Incentive

It's all too common. We hear about it all the time. There's been a leak. I'm not referring to the kind involving (actual) plumbers, but the kind that means that information is given to someone not authorized to have it, by someone in the know. Usually the “someone in the know” has an ax to grind or is prompted to do so for political purposes – like a “trial balloon,” an incriminating document, or the wholesale release of stolen files. And it's leaked to the media. (“Whistleblowers” fall into the category of leakers but may have different motives, although at times it may be hard to differentiate them from those with a political end.) Indeed, sometimes leakers are simply looking for personal publicity.

In a sense, leakers are bribers. There's an incentive. They're providing something in order to gain some kind of benefit from what they're doing. And bribery is common. It's a serious problem not only in the political arena, but far beyond that as well.

A bribe is the payment of anything of value to a public official (dog-catcher, policeman, state or national legislator – or candidate for such a position, restaurant or construction inspector, Cabinet member, assistant or adviser to one of those, etc.) or to anyone else who has some form of authority or knowledge that can be valuable to the one offering it, and helpful to the one receiving it. (Among the other types are payment for “inside information,” payment to a judge for a favorable decision, etc.) There may or may not be an explicit consideration for that payment at the time or in the future – the bribe may just be a “good-will” offering with no specified quid pro quo. The category includes statements and votes as well as tangible gifts. And it includes donations to the bribed individual's favored charity.

More often the payment will go to the official, his employee, or to a relative. It's a reasonable assumption that the official was aware of the bribe, even if it was not made directly to him but intended to reach him. If it can be demonstrated that he had no knowledge of the bribe he should be exonerated and the guilty parties prosecuted. (The official, however, should be more careful about who is in his employ or family.) If the briber is doing so on behalf of his own employer, that leader – not only the organization if any, but the individual(s) involved – should also be sanctioned. Greatly. But that's not always the case.

Despite the seriousness of the act it's a crime that isn't adequately punished. Of course it brings shame on those involved (often more for being caught than having participated in the forbidden behavior). But in politics some consulting position is likely to replace anything lost. And sometimes there is job loss or a fine, but these, which are usually the sum total of the costs of doing “business,” should only be the starting point.

Let me suggest some added reparations which should be demanded of those involved.

In addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the bribed individual should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe (or, if it is information, its potential value if it would accomplish what is expected of it – whether or not achieved), and he should be barred from holding any public position in the future. (The “future” includes the election taking place at the time the bribe is disclosed.) Association with any public official, or organization dealing with the government thereafter should be publicized and punished. Travel to a state or national capital should also be publicized much as the movements of sex offenders are.

Moreover, in addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the briber, including former public officials, should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe, and he also should be barred from holding any public position in the future. The bribe should be publicized to his constituents and employers. If it his employer (or its agent) who designated the bribe, that employer should pay into the public treasury ten times the value of the bribe, from his own assets – not the company, and he should be barred from holding a position of authority in that or any similar organization or organization that has dealings with the government. Association with any public official thereafter should be publicized along with travel to a state or national capital.

An individual who discloses a bribe (in which he doesn't participate) should be given the value of the bribe by both the briber and the person bribed. This would be in addition to whatever is paid to the public treasury. No individual should lose his job because of his disclosure of any illegal activity.

A public official who turns in a bribe-offerer should be paid by the briber the full value of the bribe for his (the official's) public use while the briber is subject to the penalties outlined above. (If the public official subsequently supports the cause of the briber it would be viewed as representing acceptance of the bribe and he should be punished accordingly.)

One final note: The bribe is not always obvious. It may result in the addition of a provision in some legislation – a provision that aids an individual, organization, or industry, or it may come in a form that “aids” constituents who will vote in the next election. Such bribes may be harder to identify or prove, but disclosure, and the light of unremitting publicity, may be helpful in discouraging their use. The media are good at flogging dead horses. (Fortunately not mine.)

Well, here I am on my high, but unflogged, horse. I'm imperious. And I'm certainly a loudmouth. It's easy to be virtuous. No one has ever given me a bribe. I have nothing to offer. There's no incentive to offer me an incentive.

January 15, 2017

The Changing Jewish Heritage

In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of dispute about the control of religion in Israel by the Chief Rabbinate. There are some disagreements among the Orthodox, but most of the complaints come from the Reform and Conservative movements. Maintaining that they are as much Jews as the Orthodox since Jewishness is dependent on heredity rather than practice (a strange claim at a time of increasing acceptance of patrilineal descent, acceptable intermarriage, and the “welcoming” of non-Jews) they demand equal acceptance of their rulings and practices, and equal access to all Jewish sites on their terms. This doesn't seem to be in accord with the “status quo” agreement that went into effect when the State of Israel was founded, but that was then and this is now. The world has changed and there are many, especially Americans, who believe that Israel and Judaism should change as well.

The focus of the argument at this time is the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Wall is under control of the Rabbinate, which requires observances at that site to be according to (Orthodox) Jewish tradition. All services held there must observe its practices – separation of the sexes, traditional services, and others – rather than be change to accommodate those who want something else.

But it's not so simple.

When Martin Luther was born, “Christianity” meant what we now call Catholicism. But his demands, and those who followed him, didn't achieve what he sought in Rome, and the Protestant movement, with a variety of practices among its many adherents, was born. All those who joined the new churches were Christians. They all accepted a heritage which views Jesus as the savior. Many of those in the very early church (long before Luther) were Jews, but they disagreed with the traditions under which they had been raised. Indeed, those with an uninterrupted matrilineal line from those early Christians are, according to Jewish law, Jewish, though they are, for the most part, unidentifiable and would probably reject the designation. Some, however, would welcome it. There are many who view “converts” as hereditary Jews who are unaware of their family's history and there have been many actions against Jews in the past that forced them to accept other faiths.

In any event, you can be Christian and of another faith than Catholicism. Another faith. A Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon wouldn't expect the Pope to change the Church's practices because he disagreed with them. Neither would a Pentecostalist demand the “right” to hold services in the Sistine Chapel because he is a Christian. That may be the case – indeed it is the case – but they're of different religions from the “mother” church. The Catholics know it and the Protestants agree.

Similarly it can be argued that the Reform and the Conservative movements derive from the same source as Orthodox Judaism. But they're very different in many ways. The essay on Reform Judaism in The Jewish Virtual Library reads, in part,

Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, single day observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very "rejectionist" view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:

• Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
• The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
• The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
• The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a "confirmation" ceremony.
• The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared "repugnant" to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
• Shabbat [the Jewish Sabbath which occurs on Saturday] was observed on Sunday.
• Traditional restrictions on Judaism.Shabbat behavior were not followed.

Many of the new practices were subsequently abandoned, but the new movement had published its “95 Theses” as much as Luther did four centuries earlier, and “Jewish Protestantism” was born. Jews were practicing a new religion that was significantly different from the one that had been observed by their ancestors.

“Conservative Judaism” began as a compromise position between Orthodox Judaism and the new movement but it has since moved to the left and also represents a separate religion. Those who follow it may be “Jews,” but their religion is not Judaism. It may be appropriate to work with them when our needs coincide, but to suggest that we observe the same religion and tradition – that we accept the same heritage as those who follow Conservative and Reform practices – makes no sense whatever.

It's time we recognized that all who label themselves as “Jews” – and there are many who reject the designation entirely – are not of the same religion.  There are many different Jewish religions whose adherents have different beliefs and follow different rites from those of the "mother church."  As with Christianity there are many Protestant Jewish religions, and those who follow them,  though Jews, do not practice Judaism.

Israel follows the “normative” Jewish heritage even if others don't. Jewishness may be a civilization, but Judaism is not. When, a few hundred years from now, this is accepted, religious peace in Israel may come about.

December 17, 2017

Mixed Grill XLVI

You must fight struthonianism.  (Look in the OED)

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

Istanbul – Constantinople 2.0

Ground chuck – Good for meatballs on Candlemas, Candlemas, Candlemas, ...

Sine qua nun – She wanted to be a priest like her brother but her anatomy precluded it

Show me the way to go home – The job of the third base coach

Take a bullet – Order of a boss about to dictate a list

Better safe than sorry – And have faith – ours are better

Don't take any wooden nickel – Element 28 it's not

Trolley dodgers – ER staff

That was now. This is then – History lesson on the importance of context

Blind sided – Unexpected home construction bill

Bowl we vill – Immigrant proposes American pop sport as entertainment

Penny whys – An annoying little girl's questions

Pound foolish – Crush the dumb (like Penny)

Thirty gays have September – But they're not interested

Put your money where your mouth is – Hide it there but don't swallow

Congressional Medal of Humor – Award given to foolish members of Congress (and that's all of them) but the joke's on us

Sine qua non – 0⁰

Let there be life – Anti-abortion creed

My heart belongs to Danny – Shifting loyalty

Hope for the beast – Let the Beauty be mine

The big apple – It has big worms

Teepee or not teepee – Query from real estate man on the reservation

Henry the IVth, Part 4 – Start of a new Star Wars series

Pray before you leap – Better than just looking

Social media – Whiskey sours

The time of your life – The “golden” years

Turning the tables – What do you expect at a séance?

Début de siecle – When the Tour de France was young

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

You fought too hard.

Happy New Year!  Enjoy Boxing Day.

I Don't Understand

Gemara (Talmud commentary) explanations read like rules for a children's game. They seem to be ad hoc, based on the desired outcome and without regard for reality or previous rules. Whenever a situation is reached that cannot be resolved using principles with which we're familiar, another principle is introduced that solves the problem.

Sometimes there is a close observation of science, as in anatomy of kosher animals, and sometimes there is a total disregard of science. The fact that the “science” is wrong doesn't seem to disqualify any results based on the errors. They are, after all, “traditions.”

Since the Bible is the word of G-d, there are no errors in it. We may have to “explain” what appear to be inconsistencies. And there are no extra words. Thus every one must bear a lesson and we have to figure out what it is. It does not matter that there may be no obvious support for our position or that someone else may have a completely different explanation – one diametrically opposite – or a contrary opinion. There may be a machlokes – an argument. But both, “these and these are the words of the living G-d.” In some circumstances we even admit that we don't know. “Tayku.” When Elijah, the predecessor of the Messiah, comes, he will answer our questions.

I recognize the tradition that those closer in time to Sinai have a more accurate idea of Torat Moshe than later generations so that the more recent cannot disagree with their predecessors. I am less certain about the concept that they, therefore, are always right. It is the time-honored view that they cannot make mistakes. If there is any statement that does not make sense or seems to be in disagreement with another, the mistake is ours and we must reevaluate our interpretation of what we read. I am troubled by the hoops we pass through in order to make a statement fit in to what we know. It often means that they have to concoct, and we have to accept some unlikely, or even bizarre, scenario that would justify a statement, or believe that something “must” mean the opposite of what it seems to say or that it was copied wrong. And if two sages disagree, they only appear to disagree but were dealing with different cases. Anything to ensure that the tanna (or whoever) is right. We turn them into deities who are infallible, even though we claim to believe that only Hashem is infallible. By doing so – by refusing to accept the idea that one of them can make a mistake – we risk having all of Shas (Talmud) called into question even if we are convinced that what is there is worth defending.

Among the apparently erroneous statements are many related to science and medicine which do not coincide with current knowledge. While it is indisputable that not everything we think is scientifically true will ultimately remain a “fact,” it is unlikely that we will return to some of the ancient beliefs that still exist in the Talmud. And there are modern techniques that make some of the earlier practices outmoded. Indeed, we may have abandoned those practices in our daily lives, but we still maintain their veracity on the printed page. No current authority, for example, would treat a malady with animal urine or some other supposed cure rather than use modern drugs, and none would eschew the use of modern electronic devices since they were not used by our ancestors.

In most fields we use past knowledge as a springboard for advances. We admire the work of our predecessors but go beyond it and correct it when necessary. We “stand on the shoulders” of those who came before us but by doing so we rise higher. Even though such an attitude may be – indeed is – used as justification for wholesale changes in Judaism, perhaps that has happened, and perhaps it will continue, because we have not been willing to make the kind of modest changes and reevaluations that are justified and won't detract from our belief system. We have left the field open for others to make major changes because we were unable to accept smaller ones.

Yet having said that, the gemara has been the backbone of Jewish learning for centuries and, despite any criticisms, bears much of the credit for our survival. When our sages might have been distracted by the world and the cultures around them they focused on the puzzles of the gemara and in creating solutions for them. Their dedication to our heritage was an important contributor to the persistence of that heritage. And the Bible, despite what we don't understand, is the basis for what has sustained us. But the key, in the previous sentence, is “what we don't understand.” Man does not know everything. Nor should he be expected to.

Thus we should be willing to accept apparent errors and inconsistencies as areas of our ignorance rather than try to construct explanations. In some limited cases we admit we don't understand, and that is admirable. When we say that someone meant something else rather than what he said, or when we add or disregard a word, we are placing our own egos on a pedestal and, basically, saying we know more than they did.

Bottom line Judaism. There is no denial of the Rabbis' conclusions, only the route to them. As we learn from the Torah, we must accept their interpretation of the law. But that does not mean that we necessarily accept, or at least comprehend, the explanations they give for reaching their conclusions. It may be hard to give complete understanding and credence to the explanations of two Rabbis who have reached the same conclusions by diametrically opposite routes, and who disagree with each other's arguments. But their conclusion is binding on us.

Even if we don't understand.

January 10, 2017

We Are All Racists

Time to flog a dead horse. According to a Harvard study about a year ago, all whites are racists. All oppose blacks – often unconsciously. They can't help it. It's all around them.

Do you question Affirmative Action? You may justify it by demanding equal ability for equal opportunity but in reality, consciously or not, you really oppose any benefit for blacks. You're a racist. Do you note that there are more violent crimes in black neighborhoods than white? You wouldn't even be thinking about it if you weren't a racist. Do you oppose entitlement programs? The truth is that you oppose any program that helps blacks – especially assisting unemployed ones at the expense of taxpayers. That might never enter your thoughts, but it's there. You're a racist.

And that's the way it's always been. We've always followed the teachings of our society, whether we learned them in school or on the street. Only we never labeled each other based on that learning. We never faulted ourselves for believing – even subconsciously – “common knowledge.” “Givens” earned that position because we all know them to be true. And sometimes they are.

But even if they're not, belief or disbelief in a commonly held view should not, because of our own uncertainty, or our own wish to rise above bigotry, be the cause of labeling – or our refusal to do so. When the media report that a truck was driven into a large crowd, and the driver emerged carrying an automatic weapon with which he shot the survivors while yelling “Allah Akhbar,” it is not Islamophobia to consider it a terrorist attack. And, on the other hand, it makes no sense to label one who challenges a law that violates his conscience as a “religious bigot.” But that is the current practice – a practice selectively (and usually politically) applied.

We're all sexists. Men and women are different. It's true. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are. (I'm not quite sure “should” and “shouldn't” enter the picture. DNA and evolution have decreed that males are sexually aggressive while females use other methods to attract the bearers of that aggression.) Over the millennia people, and the societies in which they live, have developed approaches to the situation, and attitudes about it. A line existed between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and, though that line was often crossed, violations were, in the past, usually viewed as “the way it is.” Not necessarily right, but not always as one-sided as we see them now. Current sensibilities tell us that the man is always wrong and women who accuse them of acts that happened decades earlier are reliable bearers of truth. And acts formerly considered unexceptionable (and often desirable) by the standards of their times are now prima facie evidence of abuse by a more sensitive society – even it they occurred when there was a different view. And those who question current reasoning are sexists. (As are those who don't believe that the same salaries should be given to all who do the same job, irrespective of decades of experience as opposed to a new hire.) So are those who are reluctant to hire pregnant women – women to whom they will almost immediately have to give paid leave.

If we don't make accommodation for a short person to play in the NBA, we discriminate against those who are “differently able,” while we are “ageist” if we have second thoughts about hiring someone close to retirement age for a long term position. And, of course, we're bigots if we require that an immigrant be legal. Nowadays we criticize whatever we don't like. We add an “ism” to it and accuse others of intentional ill-feeling irrespective of the mood of the times. Only a few may be doing the accusing but the label sticks, with media, eager to attract attention, trumpeting whatever a politically correct public will buy. It's society's fault.

Perhaps the reexamination of a question raised earlier will introduce some context.

“Do you question Affirmative Action?”

For whom and for what?

Anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years but we've never raised this question in relation to the Jews. Obviously there can be no compensation for lives lost. And we bridle at the idea that we may have to make good for the ills of other societies. But there is no debating the fact that here in America it has been practiced since before the country was founded. Are we responsible for the sins of our fathers – sins which continue to this day?

If we know that, among other slights, there were quotas and other methods for keeping Jews from getting the education for which they were fit, should we have an Affirmative Action program for them? Or for other minorities against whom there was prejudice? Do we only feel guilt and responsibility, and do we only recognize those traits, when it is politically correct?

Whatever the virtues of the Harvard study, it is hard not to believe that the investigators hadn't reached their conclusion before starting, and that their “conclusions” won them much praise in the academic world.

December 8, 2017

Various Thoughts XVII

Are you familiar with the story of Paul Wittgenstein. Read it. I won't ruin it by telling you the specifics, but it's hard not to admire the man.

It's often said that you can't make something from nothing. It's a law of physics. But he did. I don't mean that literally. For him the “nothing” was determination and a love for what he knew; a love for the music he had performed before. And those “nothings” have turned into an inspirational story which gives me strength and hope for humanity at a time in my life when I need it.

The potential within people cannot be underestimated. But it is only potential and it is up to all of us to take the steps necessary to bring our abilities to fulfillment, notwithstanding the challenges.

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

I heard on the radio a few days ago that the government is returning some land that had been set aside as National Monuments. The monuments remained, but hundreds of thousands of acres that had been set aside are now available again. There was extensive protest by various involved groups about the loss of sacred ground by Native American tribes and there would likely be the destruction and loss of fossils. We would lose part of American history and we would never get it back. Naturally there was much sympathy for this noble cause. Our history is sacred and acts that compromise the record of our past are to be prohibited.

Not more than a few months ago there was mass destruction of statues, building names, and other claimed symbols of the Confederacy. The Civil War era may not have been our greatest moment but it is part of our history, and the destruction of the monuments and the history were “part of American history and we would never get it back. Naturally there was much sympathy for this noble cause. Our history is sacred and acts that compromise the record of our past,” acts that destroy our sacrosanct image, must not be allowed to sully it.

Thus there was much support for this desecration of our history, and it was supported by the media that claim a loyalty to our nation. Is there a double standard that prompts us to deny the history that embarrasses us, and embrace the politically correct and popular history that is in vogue?

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

Whatever is proposed, and no matter by whom, there are winners and losers. The main opposing arguments are usually made by the losers who contend that all change – except what they propose – is for the worse. And the degree of contention depends on the organization and the anger of the losers, usually about who wins and who loses. And their respect for the rule of law.

Take taxes, for example. When they went up in the past by a vote of Congress we took it for granted that our government was acting in our country's interests. Hence there was no major protest nor a demand that we address the interests of the losers rather than the overall needs of our country. Nowadays lobbying groups, large and small, are more focused on their own concerns than everyone else's. If they benefit from the cuts they are justified. If they lose it's unfair. The legislation is only equitable if they win.

As for the rule of law, a good model is illegal immigration (ignore the politics). When we decided to ignore legal status of the immigrants – the law – no one cared. It was virtuous to do so. Adversaries of the laws previously passed by Congress felt like winners. Now, when the government insists on following the law, there were many who protest the cruelty of the demand – who believe that virtue trumps law, and we are obligated to withdraw fealty to our Constitution and the laws, and the “right” thing for us is to do “good” rather than obey our own statutes. We have turned those who have violated the law into people we have oppressed. We have made them “losers,” no matter how they have violated our statutes, nor how often.

We have a binary system and a general disregard for our own people, while we are more concerned about people from elsewhere. Have we let emotion vanquish our system and our common sense?

December 8, 2017

The More Things Change

“All that the Lord has said, we will do and we will hear.” Na'aseh v'nishma. That was what the Jewish people said at Sinai when they received the law. They agreed to follow the law that G-d had set for them before they fully knew or understood what it entailed.

G-d was – and is – a populist. Perhaps we don't comprehend the meaning of all the laws He has ordained, but that's not important. It's more important that we abide by His teachings irrespective of our discernment of their meaning. We follow G-d and do whatever He prescribes for us. And that, pretty much, is a description of what a populist is. It is an “individual” whose words and commands are accepted unconditionally.

Populism isn't a new phenomenon, even if we tend to think of it as such. But there are different kinds of populists: G-d decrees laws which will improve us – His goal is for us to improve our lot by following Him – but the majority of populists have a different aim. A populist's purpose is to improve his own lot by attracting a following. So he caters to its wishes when formulating his own appeal. And he convinces them of his sincerity using the oratorical talents he has perfected; he convinces them that the ideas are his own – that he believes in them (as, indeed, he might) and that he will turn them into fact. As a result the word itself has taken on negative connotations because most populists have used their rhetorical skills primarily to excite the crowd for their own purposes.

The main goal of most of them is to acquire power, and the path is usually a challenge of existing authority. There are times when those who follow the new leader are the majority, and times when it is the aim of such a leader to inspire a minority – to mobilize them in order to overwhelm a less motivated, or even apathetic, majority. Most – but not all – are rabble-rousers although, as I said, their aims may differ. Huey Long was a populist. But so were Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who, along with their "indiscretions," introduced leftist reforms in Argentina. Marine Le Pen is quite the opposite – a right-wing populist in France who may some day serve as her country's president. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populists. (Actually all politicians – indeed, everybody else as well – are. They want to be popular. They want you to like them, to vote for them, and to do what they say.) Their techniques and styles may be different, but their aims are similar. Brexit and Occupy Wall Street, different as they may have been, had, in common, that they were populist movements. Goals and likely results may not have been clearly defined, but that was of no consequence to true believers. 
 

Populists are convinced they're right, and they convince others of the same thing. There are some who are intent on improving conditions for those they rule, and others whose only concern is the religious fervor that motivates them and which takes precedence over any human concerns. Nonetheless, however, a commandment not to kill is much more beneficial than an order to kill anyone who disagrees with the leader; protecting refugees is far preferable to using the problem of refugees stir up emotions, so the inspiration of the people may be for good or evil.

People are the same. They haven't changed. But tools have. We can now do things that we wanted to do before but couldn't, for a variety of reasons. While only a few could be reached in the past, and even fewer at one time, the availability of electronic media makes the mesmerization of the masses a reality now. And its use is expanding rapidly. It was first used as an important means of communication by Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose radio “Fireside” chats (he made them from his desk, to citizens wherever they were sitting) mimicked the words of a deity to those who wanted to believe, and inspired their fealty and cooperation. And even more recently, television, the internet, and social media make it possible to inform and rally larger numbers and more quickly.

The media (and everyone else) view Donald Trump as a populist. And he is. He'eshardly the first, however. And while others may see his actions as divisive and contrary to the virtue of diversity (actually “diversity” implies division and difference), he sees himself as representing a forgotten group of citizens whose needs have been ignored by “the establishment.” And he uses the media, including the electronic media, to spread his message. Where others see the term as a negative description, he considers his actions as far more positive.

But doing the old things costs a lot more nowadays. There was much criticism of Donald Trump: that he was rich and able to buy the election. But, in fact, he and the Republican Party spent far less than Secretary Clinton. And many hundreds of millions less than President Obama in the two prior campaigns.

And a third way in which the tools have changed while the goals have not. Now we have more psychologists, consultants, “spin doctors,” and public relations gurus to help people get their messages across, and accepted by others. (People can also be tools.)

G-d was an early populist, but the people chose to obey His commands because He had already produced for them. He had given them reason to trust Him. He had taken them out of Egypt and performed miracles on their behalf.  His actions inspired them to follow His words.

Since then, however, loyalty has been based on promises of improvement rather than accomplishments. But the people are looking for those accomplishments. They have great expectations of what their government will do for them. So if those expectations aren't met they become willing converts to the preaching of someone who promises change and better things. And that's what people want and have always wanted: better things. Methods may have changed but that has remained the same.

Mixed Grill XLV

Forgive me (if you choose). I can't help myself.

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

Kudo box – Container for the mentalist's positive reviews

First aid – First responder with a band-aid

The mouse ran up the clock – It's amazing what rats will do to get you pay them what they think they're worth

Sugar cane – Great for someone with PVD. But not for diabetics

Sauerkraut – German measles

My fair laddie – Boys just want to have fun

Optimistic – “Seer” who needs glasses

Gluten free – Lots of wheat but there's no charge for it. Of course you pay extra for everything else

Let him who is without fault – Loosen up

Serial killers – Hot or cold?

There's no such thing as a stupid question – Yes there is

Insight – Stonewall riot

By the sweat of your brow – Certainly not mine

70 shades of green – Money tempts me more than sex

People who live in grass houses – Must have thatched roofs

National debt – Give 'til it hurts. Your country needs your money more than you do

Apple and Oranges – Metropolitan area

Probiotic – I'm only an amateur but someday I'll make it

The Prairie Years – When Laura Ingalls Wilder made a fortune

Silent Cal – Empty, too

Oh dear, what can the matter be? – If Empedocles didn't know, how should I?

Tennessee Ernie – Used car in Bristol

Ducks in a row – Fight in Anaheim

One size fits all – If all are the same size

Come away with me Lucille – Or anyone else who will “go as far as [I'd] like with me”

The Fountainhead – For all knowledge try Google

Drone –         1.  An insect

2. A note or a chord continuously sounded throughout a piece of music
3. A model airplane designed to make its manufacturer rich
4. The description of one of the above in a boring, long-winded, and unenthusiastic way
   
   

Gun Club – Effective weapon even when you run out of bullets

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

Actually no one can help me.

November 5, 2017

Great Expectations

I have no beef. At least no legitimate beef.

When I was born in 1939, a white male (it's not a politically correct designation but I am what I am) had a life expectancy of a little less than 64 years. I'm almost 77 so I passed that a while back. Even today, in 2016, the life expectancy of a boy born now would be 76.3 – down a little from last year – so I'm ahead there too.

The progress we're making in treating disease successfully, and in increasing life span, is truly amazing. Much as we may insult the medical profession and blame doctors for the ills of society, we've all benefited. Some want more and want it faster but they, too, will live longer (and have more time to complain) than would have been the case in the past. The biblical mandate, to provide for his complete cure (Exodus 21:19, translation by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan), has been taken very seriously. (Hu)Man(ity), was made in the image of G-d, and, while many are working toward our moral improvement, medical scientists are learning more about our bodies, and how to improve the world around us, in quest of more complete cures.

There have been major improvements in the available diagnostic tools, making it easier to discover diseases earlier and to characterize them more fully and accurately. And, or course, there have been, over the years, vast improvements in all forms of therapy – medicinal, surgical, rehabilitative, and even alternative means.

The research continues. Every day there is new information learned not only about specific diseases, but also about aging in general. Perhaps some day we'll be able to increase life spans based on this kind of information, rather then piecemeal through the treatment of particular maladies. But that's for then – not now.

I'm the beneficiary of some of these medical advances. MRI, CT, and a variety of blood tests, including genetic screens, have contributed to the ability of my doctors to understand my illness. Modern surgical techniques and recent medical therapies have also been employed in my treatment. Will they help? Only G-d knows, but what is possible for mortals to do is being done. I'm lucky – but I think I've said that before.

Noting my good fortune, however, doesn't solve all of my problems. I'm slower, more tired, and less steady than I used to be. And while my gustatorial preferences haven't changed, I find that I fill up much faster than was the case before.

Several years ago I volunteered for a study at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The stated intent was to investigate both cognitive and physical abilities in people as they aged. From the perspective of cognitive skills, I recognize diminishment only in the ability to remember some words. The ideas are clear but sometimes I can't recall the word that goes with it. (It's interesting that the mind can visualize concepts without requiring the words that go with them. Cognitive content and the words that identify and describe it seem to be separate functions, and we don't require words to have ideas. It's hard not to wonder, though, the extent to which it was necessary to have vocabulary in order to formulate and imprint the ideas in the first place.) That, apparently, is a common problem associated with aging, and my wife and I have dealt with it by helping each other with words.

In any event, the study has focused my attention on aging as one of the contributors to my current physical difficulties, but I cannot ignore the disease itself and the psychological baggage that accompanies it. And, to a degree, I can't dismiss the thought that the placing of chairs, beds, tables, and other devices to make life easy for me isn't in fact making things harder by being in the way. Oh well, I'll probably never work it out.

But I've already outlived most of my cohort. That's what the numbers tell me. So I guess that I win. And I'm not tossing in the towel just yet. I still have goals. Mostly they're sort of deadlines. They're primarily family events that I want to attend, and I'm hopeful that I'll be fortunate enough to do so. My (and my wife's) sixtieth anniversary is June 26, 2020. I'd like to be able to celebrate it, although I won't hold my breath (or maybe I will). Bargaining won't help. The Judge of all the earth will do justly

There's another kind of goal, though, that I've long pursued. We – human souls – are children of G-d and made in His image. We are called upon to love and care for each other as He loves and cares for us. Helping each other and having responsibility for them – that seems to be one of the absolutes that cultural relativists say don't exist. But they do.

If I can have helped or guided one other, my life will have been worthwhile – at least to me.

December 31, 2016

Not Now

What I wrote yesterday is certain to cause antagonism (even among my friends if I have any left). If anyone reads it. My usual audience is about three people, but I sent it's contents, as a letter, to The Jewish Press. If they print it I'm sure to get the venom of most of its readers. Ah, well. Let me go a little further.

There are likely to be two main criticisms: that Judaism is a single unit and the “normative” Jews are not keeping up with the times, and whatever the accuracy of the assessment, now is the wrong time to raise it. I dealt with the former yesterday (though I have some additional comments on that perspective – see below) and I'll primarily tackle the latter today.

Halloween 1517 was certainly not the time for Luther to post his theses. The Church was in turmoil – the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were being rejected. Many believers had doubts about the primacy of church over state while others didn't. Church corruption was rife. It was a time to come together rather than publicize problems.

But for the same reasons it was the perfect time to correct faults. Now, in the twenty-first century, there is more openness in Christianity and a large menu of church services from which to choose. No one questions the divisions which have actually brought more nuance and clarity to the worship service. Adherents appreciate the differences, rather than resent them.

And the quarrels over doctrine in Judaism now dictate the same kind of solution. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of what is right. It is time we corrected our faults. There is no right time except when things are wrong. And with internecine contention, usually more political than theological, increasing, it's bound to happen at some time in the future. Painful as it may be now, the realignment will be recognized as a necessary step in the development of Judaism and of the Jewish people, for they are not the same. “Jewishness” reflects who you are; Judaism outlines what you believe.

But, many will ask “Why now?” They will argue, that there is so much conflict now and we need unity, not to be ripped apart. That assumes we have unity and aren't being ripped apart already – an idea that is laughable. The world may view all Jews as one, but we know better. Some would like to see “dedeification.” Others would not. Some promote BDS. Others don't. Many desire egalitarianism instead of tradition, but that desire is not universal. And there are many other issues that separate us.

Despite the differences however, most Jews would like to see the state of Israel survive although there are differences concerning both political and theological matters. And even though the world staunchly maintains that “anti-Zionism,” (by which they mean opposition to the State of Israel) is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, it is difficult to take that argument seriously after a couple of millennia. The internal struggles between Jews would seem to favor their argument, even though others only use the terminology to cover their bigotry, internal and international politics, and their thirst for Arab oil.

But notwithstanding the anti-Semitic code, all Zionists are not Jewish. Christian evangelicals in the United States, and the Makuya in Japan, are two groups that support Israel. Unfortunately most of the world's nations oppose all efforts to help that tiny country. The underlying anti-Semitism, which has been buried within the psyches of most people, along with the desire to have the support of the large Islamic and Arab communities, guarantee that this attitude will exist for a long time. Morality is not an issue among nations. As Lord Palmerston said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Politics and prejudice will continue to rule. Perhaps Palmerston was right. Perhaps the best way to defend itself in addition to military strength is for Israel to recognize, support, and encourage a variety of allies – an increasing number of Jewish religions – even among those who may erroneously believe their heritages to be other than Jewish. It is better that more than one group acts as a light to the nations. The lesson is heard more often. All those who are Jewish have that light within them, whether or not they practice normative Judaism. And if Israel must make concessions to new religious groups, so be it.

The leaders of the nations must, sooner or later, recognize that those lights include knowledge which, to this point, they lack. They must understand that in the long run their citizens will benefit more from association with the “start up” religions than with their opponents. Their future will be more secure when they ally themselves with Israel, since the need for oil will eventually disappear and new ideas, and the ferment of competition – theological, economic, political, and whatever – will take them further than servile allegiance to the ways of the past.

It may take centuries, but it has to start sooner or later.

Harebrained Schemes 6

You thought I'd already listed all my dumb ideas? Wrong. Here's more.

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

Science marches on. Kids no longer write with a pen (or pencil) on paper. They text instead. And for schoolwork they use a computer. And more and more schools no longer teach penmanship. The time will come when people forget how to write. They no longer have to write checks, paying their bills on line, and the need to sign any document has decreased significantly. Without practice, people will never learn how to form their own signature. That's the only handwriting they need. The notary, assuming he or she can write, will take care of the rest. And the computer will do for non-notarized transactions.

Biometric tools, like thumbprints, can get us computer access and are usable for most activities since they can be scanned by computers. But there will remain some occasions when it will be necessary to sign your name, and, in order to satisfy this requirement, I suggest that it be mandated that all elementary schools (or secondary schools if necessary) have signature classes. It's too much to expect that all students will learn to write when they have keyboards to do all the work, but, at least for the time being, it's important that they learn to sign their names.

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

They're the wave of the future, computers are. If we don't utilize them as often as we can we're missing the boat. Which brings to mind transportation. The most common form of transportation, and one of the most dangerous, is walking. The computer giveth … People have become so involved with their hand-held devices that they sometimes tune everything else out. And that includes the wall in front of them, those dangerous steps (actually they're not dangerous unless people make them so), and the street and its traffic into which they are about to walk. It's illegal to drive while distracted but it's unlikely that the same rules will be provided to pedestrians. After all, what would we do if we had to be bored by paying attention to the world around us.

The same computers that take us astray can also bring us back. Enough technology has been developed to help us locate ourselves, to map routes out, to demonstrate hazards around us, and to warn us of potential problems, and there's no reason why computers can't compensate for the fact that we have no idea what's around us. It does. And even with our heads down we can follow the fastest and safest route to where we're going no matter where that is. And if it's a store we can instruct our computer in advance as to what we want to buy and what our credit card number is (or if there's another payment device). We'd also give delivery instructions unless store employees can strap it to our backs. We'll need to keep our hands free for our computers.

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

Computers seem to be the thing, so I'll finish off this helpful guide with another invaluable device which is really an offshoot of what I've already written. If computers can keep us from going off the beaten path when we're distracted, a device can be assembled that “walks” a dog or a child or someone with dementia: the dog walker would go by all the spots that your dog likes to go (in this case it will be necessary to keep your eyes open); the child walker would go by all the store windows of interest; and the walker for adults who tend to wander, it would eventually drag them home. In all cases the same protective tools would guide the computer. And the computer would have a mobile “leading” unit to which the user is attached in a way that prevents escape. It would also contain a timing (and pace measuring) device to limit the length of forays while recording the activity performed. And it should have an automatic camera to record whom the user has interacted., especially molesters.

It's almost like a three-D computer game, but it requires some participation. Does that make it four-D?

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

Admit it. That's not dumb. It's the future.

Who is a Jew?

Who is a Jew?

It's an old question. But it's a silly and meaningless one. And the Rabbis answered it long ago: it is the child of a Jewish mother, or an individual who has undergone a valid conversion. We may disagree on what constitutes a “valid” conversion, but that's the definition.

Still, it's the wrong question. Far more significant is the uncertainty about “What is a Jew?”

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to his church door. He protested various dogmas and practices of Christianity, triggering the Protestant Reformation. He remained a Christian but his “spin,” and that of others, resulted in the establishment of the many denominations of Christianity. We would not debate whether a Mormon was Christian, but neither he nor a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America would have the chutzpah to demand the use of the Sistine Chapel for a service of their own, or to question the Pope's standing. Even within the Roman Catholic Church there are many who are more liberal or more conservative than the Pope, but his authority is recognized. Other views are not accepted as representing “authentic” Roman Catholicism. They are teachings that differ from those of Jesus. Whether they are right or wrong is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is enough to concede that they are different.

Yet both Anglicans and Christian Scientists have equal claim on the designation of “Christian,” even though they reject the teachings of the “mother” church and practice different religions. (Similarly Sunnis, Sufis, Shias, Alawites, and Druze – among other groups – consider themselves Muslims, though they may reject the religion as practiced by the others.)

There are a host of parallels in Jewish history. The protests of many Jews about the practices of their religion, and the establishment of “Reform Judaism,” marked the onset of the Jewish Reformation, resulting in the establishment of numerous denominations, sects, “chevrahs,” and other variations – Jewish protestants. Unlike Christianity, however, each considers its variation as the center, while other perspectives are, necessarily, the outliers. Although Christianity may, almost uniformly, recognize the authority of the Pope in many areas, and the sanctity of the Vatican which Roman Catholicism administers, as outside their realm, dissident Jewish groups, Jews who do not practice “normative Judaism,” whose practices vary from those of the “mother church,” demand a voice in the direction of the religion. And they demand equality in decisions about the use of Jewish holy places.

What is “normative Judaism?” Using Catholicism as a model (and many will object to this) it is the religion accepted as tradition now and through the millennia; it is the Judaism administered by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel – the Jews sacred land. That is Judaism, and the other denominations of Jews practice different religions. (I personally have some disagreements with the way normative Judaism is observed but, as the saying goes, if I deviate I know from what I am deviating.) Perhaps those other Jews should be given territory to practice their faiths, though I know of no precedent for this in Christianity.

The question then revolves around the practices of the Jews in question: what do they believe, to whom do they look for direction, and what is their religion? If they fulfill the criteria set by the Rabbis, they are Jews. But that, alone, does not entitle them to speak on behalf of Jews who practice another faith. They find nothing regarding Judaism outside their domain. But it's their heritage, not their religion. We also need to consider their spin and their choice of authorities. If they don't observe “normative Judaism,” they're Jewish protestants – even if they're holier than we and refuse to recognize a Jewish State until the time of the Messiah.

If they reject the multi-millennial traditions of their people they are protestants.

That's how the Christians started out.