Addendum, Corrĭgundum, Quĭcunque

I ranted yesterday. I vented. Passion took control over intellect. Mea culpa. Not that I regret anything I said – I stand by it all, but I fear I was not as lucid as I wanted to be. Today is the perfect day for setting things straight by clarifying my thoughts. It's my mother's birthday. Or it would have been. Better, it's the 113^th anniversary of her birth. She and my father reared me in a secure home in New York, and I was totally unaware of the world war that was being waged, or of economic problems.

Safety, security, ignorance. Those were the hallmarks of my early childhood. We had a president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a father figure who was in charge of everything. The press shielded him from scrutiny and hid the facts that he was disabled and that he was having an extra-marital affair. Modern society may not concern itself with such dalliances now, but it was significant then. Now we report everything, we relish rumor and gossip, and anything “good” goes “viral.” The press then focused its reporting on what was “acceptable” news, and limited our knowledge of what might be offensive – if only to the publisher. And so we remained ignorant of much that was important. Unfortunately things haven't changed – only the limits of media acceptability have – with accuracy, pertinence, and significance deferring to political ideology and to shock value.

In any case, FDR was loved. He was adored and worshiped. He was solving our economic and military problems. We could depend on him.

At least some could. He was opposed to free entry into our country. The god of the liberals “recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had 'blood of the right sort.' … In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions 'should be definitely limited' so as to 'eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.'” (Los Angeles Times) FDR was a “religionist.” He was anti-Semitic, proclaiming proudly, that "there is no Jewish blood in our veins." Hundreds of thousands of Jews died because of his bias. And there were no cross-country protest marches; no calls for immigration.

And he was a racist. Earlier “he warned against granting citizenship to 'non-assimilable immigrants' and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that 'mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.'” (Los Angeles Times) He opposed immigrants based on their country of origin, race, and religion – and we loved him. The Constitution played no part in the discussion. There was no concern then with “American values.”

Why am I spending so much time on a previous president? For several reasons. First of all, today is his birthday too. And his outlook on refugees wasn't very different from that of our present leader, however the populace and the press supported him, and they oppose our current president. It was fashionable and patriotic then to do so, just as it is fashionable now to protest whatever President Trump does or says or is rumored to think, and to find fault with our country. I neither backed Mr. Trump nor voted for him, and I am appalled by some of his proposals, but he is our president. President Roosevelt increased unsupervised presidential power, as have presidents since him. And President Trump is attempting to do so now.

There's an army out there. They're ready to make signs and noise – to protest whatever is said to be opposed to what we want. Right or wrong doesn't matter. In fact no one really thinks about it. And the demonstrators are often assembled and given marching orders over the social media, which are dominated by those with an ax to grind, and which act as a goad for the masses attached to them. That group, both those who are offended by something or other – it doesn't matter what – and by their followers, are “who we are.” They have strong opinions or follow the leadership of those who do. We see it in those who try to influence the way we think. That means the media, and the armies of the protesters against the president as well as his supporters.

But finally, there's one more reason for my focusing on FDR. And it's the most important. He, too, is “who we are.” He was bigoted and biased.

All of us are people. All of us have prejudices, but those with power are the most dangerous when they use it. FDR had power and many died because of his biases, but no one cared. Now people, with new and different orientations, like to believe they care. But they don't. Whatever the current cause of the contretemps, it's just an excuse to don their uniforms so they can show everyone who they are. Or at least who they think they are.

They don't really represent American philosophy. They'd rather rant and vent than do so.

Who We Are

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the darling of the liberal movement, turned away the Jews during the Holocaust, great hordes of Americans did not rally against the action. A few (and, sadly, only a few) of the Jews protested but they got little support from their fellows.

When mass killings arose in Africa there were no calls to open the gates to immigrants nor major efforts to save them. And there have been many times when we have established quotas on immigrants from some parts of the world in order to favor those we consider more “desirable.”

Times have changed though, and we're quicker to react to whatever we think is wrong. We've gone from inaction to action. We're virtuous. It doesn't cost much, though if it did we might act more deliberately.

We are now in the midst of an attempt by some jihadists to make the world in their image, and they are having greater success than we had imagined. In large parts of the world there is a call among Muslims for the imposition of sharia law – often on all citizens, not only Muslims. Perhaps that's not the way we read their doctrines, but it's the way they do. And their immigration will only increase this situation. In Europe, the number of Muslims has been increasing markedly in recent years and they have become an important political force. (It's interesting that refugees prefer Christian to Muslim countries, either because it's safer or because it serves their purpose to do so.)

That, however, does not change who we are. Indeed, who are we? We are a nation of immigrants (and we mustn't turn our backs on those of the present). Even Native Americans came from elsewhere, if far longer ago than we and our ancestors. We have, at least at some times, welcomed the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But we have always preferred that immigrants be like us. We've always been a racist society – all societies are. We're reluctant to change, irrespective of the reasons for doing so. We speak of diversity but we look for assimilation. “E pluribus unum.” We're racist and it's now fashionable to express it openly.

Reality and fashion, however, don't justify racism. But they also don't justify the protests of professional activists who are always looking for a way to fault what is, in the name of something they claim is better. Their goal is to make others feel the guilt they feel, although theirs often results from being too well off. They grieve for the “oppressed” without considering the implications of their acts. They act first and don't bother asking questions. They are always looking for some failure of their country, something to protest. And they always side with the victim, irrespective of whether the “victim” is right and deserves support. They exude virtue. And they can then walk away and seek a new cause.

The issue at the moment is immigration policy, which has been questioned by the new administration and which it is trying to change. Even before any attempts were made to do so, however, there were protests, not discussion, of the proposals. The idea that immigrants should enter our country legally was viewed as un-American. That's not “who we are.” It's in violation of American values. We may have needed a rule of law and orderly procedures in the past, but times have changed and we have no right to reject anyone.

And the idea that there has to be better screening of those coming from countries that have already exported terrorists to other nations is little short of profiling and stereotyping. (Some of those nations are, themselves, considering ways to stem the flow of refugees, fearing both terrorism and a change in the nature of their societies.)

But there's a problem. The protesters, despite an agenda which places the process above the issue, have a valid complaint this time, when they oppose a non-existent immigration policy which emphasizes unconsidered (worse – ill-considered) actions, apparently resulting from whim rather than careful evaluation. Thought and preparation are not the concerns – publicity and shock are. So this appears to be following a pattern of hurried moves more designed to attract attention than to accomplish the new administration's stated goals.

Sadly, this is who we are. In an age of social media we are quick to advertise ourselves and to draw attention to everything we think and do – whether it is of any consequence or not. We're quick to act – to try to solve whatever we see as injustice or as a problem of any sort. The protesters ride the high horse of fashionable liberalism: the rejection of anything with which they disagree and they refuse to accept the results of the election, even if it is constitutionally correct. Consideration and compromise are no longer part of the equation. Only action of some type. And we're quick to react to everything, often without concern about whether our reaction is likely to be of benefit or not. “Don't just stand there … ” We do something because by doing something we convince ourselves that we are doing good.

It's not a phenomenon limited to our country. It's world-wide. But, at the moment, I'm interested in our own difficulty. We have a President who is more interested in ego and shock than well thought-out policy, and a “loyal opposition” that is more interested in opposition than in loyalty and accomplishment. And both are who we are. We say and do whatever we consider right at the moment – “ the devil take the hindmost.” “Full speed ahead.” “My way or the highway.” There will be times when each side is correct, but neither will convince the other of any error. And when we talk, whether on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever – even by action – it's loud, immediate, and unfiltered or tempered by planning.

And the outlook?

Things will get worse. As everything gets faster and as we increase in our certainty that we're right and we'd better act immediately, it's inevitable that we'll be more divided We're not exceptional. We're like everyone else. We'll do what we consider right. Even if it's wrong. And even if it kills us. That's who we are. We're pig-headed people. All of us.

The Slippery Slope

It wasn't so long ago when governments and private individuals began installing surveillance cameras at various locations. There was quite a reaction to it: mostly fear that it was an invasion of our privacy and would lead to greater spying on all of us. 1984 was here.

But now we demand those cameras, as well as body cameras on police and cameras in police vehicles. It's not that we no longer care about privacy, but we recognize their value in keeping us safe and in dealing with criminal activities. (Where would TV crime shows be without surveillance cameras and DNA – or is DNA examination another invasion of privacy?) Some jurisdictions have installed traffic cameras to monitor the violation of various laws, including failure to observe red light rules and stop signs. (Others view such devices as illegal – as first steps in the effort to deprive citizens of their rights.) Nowadays, in addition, we're recorded by the ubiquitous camera-phones operated by everyone seeking his or her fifteen minutes of fame, and a big payoff from some television network if (s)he's fortunate enough to see a murder, police brutality, or another disaster occurring. No one seems alarmed about it.

Do you remember the fall of the Soviet Union? It wasn't so long ago. After several years of violence had occurred in the latter half of the 1980s, most of the member states declared their independence in 1990 and 1991. One after another they established governments separate from the USSR of which they had previously been members. It was almost like a lineup of dominoes, falling in sequence after the first was toppled.

We, in the United States, had been concerned about a similar sequence of events in the previous decades. The “Domino Theory” posited that if any country adopted Communism it would be followed by additional nations, one by one, like a line of dominoes. Many believed that we couldn't afford to lose Vietnam (we did in 1975) for that would lead to Communism conquering the entire far east (it didn't). It was a “slippery slope” argument – that the loss of one battle would eventually lead to the loss of the war. (For the want of a nail the shoe was lost …) And eventually our own freedom would be threatened. It's likely that the same concern was felt by Soviet officials in the years of its dissolution, but Russia still stands and it has been increasing its influence in recent years.

But that's not what those who are worried consider relevant when they present their cases and take their stands. They are convinced that whatever they are protesting is the first step on a “slippery slope” and will eventually lead to some horrible endpoint. And they're sure that once the first step is taken there is no turning back. A typical example of this approach can be found, in the approach of some advocates of the inevitability of this construct, especially with reference to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A fear that failure to defend the “right” of Nazis to march through a community containing numerous Holocaust survivors (Skokie, Illinois) to spread their message of hate would ultimately lead to the complete loss of the right of free speech, caused the American Civil Liberties Union to come to the defense of the marchers. And a fear that including “under G-d” in the Pledge of Allegiance impinged on the rights of non-believers and would eventuate in our country becoming a theocracy prompted protests of the use of this wording in our secular state.

It is noteworthy that previous limitations of speech, like bans on inciting to riot, have not caused us to lose our right to speak out. Indeed, many of the same people who feared the Nazis' loss of rights now support the concept of “hate speech” which they apply to the speech of those who oppose groups they favor.

And while the change is the Pledge of Allegiance has not turned us into theocracy, neither did the chaplains in the military or in Congress, nor the tax benefits for clergy and religious institutions that predated the Pledge debate. Additionally, National Rifle Association officials who fight hard to defend the Second Amendment out of fear that any limitation in gun ownership will lead to a banning of guns entirely are unlikely to acknowledge that previous restrictions – for example, existing laws that govern gun registration – don't do that. Advocates of these absolutist positions are convinced that those who don't support them are evil, and no compromise with evil is possible. For any compromise may lead to even more far-reaching effects (and greater evil).

That perspective is not completely without merit. The first arguments for a “right” of “privacy,” a right not mentioned in the Constitution, were based on an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Warren and Brandeis in reaction to the use of a camera at a party. Nowadays it wouldn't be worth a mention because most of the attendees would have cameras, but Warren and Brandeis viewed it as a massive invasion of privacy. Times change. Indeed, based on that article and its results, so did the Constitution. And since that time American courts have accepted an unwritten constitutional right of privacy – “the right to be let alone.” It's there – or, at least, should be – if you read between the lines. And that right extends to other unwritten areas. (For example, it resulted in the ruling regarding Roe v Wade.)

Change in the understanding of the Constitution is a staple of liberalism. After all, the world is different from what it was over two centuries ago. So it makes sense for the courts to reinterpret a document written then. But others argue that it is a violation of principle, and any change is the first step onto the slippery slope. Many conservatives favor no judicial change. Preferring what was written in the past, they argue against that first step.

But, as I noted already, times change. Societies were formed by those willing to give up some of their freedoms for the protection that society offered. Ours was formed before there was an internet and the hacking of our communications. It was formed before there was terrorism comparable to what we face now. There has always been spying by one government against another, and we have also supervised the actions of our own citizens. Hence the current Patriot Act, which allows for the interception of information that might be prejudicial to our country, is considered by some the first step on a slippery slope that will result in spying on all of us. Their view is that even if supporters of the act have America's good at heart, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” (as is the road to Heaven) and is contrary to our values. Our spying is wrong. And “transparency” of our actions is mandatory. We cannot risk a slip.

But that absolutist position is wrong. Life is a slope, and we're on it. We have to be if we are to adapt to the changes that take place around us. But the slope doesn't have to be slippery. We can make occasional changes, even though these are “exceptions” and are steps on the slope. We can take one step, and stop. Where does common sense come in, and the assumption that most people are honorable? You do what you can and hope for the best.

A belief in a slippery slope is a manifestation of conspiracy theory. And like conspiracy theory it will only lead us in the wrong direction away from the path we need to travel and the changes we need to make.

Sanctuary Cities

This will probably be short, but I have to comment on the news of the day (and of those preceding and those likely to follow). There has been a lot of talk about sanctuary cities. The mayors of such cities proclaim loudly that they will continue to care for the illegal immigrants they serve, and defy the Federal Government when it comes to dealing with them.

It's very noble. We are, after all, a country of immigrants. And those concerned with the needs of others should be praised and honored. A liberal philosophy is what made America great. Our principles are paramount.

But we're also a country of laws. So when a city's mayor refuses to cooperate with the American government, which has the responsibility for control of immigration, (s)he is violating the law. Right, wrong, and virtue are not the issues – the law is. A public official who says that it is justified to defy this statute is telling criminals that they are justified in violating others. Complaining about crime rates and demanding help in controlling law-breaking is hypocritical for someone who has already done the same thing.

A willingness to take the consequences for breaking a law one believes unjust is admirable. Civil disobedience is principled, but until the law is changed the perpetrator must be willing to accept the penalty for violation. The loud protests concerning the repercussions of not following the law (decreased aid to those cities), and other defiant protests make the political nature of the act clear. Selective obedience of our laws is anarchy.

Mixed Grill IV

Thought I'd tire of the game, didn't you? Sorry to disappoint you but there's lots left and you're gonna' get it. Same preface as with previous editions.

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

Ball Four – The story of how Britain's 1939 “White Paper” rescinded Foreign Secretary Arthur's declaration and told Jews to take a walk.

Strike Three – Sequel to “Ball Four.” More on the 1939 White Paper. Jews strike out.

A Switch In Time Saves Nine – Autobiography of Jeurys Familia.

Draw The Line – Harold's was purple, Obama's red. A sailor's for sails, and a sand line for a “demander's” final offer

Still Of The Night – Moonshine Brand

You Can't Take It With You – Not that the TSA would catch you. They probably wouldn't, but it's not worth the risk.

You Can't Go Home Again – The place has been foreclosed

What do vegans give up after carnivale?

Romeo, Romeo. Wherefore art thou Romeo? – In β testing.

To be or not to be. That is the question – Actually it's not a question. It's a statement. To be or not to be. That is the issue. At least using current jargon

Synchronized Break Dancing, Men's and Women's Ring-a-levio, Sack Racing, (Mixed) Music Boxing, Potsy – New Olympic sports (summer games)

Circadian Rhythm – Highly effective method of birth control – that's why there are so few Circadians

Hulu Hype – Promotion of streaming movie service

Pool – Indoor Olympic table sport

Casablanca – Residence of King of Morocco

Triethylon – Triple malt Scotch

Bali Hi – Give me that good Pacific booze. I get no kick from Champagne.

Racial slurs – real and imagined (redundancies, oxymorons and other morons included) – Indian giver, Protestant ethic, French fries, Dutch courage, gypsy, Mexican standoff, English cuisine, German culture, kike, Russian roulette, White Christmas, Sharia law, Redskin, Arab hospitality, redneck, American exceptionalism, honor killing, almond- shaped eyes, hyphenated American, spear catcher – well, you get the idea.

Ask not what your country can do for you – apart from free health care, food stamps, medications, college aid, support of higher wages, supervision of foods and medicines, welfare payments, jobs, subsidies, regulations on everything, etc., etc., etc.

The Compact Mayflower – Famous model ship

Perception is Reality – At least it looks that way

Supreme Court Opinion – I couldn't have said it better

I'm impatient with those who (think they) know everything – Perhaps I'm impatient with myself because I don't

Will work for money – You thought I'd say something else?

Predicting the future – What else can you predict?

There is no absurdity so palpable but that it may be firmly planted in the human head if you only begin to inculcate it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)

Troglodyte – Yesterday I heard two friends arguing over iPhones versus Android, and screen and button size, and "apps," and all that sort of stuff. I looked at my zero generation palm

Natural – Such things as arsenic, lightning, and poison ivy.

Power corrupts – Power interruptions corrupt data

Everything is changing. People are taking the comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke. – Will Rogers

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

Wait 'til next time.

American Democracy

A few months ago I wrote an essay about the protests over the President's election. As the days passed some of those protests turned into riots. It's my hope that by today, Inauguration Day, they will have abated, and we can return to the important job of healing the rifts both within our democracy and with the other countries of the world. The time for questions has passed and we need to address the answers.

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

America looks bad. The country that has promoted democracy as the ideal political system is beginning to look like a Third World republic. It is enduring protests at the results of a free election and the procedures of our Constitution. Our image in the world, which has been diminishing for the past few years, is being further tarnished. It is a self-inflicted wound.

There had been anxiety about riots by his supporters if Trump lost, but now that he has won there are riots in the streets by those who claim he is not their president. They once castigated him for not pledging to accept the election results but now won't do so themselves.

Is this the real America? Are we a country of whiners? I don't recall this happening in the past? Have we become a “democracy” in which the losers refuse to accept the results of an election? Should we anticipate the same reaction in state and local elections?

Admittedly the President-Elect didn't receive a majority of the votes, but neither did Secretary Clinton. She, Like Mr. Trump, would have wound up as a minority president. Had she declined to accept the results of the election like her supporters we would have faced a constitutional crisis, but she graciously conceded the election to Mr. Trump. Indeed, Barack Obama, the President and a large contributor to the Secretary's defeat, conceded the election and has begun transition procedures.

One of the causes of the unhappiness is the fact that it wasn't expected. Mrs. Clinton was a “shoe-in”in the minds of many voters. The polls and the media assured us that the only questions revolved around the makeup of the new Congress. The various minority groups and their supporters had little doubt that they would soon have the executive office and an improved position in the legislature. And they were confident that the new Supreme Court justice would favor the programs that they favored. And the boosters of Senator Sanders were certain that their new leader, President Clinton, would promote their agenda. But they were wrong. The polls were wrong, the media were wrong, and the expectations of many of the voters were wrong.

I didn't support Mr. Trump (nor Secretary Clinton, for that matter), but he's my president. The test of a democracy is our support for its institutions even when we disagree with the policies of our leaders and our representatives. There won't be a “do-over.” If they're still going on, it's time to stop the tantrums and to move on.

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

November 14, 2016

Mixed Grill XVI

[See end for explanation.]

My mind is deteriorating. What follow, among other trash, are some of my worst puns. I enjoy making others suffer. And if you don't suffer after reading these, you're sicker than I am. Continue at your own risk.

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

Shopping lust – Take it with you to the mall

Mushroom – Where you eat oatmeal

Versimilitude – Looks like a real word, doesn't it?

Humor keeps us alive. Humor and food. Don't forget food. You can go a week without laughing. (Joss Whedon, American screenwriter)

Russian northeaster – An ill wind in Siberia

The Timing of the Shrew – Check your wrist witch

Fly by night – Usually down

Gone with the wind – The cramps

In praise of folly – Employed as a television critic

Lexicography – A word to the wise is sufficient – if you know what it means

A penne for your thoughts – A lira?

Never give a sucker an even break – If it seems too good to be true it probably is

Debategate – Theft of presidential campaign notes

Apastasea – Religious rejection in favor of endless Marille

UN – World's biggest Palestinian front organization. It's also tax free and members don't have to follow traffic and parking rules

EAT ME (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

Asleep in the deep – Eternal rest provided by the Mafia. Fishes serve as companions

Faithbook – Spiritual media

Bourrée for Bollywood – Indian dance

Leave bad enough alone – If it's broke but trying to fix it will make it worse, don't try.

The next big thing – Whatever you're promoting

TV Guide – The blind leading the blind

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being mocked and denounced by the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. (Hermann Goring)

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. (Abraham Lincoln) – But some of the time may be all you need.

Slim Pickens – Guqin

Veil of tears – Forced marriage

Barbecue – Lineup of dolls

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

You'd think it couldn't get worse, but you'd be wrong. Wait until next month.

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

NOTE: I just completed an essay that put me a year ahead of the present date. It's scheduled for publication on January 21, 2018. So I thought I'd throw in a “Mixed Grill” that was initially intended for next year. Read it and weep. Or don't read it.

But Who's Counting?

I'm getting old. I know that. It happens, and there's nothing I can do about it except lie back and enjoy it. Of course I never lie.

I've been thinking about the inevitable for a while now, but also about the time that precedes it – the process of getting older. In fact that's probably the reason I write these essays: to record my thoughts while I can still remember them. Not that anyone really cares apart from me. But it gives me the chance work out my ideas as they come to me, and, fortunately, that process continues.

There's an old joke: The second thing to go is your memory. I can't remember the first.

Actually – sadly – it's not a joke. One of the (many) costs of aging is memory loss – especially short-term memory.ⁱ Fortunately for me since it doesn't seem to be associated with any form of dementia so it's little more than a minor inconvenience. I have pen and paper in my pocket at most times and can note whatever crosses my mind, though there are times when I can't remember what I wanted to say about something I jotted down, or I can't read my own handwriting. That doesn't matter all that much, however, because I have more that I can work with than I can work with. Sooner or later I'll have the same thought that stymied me before and I'll write it down a little differently, and it will make sense when I go over my bits of paper. And, of course, I won't remember that I wrote it before. But who cares?

It's your problem too though. I've probably written all this before and I'm likely to do so again. Ditto with my essays. I know I repeat myself. Since I don't go back, however, it doesn't matter all that much. To me, at least. Even the subjects of my efforts are repetitious, although there are some variations that take place from time to time. For example, politicians are politicians, but they make different stupid errors every now and then, and I'm always eager to write about (someone else's) stupidity. Mostly, though, it's the same old thing. There's nothing new under the sun. (I know I've said that before, and King Solomon said it before me.) The more things remain the same, the more they remain the same. Same with my thoughts. I'm too old to change now.

There are additional costs to aging, but I won't go into them here. TMI. And I'll try to avoid them elsewhere as well. But I do want to mention some of the benefits – though if my (failing) memory serves me right I think I've done so before. 

And there are some positives. I'm loath to reject any offers of senior citizen discounts. But I've gotten to the point of buying (low-priced) items without comparison shopping to find the best price. Nor do I hesitate to throw out what I don't need. I certainly won't need it in the future. If my kids inherit a little less that's OK. They'll understand.

From an intellectual point of view, age brings wisdom – if I remember correctly. Of course the young don't necessarily appreciate that wisdom. Nor do they understand the more realistic views of older people (views which tend to be more conservative than theirs). Like most of the young they tend to be more idealistic and liberal. I know. I used to be an optimist like them. However people have cured me of that Pollyannaish prejudice. I know better now.

But from a more personal angle, I note that people are more solicitous. They're always asking me how I feel. (I suspect that it's simply courtesy, and they don't really care. It's more reasonable to assume they're surprised that I'm still alive.) Every now and then someone offers me a seat on the subway, or a chair when we're in a crowded room. (Unfortunately it's only occasional. It used to be more common. People are less courteous and considerate than when I was young. Respect for elders was more evident then. That I remember.) And, even though it only happens occasionally, someone will offer me help, including carrying something for me. I usually decline (it's called “denial”) but I do notice. In addition, if I leave others to take a nap, it's understood. Or if I leave a party early. I hate parties, so it's a good ploy.

Another advantage is that (apart from death) I have less fear of the future. I can be cantankerous (my usual attitude) or generally disagreeable without anyone fighting back and without anticipating any negative consequences. I can pretend I don't hear when I want to ignore someone. And I can be “too weak” to do what I don't want to do. No one will hold it against me.

And I have memories. Lots of them. My long-term memory remains despite all my complaints. So there are compensations. I'd rather be young, but that's not an option. You play the hand you have.

I   For example, I thought of something this morning that I wanted to “google,” but I can't     remember now what it was. Perhaps I'll think of it later.  I do remember, however, that I promised at some time in the past, to avoid these notes, so there probably won't be any more.  In the meantime, hard cheese.

Maddie Got A Gun

And a Tanach (complete Jewish Bible).

My granddaughter was inducted into the Israel Defense Force last week and my wife and I were there. It was just outside of Ashkelon, right by the Mediterranean. And we were proud.

We had just arrived in Israel a few hours earlier for a planned visit, and decided that with a little help from our son (the inductee's uncle) we could get to the event. He was also visiting but had arrived about a week earlier and he planned on driving to the event. So we hitched a ride. And we didn't regret it. It all took place in a dirt field and was very amateurish, but we didn't regret it at all.

There are several reasons why people enter military service. Among them are the draft, the hope of learning a useful occupation, time out for people who don't know what they want to do with their lives, the wish to kill, and other such admirable goals.

But Maddie joined for another reason. Like many of her cohort, she did what she thought was right. Yes. Some people join the military because they believe that the defense of one's country is a noble goal. Maddie is from New Jersey, but seems to have committed to moving to a country that embodies her ideas and ideals, notwithstanding the view of others. It is a country that issues a Tanach along with a weapon, because it believes the faith and the history in that book will help inductees better understand their mission.

Patriotism and the conviction that your home and your people are worth defending are powerful motives for enlistment when there is a threat. However they're anything but the universal justifications for service or for waging war. All too often war is a quest for “things,” a wish to get more, and the actions of the opponent a desire to keep what it has. The things may be territory, resources needed by a country, a conquered population, or wealth and status for those directing the attack. They may be political, economic, or religious, but the “bottom line” is that the provokers want something that they don't already have – something that is not theirs.

According to Jewish law and tradition there are legitimate reasons for war, including defense, but an attempt should be made first to avoid the war – to find a way to attain peace. War has, for millennia, been imposed on the Jewish people not only by the nations that surround Israel but by those who want to eliminate the religion altogether. Unfortunately that mindset persists, and the primary wish of the countries that occupy the region (apart from Israel, of course) is to destroy the nation and drive its citizens “into the sea.” Indeed, the main occupation of the United Nations is to find fault with Israel which, despite its tiny size and despite the conflicts, killings, and refugees all around the globe, it has made the butt of its righteous indignation, condemning it more that all other countries put together. It's an obsession promoted by many of its members; an obsession which has been made the main distraction from the world's other problems and, very specifically, from the nations that are promoting the vitriol.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but the two together, ideas and arms, make for the best defense against the spiteful nature of wars and people who are acting with only their own benefits in mind.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah)

In the meantime, however, a gun and a bible make a good start. And Maddie has them.

Today Is A Fast Day

And I'm slow.

Check again tomorrow.

(Please note that my computer has New York time and I'm in Israel.  The next will be on the 8th.  According to my computer it's yesterday.  The fast day is today, the 8th.)

Time Is Limited

When I was young I used to believe that the New York Times was biased against the Jews and against Israel. Lots of reasons were given for that, primarily involving the Jewishness of the publisher and the goal of Jews in America to stay hidden and not make waves. Otherwise, I saw the paper as reasonably objective. It was the American newspaper of record: the “Gray Lady,” the standard by which other papers were judged.

As time has passed I've become more and more convinced that I was wrong – not about my first supposition but about the second. In regard to the first, in 2001, Max Frankel, a former editor of the Times, wrote

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

The annihilation of six million Jews would not for many years become distinctively known as the Holocaust. But its essence became knowable fast enough, from ominous Nazi threats and undisputed eyewitness reports collected by American correspondents, agents and informants. Indeed, a large number of those reports appeared in The Times. But they were mostly buried inside its gray and stolid pages, never featured, analyzed or rendered truly comprehensible.

…........

At The Times, the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. He thought they needed no state or political and social institutions of their own. He went to great lengths to avoid having The Times branded a ''Jewish newspaper.'' He resented other publications for emphasizing the Jewishness of people in the news.

…........

It's easy to consider this approach a remnant of the past, one peculiarly linked to the time and the social attitudes, but it is now worse than ever. The Times devotes numerous articles – usually front page – column after column and article after article to making accusations against Israel while supporting the Palestinians – sometimes justifying terrorist acts – as often as possible.

As for the assumption that the Times was otherwise objective, I was too naïve. Over time, however, I've come to realize that the paper is agenda, not news, driven; that ideology is more important than fact; that readership numbers and ad revenues are among the internal criteria of success. Especially ideology. That's the key.

Advocacy journalism has replaced objective reporting, and vitriol is splashed generously on those with whom the paper differs. That was repeatedly demonstrated during the recent presidential campaign – and the fault-finding continues. With a vengeance. I may have personal reservations about President Trump, but he is my president and I'm prepared to reserve judgment and criticism until he takes office. The Times, which has lionized his predecessor and touted his party's candidate, continues its praise, while denigrating the election winner, whom it has already written off.

I've been reading a book recently, “Gray Lady Down,” by William McGowan, who has written for several publications including the Times magazine. The book documents many of the paper's failings in reporting – not simply errors of fact, which are frequent, but plagiarism and the insertion of opinion in what should be objective news. The “reporters” frame the news in the mold prescribed by the management, as they were chosen to do. And they omit or bury information that does not support the preformed opinions. (Interestingly, McGowan doesn't mention the Times failures regarding the Holocaust, Israel, and the Jews. Perhaps in relation to the “social attitudes” of current society – or his own views.)

But there are problems with style as well as substance. In an effort to increase readership, the paper has altered its style to meet perceived preferences (or at least the preferences of the publisher) and social fads and fashions are what generates the newspaper's form and content. The style of the paper is aimed at attracting “hip” (ie LGBT, “diverse,” multicultural, young) readership, to whom it will impart the ideology. (Of course that won't be difficult, since those who agree with its philosophy will choose the paper anyway.) It's a sad and scary, but entirely predictable, scenario.

Bottom line? What is the “takeaway” message? The “standard” of American journalism is no more reliable than any other organ. Less so, because people assume it can be trusted. And it can't. It's neither fair nor balanced. Other media organs may claim to be so, but at least people take their claims with a grain of salt. Somehow the Times has become sacrosanct. It shouldn't be.

I Pledge Allegiance

When I was young ….  No, you're yawning already. I'd better start again.

الله أكبر Allahu akhbar. There. That opened your eyes! (Note to anti terrorist operatives and their computers: This is not a personal sentiment. I don't agree with it or its implications at all. It was only intended to get the attention of the reader.)

They're words that inspire fear under certain circumstances – situations marked by violence. But the words also contain a message for the rest of us. They're often accompanied – either in person or on a video – with a pledge of allegiance to ISIS, another terrorist group, or to Islam in general. And they're said by people who know they will die in the action in which they are participating. In that regard they recall the words of Nathan Hale, who, in 1776 at the age of 21, about to be hanged by the British for spying, said I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.

There was a time when Americans saw something as more important than their lives and comfort – a time when they valued their country and its ideals. And that view persisted for centuries. Perhaps there were dissenters, but our national perspective was one of confidence and determination. Frances Bellamy, a minister, wrote The Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 (adopted from a pledge by Colonel George Balch) and it was almost immediately incorporated into school curricula. Indeed, after it had been in use for fifty years, the pledge was adopted and a Flag Code was adopted by Congress, and within it was the following:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

The pledge was considered a unifying act, and it solidified the patriotic attitude of Americans, especially the children. Not everyone agreed with the practice however, and in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that children could not be forced to recite it. Half the states have not accepted statutes encouraging its recital – and there has been considerable controversy about it since 1954 when the words “one nation, under G-d” were added. (Balch's original pledge included mention of G-d.) Nonetheless the courts have decided that the First Amendment bars its banning by opponents from the classrooms. Despite that, the Supreme Court has also expressed the opinion that burning or otherwise desecrating of the American flag is simply a manifestation of free speech, and is protected.

Perhaps liberal Americans, including the courts, motivated by guilt, self-doubt, or the inspiration of political correctness didn't recognize the importance of love of country, but Islam, and especially its jihadist offshoots, did. Using mosques and clerics, the schools, television and the internet, it has convinced adherents that their faith superseded secular law. It emphasized the Koran and Islamic traditions and denigrated other cultures. And the violence inspired by such teachings has not only involved lands in the Muslim world, but has spilled over into nations previously unaffected, often as the result of individual actions. Though only a small minority, whether born in the land where they pursue jihad, the children of immigrants, or immigrants themselves, there are many who seem to be predisposed to behave in a manner contrary to the principles of the country in which they act. We may choose to view them otherwise, but they are members of a community – we are all members of several communities, often with conflicting values – that has taught them to take action against those who believe differently from them, and to be willing to die in order to eliminate those infidels. They are united. Their view of right and wrong is not the same as ours. Yet, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, we try to understand their feelings and to justify their actions without openly identifying the causes of those actions and the nature of the perpetrators.

And it all starts at home. Members of a family are likely to defend each other against the outside world – even when we know they are wrong. We protect those close to us – those who have similar backgrounds. They are our family. They are like us. So if we are a minority, or if we are different in outlook from our neighbors who may have values other than ours, or if we are new – even if we have not been infiltrated in order to do violence – there is an increased possibility that we will favor our own ways over those of the society in which we find ourselves. (See The Price of Prosperity by Buchholz for a discussion of the problem and some suggested remedies.) Family loyalty is strong, especially when individuals are taught from birth about the primacy of an ancient culture and its teachings, about loyalty and honor.

The existence of higher values themselves is worthy, though the particulars are misguided, and the nature of ours differs. Imbuing our values in our children, however, requires our teaching them of our nation's history; of explaining the context of acts in the past which may differ from current ideas; of emphasizing commonality and our love of country and its symbols. And it requires the open questioning of values contrary to our own, rather than simply accepting them as moral equivalents protected by the Constitution. We can permit the expression of contrary views as protected by the Bill of Rights, but our rights to express disagreement with them are equally protected, and the refusal to defend our ways is a lesson that our children will learn from us. If we disparage the actions of our government and those who defend us, so will they.

America has many faults. But, I believe, far fewer than most other countries. And we have mechanisms to correct them. The mechanisms may be cumbersome, but they should be followed rather than acts to promote other cultures and destroy our own. Patriotism may be out of style – it may be politically incorrect – but if our nation is to survive we must take steps to promote it. If we burn our symbols, we hurt ourselves.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

May the New Year bring unity and strength to our country.