Rest In Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Will Survive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Hanukkah.

Mixed Grill – III

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entry forbidden – No entry – Statute enforced by SVU

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

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

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

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

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

Internet shredder – For those incriminating e-mails

Self-driving cars – So you can text while driving

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

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

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

A few good men – A small minority of Marines

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

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

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

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

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

                           Pogo Possum (Walt Kelly) 

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

Happy Hanukkah

E Pluribus Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective Standards

There ain't no such thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trick Or Treat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call On Your Cell Phone ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I borrow your cell phone to report the problem?