Mixed Grill XXII

I probably told you this already, but just in case I want to let you know that I've scheduled these blogs more than a year in advance. I intend to keep it up so there will be something to read after there is no one to write it. I'm not so easy to dispose of. And in that line, here are some things of which I want to rid myself now, rather than waiting, and who's a better patsy than you? (Besides, I'm already ahead of my goal so I might as well slip it in here.) Once again I warn you against taking the number of this offering very seriously. It reflects the order of writing and assembling rather than that of publication. Get out the anti-depressants. You'll need them.

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

Humantaschen – The head's still in the hat

Faster pastor – Staple of Nevada marriage and divorce mills

Head shot – My Kopf runneth over

Rasputin/Lenin/Stalin/Putin – Russian infield

The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than of deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without. (Eric Hoffer) Those who consider any one, or groups of, politicians as uncompromising [and wrong] should consider their own convictions

Let me call you, sweetheart – If you'll let me call you Ishmael

Uterus – Square one on the road to Birth Canal

Razzipapa – Father of all photographers

Input – Russian contribution to UN discussions as dictated by the leader

Dove coat – Nehru jacket – you remember them, don't you?

It Happened One Night (Not) – Starring Harvey Feirstein and Ellen DeGeneres

A Modest Proposal – An offering by Hannibal Lecter VIII

Harpo Marx – My recommendation for Speaker of the House

A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen (Winston Churchill) – [Actually a good politician can prove that it did, in fact, happen just as (s)he predicted]

National Grammar Day (March 4) – Than which we can imagine no more word-perfect event

No Trump – Playing each suit without regard for any other. (You thought I was going to get political, didn't you? Think again.)

Leap Second Time Adjustment Day (June 30 or December 31) – He who leaps second needs time for an adjustment

Maundy Thursday – Penance for Randy Wednesday

You may fire when ready, Gridley – Chef's directions to one of his staff. Possibly HR

Life Support – Welfare

Shakespeare, lettuce, and tomato – Classic with a non-meat alternative

Witless protection program – Use of euphemisms

Leave a message when you hear the beep – Robo response when you call 911

We're not chopped liver – Tyson Foods's new motto

Sushi – Call for Japanese pigs

Phish Story – Internet message from Nigerian canner

Whore's Feathers – Stripper's Costume

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

Did the anti-depressants help? At least be prepared for next time.

Mixed Grill V

As Art Baker said, You asked for it.  Well, maybe you didn't, but you've got it anyway.

FAIR WARNING – This edition of “Mixed Grill” contains some of the worst puns I've every published. For pun lovers that will qualify it as desirable, but for those not so addicted the warning is justified and may cause an immediate deletion of what follows. Before doing so, however, be aware that there is material in addition to the puns, quotes, and bad jokes, and this may justify your reading of the document. No refunds, however, if you're not satisfied.

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

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. (Winston Churchill)

Beltway – The more fat cats, the bigger the belt needed

Let's Do It – PT for Cole Porter – It is nature that is all simply telling us to fall in love. Porter, however, doesn't go into detail

Bregress – The literate Londoner's way out of the EU

Old Buttermilk Skye – According to Hoagy, when he was young (the dog not Hoagy) he was brown. (A hoagie can be made on a hot dog roll but it ain't the same.)

I'm an old cowhand – I get deported next week

Alternative facts – Where the real truth lies

Cocaine Addiction – Poppy love

An 800 Pound Gorilla Weighs 800 Pounds – But the (African) elephant in the room averages 4.6 tons

Populist – Rubble rouser.

What did dogs do before there were fire hydrants? – Or is the proper question “where?”

Attic Fan – Athenian partisan; fanatic

Yes I Can (2) – Jarring memoir of someone who thought that with enough heat and pressure one could preserve what wasn't any good now to be dealt with by others in the future.

Tripoli – Really wide shoes

Al Dente – Rent-a-Wreck special

International League – About 16.668 kilometers

You can believe in change. I don't.

Politically Incorrect – Any ideas which disagree with mine

Safe Space – Solitary confinement or other venue where there is no one to disagree with you. You're the only one who counts and any such disagreement is unacceptable. Certainly not a college campus which is (or, at least, ought to be) the site of vigorous debate of conflicting ideas

Oxymoron – A moron or an idiot (yes, I know that's not PC) on oxy, or some other narcotic, or an “expander of consciousness” who thinks “deep” thoughts which are usually shallow, silly, and self-contradictory

Que Serape, Serape – Mexican dry goods store

What Would You Like To Do Dear?
– My preference would be for the first since the second makes no sense whatever, but the decision is yours.   (That way I can blame you if there's a problem.)

An eye for an eye only evens the score – Ya' gotta' do better than that

If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk – Bumper sticker I saw in Jerusalem

DST allows longer days and more slips and falls – Means more money for lawyers

Congress shall make no law … Was that written to give the (elite) President and Judiciary the rights it was denying Congress? The anti-Federalists who promoted the idea of a Bill of Rights feared the “elite” and favored local representation – but that of local people in a local legislature. States' Rights. What were the States entitled to do? How would you change the Constitution? (Will Rogers)

If stupidity got us in this mess, why can't it get us out? (Also Will Rogers) – We never learn.

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

You ain't seen nothin' yet. – (Al Jolson)

Transgender Bathrooms

The protests continue. Since the presidential election of 2016, and the victory of Donald Trump, there has been a continuous series of protests about anything he or his administration does. The issue itself is not critical to their actions. Indeed, most of the protesters don't even wait to evaluate the facts, but the protests begin on the order of whoever is at the other end of instructions and orders from the social media. Time and place of the protest are provided, and the search is just for angry people. The reason for their anger is irrelevant. There will be leaders to focus it when you get to the site of action.

How many, or how few, attend a protest doesn't matter either. Even if there are only a few there is guaranteed press coverage – often disproportionate to the number of (often artificially) incensed participants. Their rage may be based on the failure of their candidate to win, or a general fear of the one who did, but the expression of their passion is aimed at whatever happens, and whatever will make news and get publicity. It has little to do with the importance of the issue, or right and wrong, but provides a vent for anger and the opportunity to join in the fellowship of protest. And the media is happy to cooperate – to “advertise” the cause du jour.

And the current one is transgender bathrooms. President Obama's interpretation of an 1972 anti discrimination law which includes, in Title IX, the prohibition of discrimination based on “sex,” was that sexual orientation, including sexual dysphoria (“a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity” – according to Google) was included. The George/Christine Jorgensen case had been in the news about two decades earlier, but transgender issues were probably not what Congress had in mind when they passed this legislation. Nonetheless, President Obama decided that schools that receive federal funding are subject to the law and that, as part of this prohibition, they must permit transgender students to use the restrooms of their choice, and he issued this as an Executive Order. Congress was not asked what they had meant. and President Trump has withdrawn the order. Since the issue of transgenderism was not explicitly discussed by the founders, and obviously not granted to the federal government as a responsibility, nor denied to the states, he views it is as a local, not national, decision. That's how the Constitution allocates authority.

There are many issues involved. It's not a simple question. One subject worthy of discussion, of course, relates to the relative powers of the President and that of Congress; another relates to the relationship of the federal government and the states; and another to the level of concern of the public for “minority” groups. Whether ethnic, religious, racial, or other, a group is defined as such in order to have it included under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution so as to get special treatment for that group and to make it a federal rather than a local issue.

Do transgender issues fall under this rubric? That's not for me to say. It should be – I'm a citizen, one of “We The People” – but it's not. Nor does it seem to involve the rest of the American people who have not been asked to weigh in, except as protesters. Nor has Congress, which has never expressed it's view of what was meant in 1972 by “the basis of sex.”

Without passing judgment on those with gender dysphoria, it is hard not to wonder about the rights of the majority as some demonstrate to demand the rights of the minorities. It is likely that the majority of the population are not transgender. That doesn't mean that the majority may impose its will on them, but it should make us wonder if our catering to this minority comes at the expense of the feelings of the majority. Are those with gender euphoria (I suppose that's what you'd call those satisfied with their sex), who might prefer not to share their restrooms with those of the biologically opposite sex, without rights? The question is not whether the majority should control the minority (although in a democracy many would argue that it may do so) but whether a minority should control the majority.

The problem relates to the definition and understanding of protected groups. Some are specified in the Constitution and, until it is changed, are the law of the land. But the understanding of what the Constitution and its amendments mean is often decided by the courts, or the President, or a group of protesters. And many believe that this is not the way an important issue should be decided in a democracy.

Should transgender students have the “right” to use the restrooms of their choice? Is this a “one size fits all” issue? What are the rights, if any, of those who are not transgender?

Executive fiat doesn't seem to be the way to answer this question to the satisfaction of our citizens. The voice and views of the non-protesters as well as those in the streets, should be sought and heard. And considered before decisions are made.

Mixed Grill XXI

An-other out of order offering. Oh. You're not big on alliteration. Sorry about that, but that's your problem. I'm into identical initials. At least for introductions.

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

Latter-Day Saints – Oxymormon. Suggests former-day sinners, but there are many latter-day sinners around now.

A run for the money – That's what you get for buying cheap stockings. (Do they still make stockings?)

Bulldozer – Huge Ambien

Whistle stop – Pin-up girls do. Feminists are offended

Supermarket – Janitor's flea sale

Streamline – Old railroad right of way paralleling a waterway

Multiculturalism – Dream of many. E Pluribus Plus

Snafu – Congress

Cold war – Battle of the decongestants

Rock and Roll – Daily activities and dinner for chain-gang member

Fast food – What you're not eating during Lent

Rinksmanship – Triple axel, triple toe

Role model – Plastic kaiser

Murphy's Law – The daily business of our representatives

Swing voter – One favoring increased attention to the LGBTQ community

Affirmative action – Help potential voters. To hell with who pays the bill and who suffers

Credibility gap – In politics it's the Grand Canyon – especially during a campaign

Rip off – Remove the headstone

Bottom line – Disclaimer. Don't worry. It's in minute print and you may not be able to read it

PC – Pure crap

Rule us once, shame on you – But if we reelect you, shame on us

Buddy, can you spear a dime – If so, we need you for the US javelin accuracy team

Fűr Elise – Music by Marquis de Sade

The King's Speech – Noble gas

The Foundation Trilogy – Brassiere, corset, and support stockings.

Bartholomew Cubbins easily bests the Cat in the Hat – Can you top this?

She sells seashells in the Seychelles – Tonguetwister africains

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

The end is here. At least for today. My mental meandering may miff many. Sorry about that.

The Loyal Opposition

I know I sound like a broken record (actually the record is fine but the changer doesn't work) however I don't see any improvement in the situation so I'll try again.

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

February (2017) is fast coming to a close. The presidential election occurred in early November, 2016. It's over. It's time to step back and take a deep breath.

Unfortunately there seem to be many – probably more than during the campaign itself – who won't “give up the ship.” Protest marches are rampant. The media continue to publish “revelations” about the new administration and its members. People in the public eye use their own “bully pulpits” to denigrate those responsible for leading the government – those elected according to the tenets of the Constitution.

The same Constitution guarantees all of these people the right to speak their minds as long as they choose, but common sense suggests that the efforts are counterproductive. Actually, that characterization is based on the assumption that the prime loyalty of those protesting is to the United States, and that may not be the case. The “Loyal Opposition” cannot always be assumed to have its country as the prime concern.

The term itself apparently arose in England during the eighteenth century, the same century in which we declared our independence from our mother country. Perhaps this was one of the British precepts that we rejected. Our own history often raises the question and that is certainly the case now. Protesters cannot be faulted for their passion. They have learned from the media, by osmosis if not a stated teaching, that criticism and bad news rule the day and should be encouraged.

What has resulted is a “devoted (or, if you prefer, “dedicated”) opposition,” one devoted and dedicated, however, to opposition itself, rather than to the country in which they live. The group is primarily private citizens, But the media and our politicians play a major role in its development: the media with their quest for Pulitzer Prizes and sales, and our “representatives” in search of party advantage and the defeat of any administration appointments irrespective of qualifications. With those as their primary motives, it is not surprising that private citizens follow suit, decrying all that they perceive as injustices, and marching in order to … I'm not sure what. If their views and voices haven't been heard yet it is likely they never will be. All they're likely to do is increase the determination of those in charge to carry out the plans they've developed. It's a challenge to administration leaders not to change, but to “double down.”

An example of this is immigration policy. The loyal opposition tells us that we are all immigrants and we shouldn't restrict immigration (though we have done so many times in the past) because “that's not who we are;” it's contrary to “American values.” At the same time, those who support proposed changes point out that we are “a nation of laws” and that those laws should be enforced. Those who are following the rules should be given preference over those who bypass them.

And those who favor free immigration believe that the “multiculturalism” associated with immigration will strengthen our country. Not E Pluribus Unum but E Pluribus Plus. Without a common culture though, we're likely to be Balkanized and divided rather than unified. A common culture and a common language are more likely to bring us together. People want to come to America for many reasons – economic and political are the most common – and they'll form the backbone of our future. But those who come from Mexico aren't doing so in the expectation of a “Mexico North,” and those from the Middle East aren't looking for a western version of the society they're fleeing.

Sadly, much of American protests reflect ideology rather than an attempt by the protesters to accomplish their stated goals. The primary aim seems to be the establishment of a record of fighting for “right” and not compromising with “the devil.” They want to divert the administration's attention and resources and be able to say “I told you so” during the next campaign. They want to provide material for negative ads then.

But the reality is that right now they'll lose (although that actually may be their hope) and they'll forfeit the opportunity to tone down what they consider ill-considered legislation. All they can do with an obstructionist outlook is slow the process and, if they succeed in doing so, they'll show, as we've already seen, that the government they tried to obstruct goes on, and does well in the face of legislative gridlock: that less government works well.

As I have said many times before, I did not vote for our current president but he won, and we owe him the chance to implement his policies. In 2020 we'll have the opportunity to indicate the degree to which we think they have been effective – with 20/20 hindsight.

The Future Of Medicine

Everything nowadays is moving at an unprecedented rate. That includes medicine and other fields of science. Among the greatest accomplishments of recent years has been the decryption of the human genome. And in the years before that was the development of computers from large and (relatively) slow machines to the “super” computers we have today. And they're getting better. Gordon Moore was too conservative in his estimate. Human ingenuity is a powerful engine. And Watson will probably find a way to improve on what we can already do.

I suspect that at some time in the not-too-distant future, if it is not the case already, human DNA research and computer science will be linked to carry out more of the research into disease and its treatment than is already the case. Although I admit to ignorance of current exploitation of these tools, there are some avenues I'd like to propose questions for these efforts. Some may already have been answered, but I suspect there is room for additional inquiry.

Specifically, having identified the various genes that make us human, do we know what chemical each one, or each combination, produces, or what process it controls? Do we know the composition of all of our microscopic structures, tissues, and organs in respect to those chemicals and processes? Do we know how the various diseases affect our internal environments? And do we know the effects of common (or uncommon) combinations of diseases?   

And to what degree can we digitize proposed pharmaceuticals and determine how they would act in the environments of our bodies, and how they would interact with the disease processes that afflict us and the bacterial and other invaders attacking us? Can we determine the unanticipated side-effect that are likely to occur when those pharmaceuticals come in contact with our “components.” (I raise this question because I suffer from side-effects of some of the medicines being introduced into my system. Of course, these discomforts are well worth enduring on the assumption that the medications can produce the effects for which they are being given, but I'd wonder if a computer-generated variant of the pharmaceuticals can be suggested that would produce the benefits that are required, but would lessen the side-effects, the physical costs.)

Speaking of costs, it's probable that doing much of the study in a computer rather than a laboratory and, ultimately, a long-term study with a test group, will shorten the process and make it cheaper. And, perhaps, it will lessen the need for test animals, a result that will bring elation on the part of many animal lovers. It doesn't seem likely that the need for animal and human studies will be eliminated – at least not in the near future – but the magnitude of such studies can be reduced, and they can certainly be entered with more knowledge. And if the cost of pharmaceutical development can be reduced, so can the cost of the products developed. And the cost of medical care in general, which will make better health for poorer nations as well as those that are developed.

Another area that might be explored using the same techniques is the effect of drug combinations on the diseases being studied. It seems reasonable to expect that here, too, the required information can be obtained quickly, less expensively, and with a minimum of harm to humans or other animals. Similarly the study of interactions between target drugs and those likely to be in use for the treatment of other associated, or incidental, processes could be explored. It's better to anticipate problems than to react to them. Over-the-counter potions should also be included in such studies, and a “library” of medications would be of value to all investigators. (And some commercial firm will be able to make a good deal or money by creating such a library.)

As I said earlier, I don't know the stage of development of all these ideas – whether they are plausible or if they are already in the works. But a world in which disease can be studied more quickly and with lower cost would be a wonderful result, and techniques to perform the functions I'm discussing, if they don't already exist, and if they are possible, might be worth exploring.

Mixed Grill XX

Pay no attention to the numbers. They indicate the order in which I assembled these pathetic lists, not always the order in which they're published.

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

I love the smell of napalm in the morning (Apocalypse Now)

À la card – Lunch on credit

Big Apple – Doesn't keep the doctors away

Kill, kill, kill – Give thanks. We have restored Arlo's rant

Mantra la la – Music in a man cave

Welcome – Yo!

Telephone – Medieval instrument of communication

Can't help loving that man of mine – He has Viagra-resistant ED but there's lots of good fish in the sea and I'm flexible. Very flexible

Beethoven's Fifth – Made by Schlitzer Korn & Edelobstbrennerei GmbH

Did you ever see a dream walking? – Are you afflicted with somnambulism?

Selling Points –

Artisanal – Catchword for the day. Overpriced

Hand-crafted and Artsy – Kitchy and overpriced

Fashionable – Ugly and overpriced but there are those who'll pay and brag

Gluten Free – Except for celiacs, useless. Overpriced for both

GMO Free – Scientifically unsound and overpriced

Kosher – Supervised but overpriced

Kosher For Passover – Really overpriced

Natural – Consistent with the laws of nature and overpriced

One of a Kind – White elephant – Overpriced

Organic – Scrawny and covered with manure. Overpriced

Top of the Line – Plenty of useless features. For the egotist. Overpriced

Remember, as the advertisers say, The more you buy [spend], the more you save [and the more we make]

New administration cabinet – According to opponents, overPriced.

Mairzy dotes and dozy dotes – And liddle lamzy divey (old English nursery rhyme – altered and commercialized Milton Drake, Al Hoffman & Jerry Livingston)

If you see something, say something – Or is it better not to get involved?

Suffer in science – journal retraction

I am a camera – I used to be a telephone but now I'm smarter

Bye now, pay later – Travel with plastic

A run for the money – Charitable fundraising

Klaatu barada nikto (The Day The Earth Stood Still) – Wouldn't you like to know what it means?

March madness – Political protest. You needn't wait until next month

Chickery chick, cha-la, cha-la

Check-a-la romey in a bananika

Bollika, wollika, can't you see

Chickery chick is me?

Money maker in 1945. By Sylvia Dee – Rap's worse

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

And so it goes. And so do I.

PS – Happy Valentine Day. According to Wikipedia, which sometimes gets it right, in 1969 the Catholic Church removed St Valentine from the General Roman Calendar. But flowers and chocolate still do the trick.

Minority, Plurality, Majority Rule

Every now and then the president we elect doesn't get a majority of the popular vote. It's happened several times, and there are two variations of the problem. There are instances when, because there are more than two candidates, none gets a majority of the votes, but the one with the plurality is elected. That, however, isn't always the case. Sometimes in a presidential contest a candidate with a minority of the popular vote – and less than his opponent – wins more than half the electoral votes, and, thus, the presidency. It usually triggers a debate over whether the Constitution should be revised in accordance with our “one man [person], one vote” principle, but no action is taken and the debate dies out until it happens again.

It did. And, at least for the moment, the debate has died out.

Indeed, the angst regarding the Electoral College has abated for the time being. People objected to a minority president with 46.2% of the popular vote. (He had over 56% of the electoral vote.) His opponent would also have been a minority president. (Most of us – and that includes me – opposed them both.) But we aren't of one mind on the issue of whether we favor majority rule. Some have marched to protest the results of the last election, but the calls for an end to the current way of electing a president are no longer prominent. On the surface the matter seems obvious, but it is far more complicated, and there is much to be said for the view of our Founders. That, however, is not the subject of this essay, so let me return to the point.

We're great believers in democracy which, we insist, requires majority rule. The concept needs some tweaking because all issues are not binary, and there are times when we accept the view of the largest number – a plurality rather than a majority. And the rule applies to large or small numbers. For example, a majority vote by a full Supreme Court may mean that five people decide our laws, irrespective of the wishes of our legislators or ourselves. The Court has that right, and we support the majority.

Yet we back minorities elsewhere, and the media report immediately even on minuscule minorities when they protest. The reason for their protest is irrelevant. Whether it is about elections, immigration, policing, abortion, or any other cause – and irrespective of the number of participants, even if small – the media and public sympathy support virtually any protest. Minorities say they represent our values and we owe it to them to express our admiration. For example, if a group protests the wealth of the “one percent” (a minority but that's irrelevant in this case), it doesn't matter that the group is far smaller than the one percent or, if their lottery ticket is a winner, they'd be part of it. We sanction their indignation. And if they are members of a “minority group” named by the government, we approve even more strongly of the virtue of their cause, whatever it is. We love minorities.

Similarly there's no protest of the Senate rule allowing a smaller minority than in the election, by threatening filibuster, to block critical debates – to prevent the discussion of and action on issues that bear on our everyday lives. A problem relating to the Senate rules that may appear daily gets little more than a shrug of the shoulders and acknowledgment that that's the way the “game” is played. In fact we often admire what they do – not giving in to what they claim is evil. We laud them for preventing the majority from running roughshod over the minority, as we do in other situations. They may be simply following party discipline and creating issues for the next election, yet they claim to be a minority that stands up for principle.

Sometimes, however, the minority has too much power. We're advised to pick our arguments carefully, but sometimes we argue and oppose for their own sake. We don't take stands on what really affects us, reserving our wrath for our opponents, rather than their positions. And we lend our support to particular groups because of who they are, rather than the issues for which they advocate – while we avoid the real problems we face as we join a popular protest.

It's clear. Filibuster reform should precede changes in the Electoral College. The Senate is where the most disruptive minority functions – or refuses to do so. It should have to deal with the real problems we face rather than posture and politic.

And the rest of us should decide the limits of minority rule.

Jewish Geography

A few days ago my daughter sent me a copy of a document from 1937 that had reached her shortly before. On the last page, and unrelated to the reason for its transmission, was an ad from a caterer that noted the name of its supervisor (of kashrut) who happened to be an uncle of mine. Seventy-nine years ago, but a connection from an unlikely source.

We're always looking for connections. As one ad puts it, “We're all connected.”

That's not a new idea. In 1929 Frigyes Karinthy originated the idea of “six degrees of separation” and it was later – 1990 – popularized as a concept by John Guare in his play of the same name. The premise is that everyone on earth is connected – not necessarily directly but, through friends, and friends of friends, etc. – in six or fewer steps.   (Sooner or later someone will come up with an "app" that lists everyone, and all the necessary data, so that we can eliminate those "degrees" and make direct connections.) 

Everyone on earth. That's a lot of people. And I'm not that much removed from any of them, though I have nothing in common with the vast majority. But what about those with common interests? Specifically, from my perspective, what connections have I, if any, with fellow Jews around the world?

It's not an idle question. Attempts to destroy the Jewish People have been frequent through the millennia, by conversion, killing, and dispersion. In terms of dispersion, which has been partly imposed on us and has also been adopted by some of our members in an attempt to better their lives, Jews have not been destroyed but are scattered around the globe. Yet they – we – have remained unified both because the world has separated itself from us, and we have separated ourselves from the world. Both of these mechanisms are less prominent than they were in the past, but both remain (though there are certainly large numbers of Jews who would prefer to blend in with the majority rather than be identified with their ancestors).

One of the means of our existence as a unified group, despite our dispersion, has been a commonality of language, or, more accurately, of languages. In addition to their knowledge of the language of whatever country in which they were reared, it was, and is, common for individuals to be familiar with Hebrew, Yiddish, or Ladino, and this has allowed communication between Jews from various nations. It allowed rapid communications between Jews of vastly different cultures and, with the aid of messengers, at great distances. It has permitted commerce where it might otherwise have been inhibited by the inability to communicate. And because Jews tended to associate with others of their religion because they were able to understand them, they were viewed with suspicion as an insular, clannish people. It was one of the many disingenuous excuses for antisemitism.

Also resulting from the scattering, is a desire to reunite at a distance. When we meet someone from elsewhere, it is a common practice to interrogate him or her on familiarity with fellow Jews in the area. (I doubt that this preoccupation is limited to Jews, but this is the group with which I'm most familiar.) “Do you know ____?” And it's not that unusual that there is some kind of connection. It may not be primary and may require the naming of several different individuals or families, but it is often productive.

One of the features that helps in making the connection with friends and their families is the knowledge of the synagogue attended. Organizational membership may be the key to finding others. Another important determinant of success is the size of the community. The smaller it is the more likely that people know each other. Not surprisingly, the frequency of a connection being made with someone from a large city is low. But it is even less surprising that there are so many instances in which a common figure is identified. In the limited community it's not likely to require six degrees.

And there is no temporal limitation. The mention in an old document of my uncle demonstrates a connection identified across the years, and that it was located by a daughter nearly six thousand miles from the place where the record originated demonstrates that the bonds of this kind may be found anywhere. In large part this results from the recent increase in the use of social media by which more and more kinships and friendships will be discovered.

However separated our people may be, our interest in our fellows around the globe, our curiosity about each other will continue to unite us. Others may play the same geographic game as we, but none with as much firmness of purpose. We have a lot to gain by making the connections.

Mixed Grill XIX

Mixed Grill XIX

Thought I'd throw this in. Should it have been the towel?

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

Buck private – Twenty-one dollars a day, once a month

This is the armoire, Mr. Jones-Smythe – Next to Duncan Phyfe's drum table

The Million Dollar Pound Note – Inflation is getting out of hand

For all we know – Are you sure it's a tie score?

Sheikh to sheikh – OPEC love fest

MC – Eleven hundred of the loudest Latin hits

Got mink? – My daddy treats me so well

Mourning in America – Wait 'til next year

Skinny dipping – Benefiting from inside information

What are the pros of us leaving Brexit? – One interviewer's search for truth. One who seems ignorant of what “Brexit” means, or at least doesn't use the term correctly

Bury the man today – Adelaide's plan B

The Caine Mutiny – Older dentists revert to former techniques. Younger ones demand government action against pharmaceutical manufacturers. No one blames strawberries

Trump Tower – It's skin is thicker than his

Maim – Brainwashing of an impressionable youth by Bohemians

Polly wants a redneck – That's much more inclusive than a call for crackers

How're you gonna' keep 'em down on the farm? – Mademoiselle's better than manure

The devil take the hindmost – Serve him the ox tail soup

Hello dolly – A little girl's greeting to her best friend every morning

The skin of their teeth – I can think of only one way to get skin on your teeth but I can't write it

No we can't – Not even Obama can get them to open the Vatican archives

Appalachian Spring – Great idea, but 8-12 inches of snow are falling now

Demoralizing and disheartening – Disagreement of Judge Neil Gorsuch with President Trump's evaluation of the judiciary. Scorned by Senator Blumenthal. Apparently viewed by the Democrat as inadequately critical of the man who nominated him.

Automechanika Chicago – House of cars

How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying – Inherit a profitable concern

Tweet – Unfiltered venting for those without imaginations. Very popular. Lots of such people

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated (Mark Twain)– Better to be read than dead

Parole board decision– Sometimes it's possible to end a sentence with a proposition

Organic – Contains carbon but costs more

Nietzsche is dead – He lost

When in doubt, don't. (Benjamin Franklin) – He must have been a conservative

The lox and the grapes – Meals not morals

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

Maybe I'll do better the next time around.

Charity And Philanthropy

When my children were young I gave them allowances. That's the norm, isn't it? I stipulated, however, how the money was to be used: half could go as spending money, a quarter was to be savings, and the remaining quarter was for tzedakah. That's charity. No “earnings” wholly belonged to them. From the first time they received an “income” they knew that they had a responsibility to share it with those not so fortunate. Helping others is a never ending duty. Even now, every morning at religious services I set aside money for tzedakah. It has nothing to do with other charity I give, but is a daily obligation.

Supporting the less fortunate is a religious obligation that derives, for western faiths, from the Bible (though I'm certain the same view is a part of eastern cultures as well). According to Deuteronomy (11:15), For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: “Thou shall surely open thy hand unto they poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (Jewish Publication Society, 1951) Although tithing is a way of life among many, especially Mormons, initially it was primarily for the support of the Levites who were caring for the Temple when it existed. In Judaism the Rabbis made it clear however that, even though the Temple no longer existed, we were all responsible for supporting the needy. That's what charity is all about. Indeed, the poor themselves were obliged to set aside a portion of the funds they received as charity for the support of those even less fortunate than themselves.

Philanthropy, however, is different. It is practiced, for the most part, by those with large incomes – though even those of modest means can participate – for the goal of philanthropy is to establish means to help communities, rather than individuals, although individuals will benefit from the efforts. A philanthropist may support a university, a hospital, an orchestra, or some similar kind of endeavor. Andrew Carnegie, for example, established libraries around the United States while Bill Gates funds organizations dedicated to improve health care globally. When I was in college – a long time ago – we joked about the plaques that decorated virtually everything around us, whether buildings or microscopes, and which attested to the generosity of the philanthropists who made our education possible. They didn't give us money, but they aided us as we learned how to earn our own. And that philanthropy is the highest form of charity. Maimonides compiled a list of charitable acts in order of their significance and the highest was Giving money, a loan, your time, or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self reliant. That's the way the American Institute of Philanthropy (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eight-rungs-of-the-giving-ladder/73) phrased it.

The same idea, of course, exists in other cultures. While its origin isn't clear, the meaning of the following adage is: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Charity is certainly useful and necessary for dealing with an immediate and compelling circumstance, but it is not a long-term treatment. That's what philanthropy is. The Hershey Trust, established by Milton Hershey in 1905, for example, administers a twelve billion dollar endowment for the Milton Hershey School, and thereby underprivileged children are able to get a level of education that would have been denied them. The long-term benefits of that education for the many generations of children involved, and for society in general, are incalculable. Philanthropic gifts like that are far beyond our individual abilities, but they provide services not funded by the government.

It begins as charity for those who start out with only a little, but it may ultimately turn into philanthropy. The same people who give a little, give a lot when they have it. Every now and then you're likely to read in the paper about someone with a low-paying job who died and left a huge amount, a lifetime of savings to some important cause – often a university or a hospital. There may have been smaller charitable contributions along the way but they're of no interest to anyone but the recipients. They may have an impact on the individual beneficiaries, but it's nothing compared to what society gets from the larger philanthropic enterprise.

According to Professor Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) in his book Who Really Cares, contributions of money, time, and expertise are more likely to come from church-goers than those who don't attend. And those with a close family life and givers as role models. That's not much of a surprise. It's interesting, however, that even many of the poor give (what they can, even it it's a small amount) – usually those who have earned what they have, rather than received it through welfare or another program that doesn't require their work. Similarly, those who have earned fortunes rather than inherited them are more likely to help both individuals and institutions, as are political conservatives.

Liberals tend to be less liberal with their own money than with that of others. (It should be noted that Brooks's work is based on many surveys of donations to individuals and institutions.) There is a common view among them that the government should care for the poor, and that the part of their taxes that supports these efforts constitutes their charity, so they are obligated to little else. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these rules, but the profiles of both the non-givers and the generous are well supported. And “exceptions” are exceptions.) But if the government is not doing enough, higher taxes on the rich (who already give proportionally more besides what they pay in taxes) should solve the problem.

The aid given by governments, however, is neither charitable nor philanthropic. It is merely the furtherance of a “right” to be supported. And governments are usually less interested in supporting the efforts of larger institutions that may be serving the public good, unless it is in the interest of a group of a lawmaker's constituents, or a generous lobbyist.

There's a place for both charity and philanthropy. A valued place. Voluntary rather than coerced giving ranks far higher in any rating of the levels of unselfishness, and it is our generosity as individuals that defines us – not our expectations of the government or of others. If we expect others to do it, it won't get done. If you want something done properly, do it yourself.