The Big Tent

Our government is a circus. Three rings – all controlled by political ideology and the vying for media attention and for voter approval. Sadly, apart from the public relations aspect of the system, there is little concern by our government about the repercussions of what they do – the unintended consequences. If our leaders can convince voters that their efforts are in the public interest, meriting their votes next time around, it does not matter if their claims are true. They accomplish the purpose for which they are designed – just like the clowns they are.

Blaming the politicians, however, shifts attention away from those who are really corrupting the system – the protesters who demand benefits for all “oppressed” people. It sounds virtuous, but the loudest advocates have concern only for the impressionable folks they can stimulate – the Big Top's audience. They either understand and support the likely outcome of the proposals, or haven't considered them and really don't care what they are. The laws they introduce are among the greatest causes of unintended, and almost always detrimental, consequences that society faces. And so much of it is for show – the show they present under the big tent.

The Big Tent. It used to be a designation of the Republican Party – who could never make it work – but it is, perhaps, more appropriate to see it now as an instrument of the liberals. Designed to house all of those who have complaints, the only thing necessary is the assertion of oppression. Surely no one would lie about that. And no one would lie about misfortune. So if some complain about unemployment, illness, racism, police brutality, the one percent, or anything else, they must be telling the truth, and our society must be corrupt.

It only takes one complaint and it's national news. The loud complaint of one squeaky wheel ignites the media and the clowns. True or not, there will be many who are sympathetic of whoever claims to have been oppressed by society. It's a movement. And the politicians will express horror at the injustice that has been done. Proof is unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is a new program designed to correct such inequity. Damn the cost of such a program (or of all the necessary programs). It gets votes.

It's usually the same crowd of people who are protesting every time. And it's in part a matter of politics as well as “justice.” Each group that is vocally supported is directed into the big tent for direction on how to vote in the next election. The big tent winds up containing numerous interest groups which have little in common except for perceived (and their perceptions are sometimes valid) injustice, and a ringmaster who offers (but often can't, or won't provide) relief from all their miseries.

And the public buys in. We're all in favor of virtue in the form of justice for all our citizens. We all want the best for everyone – even those who are simply looking for a handout. And we're happy to pay for it all. Cost doesn't matter. (It's all in taxes anyway so we won't see it now. The theory is that the rich will pay for socialism, and it won't hurt me. So I can afford to be virtuous.) Equality. It's the American way.

Our magnanimity doesn't only involve those around us. It extends to our children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow them. And inspired by the protectors of our land, the enironmentalists, a goup devoted to protecting our “heritage,” we have come to favor the acquisition of more and more land to be incorporated into our National Park system. The land may be State property or under State jurisdiction, but we're ecstatic when the Federal government buys it, or acquires it otherwise, because it will give those who follow us the opportunity to visit the parks and see what a wonderful land we have. (That the vast majority of us haven't done so ourselves, and have no interest in doing so, is not relevent. And the reality that only the rich could afford to do so is also of no importance.) We owe it to our children to protect the land, not withstanding the costof doing so – to secure it for ourselves and to provide services and security for it now and in the future. It isn't just the virtue of protecting our sites and sights, a big tent should include environmentalists along with the other constiruencies.

And we also support those who protect endangered species – even at the cost of jobs and tax-paying industry. In the meantime – as we admire them from our seats, we'd do well to free the animals in the nation's circuses – we're profiting at their expense. (Of course the same logic would justify ridding our National Circus – our government – of the paying customers – taxpayers, because the management is profiting at their expense.)

But the idea that all interest groups should be gathered together to elect a government that will provide for them is contrary to our goals – if those elected actually do what they promise – an unlikely premise. As I write this (May 17, 2017) our national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Add to that the cost of new programs and new land acquisitions and the debt will be much higher. When we talk about leaving a heritage of land to our children we ignore the heritage of debt we leave to them (indeed we add to it) – debt that politicians are happy to incur in order to get votes from those in the big tent.

However a tent has a high top, and the government that rules us has a high tolerance for debt that will be someone else's problem. Those seeking office fill their campaign balloons with all the promises they need to attract the voting public into their tent. But the balloons are also filled with helium and hot air and rise above the reach of those present. They're as helpful and healthful as the junk food at a circus. We'll glow now and feel the deleterious effects later. But they're well worth the cost when you consider that we're looking at the greatest show on earth.

And those in the big tent have chosen the performers.

May 17, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 5

Try these on for size (assuming that no one has already). One or more of them may have some merit.

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

It works for “man's best friend.” I suspect that it would work equally well on man (generic term – men and women). It's called the Invisible Fence^®. Visible electrified fences have been used to keep intruders off people's property, but I'm reasonably certain that visible or invisible fences would be an effective tool for keeping children or those with dementia from wandering off.

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

I just noticed that the area behind and under our desk-top computer looks like a spaghetti bowl. Wires are going in all directions. I've seen them before – when I was attaching or removing some device from the computer. It's a pain in the neck every time I do it. Some represent the specific connections to the computer and some are power cords.

We have other devices that are wireless, functioning by utilizing infra-red rays. There are also chargers of cellular telephones and the like that utilize bases that are without wires. In addition there are waves all around us. Some are natural like light and the warmth of the sun's rays, but some are not. Telephone, television, GPS and other signals abound.

Is there any way to derive electricity wirelessly (rather than relying on batteries)? Is there any way to eliminate all the connections of supporting devices as we have done with wireless printers and with thelephones. In addition to making life easier, it would contribute to neatness and order.

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

The digital era has begun, and almost everyone (apart from me) has a “smart phone.” In fact, the phones are smarter than most of the people who have them.

There is one group, however, that has been excluded from the revolution – the blind. A smart phone for the blind would bring them into the twenty-first century. Instead of a printed read-out for text messages there should be a place for braille messages. The same is true of all internet messages. There should be a braille keypad for input. Voice-activated typing of outgoing messages could also deal with the “input problem.” Many of the blind have more sensitive hearing than the rest of us and the unit should also have better definition of its sound and some way of preventing “cutouts” due to surrounding structures.

A device for the deaf would also be of value. It would have to include a voice translation program that would made all voice messages readable. Multiple “ring sounds” are not necessary but there should be light and vibration systems that allow the user to recognize incoming messages – including the source.

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

My slippers are far more comfortable than my shoes. In fact my shoes hurt my feet and my slippers comfort them. Is there any way to produce comfortable shoes by incorporating slippers in some kind of outer shell that would provide the outside protection of shoes, while still maintaining the comfort of slippers? Just asking.

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

That will have to do until next time – whenever that is.

May 22, 2017

Hoffer 4

More from Eric Hoffer. If you don't like his aphorisms as I do, skip this. As before, I've added comments to many of them.

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

Rabid suspicion has nothing in it of skepticism. The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I'm one of those who believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I guess I'm suspicious. In reality, however, suspicion has nothing to do with it. There is evil every person, and it often comes out.

Conservatism is sometimes a symptom or sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted.  I must admit to being a conservative. I picked up sterile radical ideas in my youth, but I let go of them. My ideas have grown and developed.

Those who proclaim the brotherhood of men fight every war as if it were a civil war. Nowadays it's protest and riot.

The hardest thing to cope with is not selfishness or vanity or deceitfulness, but sheer stupidity. One needs the talents of an animal trainer to deal with the stupid.

The passionate are not as a rule culturally creative, but only they make history.

Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth. Actually what it yields in the modern world is accusations and negative appraisals of anyone you don't like.

The true prophet is not he who peers into the future but he who reads and reveals the present. Or pays attention to opinion polls and focus groups. The prophet, today, sees where we are going then runs to the front to lead.

Fear and freedom are mutually exclusive.

To the old, the new is usually bad news. The old are smarter than the rest of us.

America has never ceased to be an experiment. In every generation America has still to prove that a society founded on values cherished by common people can endure, and that it is possible to fuse hordes of heterogeneous immigrants into one nation indivisible.

     [Achievement is largely the product of steadily raising one's levels of aspiration and expectation. (Jack Nicklaus)] It applies to all of society, not just sports.

Everyone expects 1975 [this was written early in 1975] to be a year of decision for the Occident, My fear is that it will be a year of protracted crisis. It is the lingering crisis that debilitates. An explosion would cleanse the air. I would welcome a blowing up of the oil wells in the Persian Gulf. A dramatic end of the fossil-fuel age could be an opening act in the renewal and rebirth of the Occident. The balance of century should be devoted to the search for cheaper and cleaner fuels. In the meantime the Occident should adopt a simpler and slower mode of life and use its manpower in a concerted effort to cleanse and water of pollution, replenish the soil, reforest the hills, and clean up the cities.

Who in the 1950s had a premonition of the witches' sabbath that would be enacted in the 1960s? Once events have taken place, a horde of commentators demonstrate that the unexpected was inevitable. Actually, chance stupidity and cowardice were chief factors. Nothing was inevitable. As I said earlier, evil, as well as stupidity, is lurking in everyone.

To give equality to people who cannot be equal is to intensify their feeling of inequality. So too to give freedom to people who cannot help themselves is to increase their feeling of oppression, Moreover, to give freedom and equality to people who cannot help themselves is to rob them of soul-soothing alibis.

Old age has made me common. I have the typical aches and predicaments of the old. It is true that my nose is not dripping when my head nods in drowsiness and I manage to keep the corners of my mouth clean.

       It is good to remind myself that it is by sheer wild luck that I have in my old age enough money to live on and no money worries at all. So far I have no misfortunes, and at seventy-three I feel that I have won the race. It is true that I am easy on myself. I have a right to an unstrenuous old age. But it must be free of boredom and a feeling of stagnation. This means that I must go on thinking, learning and writing. All I can allow myself is a slower tempo. Mostly this describes me.

The birth of the nineteenth century: the prelude to this most stable and peaceful century was a massive hemorrhage, a twenty-year war. We cannot blame war for the demented savagery of the twentieth century. It is legitimate to wonder whether the nineteenth century would have become what it was had the French come out of the Napoleonic wars as conquerors. The reason the First World War did not wind up the way other wars (including the Second World War) did was that France wanted to be the foremost nation in Europe and would not leave Germany alone. Vive la France. It could use help before it destroys itself.

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

More to come, sooner or later.

Values And The Law

There was a time when “values” referred to “family values”: contraception, abortion, sexual practices, and “gender” identification. It was an issue that was of greatest concern to conservatives, who were accused of trying to impose their ideas on the rest of us. Specifically it was considered to be an attempt of “conservative Christians” to impose their religious beliefs on us, (much as it was the goal of other religious groups to force us to abide by their views – atheism and other similar issues) notwithstanding their beliefs and those of others, and the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Following Roe v Wade they considered it settled law that abortion was legal and those who argued against it were urging their followers to disregard the law.

The debate has changed. Now the concern over values seems to be that of the supporters of “American values” as they relate to immigration. We were all immigrants and we should welcome all who want to be a part of our great nation. And those who have entered our country with disregard of the legislated procedures should be granted citizenship, or at least allowed to live here without any threat of governmental action. That perspective rests not only with individuals, but with the governments of some cities – “sanctuary cities” – that disregard federal law, but demand that their law enforcement agencies not be penalized by the national government for ignoring its rules. The only people whose voices they hear are the protesters – the squeaky wheels – who consider the law to be wrong and demand that it be ignored.

It's hard to know whether there is support for the concept because it is generally the decision of the city's leaders to adopt the status rather than the choice of voters. But that's not really the point. What is really the question is whether cities have the authority to ignore – violate – our country's laws, with or without the agreement of their citizens. And if they do violate federal mandates, are they entitled to governmental support which, from a practical standpoint, implies agreement with the way they have determined their priorities and with their disagreement with federal law. Do citizens and non-citizens have the right to choose which laws they will follow and which they will ignore? Is that the American way? They may claim “civil disobedience,” but hiding from officials makes that claim absurd.

In 1780, seven years before the writing of our Constitution, and nine years before it was adopted, John Adams included the idea of a “government of laws, not of men” in the Massachusetts Constitution. It was an idea that was held firmly in all of the colonies that formed our country, and it is still approved by most Americans. Is ignoring Federal laws an American value? Or is it an act of men (and women) seeking to gain points from voters?

Yes we were all immigrants – or our predecessors were. Most, however, entered this country according to the rules in place at the time. There was a period when there was no law on the matter and then, like most countries, laws were established regarding who might enter and what procedures had to be followed to do so. A defined process was established. And for citizenship as well. And among the requirements for citizenship was a commitment to follow our laws. Indeed, many of our “entitlements” were limited to citizens or others who were here legally.

There are an estimated eleven million persons in our country who have not followed the rules. There are many others who have been waiting patiently for legal procedures to be followed in regard to their applications for entry. Those who are already here (but not those waiting in line) are often enjoying the benefits of our nation, including jobs and entitlements. Their children go to school here and they use our medical facilities when they need them. It's hard to fault those who come because they are intent on a better life. Our ancestors did the same and there are many who do so now. But it cheapens our traditions to suggest that “American values” require that we grant blanket citizenship to those who have knowingly violated the law. I wonder if those who protest in their support know that they are promoting the selective adherence to our laws and encouraging immigrants to violate the law. They are imposing their values on the rest of us. And it sends the wrong message to others, especially those who have sought legal immigration. However lovingly we may characterize their quest, they have violated the law. However sentimentally and sensitively we may view their plight, it is contrary to Adams's teaching. And it is contrary to our values.

Exiling them all, sending them back to countries that many of them left long ago, isn't the answer, but neither is a blanket amnesty. They should be registered and provided with a path to legitimacy that includes some form of penalty for their disregard of our laws. Many of them are nice people, but they are not above the law. And we must make it clear that those who, in the future, violate our laws will be punished far more severely for their acts.

We are a “government of laws, not of men.” That's an American value.

May 18, 2017

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.

A Statue Of Hitler

Slavery is an evil institution. But it is one that has always existed. In recent days it has resulted in the toppling of Civil War statues in New Orleans. Prior to that there were denaming and renaming of buildings in academia because those whom they honored owned slaves. But I want to focus on history, because history is being rewritten, much as was done in the Soviet era, and much as we read about in George Orwell's 1984.

For the moment at least, and I've illustrated this already, everyone's attention is on slavery. It was a dark period in our nation's history, a period whose effects are still with us. And we're making efforts to correct them, and to remove the stain. But, I think, we're going about it the wrong way. Let me illustrate with a bizarre example.

I found the following question on the internet and both the question and the answer are deserving of thought.

In Georgia, recently there has been a dispute, wether [sic] or not the government should keep a monument to Stalin near the house were he was born (ONLY FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSE) [Is there a] public statue of Hitler (even in Nazi Germany)?

[The “Georgia” to which the questioner referred was, obviously not the American state but the eastern European nation.] And the answer:

There are no official statues of Hitler in Germany. ... The former dictator is essentially a persona non grata in Germany, so you would not want to honour [sic] him with statues.

But I suggest the erection of statues of Hitler (and Stalin) all over the world.

I view him as a devil, The Prince of Darkness. He was a murderous, anti-semitic, psychopath and merits our abhorrence for what he did. And he convinced his followers not only of his views but, often, their views as well, and to act on them. It is not underemphasis to suggest that he was one of the most evil men in world history, and his suicide saved him from human recriminations and punishment. Still I suggest his memorialization, for reasons I shall explain presently.

Let me begin the explanation by citing a view of “The Prince of Peace.” I've already mentioned “The Prince of Darkness” so it's only right. I'll first quote all he had to say about the institution of slavery:

“”

Nothing.

Avery Robert Dulles said that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In a paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that, while he often encountered it, "not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery."

Knowing that he witnessed slavery all the time, it is hard not to conclude that he either approved of slavery or didn't give it a second thought. It was a feature of the time and place – normal in the context of his times.

But in recognition of his lack of concern – his tacit approval – of slavery the question arises, in view of current opinions, as to whether all statues of Jesus – indeed, all statues of Christians – should be destroyed. The owning of slaves in our history was as much the exemplification of those times in our history as Jesus's disregard of slaves in his. Whether we agree with them or not, we wouldn't want to see all his words expunged, and the history of the times suppressed because of our disagreements with its priorities. And we wouldn't want the statues of him and all his followers toppled.

But why not? What was done doesn't reflect our views. What they did was wrong, and people suffered because of it. The answer is that it happened. As did the Holocaust and American slavery. And there are many more examples. We don't have to approve of them to acknowledge that they happened, and the more we know of history, the better we can deal with the future. History is not dogma, ideology, sentiment, or political correctness, and the more we separate it from those conceptions, the more accurate will be our image of the past – and the better will be our planning for the future.

Making history conform to our outlook doesn't change the past, although it may affect our knowledge of it. Ignoring the context of the times is deceptive. Obliterating what we don't like makes us more ignorant, not more virtuous. Centuries from now people will look back at us and disagree with some of what we've done. I hope they don't hide from it. I disagree with a lot that's happening, but it's happening and denying it or altering what we know of it will cripple them, as our denial of the past cripples us.

Back to Hitler. His acts were horrendous, and it's incumbent on us to remember them and take steps to make sure they aren't repeated. We are not a world of idealists and we can't rely on others to be so. Especially if we've made them ignorant of what has come before.

Don't destroy or remove statues. Build them, as part of museums which document what happened for the education of those who follow us. There will be plenty of room in the museum to explain what happened and why it was wrong (or, sometimes, right) to those who are unaware. Hitler, Stalin, the tyrants of the Middle East and Far East, the marauders and murderers of Africa, the drug dealers of Central and South America, and our own villains must be remembered and their wickedness described.

As was said by George Santayana

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

And those who hide or falsify the past are even more responsible for our ignorance.








May 19, 2017

The Source of Wisdom

It wasn't long ago – a few weeks ago (or a few days depending on whether you calculate from the day this was published or the day it was written) I wrote

I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it.

And I'm going to deal with that issue here. But let me start with the words of others.

G-d said it. I believe it. It's true.

I saw that on a bumper sticker. That's certainly an answer. And it's an answer to virtually all questions. If you seek it, it is there.

But some may not be satisfied and ask for additional verification. They may wonder about the source.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Those are among the lyrics of a song that was popular some years back. Simplistic, isn't it? But we all accept this kind of reasoning, even if we don't recognize that fact. We just find our gospel in different places.

I was reading a book recently, Alan Schwarz's A.D.H.D. Nation, and I was very impressed by it. It said so many things I knew to be true, about how we, as a nation, had taken a syndrome that involved a relatively small number of children and magnified it into a problem affecting three to six times the number of people who may have it. It's become fashionable – and an excuse for all sorts of failings. It provided a justification for taking drugs. And it involved all age groups.

In fact many of the books I read also confirm other views I have. The subject doesn't matter, but they're usually political. They clarify important issues and provide documentation of all the salient points that support my opinions. I'm in the avant-garde and the world is slowly catching up – at least I hope so. But I've always been ahead of my time.

The same is true of the newspapers and magazines I read. They're also among the enlightened, and their articles, opinions, and letters also parallel the views I hold. They substantiate all that I think and say (though admittedly I try to avoid actually speaking to others whenever I can). It's clear that others recognize the wisdom of all the views I hold.

Still, when I hear others speak (even if I don't speak, I listen) I usually find myself subjected to drivel and absurd ideas and thinking. Surely they'll learn, but they're not yet on the road to wisdom. What they say is almost as inane as what they read. I know that because they sometimes specify the newspaper from which they've gotten the nonsense. They treat the New York Times as if it were the source of the gospel. They believe everything that it deems fit to print. (How do I know? The New York Times tells me so.)

Will Rogers said, in a self-deprecating manner, “All I know is just what I read in the papers,” and he was a very smart man. But he continued, “and that's an alibi for my ignorance.” The ideas that he took from those papers (and I'm sure he wasn't talking about the paper I read) were nonsense, and, in his droll and “innocent” manner, he made that clear to his audience. So those who read those papers, and those who take seriously what they have to say and who repeat it, are speaking nonsense. The readers of those rags probably hold those perverted views anyway, and that's why they choose inferior media. Most of the media are ignorant. They don't agree with me. So most people are similarly ignorant. They reflect the nescient notions (no, I am not William Safire) that the media they follow advance.

It is reassuring to mention that the books I read and the media I absorb, reinforce the wisdom that I know to be reliable. As opposed to the misinformation swallowed by others, the sources I value are wise. They are perceptive and understanding of the meaning and implications of what they are reporting. And they can be relied on.

So if they agree with me, and they do, they prove my correctness – not that I ever doubted it. After all, I'm always right. And if you don't agree, you're wrong.

[If you consider this circular – or (incor)rectangular for that matter – reasoning, you're wrong.]

September 28, 2016.

Mixed Grill XXXII

I'm on a roll. No, I'm not a hot dog. But I am hot.

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

Lord high executioner – The media

Boutique – Low rent. High prices

Artisinal – Smaller portion (or item of another sort). No better than the original. Higher price

Flies time when they're having fun – It's not a rat race any more. It's buggy

The Empire Sate Building – Where you can get a filling meal high in everything (including price)

Dead Sea scrolls – Unresponsive snails

Canterbury tales – Some of the archbishop's choicer homilies

Let's all say grace before we eat – Please Grace, pass the potatoes

STEM education – Leaves us rootless. Emphasizes science at the expense of history and literature

Throw out the baby with the bathwater – Blithering idiom

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong – Profiling. Lesson one

Incorrupt politician – Oxymoron

Everything's up to date in Kansas City – Rodgers and Hammerstune

Gentlemen, start your engines – Sign in Indianapolis brothel

Gravestone epitaph

Dust to dust

Ashes to ashes.

He's here (if you've wondered

Where Ogden Nash is)

Dodecahedron – Star Wars version of a London bus

Hogan's heroes – Navajo sandwich shop. It's the wurst

Politically incorrect – Not using my euphemisms

Pass the chicken – Move him to the front lines

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,

And all I ask is a 54 foot yacht and a GPS to steer her by.

(John Masefield)

Cookie Monster – Unhealthy. We need a gluten-free Cookie Monster

Holy Roman Umpire – Official in Vatican's soccer league

A penny for your thoughts – Why for two cents …

Here's the skinny on our new drink – No calories

Twenty-dollar Bills – Toms, Dicks, and Harrys charge more, but they do a better job

With my eyes wide open I'm cheating on my income tax – There aren't many audits. Just this once. It isn't really a risk

Alternate news – Evidence of ignorance. It should be “alternative.”

Straight flush – What you have to show when you play poker in the crapper. Now wash your hand

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

A fine pickle you've gotten into. It's not my fault. All I do is present the junk food. You consume it.

May 7, 2017

A Different Drummer

I was born a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. I was the younger sibling. (Actually I was the younger brother. They didn't talk about siblings then.) My older brother became a Cub Scout soon after the war but that didn't last long. He didn't like it. As far as he was concerned it was too regimented. It may have been popular, but it wasn't for him. So he never became a Boy Scout, and neither did I.

It shouldn't really be surprising. Scout groups have rules. They have to. We need rules – shared and agreed-upon guidelines. They're integral to doing things. They're part of the teaching process. And war and the military created a worldview of conformity, so the returning soldiers and sailors were oriented to the kind of order prized not only in the military but, as well, in the society to which they returned. They knew that there had to be someone in charge and theirs was not to reason why. They had the responsibility of doing as they were told – of following orders. (I don't mean to suggest that they followed the Nazi example and followed immoral orders. They were accountable as human beings – as we all are – to rebel at illegal demands, but short of that they maintained military discipline. [The Nazis were similarly accountable on an absolute basis, but their education told them “No”; that obedience was the highest value.])

Rules are good things. They maintain society, especially in those situations when a rapid and predictable response is mandatory. A ship must have a captain; there can be only one chief surgeon in an operating room; and, as all those who had so recently been engaged in battle knew, someone had to be in charge if they were to keep casualties down and to prevail.

And they all had to be well trained. They had to know what to do instinctively if they were to act quickly. They had to be educated to the most efficacious procedures whatever the circumstances. They weren't robots – those weren't to be in widespread use for many decades – however education and regimentation were basic to every citizen's performance.

But things change. Like unruly teen-agers who are breaking loose from parental control, society broke loose from rules and constraints. At times people's actions were nonviolent and constructive as, for example, in the peaceful demonstrations for equal rights. At times, however, this was not the case. It is hard to forget the flag burnings, the riots, and the college takeovers that followed the exhilaration and unity of the 1950s. Some of the changes were well thought-out and aimed at advancement, while others were simply expressions of the rejection of society's rules, and of rebellion. And for many, the idea of rebellion was so attractive that no reason for it was necessary. Their goal was to spurn society itself, to have their own way – even if that way was wrong, and even if they had no particular goal.

If disobedience was an end in itself, however, it was unlikely to have value. Fortunately there have been many who were estranged from societal norms but who benefited us all through their rejection of the status quo. Those who “pushed the envelope” and “thought outside of the box” (two expressions which, although they illustrate an important concept, are so hackneyed as to be remnants of the “old” thinking) showed their rejection of old ideas by creating new ones. “We've always done it that way” simply wasn't good enough if they had a better way. Nothing is gained by being conventional, by staying in style, especially when rejection is fashionable simply for its own sake.

Henry David Thoreau, a nineteenth century American philosopher, wrote “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” It's obvious that there will be no new thoughts if everyone follows the same drummer. And those with new ideas are invariably looked on as “queer ducks.” New thinkers are invariably out of step with the old. However that's often because they are far ahead of the rest of us.

Of course new thoughts are not necessarily good (but neither are the old). Yet they are what move us all forward and, while we should examine them thoroughly, we should welcome them. Or, as composer John Cage put it, “I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.” Creative people, like Cage, march to a different drummer. They have new and unconventional ideas. (I'm not sure I like Cage's, but I agree with his sentiment – if the “new ideas” are thought out.) There's a common sentiment expressed by the intellectually lazy: “Don't reinvent the wheel.” It makes sense unless the wheel is not the best solution to the problem. And that's often the case, although it may not be recognized. To a very great degree we're held back by conventional thinking, even though we all try to use our minds to solve the problems we face. But however we may feel about our individual singularity, we don't stray far from the pack. (“I'm unique, just like everybody else.”) The more things change …

Perhaps the problem is our wish for equality. Perhaps by teaching to the lowest common denominator in order that no child be left behind, we don't emphasize the value of that different drummer and the importance of independent thought. We speak of diversity but we reward conformity. We call it “peer pressure” but it is really the desire of society to understand and control all its members. It's easiest when their thoughts and their actions are predictable, and when their ideas don't change. It's hardest when they're all thinking for themselves in an unpredictable way.

Different strokes for different folks? No. Different drummers. It's the difference between variation on a theme and innovation.

Godwin's Law

You won't find this in the law books. But it's an all-purpose rule that is hard to avoid nowadays, in its original form or in one of its variations. The law, which was originated by Mike Godwin, an American author and attorney (although it isn't a real law), states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.” “That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds.” (Wikipedia – emphasis added by Sir Oracle.)

And it's true. The choice of Hitler is unfortunate, however, because it cheapens memories of Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, but that's what happens. People become frustrated when others don't accept their views, and they use the worst insult they can imagine. I guess that it's encouraging that their imaginations can devise nothing more horrible than a comparison to Hitler, but that is only a symptom of a far more severe problem.

Too many people, now and in the past, have sought an all-encompassing truth. It is an answer to all questions. It is not simply a “fall back” position, but a sincere – if unconsidered – view that the one they accuse of evil is, in fact, evil. (I wonder if our fellow Americans, in their frustration, aren't now substituting Trump into the law, viewing him as the cause of anything they don't like.)

And, as I mentioned, it's a reaction that has galvanized huge numbers of people to specify the cause of all problems. “Knowing” the cause of your troubles saves a lot of time and rumination. It's far easier than thinking and analyzing. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Reduce to the absurd. Only you don't recognize it as absurd. It's all real and justified.

That's the origin of prejudice – of scapegoats and scapegoating. You remove the need for any thought or doubt if you can designate a single cause for everything that is wrong. And that provides a simple solution to every problem. Eliminate the single cause. (It's an approach that has to be controlled however. The cause can't be totally eliminated because that would leave no explanation for future problems. A remnant of “evil” must remain.)

Godwin identified what people view as evil. Hitler and Nazism were evil, and those who are on line can more easily accuse those they oppose of some kind of similarity to Hitler than they can voice their frustration in the form of logical arguments. Ad hominem arguments are simple – but they are the arguments of the simple-minded – or of those who are, themselves, evil. If you attack your opponent personally you don't have to make a solid case against his point of view, or justify your own. It has become an issue of his personal character and traits rather than a discussion of the merits of a particular view; it is a matter of rhetoric, rather than reason.

America has a history of such prejudices. They exist to this day, but are nothing when compared to the sacapegoating in which the world has participated for millennia – anti-semitism. And that, too, persists. In the middle of the last century the world established the United Nations – largely in reaction to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. Nations that had remained silent through the war, ignoring the murder of Jews, felt the need to offer a “sop” to them. But they were less interested in giving them a place to live, and the division of their homeland, Palestine, (so designated by the Balfour Declaration) to provide them with their own country was only approved with difficulty, and with the Arab countries vowing to destroy the new nation of Israel. But while the Arab countries were unsuccessful in their efforts, they have, over the years, managed to maintain instability in the region – instability which they, and the UN, blame on Israel. In fact, the nations of the world often accuse Israel and the Jews of acting like Hitler and the Nazis. Or worse. An organization founded in the wake of the Holocaust has managed to blame Israel for the world's problems.

As opposed to Hitler, however, the UN cannot entirely rid the world of Jews because they will need someone to blame afterwards. So their “virtue” will be manifested by their accusations and other words vilifying one of the world's smallest nations – the one causing them all to “suffer” even though its Jewish population is less than one tenth of a percent of theirs. Prejudice and scapegoating don't require rationality – only anger. Additionally they solve so many problems. And the UN has found a way to express their bias.

They've surpassed Godwin's law by finding an evil which exceeds Hitler. The Jews.

And that prompts the question of whether the UN is simple-minded or evil. I have my bias, but I leave that question to you.

May 4, 2017

Various Ideas VI

As I said last time. The following ideas bother me but they can hardly be viewed as revelations. They're more like thoughts that need development but now's not the time for me. You can do that if you choose. Perhaps I've done them before or perhaps I have other things on my mind. In either case I'll just set them out and move on.

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

A clock makes me think. Before time was an issue for me I could think of the future as endless. Now that I've been warned I see everything in the perspective of time and its boundaries. Don't misunderstand. I have every intention of living forever (if it's G-d's will, and with my doctor's help – and the tests so far suggest that it's a possibility. Well maybe not forever). Still there is a (potential) limit set by the clock on everything and it's hard to ignore. Knowledge of time as a factor makes me more appreciative of what I have.

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

The replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – “Obamacare”) passed the House of Representatives today. Some Republicans voted against it, although most supported it. All the Democrats voted against it. This is the Congress which “governs” us nowadays: party-line (party-discipline) votes with no room for debate and compromise. President Truman complained about a “do nothing Congress” but at least the issues were discussed. All that matters now is public relations. The parties are positioning themselves for the next election and the next Congress that will accomplish very little despite the loud rhetoric.

The media glories in such controversies (and this is only one). It sells. And the media promotes controversy. A small group of protesters – even a sole petitioner – is worth a lot of media time and attention. That sells, too. As the protesters plan, the media helps them get their message out. Their complaint is well publicized and has the appearance of validity and mass support. At least it has the support of the media – especially those eager to promote the message. They can publicize those who support their views (as they promote their views in “objective” reporting by promoting advocacy journalism) and there's no cost to the protesters.

As time goes by we're becoming more polarized by those who vow to bring us together.

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

In "Family Plot," Hitchcock's last film, there are two "evil" couples, but one kills while the other only pursues scams, like psychic services. The latter pair are appealing while the other pair are to be condemned by the audience. Is there a relativity of evil – are some sins "worse" than others?

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

It was interesting to note that liberals, so eager to make changes, and so dismissive of our past traditions and documents, were suddenly horrified by the possibility of a change in the senate rules. It was wrong of Republicans to change the rules although, under Harry Reid, Democrats had themselves done that in 2013 to establish that only 51 votes would be needed to approve a presidential nominee (apart from Supreme Court Justice). It was a party-line vote, and resulted in the passing of what was then known as the “Nuclear Option.” To secure the confirmation of Judge David Gorsuch as a Supreme Court Justice only four years later the Republicans extended the “option” to include that office. They were roundly condemned by the Democrats, who made no mention of what they had done so recently.

The Constitution, was passed soon after our nation was established and it did not require a super-majority. But that was not the tradition that the Democrats honored. They preferred to follow the rules of their more recent Senate predecessors – at least the rules they liked. The initial rules were written by Thomas Jefferson as part of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and intended to ensure civility and décor. The manual's rules for the Senate were adopted in 1828, more than four decades after the Constitution and, indeed, after Jefferson's death. Subsequently those rules have become our “tradition” and are sacred when they serve the purpose of those who invoke them. I suspect that they should be reviewed and rewritten to reflect current views, but they should in no way be considered our tradition and beyond reconsideration. The wisdom of any changes will be decided by voters.

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

Enough. Time to move on.

From Your Mouth

You probably know that I've been sick. I don't hide it, and I don't hide from it. What is, is.

One of the results of my malady is a biweekly visit to the clinic for chemotherapy, and I leave with a bottle of poison attached to me by a tube. I carry the bottle around for a couple of days before it is disconnected. The carrying is in a pouch attached to a belt, and I'm nervous that something I do will cause everything to fall apart. It probably won't, but I remain nervous. I usually don't leave the house during the two days I'm receiving the medication, though I must admit the side-effects are milder than I anticipated. (I had some nerve damage from a previous drug, but that's been discontinued, and I'm scheduled to receive treatment for those effects.)

But, in the words of W. C. Fields, “I digress.” What I really want to note is that because of the treatment I won't be saying Kaddish for my mother on her yahrzeit in a few days. That requires a minyan and I'll be staying home. (For those who don't understand, that means I won't be saying the prayer for the dead which is ordinarily recited on the anniversary of someone's passing. For that, according to the laws of Judaism, I need a group of ten men, which would require a trip to synagogue. Since that would take place during the time I stay home, I'll miss it this year.) The purpose of the prayer is to elevate the soul of the deceased, and I regret missing the opportunity to do so.

Yesterday I brought in to synagogue the name of a friend who is ill. I'll recite my own prayers for her health, but a more formal prayer is offered by the synagogue for the recovery of those who are sick, and I wanted her to have this as well. So I submitted her name.

Such sentiments are not restricted to my religion. How often has someone who is going through a difficult situation said “Pray for me?” It doesn't matter what we believe. We seek the support of those we love, and of others too. And we offer it as well. Even to those who are no longer with us. We're told by our sages that our prayers are valuable to those in need, and, by this means, we help those whom we love. Can we do otherwise?

But I wonder about the validity of this teaching. And I wonder whether my prayers have any effect. I'm not questioning my religion itself, or that of others, but I still have questions regarding the usefulness of the practice. It seems to me that ultimate rewards and punishments are based on the actions, good and bad, of the individual involved, not whether others try to use their influence to improve conditions for others, alive or dead. The most evil of people will sometimes influence others to love them, and, by doing so, inspire prayers when they seem to be appropriate.

Have those prayers any effect? (Especially if they don't really reflect the reality of the virtues of the subject?) Can the words of humans change G-d's decisions? Are such decisions reflective of predetermined actions? Do the wishes of the living affect the treatment of the dead?

The question, however, is much bigger. Its repercussions extend far beyond our wishes for those who are suffering, or for those whose suffering is over. The question involves us, and for most of us our own well-being is of greater consequence than that of anyone else. Of course there are exceptions, but the rule remains.

The issue relates to prayer in general. Has it any value? Do human words affect people's standing in the “eyes” of G-d? We believe that G-d knows our thoughts, so our words are not only unnecessary, but poor reflections of our intentions. Indeed, we also believe that G-d knows our intent before we do. Which makes our mouthing (or thinking) of our hopes and wishes, of our intents and desires, our praises and thanks, of little value.

Formal prayer is more for our own psychological benefit than for any improvement in our condition or that of others. And when we pray in the presence of others during a formal service, we display a discipline and a determination to ourselves as well as to others. Perhaps there is free will rather than (in addition to?) predetermination, and perhaps our words and our actions do matter. Perhaps that discipline, and those words and actions, are aimed at helping others. Surely G-d would reward that, even if He knew in advance that it would happen. Perhaps the reward would be our own satisfaction at having done what is right. Perhaps, our prayers for those who are no longer with us actually have a positive effect, as we hope the prayers for us of those who follow will have.

Or perhaps they, and all other prayers, only benefit us. I don't know, but, G-d willing, I'll say Kaddish for my mother next year.

May 2, 2017