of those who lead the rest of the world. I fear that, for good reason, they would question his credibility, stability, and reliability were he to head our government. He has been critical of the current administration for antagonizing our allies and causing our enemies to lose respect for us – criticisms that are not without merit – but he has yet to reveal how he would deal with those problems, possibly because the suggestions of his advisers are not sufficiently patriotic and “macho” to fit the image of himself that he has and that he would like others to have. Even for the competent it takes time to build trust, although their starting level is much higher than that of the Republican nominee. However legitimate his instincts, it will be a long time before anyone trusts him or believes that his positions have been well thought out.

And however insightful his recognition of the problems we face, however popular his proposals among his followers, some of the solutions he has offered are more likely to aggravate than ameliorate them. As an example for, a wall along our southern border will not solve the perceived immigration problem with Latin America, let alone deal with questions that have been raised about immigration from elsewhere in the world. Yet a wall is all he has to offer – and this is one of the few areas in which he has a specific proposal.

There have been many threats and statements he has made concerning issues of safety and protection, both for our country and for our citizens. Beyond our borders he will defeat ISIS and bring stability to the Middle East, while here at home he will restore “law and order,” giving us the peace and quiet we all seek. Unfortunately he does not tell us how he will achieve these ends. And the reality is that he probably won't achieve them, surely not in ways that most of us would find acceptable.

I may agree with Mr. Trump that our country has suffered in the last eight years; I may believe that his appointee to the Supreme Court would be more representative of American feelings than that of Secretary Clinton; I may share his ideas about necessary changes in the way our government is run and in the size of that government, but someone who sees the presidency as the first step in politics, and someone as lacking in experience in governing as he, cannot be the one we choose to lead us.

Much more could be said about someone who “talks a good game,” but gives no evidence that he'd be able to play a good game. It's enough to say, however, that he isn't fit to be president.

Put Another Nickel In

In all likelihood you have no idea what the title of this essay refers to. And that's the point.

Just to get that out of the way, it's the first line of a 1950 song sung by Teresa Brewer. You're probably not familiar with her either. The nickel goes into a nickelodeon – a jukebox – though that, too, is probably only a dim memory if you've heard of it at all. And with all the available devices for creating your own audio environment there's no reason why you should have – though you may have seen one in a museum, if you go to one. (Do people go to museums nowadays?)

Okay. Now down to business. I like classical music. The “three B's” are a good starting point, but I like other music as well, including some from before Bach and after Brahms. But I have to admit that I can't stand twelve-tone or non-melodic “modern” music. Much of it I find to be just plain noise. I'm quick to stipulate that the music I like was once “modern,” and viewed by many with the same horror and disgust that I now heap on many of the current composers and those of the last century. That, however, doesn't change anything. I like what I like. (I suggest that you look up BFO: www.acronymfinder.com/Blinding-Flash-of-the-Obvious-(BFO).html)

As for “popular” music, what I like, the music of the early and middle twentieth century, isn't very popular anymore. Those of us who remember and like it have to go out of our way to find it. “The Great American Songbook” has, in our minds, been corrupted by rock and hip-hop. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush – the Beatles (and some other groups and individuals) will live forever, but they're exceptions. And though I can't understand hip-hop or rap or whatever it's called, I know one thing about it: it ain't music.

Actually, rap is what got me started on this essay. Someone on the radio was commenting on the fact that “Hamilton” was likely to be named the best musical of the year. In accordance with the philosophy of Ayn Rand I don't have to see it to know I don't like it. The whole idea of a rap musical depicting events in the life of one of our Founding Fathers is so outlandish as to make any thought of spending good money (and my valuable time) on it risible. Perhaps it's a good teaching tool for those who refuse to learn history any other way, but if they're children from deprived families they can't afford it, and if they're adults who can afford it but never learned about our history in school and are too lazy to learn now, they should be ashamed – no matter how much money they've accumulated. The fictionalized story, in a form of music that would be unrecognizable to the title character, may be popular, but I find it depressing to think that this is what the American Musical Theater has turned into.

I grew up on the “Broadway Musical” at a time when it represented an important source of popular music. The era from Kern to Loesser was a great period in American musical history although I know there were many losers that accompanied the winners, and I know that there have been occasional shows since that feature actual, singable, songs. But in recent years most of the Broadway musicals have been based on rock and rap, or have contained whiny ballads that have no melody and all sound the same. And all the singers whine the same. Well maybe not the same, but without any uniqueness. Their only characteristics are melisma and the imitation of gospel and rock. The only good show are the revivals of the ones that were classics.

What I understand intellectually, but reject emotionally, is that my children and my grandchildren will, for the most part, spurn my likes and dislikes. (Of course they like the Beatles – another B. They're timeless. What's not to like?) Every generation views its likes as definitive, and dismisses later creations as perversions of the real thing. I shudder to think that they identify with “music” that is, for me, only un-understandable noise. For them it's a model of what music should be, but they'll be repaid when they have to listen to the music of the next generation.

We love what was, not what is. We remember with affection what we heard when we were young. It doesn't matter if it was new then or simply represented what was drummed into us then. Nostalgia. (That's not to suggest that Bach is nostalgia – he wrote great music. On the other hand Berg and Bartok – two other B's whom I didn't hear as a child – wrote music that makes me cringe.) Anything subsequent to that doesn't live up to the “good old days.” (It's not just the music, of course. The days of the nickelodeon and the group were, somehow, more fun than today's isolation by earbuds.) While we can't monitor what our children hear outside, we can permeate the home environment with (what we consider) good music. That's one way to give the classics a chance – whatever genre they represent.

Today's music strikes me as cacophony aimed at making money and winning awards (which are now a dime a dozen). They don't write music like they used to.

Boy, am I crotchety.

Who's To Blame?

Yesterday was Bastille Day. Ordinarily it would be a day of great joy in France, however there was an attack on revelers then – a fatal attack. At least eighty-four were killed, although there were many injured and the number is likely to rise. The perpetrator drove a truck into those celebrating the holiday, and started shooting them after he left the truck. At the moment the most likely cause, in the view of authorities, is that it is related to a previous episode of “road rage.” That is what is assumed to be the reason for the massacre by a Tunisian citizen. According to official reports, there is no evidence that the killer had any terrorist connections or that this was a terrorist attack.

Last month, in Orlando, Florida, a man attacked the patrons of a night club, killing forty-nine and injuring many others. The man was the son of Afghan immigrants, and he pledged allegiance to ISIS during the spree. The night club was a gay establishment – one which he had attended several times before, yet there are many who view this as an act of homophobia. And there are others who emphasize the point that a Latin American celebration was taking place. They see it is as an attack on the Latin community. An action against “minority” members is a more politically palatable explanation than anything implying that Islamic culture and religion were in any way involved.

There have been several other such incidents which have caused deaths in this, and other countries, and which we have attributed to a wide variety of causes, although we usually obscure the origins and activities of the offenders, trying hard not to mention that the vast majority of them are Muslims. To say so would be evidence that we are Islamophobic for that would be a blemish on us, rather than on the culprits, so we come up with other causes for their actions that distract us from any consideration of the facts. Or we intentionally distort the facts we have; hence there are many who still believe that the events of September 11, 2001 were caused by the United States or Israel.

It's not a surprise that many groups would like to distract us from the actual situation – many in order to get our sympathy for their cause, while others would like us to blame them for the violence. The blame not only gives credence to their movement but also serves as a call to arms and as a recruiting tool. Both distractions present dangers to our society.

Certainly we are threatened by groups that have the goal of disrupting our lives and, ultimately, of defeating our nations. It is a challenge, however, that we are loath to face because to do so would be viewed as evidence of prejudice, and we Americans are not biased people. So it is governmental policy to play down any suggestion of a predisposition of any religious group toward violence, since that would be evidence of our partiality.

Equally deleterious – or, perhaps more so – is the attribution of a problem to a cause other than the one we know to be responsible. We cannot hope to solve a problem whose existence we refuse to recognize or admit. When we claim a problem to be other than it really is, we look for a solution that is not likely to provide any help. And we convince others that another problem exists, or is more severe than we have recognized, and they should turn their attention to that. In addition we give credibility to those who have been making such a claim even if their arguments have been fallacious.

Admit it or not, however, a problem exists. There seems to be a predisposition of Muslims to violence, whether as part of a specific campaign or as a general solution to any perceived injustices. Perhaps it is cultural, perhaps it is provoked, but it is real. As long as we deny the problem we will not solve it. And if we ignore the problem, we are to blame for it.

Fear And A Changing Attitude

It's interesting that “the party of the rich,” the Republican Party, is now attracting the poor – not the minorities, but the poor among the “majority” who fear a takeover by the “immigrants.” And interesting as well that the Democrats count among their followers the headliners in the movies and theater – the high-salaried “stars” – and the liberals, opposed to injustice, who believe they speak for the downtrodden, though among them are many of the wealthiest of our citizens – members of the fabled one percent. And they have added more to the campaigns of their favored candidates than the conservatives whom they blame for distorting the First Amendment and the political process with their money – however that's not really the point.

There is no denying the conservative nature of some of the leaders of industry, since free enterprise is one of the primary tools of their success. But now, in addition to private industry, large government and extensive regulation have provided jobs and income for large segments of our population – whether union officials or the executives who employ them; whether middle-class or higher. And the ninety-nine percent, and, even more so, those who claim to speak for them, demand increased taxation of the rich – of the one percent – although they are often of that class whether or not they admit it. In fact whether or not they recognize it.

Around the globe, however, there is a swing toward a conservative mindset that encompasses the lower middle-class and poor of many nations. It has many causes, but nationalism, religion, and economy are its tap roots. The concept of Eurabia, however applicable it may have been a decade ago, has become a more prominent issue as migration from a war-torn Middle East has increased recently. And the populations of many of the affected recipient countries involved have become more and more and more concerned. And more and more conservative.

The recent “Brexit” vote is illustrative of the renaissance of isolationism which is one of the hallmarks of the new attitude. Patriotism and xenophobia accompany it, with increasing fear and rejection of the immigrants. In part this reflects an economic concern – there is fear that the market will be flooded with unemployed “foreigners” who will take jobs from the homeborn. And they'll change the nature of the society. Whether or not the fears reflect reality, they're real. Elections in many of the involved countries demonstrate the “rightward” turn of the public.

There is also worry that among the immigrants are some who actually threaten their new homes. War has raged in the Middle East throughout history, and terrorism is a feature of the last few decades. That terrorism has spilled over into nations around the world, and the perpetrators almost invariably have connections to the Middle East – to (contrary to political correctness) Islamic governments, clerics, and organizations. With very few exceptions they are Muslims.

Those involved in violence are a minute minority of Muslims everywhere, but their impact, physical and political, has been tremendous – causing fear everywhere, and sometimes even retaliation. (Retaliation, when it occurs, is generally irrational and based on ethnicity rather than ethos. It usually has nothing to do with the attitudes and actions of the victims, only with their ancestry.) Anxiety about the risks associated with the immigrants may be overstated, but it is increasing, and probably is an intentional result of the terrorists' efforts. Whatever increases tensions between nations benefits the radicals. Islamophobia may result from terrorism, but it also results from people's fear of terrorism. And since Islamophobia's existence is “proof,” for those already convinced, that the society is evil, the terrorists gain from inducing it.

Small as the risk may be, however, it cannot be ignored. And neither our protectors (military and police) nor our politicians are likely to ignore it. Actions taken by our protectors are usually aimed at the benefit of society, while the words and actions of politicians are generally undertaken in order to obtain personal gain. The populism that xenophobia can arouse is a powerful political tool for them.

Perhaps the elimination of the terrorists, by whatever means is necessary, is a step the world should be taking. Defending them as understandable victims of an unjust West only validates their claims and justifies their acts. Many of our own people insist, however, that we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's not “who we are,” and doing so allows “them” to win. (What we're doing now, though, doesn't constitute a win for us, nor make it likely that there will be one.)

On the other hand, the ideas of survival, self-defense, and a “just” war need to be worked out. There is no virtue in suicide or extending our necks to the sword. That's not who we are either. Turning the other cheek to tyrants is tantamount to approving their actions. We reject the role of “world policeman” viewing it as a pejorative designation, but isolationism isn't the answer. We cannot as easily reject our responsibility to help those who need us – though it sometimes seems to be national policy to do so.

Perhaps finding a middle ground between their ways and ours is the best approach. Perhaps some will view that as a compromise with evil. Whatever we decide, however, that decision should come soon. Whether or not we allow it, they're winning. We're turning to the right largely because of the perceived threats of immigration. The “sympathetic,” if naïve approach of so many of our citizens, needs to be rethought. There is a new alliance of conservatives with many of the poor who fear the changes that are occurring around the world and are beginning to speak out. If, as we claim, we oppose injustice, its time for us to listen to their concerns.

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

Following the writing of this essay and its publication, a terrorist (“no terrorist connections” but a pattern familiar in Israel) drove a truck into a crowd and then started shooting them. It was apparently a “lone wolf” attack making prevention of similar attacks difficult. But it emphasizes the need to understand both the psychology of the killer and of the theology that promotes such horrors. If it happened in Israel, it's likely to happen elsewhere.

Payback

Full page headline in the New York Times, July 9, 2016:

Five Officers Killed As Payback, Chief Says

I know what “payback” means. So do you. Despite the fact that it's not in any of the eight slang dictionaries I consulted, or in several standard dictionaries (including my copy of the OED), the word is in common usage. The few references that do include it define it in a neutral manner as referring to interest on an investment, but the more common use, especially by the non-economists among us, is revenge for a perceived wrong.

In this particular case the “payback” resulted in the shooting deaths of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of seven others. The police were guarding a “Black Lives Matter” rally, and they were targeted because they were white. The killer, who died during the incident, stated that his goal was to kill police, especially white ones. He viewed his act as retaliation for the deaths of blacks by police – which was the reason for the rally in the first place.

There is no possible excuse for an unjustified killing, whether by the police or by a civilian, and they should all be thoroughly investigated with appropriate action taken against the guilty. But the investigation and legal proceedings should precede the punishment. “Vigilante justice” is an oxymoron. It has become common for accusations and insinuations to be aired and spread, and used as justification for additional acts before all the facts are known. Some individuals have a pattern of inciting protest and manipulating hatred because it serves political ends, and truth is not the primary issue. Accusation and conviction have been melded, and they often take precedence over the rule of law.

But “accusation” and “guilt” are not synonyms, notwithstanding the indignation of the protesters. The trials in Baltimore suggest that what appears to be intentional may not be so; and what appear be a result of bias may have other explanations. Fear is not a justification for an “itchy trigger finger,” but police anxiety probably is involved, with the United States Department of Justice reporting that “The offending [homicide] rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites.” (Wikipedia citing DOJ statistics.) Moreover, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 2013 (the last year for which they published those figures online), 2,491 “Black or African American” individuals died as the result of homicides. At least (and that term is used because the race and ethnicity of the killers in some instances wasn't known) 2,245 of the killers were “Black or African American.” I suspect that the numbers this year are not much different. Black lives mattered then, but I don't recall any protests or payback then, or since, when there was no involvement of police. Additionally, there were 3,164 homicide victims who were “White” or “Other race,” as well as 68 for whom race was not listed. Similarly, the response was so muted that I was unaware of it. Their lives didn't matter.

With or without justification, when police are dealing with blacks they are more likely to “shoot first and ask questions afterward.” It's wrong, but it may play a part. As may the use of public media and the misleading of the public about the nature of the events. According to the Washington Times:

more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force.

And, from the Washington Post,

The black population in America ranged from 11.6 percent to 13 percent between 1980 and 2013. Compared to the percentage in the population, the percentage of black offenders who killed police officers appears to be disproportionately high.

That hardly justifies either additional killings by the police or the use of retaliatory attacks by civilians, but it highlights the existence of a situation that has been misrepresented in order to provoke an atmosphere that justifies “payback” in the minds of too many of those exposed to it. The media say little to add perspective to the situation; they benefit from controversy and conflict. And the use of social media to air one side of a story, with the implication that it is the complete record, is misleading and, at least on the part of the provocateurs, an unforgivable distortion, reflecting a political agenda. That they have recruited large numbers of others, often those who consider themselves liberals, is evidence of the success of their effort.

The indignation on the part of the vast majority of participants is genuine and justified, however, even if it is inconsistent with the full story. It is as genuine as that of Muslims who have been convinced of a conspiracy against them – convinced by their radicalized and prejudiced leaders. And the actions of those who selectively assassinate white police are comparable to those of the angry and believing jihadists who have been taught since childhood that one becomes a martyr by killing Jews – any Jews of any age, awake or asleep, if he dies in the effort.

A problem exists. Neither mob confrontation nor lone wolf action is the solution. Better training of police officers and a return to the rule of law by those who believe injustices have been done are a starting point.

But to solve a problem you must understand the problem. Denial doesn't work, nor does misrepresentation of the full picture. They just make the problem worse.

[This essay was written hurriedly, and some of the sources were not listed. They can be found, however, using Google or another search tool.]

The Truth About Conservationists

We tend to assume that all conservationists are liberals. In fact, that's the way most of them vote. As a matter of fact, we view some conservationists as radicals; they tie themselves to trees or hammer spikes into their trunks to keep others from harvesting them, or they sabotage fishing vessels to prevent what they fear will be the killing of animal life and the eventual extinction of species. It is, after all, their mission in life to prevent such desecrations from ever occurring. Like the danger to the spotted owl; or the snail darter; or some African jungle species.

It's noble, but it isn't liberal. Their designation designates what they do and what they are: conservationists conserve. They are conservative. In reality, in many ways from a philosophic standpoint they are themselves conservatives. They may not see it that way but their actions belie their self-image.

Let's get down to cases. Whenever a business attempts to advance its program – to make progress – conservationists (and “environmentalists”) are likely to put up roadblocks. These may be in the form of lawsuits or demands for environmental impact statements that will either prevent progress from occurring or delay it for many years. The delay of progress is their most important product. Maintaining that their goal is to prevent greedy businessmen from destroying the environment and eliminating the chance that our descendants have of enjoying the glories of nature that are available to us, they hope to ensure the maintenance of creation (of course they don't call it that) in the form we know it. They want to stop time. And they “Tweet” each other from their “smart” watches about the ways they can do so.

And it doesn't matter how their acts might affect their fellow citizens, who don't always agree with them. If an oil pipeline in Alaska might affect migration patterns of arctic species, that pipeline must be stopped; if nuclear energy has risks, it must be stopped; if a pipeline from Canada will bring more (evil) fossil-based gasoline at a lower cost to Americans, it must be stopped; and, of course, the use of coal must be stopped because it pollutes the environment. Less important considerations are the jobs of those involved in the industries affected, or the cost and limited availability of the alternatives the conservationists would impose or might imagine.

One of the arguments for preventing any species extinction from taking place is that there may be important (if undefined and unimagined) benefits we can derive from those that currently exist. And it's true. But it's also possible that the species that would replace them – and there will be new species that do so – might contain useful substances whose nature and benefits we'll never know because we delayed their development. Those who favor the idea of evolution – and as good liberals most of them do – would stop it where we are now. Had they lived in the Mesozoic Era, the time of the dinosaurs, they would have saved the world and the species then flourishing by stopping things there. But now they eschew fossil fuel – a benefit we can derive from the life that existed back in that era.

They are selective evolutionists. They would preserve all that exists now while preventing any progress. Thus they tend to oppose any genetic modification of the foods we eat even though genetic modification is the way evolution works. When it's done by human design, however, instead of chance, it's unacceptable. (And the same is even more true if someone should suggest that the design is by divine causation.) We're going too fast. Who likes Idaho potatoes or nectarines anyway? Let (random) nature take its course. It's of no consequence that no harmful effects have been found in foods designed by industry. The chances are good that the studies producing those facts have been designed to give results that help the business interests, so they can make more money at our expense. And they'll do so by altering what we have and enjoy right now.

Now, conservationists believe, is better than the future. But does that mean that the past was better than the present? Were we better off before we learned how to use fossil fuel? Were the disabled more able to function in our society before we taught comfort animals to help them? Or are we abusing non-human animal species by enlisting them to aid us? And was agriculture before the development of cross-breeding and hybridization superior to what is available to us now?

Conservation and environmentalism are good things. But those who favor them should understand the full picture of what they are doing and balance it against what they are preventing. And, as scientific conservatives, they should respect the views of other conservatives as well. Progress comes in a host of forms, and many of them are good. But as today's conservationists and environmentalists seem to realize, sometimes we go too fast. There are many who believe the same about societal and political changes during American history.

We call them “conservatives.”

An Unfit Candidate

According to the Washington Post, Secretary Clinton has concluded that

Trump is ‘dangerously incoherent,’ [and] ‘temperamentally unfit’ to be president.

I agree. But he's not the only one who's unfit.

In a statement dated July 5, 2016, James Comey, the head of the FBI, though recommended that no charges be filed against her because “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” But, said Mr. Comey, “We are pleased … that no further action is required. … We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

As the Secretary would put it, let's put this behind us and move on. (Mr. Trump doesn't agree with Mr. Comey however. Citing the actions taken against General David Petraeus – the filing of criminal charges – for mishandling classified information, he concluded that “the system is rigged.”)

Lack of criminal intent is a very low bar to exoneration. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for criminal behavior, the conduct of “participants who know, or should know,” but who lack criminal intent, should be viewed with even greater concern. And when the perpetrator who takes such an action is a public official and by doing so places at risk “seven email chains concern[ing] matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level,” our country is placed at risk. And lying about it – covering up – compounds the crime.

In its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal notes that

Mrs. Clinton claimed that her email was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account[s] of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and “readily apparent.” ... it is possible that hostile actors gained access gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

It would be prudent to determine if the Secretary would have any security clearance were she anyone else. I suspect it would be denied her. And her “careless” behavior places us all at risk.

The Secretary has urged that we “move on” from the discussion of her email activities, and from the lack of action that her State Department took during the difficulties in Benghazi. We should “put them behind us” although they relate specifically to her job performance as a member of the cabinet. They are recent events.

At the same time she raises issues about the actions of Mr. Trump, a private citizen rather than a government official, in the last century – twenty or thirty years ago. We mustn't put that behind us or move on from there. It is relevant and makes him unfit for public office. Perhaps it does. Certainly when considered along with his subsequent performance it seems that his presidency would be an unhappy experience for our country. But the Secretary has already demonstrated that her service as Commander-In-Chief would put us all at risk.

All that is left is prayer that delegates to the conventions rethink their commitments and offer to the American people candidates who can be trusted to govern us sanely and safely.

Johnson and Weld might be able to fill the bill, but in this real and dangerous world they're not going to win.

We Did It, But Why?

I heard on the radio this morning that Juno was in orbit around Jupiter. That's quite an accomplishment. Like finding a needle's eye in a haystack. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory sent a space vehicle nearly two billion miles, and its course eventually intersected with the largest planet in our solar system – and all at a cost of only one billion, one hundred million dollars (so far). That's really a bargain. At a cost of under a dollar a mile it's less than what we have to pay for some domestic flights. Economy class. And Juno is expected to provide scientific information for the rest of its life, which is estimated at twenty months. Moreover it achieved orbit on the Fourth of July. How proud we all are.

Or, at least, how proud they all are. I'm not proud. After all, I paid for this boondoggle. All American taxpayers did. And we're not done paying. Continued monitoring of the ship during its Jupiter orbiting, by the large governmental staff, will cost a lot of money. As will the analysis of the scientific data they collect. And that analysis will go on long after Juno crashes on the planet, as, ultimately, it will do.

Why are we doing it? Why, at a time when so many fear for the survival of the human race which they see threatened by nuclear power, global warming, war, disease, and a host of other scourges, do we devote resources to this kind of program rather than using the money to deal with some of the menaces we face? It must be remembered that the Juno expedition is only a small part of a much more ambitious effort, and the expenditures are far greater than the cost of this particular project. Consequently there would be a significantly larger pool of currency available for addressing more immediate problems if the program were to be tailored back. It's certainly not enough to solve all the world's ills, but it's a start.

Why are we doing it? Our scientists and our government will tell us that the advancement of science and knowledge more than justify the expense. Perhaps it will take centuries, perhaps millennia, but the scientific knowledge that humanity gains from this mission will certainly help future generations. Perhaps. But perhaps future generations should pay for it rather than we and our children. If there are future generations.

Even the results thus far leave me wondering. According to the report I heard today it won't be until the 2030's that we send people to Mars, and, in all likelihood, we'll never send them to Venus for reasons of time, distance, radiation, and many other factors. If it's for the scientific knowledge that our descendants a millennium from now have, give some thought to our own view of the science of the year 1016; those ideas that we don't consider to be old wives' tales we pass off as bad science, or we laugh. In all likelihood our efforts today will suffer the same fate no matter how much we invest in them.

So what is our motive? There are several motives, but the main ones are, firstly, that we can do it. In addition, it adds to our prestige as a nation and our profile as a force to be feared just to show that we can. But an important causative factor is curiosity – not the curiosity of most citizens who rarely if ever think about Jupiter, but that of the scientists who ponder the unanswerable questions of the universe. They may not benefit from the answers, but they want to know, and our government is willing to pay for answers. With our money.

This wondrous event, the shining moment of a project that will doom our children to increased debt and decreased security, marked the anniversary of another event in which one generation spoke for those that followed – the issuance of the Declaration of Independence by the “Founding Fathers” who soon thereafter wrote a constitution for their new country. Although most of us don't agree with the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson believed that one generation should not speak for the next. It was has view that each of us should decide his own fate. There should be a new revolution every generation. Strangely enough, that was his understanding of the mathematics and science of the time. Many philosophers based their ideas on imaginary equations which lacked any validity. And, as a result, Jefferson's approach was a faulty one which would have limited the entire concept of a heritage.

In the past couple of centuries we've become more selective about what is important and what is not – what we accept and what we don't – what we can live with and what can wait. And we're a little more cognizant of what we're passing on as obligations and goals to our children. Some of what we leave as a heritage is reasonable and, indeed, necessary. But not everything. Tikun Olam, the repair of the world as it is now, is high on the list of valuable aims. We do those children no favor by ordaining that they pay for projects that may help their distant descendants while having to limit their investment in their own world.

Before we worry about the thirty-first century we should deal with the twenty-first.

All Or Nothing At All

“My way or the highway.” It has to be my way or I won't accept it. I don't care how well-intentioned you may be, or the virtues of what you suggest. My way is better and I won't settle for less. No halfway measures.

The search for perfection is never-ending. Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759):

A watch . . . that falls behind above two minutes in a day, is despised by one curious in watches. He sells it perhaps for a couple of guineas, and purchases another at fifty, which will not lose above a minute in a fortnight. (Cited in Gary Wills's Inventing America.)

The attitude is not new. Partial improvements are unacceptable when you're convinced that a better solution (or, at least, your solution) is possible. It's not clear what the “curious” clock-lovers of the eighteenth century would have done had the horologists of their time not been able to provide them with the fifty-guinea watch, but it's clear they would have been very unhappy. Compromise is not an option.

It's unfortunate, but this approach long predated Smith and will probably persist as long as there are any humans remaining. Not just the imperious like me, but most people, especially men (and politicians of both sexes), are single-minded in their search for perfect solutions to the problems they identify. It's often better to tolerate a bad situation than to accept a solution that isn't perfect – or as close to it as can be imagined. No deals with the devil. “The devil we know” is better than one we don't know.

There's much to be said for such a point of view, especially that it is a good way to avoid unintended consequences. But there is much to be said against it as well. As the adage goes, Half a loaf is better than none. A trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

But, as Congress has shown, and as our President has emphasized, there is no room for compromise. It's all or nothing. (“All or Nothing At All” in the words of Jack Lawrence's 1940 song.) The whole point of controversy is not progress, but the point to be made. Argument is better than solution. Winning is the only thing. It's better not to solve a problem than to make even the slightest move in the direction of someone with other (and therefore inferior) opinions.

What brings this to mind at the moment is the news of a death in a car using the Tesla “Autopilot” – a self-driving system still in its beta phase (still being tested). It's not perfect. But what is? There will be no progress if we wait for perfection. That doesn't mean that care should not made in the creation of solutions to the problems we face. It remains critical to be certain that the “solution” will indeed address the difficulty we seek to remedy. And we have to determine what negative effects it might have; we must avoid any additional ills it may cause. The solution has to be better than the problem. But we ought not reject a solution simply because it isn't perfect, for doing so will never let us make any progress.

According to Bill Vlasic, on the front page of the New York Times (July 2, 2016)

Even some Tesla owners, many of whom can be cultishly devoted to the brand, now question whether the self-driving technology is as safe as advertised.

“It gives you a false sense of security.” [Quoting a Tesla owner.]

What the article doesn't mention is that while Tesla tells us this is the first death in one hundred sixty-seven million miles driven using “Autopilot,” the statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show a death every nine hundred ninety-two thousand miles. The system may not be perfect, but, if the numbers are correct, the rate thus far is a sixty-eight percent improvement over current statistics. It may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement over the current situation. And, according to the information in Mr. Vlasic's article, it is (at least) as safe as advertised.

In April, he [Elon Musk, founder of Tesla] told a conference in Norway, “the probability of having an accident is 50 percent lower if you have Autopilot on.”

Mr. Musk didn't claim perfection, but he made a strong case for an improvement on the status quo. And the numbers bear him out. It would be contrary to our better interests to reject improvement as we seek perfection. It would be sad if we imitated the Congress whose stalemate we all criticize. But our paranoia inspired by this accident may lead us to do so.

We damage ourselves if we keep the faulty watch when we know there is a better one available, even if it is not perfect.

All's For The Best

“All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.” Dr. Pangloss may have thought so but in all likelihood no one else did (except, perhaps, Leibniz) then, and no one does now. Well, maybe some do, but they need to clean off their rose-colored glasses. Voltaire was satirizing Leibniz, but there are some who take it all seriously – at face value. Their worlds are, perhaps, ideal, but only a small minority would take that point of view.

There are two thoughts contained that are, at the very least, susceptible to dispute, and I'd like to devote a little time (and space) to them: “All's for the best,” and “this best of all possible worlds.” Starting with the second, there are many – perhaps most people – who would not accept the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. The religious, for example, would certainly raise the argument that there is a “world to come” and it will surely be better than the one in which we live, while those who deny that concept would maintain that this is not the “the best of all possible worlds,” it is the only world – and the only possible one. We “only go around once,” and those who believe there will be a world after this one are only fooling themselves.

It's also worth remembering that the world in which we live at this moment (and it really is only a moment in view of the earth's longevity) is of no special consequence since it existed for billions of years before we were born and will likely last for quite a while after we are no longer here – unless Mankind destroys it. So even this world has had numerous incarnations.

Additionally, there are many who believe that there are millions or billions of other worlds besides ours – inhabited and uninhabited – and we are foolish to claim that ours is the only one. Perhaps it will take decades or centuries to start identifying other inhabited worlds, but sooner or later our scientists and engineers will probably do just that. Moreover we are arrogant to think that ours is superior to all the others. In view of the number they assume to exist, that would be unlikely.

More of a problem, however, is the first part of the statement: “All's for the best.” Pangloss obviously didn't read the morning paper. Candide (“Candide, ou l'Optimisme”) appeared in 1759 and early French newspapers (actually all newspapers) were published weekly, or even less frequently, and they were heavily censored by the ruling powers, so they would only have contained material that wouldn't threaten public peace or royal views. There wasn't the kind of easy availability of international news we have now, so he wouldn't have known what was happening elsewhere. Of course he probably wouldn't have cared anyway. His only concern was for the world in which he lived. There are different worlds for different people. (Even today we don't always hear about problems in the “Third World” or under tyrannies, because of lack of journalists in those locations or because those there are prohibited from reporting unfavorable stories.) But we do hear, on a daily basis, of the natural and man-made disasters so common to our existence. We learn of earthquakes and tsunamis, disease, poverty, and starvation, and, when permitted, of wars and murders, and other forms of mayhem. People seem to die before their time, or to be maimed or to suffer some other form of injustice. All this in “the best of all possible worlds.” But were those calamities to impact on us we obviously wouldn't view them quite so favorably.

We don't understand why everything happens. We certainly don't view all as for the best. Bad things have always happened to good people, and good things to bad. And although we seek an explanation, we wind up confused both about the events and the causation. Some consider the events to be random and without any explanation; others – the religious – often suggest that there is a divine explanation, but it is not for humans to comprehend. In neither case, however, is there a satisfactory answer to our question, and we're left with the need to make a decision about something we don't understand.

The extremes, in terms of response, are to turn inward or outward, although a wide variety of possibilities are available in between. We may choose to limit our concern to ourselves and our circle (family and friends) or we may suffer with all of the world's tragedies, and try to address them all. Or we may adopt an intermediate position and offer help when the problem involves our community or our people or some other category with which we identify.

But “There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.” (Eldridge Cleaver [1935-1998]: Writer, political activist, and a leader of the Black Panther Party) That would suggest that if we don't suffer, identify, and work to solve all misfortune, we bear the guilt of being part of the problem involving most of them.

Sadly, however, we cannot solve all the world's problems. They are too numerous. Unfortunately all is not for the best. But we can't withdraw from it except by suicide, and that probably won't make things better, though there are some who choose that course. However they usually do so because of how they feel about themselves, not because of evil they see in the world.

Eldridge Cleaver, moreover, wasn't addressing all the world's problems, only those faced by blacks: it was primarily his circle that was of interest to him. And he devoted himself to the situation he faced. Perhaps that's a good starting point for us – though we should not view it as the end. Even if we cannot save the world, we can do our best to assist in some efforts. Perhaps as he did we should start with our own community (but we must not stop there). According to Deuteronomy, “The poor shall never cease from the land. … Thou shalt surely open they hand unto they poor and needy brother in they land [15:11]. “ But even if you feel that you cannot solve the problem, be aware of the remarks of Rabbi Tarfon (Pirkei Avot, 2:21): “It is not up to you to complete the task, but you are not free to desist from it.” And that obligation applies to us all, whether religious or not. Some believe care of the needy is the responsibility of the government through welfare and foreign aid. For the most part those who hold this view are those who favor large government and those who are non-religious (see Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks), but it is their obligation individually as well. None of us is free to desist from it. In the world in which we live, however we view it, we are all responsible for one another.

Especially if we don't consider this to be the “best of all possible worlds” we're obliged to make it better, and that is best accomplished by the “giving” of aid – preferably to many individuals and groups. How can this be done? How can we provide the help whose value Pangloss didn't recognize? What follow are a few (a very incomplete list of) suggestions which may be helpful. They're only a starting point, but include ways that even the least well-off can use to help improve this world.

Helping others – some examples (and they're only examples):

Money

Give

Convince others to give

March or run to earn money for a cause important to you or others

Time

Volunteer for a soup kitchen

Help an old lady cross the street. That's Boy Scout code for offering individual aid to         those you see need it. Such assistance may consist of just talking to them, helping them cook or do something else that offers them satisfaction. You'll be satisfied too.

Other ways to help

Support a cause, whether local or beyond – carry social or political signs, distribute leaflets, get signatures on petitions, attend meetings

Join volunteer groups

Write a letter to the editor or other advocacy of local, national, and international causes

Offer expertise in management or in delivery of other specific services (eg pro bono legal aid, plumbing, or other skill)

There's a lot that can be done, and we must not rely on others to do it. We're all obligated to make this at least one of the better of all possible worlds.