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.

What's To Come

Next week we'll elect a new President. And, as I have said before, we all lose. Maybe things will be better in four years – if we make it that long.

Chances are good that the winner will be Secretary Clinton. (Yes I know that no result is official until the vote by the Electoral College – but they're unlikely to overrule the voters.) Not a good result, but there is no good result. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has been disowned by many in his party. He may have attracted an army of supporters as a populist, but he's alienated the majority of American voters because of his rashness, lewdness, and, most of all, his ignorance. However nervous we Americans may be about him, it's likely that leaders of other countries would be unable to speak to him and negotiate meaningfully with him.

Not that Secretary Clinton is a great prize. Past performance – especially when considering her e-mails and Benghazi – suggests that she cannot be trusted (and, indeed, is not trusted) by her countrymen and women. Whatever transparency she promises should be taken as fantasy. Apart from her basic flaws she has had to make some commitments (not done publicly) to Senator Sanders; commitments that will probably bring her closer to socialism and a larger national debt, as well as an activist Supreme Court nominee. Her relationship to the current President is also no recommendation. He has brought us an imperial presidency, making decisions on his own that should be made by Congress. He has also left us with our highest national debt, and, notwithstanding a Nobel Prize based on the judges' hope for peace, he hasn't presided over a day when our country has not been at war. The Nobel Committee was rewarding him for not being President Bush. They were more involved in politics than in an honest search for a peacemaker. They blew it.

What's to be said for her? Why is she likely to win? Well, like the Nobel Committee, she'll be elected not for who she is, but who she isn't. She isn't Donald Trump. Neither can be trusted and both have the potential to be among our worst presidents (as does the incumbent who has weakened our country immeasurably in the eyes of the world) so the judgment of citizens is Clinton – no. But it's Trump – NO! However bad she may be, she represents less of a risk than her opponent. For better or worse she's likely to act rather than react. We may not approve of most of her choices, but they're more likely to be thought out by her and her advisers than controlled by her gut and guile. Those, however, are our prospects with Donald Trump.

In sports, there is a common cry to “wait till next year.” In this case we'll have to substitute “the next presidential election” for “next year.”

In the meanwhile, I recommend prayer.





October 13, 2016