Various Revelations II

A continuation of my random thoughts. I don't feel like devoting full essays to them, but they've planted themselves in my head. I don't know if my concerns are legitimate or if I'm just looking at reality through a distorting lens, but here are some of my peeves. Feel free to disagree.

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

I've been wondering about the sexual revolution. No. That took place many decades ago. What I'm really wondering about is the genderal revolution which has exploded this century. I hear more and more about LGBTQ rights, and most recently these have revolved around those with sexual dysphoria. I note that more and more clergy are willing to perform wedding ceremonies for those who are – same-sex marriages and the like. And the courts are moving in the direction of making it a crime to have objections, religious or otherwise, to such acts.

And the religious establishment is falling into line. More and more faiths are accepting the trend and approve of what used to be forbidden. Not only do clergy perform same-sex marriages, but increasing numbers are themselves gay or lesbian. All with the approval of the religious hierarchy. I'm interested in learning what their reaction will be (or already is) to transgender ministers and cross-dressing rabbis. Biblical thought has become a fascinating subject. Even for those who reject it.

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

There is no question that Donald Trump is my president. And yours. And the president of all those who deny that he is theirs – though they never say who is. In any event, there can be little doubt that he is a very smart man. Anyone with his achievements in business, entertainment, politics, and whatever else must be smart.

But that does not mean that he is wise or good. He has a reputation for being a thin-skinned shoot-from-the-hip type with little concern for the truth, the feelings of others, or the image of America that he is projecting to the world. He is our president, but that doesn't mean we approve of his behavior. It doesn't mean that we're not embarrassed by it. Perhaps it is a pose and his policies will have a beneficial effect on our country; perhaps he'll grow up and grow into his office. We'll see, but I'm not optimistic.

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

Most of what I've heard (and some of it may be true?) comes from the radio although the newspapers have some fascinating, if not verifiable, information as well, This particular harangue arose, as usual from a radio report. I knew that soda and most sweet drinks were considered as poison for children (and, to a degree, adults) but I was surprised to hear that some nutritionists recommended that children not drink fruit juice, only water. After all, there's sugar in fruit juice and children should learn not to drink anything sweet.

Over the years I have heard and read an assortment of nutritional (and medical) “truths” only to find that, sometime later, contrary regulations are presented. Eggs have had a rise and fall (I'm not referring to Humpty-Dumpty); the “nutritional pyramid” is revised periodically; salt restrictions, once declared for everyone, no longer apply to much of the population. Add to that the dispute about whether it's good to be skinny or a little overweight and whether skimmed milk is preferable to whole milk. There is disagreement among nutritionists, and with some doctors as well. My choice is to ignore it all and eat what I like. I may not live as long as I might (though I'll never know) but I'll enjoy what I eat.

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

There's a big flap over ecology. I've heard about great concern regarding the extinction of various species. Cost should not be the issue. Save them! But evolution's been going on for a long time and, as far as we know, we wouldn't be here if some of the previous species had remained. My children believe I had a pet dinosaur but that's not the case. In fact I'm happy that they're gone.

What's never discussed is that along with losing some, there are new species developing all the time. Some of them may be more beneficial than the ones that are disappearing, but no real comparison is possible. However it's the way of the world. There's nothing to be gained by burdening society in order to preserve species that block our progress.

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

That's it for now. I'm sure more will cross my mind as the days go by and this is far easier than writing long essays on each. Stay tuned.

Harebrained Schemes - 2

Another potpourri. Some real, some alternate news.

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

This one is hairbrained rather than harebrained.

My kipah keeps falling off, and, because I'm bald, I have nothing to attach it to. A golden spike might work but it would be very expensive and, I suspect, it would leave a scar. I've tried one of the beanies intended for bald-headed drones like me and it wasn't effective. It strikes me that a small strip on the front inside -- along a radius -- that is attached at both ends but open in the middle would leave room for a Band-Aid (or equivalent) to be slid through -- open and the sticky side facing the pate. Band-aids stick to skin and would probably hold the kipah in place until removed. It would not cause bodily damage. I think it is cranially applicable, but I don't know if it is commercially applicable and I don't know what other solutions are available – ones that work.

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

Here's another selection from Taleisim East (See the first incarnation of this feature for an explanation. I reworded it so it wouldn't sound like the catalog entry it used to be.)

The Bar-Code Talis and Temple Bar-Code Reader

The Bar-Code Talis. As up-to-date as the morning news is this system. Each talis would be unique, with stripes that comprise a bar-code registered in your name and which cannot, under international law, be duplicated. So you'll always be able to identify your talis. And so would the Temple Bar-Code Reader. The reader, suggested by Monsieur Louis in New Haven (with Morrie's help in formulating the idea), would be custom-designed for each temple and fitted with magnificent stereophonic speakers. As a member is approaching the stage on being called to the Torah, the system “reads” her or his talis and announces her or his name. It can even be done in the holy language. Poof! It would make any temple “the talk of the town.”

It might also be used at the Kiddush, when the glasses are raised on high.

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

Back to serious (although the Reader described above might seem reasonable to some).

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but we have a mouse problem. The commercial solutions we've tried have been of only marginal value, and some of our little friends can get the bait off the traps without springing them – something I have trouble doing. And they're smart enough to avoid the poison we've set out. It strikes me that the best solution is to scare them away. A spray of material derived from cats might do that. My hope is that smelling it would convince the little beasties to go elsewhere.

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

I'm not sure if the following suggestion is realistic or if it's more dangerous than helpful – risk/benefit and all that kind of stuff.

We're expecting a snowstorm tonight. A blizzard we're told. Twelve to eighteen inches of snow. Shoveling the stuff is a real hassle. I know because we've had bad snow before. It's hard on my back, it takes a long time, and, in all honesty, I don't do all that good a job. Nor do those I pay good money to do it for me. That's especially the case on the part in my driveway that's turned into ice. We have four-wheel drive vehicles that can handle the snow (if it's not too deep) but their bodies are not designed to bumper or fender off the ice without (expensive) damage.

Perhaps it's possible to have a heat-blower (or even a flame-thrower) designed to melt the snow and ice and get it out of the way. It should have necessary safeguards to keep it from being used by children, and a temperature sensor that would keep it from being used inside – one that keeps it from working if the temperature is over 34 degrees might do it. Sure it could be misused, but so can your car, your kitchen knives, and an assortment of blunt instruments in your house.

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

Enough for now. More coming when I feel up to it.






March 13, 2017

Mixed Grill VI

It ain't over till it's over. (Yogi Berra) And that's not yet. More pitiful puns, aching aphorisms and querulous quotes. Sorry about that. (Maxwell Smart)

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

Prime Time – Dinner. Unless you're a vegetarian

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter – Short, to the point, and nonsense.

There may be two sides to every story but (at least) one is wrong

Cold Turkey – You thought cold duck was bad?

9W – (Carnac the Magnificent – You had to be there – contact me if you need an explanation)

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time (Blaise Pascal)

A stitch in time wastes nine if it's the wrong stitch

Don't just do something, stand there – Action for its own sake, without considering the costs and benefits, is foolish, even if it gives you the feeling that you're trying.

Washington, D.C. – Original capital power brokers

Compromise is the first step in getting your way – But be careful if your opponent feels that way as well

… you can't fool all of the people all of the time (President Abraham Lincoln) – You don't have to

                Democracy – Fifty-one percent is all you need

                Tyrrany – You don't have to fool anyone. Just outgun them.

                Socialism – You're fooling yourself

Garfield – Where General Abner Doubleday played after the war.

Gorgonzola – Japanese movie monster that eats cheese sushi

Camomile – Disguised field rations for guerrillas

Strike Out – Go your own way, refuse to enter the batter's box and receive penalty

Pi In The Sky – Higher mathematics

Voice President – All talk, no action

Virginia Is For Losers – You'd know if you ever met her

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what's for lunch (Orson Welles)

Consumer Reports – Burps, belches, and unmentionable sounds

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter (Winston Churchill)

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the [other] forms of government that have been tried from time to time (also Winston Churchill)

He who hesitates is last

If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk – Bumper sticker seen in Jerusalem, but probably in a lot of places

Moral Relativism – If you want to do it go ahead. Someone will say it's okay

If you march to a different drummer you're probably out of step – Right or wrong, someone will approve, even if it's only you. (See “Moral Relativism”)

Bear Right

Frog Left

Lines from The Muppet Movie

Less is more only when more is too much (Frank Lloyd Wright)

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

Too much. Time to stop. But there will be more.

Hoffer 2

Here are more quotes from Eric Hoffer. I don't agree with them all, but they reflect more thought then most of us are willing to give to any subject. They continue what I started last week and I know this won't complete the effort, but I doubt that it will be possible for me to publish them weekly. We'll see.

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

Communism can reconstruct the chronically poor and launch backward countries on a road to modernization. Capitalism is ideal for enterprising, self-starting people but cannot do much for people who cannot help themselves. Clearly, where communism succeeds it makes the helpless fit for capitalism.

[Hoffer lived through the Second World War and most of the Cold War and had a low opinion of the Soviet Union and its actions. Had he lived to the present he might have developed an antipathy for the capitalism of our times, but we'll never know.]

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

As hard as breaking an ingrained habit is the discarding of a reform that is no longer relevant. Our time cries out for child labor – there are no children anymore – but no one dares say it.

[OK. I don't agree with everything he said, but his underlying point, the discarding of a reform that is no longer relevant, makes sense – irrespective of his views on child labor. A regular review of “precedents” would also be in order. They don't always make sense.]

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

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.

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

It is by their translation into mere words and almost meaningless symbols that ideas move people and stir the to action. The deintellectualization of ideas is the work of pseudo-intellectuals. The self-styled intellectual who is impotent with pen and ink hungers to write history with sword and blood.

[How often have “saviors” with the sword pretended to have high ideals and unique insights but lacked both?]

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

A living faith is basically faith in the future. Hence he who would inspire faith must give the impression that he can peer into the future, and that everything that is happening under his guidance – even when it turns out disastrously – had been foreseen and foretold.

Some of the most successful prophesies of the future were written after the fact, or were based on inside information. Or they were ambiguous and “understood” by those who advanced them in a way that supported their views.]

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

The only way to predict the future [correctly and with assurance] is to have power to shape the future. Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophesies come true, but they can also lie and make their lies come true.

[A reasonable position, but not always true. Wishing doesn't always make it so. Consider, for example, the failed five-year plans of the Soviet Union.]

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

Rudeness seems somehow linked with a rejection of the present. When we reject the present we also reject ourselves – we are, so to speak, rude toward ourselves; and we usually do unto others what we have already done to ourselves.

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

There is a powerful craving in most of us to see ourselves as instruments in the hands of others and thus free ourselves from the responsibility for acts which are prompted by our own questionable inclinations and impulses. Both the strong and weak grasp at this alibi. The latter hide their malevolence under the virtue of obedience: they acted dishonorably because they had to obey orders. The strong, too, claim absolution by proclaiming themselves the chosen instruments of a higher power – G-d, history, fate, nation or humanity.

[Don't blame me. It ain't my fault.]

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

More will come. But I'm not sure when.

Obeying The Law

If one person kills another, justifiably from his perspective, and perhaps ours, anticipating that he will never be caught, is he in violation of the rules of society?

If a small and honest entrepreneur decides against filing her income tax form one year because her fiscal position is tenuous at that time and it is unlikely that an audit will follow anyhow, should we look the other way?

If someone enters this country because he is unhappy with life where he is, and correctly determines that things will be better here, yet he does so without ever declaring his act to authorities, is he acting illegally?

Is the assault of a drug dealer a crime that justifies punishment? Suppose a close relative died of an overdose. Does that change things?

All four of the people whom I've described are acting illegally. We may be sympathetic with their motives, but they have all violated our laws as surely as those who act with malice and contempt of society's standards – at least with the standards of the United States. In that respect they are no different from those we designate as “common criminals.”

We all are swayed by “extenuating circumstances.” We all wonder what we would do in a difficult circumstance. We all would consider extending the benefit of the doubt in particular cases to the accused as we would want it extended to us were we in the dock. But by doing so we would be doing a disservice to our country and to our neighbors. We would be saying that only those whom we hate or fear, or who threaten us in some other way, should be subject to our laws and the penalties for violating them.

Yet they're all illegal acts, irrespective of the way we react to them. The violation most debated at this time is that of the “illegal immigrant” who may be a hard-working, tax-paying, generous, and helpful individual, but who entered the country contrary to our laws, or who overstays a legal limit. We're especially likely to be forgiving of the person who is law-abiding and a “credit” to the community. And if he or she has children born here we view it as an assault on “American values” to even suggest an impropriety. After all, we're all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and the “oppression” of poor immigrants is not “who we are.” In order to legalize their status, however, as is demanded by many, we must either suspend our concept of citizenship or pass legislation making their presence legal from the time they came: the first is an extra-legal ad hoc action while the latter as an attempt at a legal solution to the situation. But both are equally problematic, if not illegal themselves.

How is a protest rally, by well-meaning citizens, designed at forcing the government to look away any different from the decision of a dictator to ignore the corruption of his administration? Both require that we disregard our own laws and their violation by those whose actions we don't wish to punish. And passing legislation that declares that something that was prohibited in the past is now acceptable and a violator has not committed a crime, is an ex post facto law – which is specifically forbidden by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9). We ordinarily think of such laws as ones that criminalize legal acts retroactively, but, as is noted in the Wikipedia article on the subject, “An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of [any] actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.” And the constitutional prohibition is clear, not a matter of interpretation. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. There's no subtlety there. Some may view any change as a matter of amnesty, pardon, reprieve, or interpretation, but such a construction is simply a way to pardon ourselves from any responsibility for ignoring the law in favor of a current passion.

Favoring a “current passion” rather than the law, however, permits other actions, of equal doubtfulness, should passions change. And it cheapens the value of our laws in the eyes of those we want to follow them. We'd like mercy and justice to have identical paths, but that's not always the case.

The problem is not a simple one. Besides the consequences for individuals, there are also implications for society, the economy, education, and security among numerous others. It affects the way the world sees us and our status as we condemn lawlessness elsewhere. And it affects the perceptions of those who have “played by the rules,” even though veering from them would have been adventagious. A solution will have to be found, and it will be found one way or another. There are too many people involved. The soution will please many and offend many. It will please the “law-abiding” but illegal immigrants by legitimizing them, while offending those who are truly law-abiding and have waited patiently as they have gone through the tedious steps required by law; it will please those who have protested the current administration's stance, while offending those who favor the maxim of “a nation of laws, not of men” (John Adams).

The solution will be outside of the course we like to believe we take, but, at the moment, it is unavoidable. In order to move on without causing too much additional internal discord – some is unavoidable – a compromise position will have to be reached. And it should include mechanisms by which this or similar perceived disparities can be addressed in the future; ways they can be dealt with without having to violate our own laws

For it cannot be denied that, whatever the good will, the “illegal” immigrants are, indeed, here illegally.

Mixed Grill XXIV

I'm back! Does that make you shudder? Remember you can always use the “delete” button to rid yourself of this nonsense. It's fun for me, but you may not be similarly amused. Your choice.

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

Prototype – That's whom I employ. You don't think I do this myself, do you?

Pyrites of Penzance – By Gilburn and Suleiman. All that glitters is not gold. How ironic

Cat got your tongue? – Dog your corned beef? Ferret the salami, rye bread, and mustard?

Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown – Dirty hangs the head that wears the crow

Fry by night – Graveyard shift at the diner. You can't always keep the bugs out of the food

Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome – To Berlitz

Think the rain will hurt the rhubarb? – Do you care? You needn't get abusive about it

When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane (Steven Wright)

Beat me in St. Louis – Missouri masochist running the marathon there

Columbian exposition – Little Egypt

The Great Wall – Mexican standoff

There's no tamales – But no. We have some bananas

He'll seize you when you're sleeping – Santa Claus is a dirty old man

Too good to be two – Yes, yes, yes

I say to myself: Lenin and Stalin between them liquidated at least sixty million Russians in order to build factories and dams. America welcomed thirty million immigrants to help build factories and dams (Eric Hoffer)

Go virile – Mimic Hans and Franz

Catastrophe – Stuffed feline awarded to the best in show

My sweet embraceable ewe – Rambunctious declaration

Heather has two mommies – And a very loving uncle who likes to come by when they're not home

Prohibition – The times that dry one's soul

Paparazzi – Catch a fallen star

Death wish – Borrow from Pietro to pay Pauli

Liberal thought – An oxymoron. So are most liberals

The road to hell – The street in front of my house paved by some politician's brother-in-law

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken – It's easier to make a chicken tender

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid (Benjamin Franklin)

Die hard – Any color but yellow

One flew over the cuckoo's nest – A dolt's house

Love and marriage – Are as dated as a horse and carriage

Forrest Gump – Donald Trump without a cell phone

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

To be continued –like it or not.

9/11, Guilt, And Pseudoscience

Today (at least the day this was written) is 9/11. It is a day that all of us who lived through it, especially the families of those directly affected, will always remember. It will be noted in future history books, and as part of the American heritage; it is be part of what our children will be taught as they learn of the travails through which we have gone.

Our resolve has stiffened. We will not succumb to the fear that those who attacked us sought. We will pay the price necessary, whatever it is, to shore up our defenses against future attacks. And we will remember those who perished in the attack, and those who risked, and often gave, their lives to protect us (and that includes those who fight to protect us) – the police, firefighters, private citizens, the military, and anyone who participated. They have made us stronger and more determined, and our gratitude is without bounds.

And that's the problem.

I don't mean it that way, but this will sound heretical. It's likely to be considered insensitive, blasphemous, and unappreciative. But we sometimes don't know how to react to tragedy so we try to pay our way out. We try to assuage our guilt with ceremony, and money. I can't fault the ceremony: it's good for the families of survivors, for politicians, and as a public penance for our remorse. It serves many purposes the most important of which – for the country at least – is the show of unity and determination, lest those who oppose us would be tempted to repeat their act.

I understand the grief felt by the survivors and by the families of those who perished. They're entitled to the recognition they have received, and there is no way we can fully express our gratitude to them. But we try. Indeed, as I noted above, “our gratitude is without bounds.”

So we try to payoff those who have suffered. We do that by designating the sickness and death of participants, whatever the cause, as “9/11 related.” Perhaps sometimes it is. But simply because something happened to those we revere – to people who selflessly struggled to save strangers and to protect us all – doesn't mean that the cause was that act. People get diseases, people die all the time. They suffer from processes that afflict those who were never involved in the courageous acts of these heroes, people who are often afflicted with the same ailments. Which means that some of the first-responders probably would have suffered from them and, perhaps, died even if they had stayed home. But we'll never know which ones.

We have adopted a post hoc propter hoc mentality. Out of sympathy, gratitude, and guilt we have chosen to set up funds for those involved to show that we care. It's unscientific, but it's probably necessary and appropriate. Whether there is any relationship between the initial incident and the current suffering cannot be ascertained, so we assume that one exists and, out of taxpayer money, we pay for it. We owe it to them. The politicians who support legislation to do so are recognized as caring; those who might prefer better scientific evidence of a relationship remain quiet. Scientific caution would be seen as unpatriotic, and they would suffer in the next election.

If this were an isolated incident it would be tolerable. If we simply honored those who had acted bravely and on our behalf we could justify our generosity. Rewarding those whose concern was for others – for us – seems a matter of virtue.

Unfortunately the linking of events and responsibilities has become an industry. It may be a chronic systemic autoimmune disease which follows breast enhancement, or bleeding following the use of a (necessary) anticoagulant; it may be the presence of ovarian cancer in a woman who has used talcum powder, or a heart attack in a policeman. Whether any of these events represents cause and effect is not known. In some case the answer is unequivocally “no” since, despite newspaper articles and public suspicions, there is no scientific evidence of a relationship, but there is always some “scientist” willing to testify to cause based on anecdotal evidence, or to testify at least to the possibility of a relationship. And a sympathetic jury is willing to draw from the deepest pockets around to pay off the victim of some horrible disease or other event.

There are many to blame for the phenomenon. It's not simply a matter of public guilt and solicitude, though these play a large part. After all, who – what jury member – in the position of the plaintiff, wouldn't want a large windfall. But there are other contributors. These include less than candid corporations that withhold information, law firms that will benefit from the payout (you hear their ads on the radio all the time advising us that we may be entitled to compensation from some company), and “experts” who testify to the possibility of a relationship even when there is no proof. But the plaintiff is suffering whether or not there is unequivocal proof, so let's just pay.

Like the sympathy for 9/11 victims, we show our concern for all who suffer – as long as we don't have to pay for it ourselves. We feel virtuous and it doesn't cost us. And the litigators make out like bandits, through law suits or the threat of such suits. Meanwhile we have no need to feel any guilt. Society has done its part to correct the situation. And if someone has to pay the price, that's all right. Even if there was no responsibility in this particular instance, it existed elsewhere and wasn't punished. We'll help even the score.

Eric Hoffer

Perhaps you've heard of Eric Hoffer. I did about six decades ago when I read his book, The True Believer, while in college. I've reread it since. It certainly changed the way I think of fanatics and, indeed, my fellow man.

He wrote several books afterward and I'm in the midst of reading some of them. They're not nearly as famous as his first, but I'm learning from them as well. Hoffer was an autodidact who lacked formal education, but was wiser than almost anyone else. He was a product of the period of the Second World War and the world it yielded. He spent his life as a longshoreman, hobo, and doer of odd jobs. And he read and wrote. His style of writing (in addition to the wisdom of his words) reflected his peripatetic life-style (a term not current so many decades ago) and his varied experiences. He was a man of strong opinions and his ideas were expressed succinctly – in short bursts that were to the point and clear. And then he moved on to the next idea, which was often related to the one that preceded it, but not always.

Though compact, his writing wasn't usually the “twenty-five words or less” [sic – “fewer” is the correct word, not “less”] style so much in vogue in the past when there was a competition of some sort. It's a kind of writing that appeals to me because I appreciate someone who makes a point and moves on. That's the way I try to write, though I lack Hoffer's intellect. So rather than try to imitate him or improve on his words, I want to simply present some of his thoughts. I won't cite the sources (though The True Believer is not one of them – I urge you to read that yourself). It doesn't matter. There's no specific theme nor order. I'll include some comments when they might help.

One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputations. The intellectuals who idolized Stalin while he was purging millions and stifling the least stirring of freedom have not been discredited. They are holding forth on every topic under the sun and are listened to with deference. … The metaphysical grammarian Noam Chomsky, who went to Hanoi to worship there at the altar of human rights and democracy, was not discredited and silenced when the humanitarian communists staged their nightmare in South Vietnam and Cambodia. Is there a greater freedom than the right to be wrong?

[Hoffer was not a fan of “wise” men. He was more interested in what they had to say.]

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

I cannot see myself living in a socialist society. My passion is to be left alone and only a capitalist society does so. Capitalism is ideally equipped for mastering things but awkward in mastering men. It hugs the assumption that people will perform tolerably when left to themselves.

[I, too, want to be left alone. I must be a capitalist. But I don't assume that people will perform tolerably under any system.]

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

I have a hunch that the Arabs will use their oil billions not to modernize their countries but to redress the balance between the Christian West and the Islamic East. … Idi Amin is a Moslem hero kept in power by Arab money in largely Christian Uganda. … The Islamization of Africa is a dream to fire Arab hearts.

[This was written in 1974, but things haven't changed. Except that they've expanded the they've scope of their dreams. Hoffer's hunch was prophetic.]

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

A world that did not lift a finger when Hitler was wiping out six million Jewish men, women and children is now saying that the Jewish [emphasis added] state of Israel will not survive if it does not come to terms with the Arabs. My feeling is that no one in this universe has the right and the competence to tell Israel what it has to do in order to survive. On the contrary, it is Israel that can tell us what to do. It can tell us that we shall not survive if we do not cultivate and celebrate courage, if we coddle traitors and deserters, bargain with terrorists, court enemies and scorn friends.

[Also from 1974. The more things change, … Incidentally, Hoffer wasn't Jewish.]

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

It is now fashionable to contrast authority with human rights. But we are learning that the moment authority becomes ineffectual most of our rights are nullified by the many-headed tyranny of anarchy.

[Nowadays we face the tyranny of the protest mob and its demands. We give them free rein and advertise their views as if they represent what is right or what we all believe. Our rights are nullified.]

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

A revulsion from work is a fundamental component of human nature. It is natural to feel work to be a curse. A social order that grants only minimal necessities but asks for little effort will be more stable than a system that offers superfluities but demands ceaseless striving. One reason that communist governments seem so stable is that they no longer insist on hard work. Islam too is markedly stable because it functions tolerably well in an atmosphere of indolence.

[In our own society in the twenty-first century (and before) the goal has been the “superfluities” without the striving. They're entitled. Someone who's rich will pay.]

It would be hard to hide my admiration for Hoffer, and I do not intend to do so. I fear, however, that his hunches and prophesies will be overlooked or ignored by a world that needs to confront them. I'll continue his ideas and aphorisms next week.

Various Revelations

I've mentioned before that I want my essays to stay a year in advance, to outlive me, but that limits me to writing only once a week, and, if I only add to the end, I can't deal with current problems about which I want to comment. I think I've already mentioned the anecdote about the potential columnist who feared that he wouldn't have enough to say in columns twice a week He was asked if there were two thing in the news each week that made him angry. He answered in the affirmative and was told he should write about them.

There are more than two things a week that anger me. So I have more than enough material to increase my output. It's going to wind up at twice or thrice weekly. I've been writing these essays for quite a while, so it's likely that some of them are going to be repetitious, but those are the breaks of the game. Chances are you won't read them all anyway. This one will consist of a few unrelated thoughts that crossed my mind.

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

Today is the first anniversary of my cancer surgery and, surprise of surprises, I'm still alive and feeling reasonably well. Perhaps I was better in the past, but I'll take what I have, considering what might have been. Chemotherapy and its side effects are annoying but, they go with the territory. I look forward to suffering them for many years to come.

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

I've said on many occasions that there are too many protests and marches that seem to be going on. Typically they're by liberals who invariably claim that they are working for a peaceable and mannerly society, as well as the promotion of American values which are threatened by everyone but them. For them the way to achieve a peaceable and mannerly society is by demonstrations, protests, and what is more an American value than the squelching of opposition. That's what they do in academia, where they stifle lectures by those with whom they disagree, and create “safe spaces” for those with the “right” views. Have you ever heard of conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker? Or,if they do, coming away from such an act unscathed?

Similarly, most protest marches are carried out by liberals protesting what they view as negative changes in society. And they do so in an angry way rather than by utilizing the civil behavior that they demand of others. The reason for the protest is not important. There seem to be a horde or people who will protest whatever is the cause du jour. As Eric Hoffer said (in The Passionate State of Mind), "In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued."

It's the mob action that counts -- and is far more satisfying and important to the discontented – than whatever they claim to want to protect.

Conservatives are accused of mob mentalities and mob action, but what I see in the papers doesn't seem to bear this out.

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

I keep hearing on the radio about an assortment of programs that will help get people off drugs. The implication is that the causative medications are those provided by physicians. At the same time more and more states are approving or considering the use of “medical” marijuana. Marijuana has been shown to be an “entry” drug for some addicts. It seems we have mixed views on the value to society of addiction. There are even states that approve “recreational” marijuana. It's very progressive, but it's hard to square such an approach with programs to cure addiction, or the fact that the government has provided funds for that purpose. I've written about drug legalization in the past and, I suppose it's time to do so again. I'll do it! But my essay won't be published until next year..

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

Radio ads recently have also included endless promises of relief – if I owe ten thousand dollars or more. It may be credit card debt or what is due in taxes. After all, it's what I “deserve.” And, of course, they'll get a cut or some other charge. They don't say it but I suspect they feel that that's what they deserve. There is never any mention that you owe money to the companies because you spent more than you have, putting off the day of reckoning. It's so easy to spend money if all you need is a pieceOver of plastic. Even easier if you use several. But overspending isn't your fault. You deserve to have your debts reduced or canceled.

And your taxes reduced. Even if you haven't been paying; even if you haven't bothered to file returns for many years; you're a good person. It's someone else's fault. You deserve help. And there are firms that offer it. One telephone call and all your problems will be solved. It must be true. They said it and they wouldn't mislead you. You do that well enough without help.

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

That's all of the unrelated thoughts for now. Maybe I'll do it again. It's easier than learning more about particular issues and formulating longer articles. We'll see.

Zachor

Yesterday was the last Shabbat before the holiday of Purim, and, as is the practice, parshat Zachor was added to the service. In that reading we hear and remember the actions of Amalek, our eternal enemies, when they tried to eliminate the Jewish people. We read it then because Purim itself commemorates the events when a large number of Jews were in Persia, and Haman, King Achashverosh's Prime Minister, tried to have all the Jews killed. According to our tradition, Haman was a descendant of the tribe of Amalek, as are those like Hitler and Stalin who had, or have, a similar goal.

What made the methods of the Amelekites particularly heinous was that they tried to achieve their objective by attacking from the rear and by trying first to wipe out the slow and the weak. Their aim was to destroy those who could not fight back; their view was that such attacks would demoralize their enemy – the Jews – and eventually make it easier to achieve victory over the entire nation of Israel. That, after all, was their ultimate goal.

It's sad to note that there hasn't been a change in this tactic over the millennia. Except, perhaps, to make it worse. The world will surely note and long remember the use of this tactic over the ages and its employment by cowardly armies that believe they can accomplish their goals best by frightening their enemies into accepting their terms rather than risk a continuation of unpreventable devastation of the defenseless.

Amalek still exists. Whether it is understood literally or figuratively – whether as a limited phenomenon or expansively – in our time these actions are those of terrorists around the globe, but primarily those of jihadists. Every day we hear of a new attack by one or more adherents of ISIS or another similar organization. Typically the attacks are on civilians, including women and children, and often the attacker is willing to give up his own life in order to kill and demoralize. It started in Israel and has spread around the world, but no matter where it occurs, the world blames it on Israel.

The craven and bloody have another tactic as well. While they view themselves as martyrs for a virtuous cause, they do not hesitate to hide among the dissatisfied as well as the satisfied in their own societies. Nor to store their armaments in places that they hope will be free from attack from the enemy even though they use them for offensive purposes. And if they're wrong, if those they attack have the effrontery to fight back, the people on their side who happen to be killed will be martyrs as well, willing or unwilling. And their worst enemies, Israel and the Jews in general, will be viewed as the ones responsible for the carnage. It doesn't matter if the terrorist attack has no relation to the Middle East or to Jews, everyone knows they're the cause.

And there is another tactic used by those who would find a weakness in their opponents and try to capitalize on it. It is defamation and isolation. Where direct attack doesn't work, indirect means are sought. When physical force is ineffective, political force – whether by international denigration or boycott – is worth trying. And by using such “peaceful” methods they may even get the cooperation of those looking for a way to defeat others, but who are too cowardly and too self-righteous to take any risk to do so.

The commandment to zachor, to remember, reminds us not only of past enemies, but of those who flourish now, and of their allies. Different tactics have been employed over time, but the goal has not changed. And the varied tactics that have been adopted are simply to try to find ones that work.

Amalek lives. Amalek continues to try to destroy our people. But if we remember, if we remain alert to the different tactics they may use, we can deal with both the old and the new. And that is a mission that is just as valid now as it was millennia ago. An annual reminder is warranted and welcome.

What Might Have Been

When I was young I went to Hebrew School, like all good Jewish boys. After my Bar Mitzvah the rabbi called my mother into his office and told her that he thought I should go into the rabbinate. She was appalled. She was the daughter of a rabbi on the lower east side of Manhattan early in the early twentieth century and she, and many of her sibs, felt they were in a “fish bowl,” always under the eye of members of the community and unable to develop in their own way and at their own pace. She was happy to get out. And she didn't want her grandchildren under the same pressure.

I'm glad about her decision, however for entirely different reasons (some of which I hope to clarify in a future essay). Most notably because although I was raised in the Conservative movement, my practice now is Orthodox. I've moved a little to the right, and Conservatism has gone far to the left. The rabbinate toward which I would have been directed then would have been in the Conservative movement. I would have been a misfit, and I would have been very unhappy. That's not to say that I don't think I would have been good at it. I suspect I would have. But as time went by I would have lacked conviction. I would have been playing a part rather than practicing a profession. I would have had trouble following the call of my vocation.

Part of the problem is that I don't know what I believe. Having been reared in a secular setting and having attended public schools, I was steeped in rationality, and never oriented to believe in a transcendent deity. I wasn't taught that it was untrue, but it was never an issue of great concern. What has resulted is uncertainty about the existence of G-d.

I know that this doesn't correspond to my claim of orthodox observance. But observance doesn't necessarily reflect belief. The “rules” I observe were recorded by men, although they may have been dictated or inspired by G-d. They seem to be self-serving, elevating the status of the Rabbis – past and present. And the absence of a “proof” of G-d's existence in a world that bases everything on rational proof makes belief difficult.

But the same rationality that questions a deity also teaches that effects have causes. Notwithstanding Stephen Hawking, you can't get something from nothing. There's no “free lunch.” Even Hawking relies on laws of physics to account for existence, but he doesn't explain their origin. We're here, and there is a Universe. Where did we come from? And where did the Universe come from? Perhaps these are simply philosophical questions, but even the most educated and the most rational among us would have difficulty answering them.

If there is no rational explanation, then, I'm left with the conclusion that there must be an irrational one – or, better, a supra-rational one. And while I have no explanation for G-d, I can only conclude that some supra-rational force exists – whatever people choose to call it. I'll call it G-d, but I readily admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. As the saying goes, there are more questions than answers. Questions related to theodicy are, perhaps, the most difficult to answer, but long ago I accepted the idea that applying rational standards to a supra-rational process was irrational. The Book of Job makes it clear that we cannot understand G-d's ways. And I can accept that ignorance. I'm not G-d. I try to follow all the law and pray three times a day even when no one (human) is watching me, because I feel I've done wrong when I cut corners.  I guess that means I'm a believer. There are proofs of divinity all around us, but none that an atheist would accept. That's his loss.

But that doesn't deal with the question of the rules I follow. Are they G-d's, or are they the “creations” of men? Is it divine Law I try to follow, or is it “tradition?” Were humans authorized to speak in G-d's name? Should I believe that everything written by our sages has a divine origin? That's what we've been taught.

I don't know and I don't care. There's enough that I can't answer that is so much more profound than this that I don't have to focus on it. If it's only tradition that I follow, I can live with that. My heritage and my people have much to offer humanity – if only humanity would recognize it, rather than resent it and us.

Perhaps I'm a misfit similar to what I would have been had I entered the rabbinate. Pascal based his wager on the odds. After all he was a mathematician, and a scientist like him tried to be rational. But in a way I'm more rational, basing my acceptance of G-d on the logical belief in cause and effect. Still the rationalists of modern times cannot accept anything they cannot prove. So, from their perspective, I've been misled. And I'm following precepts that have no basis. Many of them – and I'm most aware of some of the scientific and medical precepts in Jewish religious teaching – are either not well thought out or are flat out wrong. Which, despite the apologetics, suggests to me that they were the ideas of humans rather than being divine precepts. Maybe they have value in the understanding of the eras in which they were written. But as we have been admonished to follow the teachings of the rabbis of our times – and their exposition of the words of their predecessors may differ from what was taught in the past – so, too, we are well advised to follow the explanations of modern medicine and science.

I'm a physician, not a rabbi. I might have been a rabbi – indeed, I have a son who is one – but things didn't work out that way for me. So be it. In a way I'm glad. I can accept my ignorance about religion without having to defend it and explain it to others. And without having to abandon it because I can't always understand it. I'm not a misfit. But I might have been one.