The Precoi

Slavery is slavery. How's that for tautology? But it helps if I describe what I view as slavery. And that is the condition when one individual is under the control of another. He has no free will. He makes no independent decisions. They're not his to make. Only his master decides what he is to do and what his fate is. In ancient Rome slavery was accompanied by the power of life and death, and in more recent examples it was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. But even when rejected it was often tolerated. The control was, for all intents and purposes, total.

Murder is murder. It doesn't matter if the victim is nine days old, nineteen years old, ninety-nine, or somewhere in between. Or beyond these numbers one way or another. Killing an innocent individual is considered murder in virtually all modern societies and it is banned – though, as with slavery, the ban is sometimes overlooked.

What about abortion? The Guttmacher Institute estimates that between 2011 and 2014 there were about 56 million abortions annually. That's a lot of humans who never experienced extrauterine life or any form of liberty. Until they were murdered, they were slaves. Of course such a formulation requires a better description of a human being. From my perspective, whatever is alive and has the potential for being a human being is a human being. Many will disagree with me, but that is my view and what I'll use for the remainder of this essay. I don't think there is much difference between a fetus that will be born later today and one born this morning. And if we go back days or weeks or months the same basic premise applies. “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), the plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case (and its “poster child”) said later

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth— that's a baby!

The Supreme Court may have decided one way, but Roe decided another. As did Mary Doe (Sandra Cano was “Doe” in Doe v Bolan, a case which also supported abortion, but was repudiated by Cano.)

Abortion is murder. However it's sanctioned by the courts. It's the law of the land. But perhaps the issue should rethought. There are approximately a million abortions in the United States each year. That's the official number. In all likelihood the count is much higher since some are reported as non-stigmatizing procedures such as diagnostic d and c, or given some other such non-political title. But that's not the issue. Each year we lose a million children who may have grown up to be scientists, musicians, writers, teachers, and all sorts of other things. With the aid of the medical profession, their parents murdered them.

Why do people choose to abort. Clearly the pregnancy is unwanted by at least one of the parents, almost invariably the mother. The pregnancy is usually unplanned, although there may after the fact consideration. And many occur among unmarried women.

The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner. Also from Guttmacher)

They seem like good reasons, but murder is murder. They wouldn't kill their two-year-old so they could provide for the fetus, so what makes the reverse acceptable? If there is concern over other responsibilities, consideration should have been given to contraception or abstention. Most adults know “the facts of life” and the relationship of coitus to pregnancy, and should have factored in that possibility in their behavior. And intercourse may not be the best way to deal with problems – with your partner or anyone else.

Not all sexual relations are voluntary and there may be a desire to be rid of the evidence and burden if pregnancy results. The goal is understandable but not the means. Another concern, especially among the unmarried, is that the father will deny any responsibility or help in the support and raising of the child.

No. Those are excuses. Abortion is the best solution some people have for an unwanted pregnancy – usually an avoidable pregnancy. There are many contraceptive medicines and devices available that will avoid the issue. But coitus is pleasurable. And, sadly, it is often spontaneous with relatively little consideration of the consequences, among the married and the single. Which is the basis for my proposal. (And it is a serious proposal. Not a satire.)

The inspiration for the proposal is the already existing and popular prenuptial agreement (a “prenup”). That agreement spells out the circumstances to be covered and the penalties for failure to do so. My specific suggestion is a “precoi,” a precoital agreement. Details would be spelled out on numbered one-page clearly-worded, understandable sheets that would list the date, names of the participants, and the obligation of the male to provide DNA if paternity is questioned, and monetary and psychological support if is shown to be the case. The extent of the support could be left to a judge or a panel. The document would be signed by both parties, and they would agree that abortion, murder, is not an option. Both would agree to take responsibility for such an action. (And the abortionist is equally guilty and should share their fate.)

A variety of beneficial effects can be anticipated from such a procedure (although some would argue on that point). First of all it would slow down an affair or a connection that is proceeding too rapidly. It gives both parties a few moments to think. Indeed, it may result in the decision not go further – and that would certainly lessen the number of abortions. The document, if available at a legal proceeding, would establish consent. Absence of the document might suggest consent and spontaneity (and finessing the document), although the same result might follow rape (and the absence of the document) or a questionable accusation (and its destruction). The need for the justice system to make that determination remains, although the absence of the slip, if not reported immediately, would be a consideration for the adjudicator.

The agreement would be a starting point if there is any need to establish paternity. The willingness to provide DNA, and its availability would be of great value in such an endeavor. The results of such testing would help in the establishment of both monetary responsibility if the child is alive, and guilt if there has been an abortion. (Whether this agreement, which was obtained for an entirely different purpose – monetary responsibility – from the decision to “terminate the pregnancy,” constitutes inadmissible self-incrimination would be decided by the judiciary.) If a father is not identified, society should support the mother rather than allowing her to have an abortion.

But the most important result of such a document would often be the avoidance of a murder, and the continued life of a human being. It is the responsibility of society to make life worth living, but society has no right to sanction the murder of an innocent party.

The document would have its greatest application when the participants aren't married, but there are times when even married couples decide that an abortion is necessary. That's a legal issue. Monetary responsibility, which is the focus of the agreement, is usually not in question. Nonetheless, this, or a similar agreement, should be considered.

Bottom line: abortion is murder. I've said it several times both because I believe it and because society apparently does not. That's the first principle to be established. And the obligation to provide a good life for the survivor comes close behind.

September 25, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 8

Floods occur. Harvey is a striking example and offers a severe warning. Numerous homes were ruined – especially the lowest floor – and the cost of rebuilding will be enormous. More so, the lives lost or changed make the situation far worse. The problem cannot be solved, but it can be ameliorated. As houses are rebuilt, and existing houses repaired, it is ridiculous to suggest raising them – especially houses that preexisted the disaster – because foundations, pipes, electrical connections are still in place and they would be difficult to move.

The obvious answer is to lower the ground around them. Every house should have a deep moat with the area around it cleared of earth. The earth, itself, could be used elsewhere, or even nearby, for the building of dams and dikes. It would be a valuable commodity, and any trees existing on it could be sold for their wood. In addition, the clearing of the land would provide jobs for those put out of work by the flood. And it would provide a place to store rescue alligators.

Don't cry when nature serves you water. Make ice cubes.

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

I recently suggested the building of robotic companions to keep the lonely entertained. The more I think about it, however, the more it occurs to me that this may not be enough. The robots I proposed would speak back, and even it their views corresponded to your own, that might be a distraction for you.

Better, or at least in addition, work should begin on the design and construction of robotic service animals. They need not have artificial intelligence so they likely would present less of a challenge. The animals would attend to all your needs and desires – at least as far as animals can. Lap or non-lap settings could be included in the plans, as well as controls that determined if stomach rubs were required. The animals would be of whatever species you wished, and whatever age you required. They'd be able to bring in the newspaper and, with intelligence options, they could read it to you.

If you turned on their sound systems they could be used as guard animals, protecting your house. If so programed, they would bite and otherwise maim intruders. Bullet-proof construction would protect them from vicious villains exercising their second amendment rights. The animals would be “loving” to the degree you found satisfactory. And they should allow you in places reserved for those with service animal – although they would not be of interest to live and dirty pets. No feeding would be needed.

And their breath would not smell.

They would accompany you if you chose to go for a walk, but walks at all sorts of bizarre hours wouldn't be necessary. Nor would cleaning up after them.

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

A final concern that requires attention is global warming. Whether you attribute it to natural causes or believe that human activity is involved, there is ample evidence both of its existence and its effects. Although there are numerous proposals as to how to minimize those effects, and even to limit its progress, the phenomenon remains.

Fear of warming exists, but perhaps global warming has features that can be harnessed and used to advantage. Perhaps it's not a problem but an opportunity. If there is excess heat or winds it would be helpful if we could recycle that excess into energy using some kind of converter. There are certainly many inventors who could come up with such an apparatus.

The energy so provided could be used to power air conditioners, cleanup services, or other projects in need of juice. We might even be able to make money out of it.

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

I'll try to be more realistic next time.

September 4, 2017

Mixed Grill XLV

Time to suffer.

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

Honi soit qui mal y pense – I thought it was Lily

First and Zen – Spiritual sports (Fantasy football?)

My funeral – I'll be there, if I have no other engagement

Child labor – You need a little girl who is young at uterus

Maid in the shade – Under the old apple tree

Cosin – Get into bed with the enemy but watch your hypotenuse

When you and I were young Maggie – Or whatever your name is. My memory's going

Erin Go Broke – When the potato parasites arrive. (No I don't mean the tourists)

Tachs tax – Soak the rich drivers

Zero-Sum – Win-win inverted

No evil deed goes unpunished – Nor do good ones

Tight as a dram – Or twenty

Stand on the shoulders of giants --Walk on their graves is more like it

Pavlova, Reuben sandwich, Eggs Benedict – You eat what you are

Every man for himself – Every person for themself is the PC alternative

Smoke alarm – Ring tone for some

To die four – Graphic novel superheroes who'd prefer that someone else should die, and they can arrange it

Keep the house – When the kids inherit and sell it they'll have to clean the attic. I won't. A lot of the stuff there is theirs anyway

Mail carrier – He specializes in carrying femail carriers (of mail)

One at a dime – That's all you needed for a single NYC subway ride in the middle of the last century (No, not a Dewey dime which appeared in 1953)

S.O.B. – Only a mother could love him

Shoot first and ask questions afterward – NRA

The greatest good for the greatest number – Big winner with number 60

Antepenultimate – She started a lot of things but never quite finished

Affair of the hearth – Nothing like cuddling in front of the fire on a cold night

Tennessee – But you'll need a ticket to the Open

Dim sum – Botched check in Chinese restaurant

Never give a breaker an even surf – Salty crocodile tears. The rougher the better

Help – Movie cleanup crew

Smoke alarm – A ring tone is better, but it's all related to the kind of communication

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

Time to exhale.

Some Thoughts

I have pancreatic cancer, so I'm a little preoccupied. I've been keeping a diary of my thoughts since my first symptoms appeared and now that I've been told that I have metastases I decided to put one page of the diary onto my blog. I wrote it a couple of days ago, and it expresses some of the ideas that have been going through my mind. Please forgive my self-pity. I'll try to be more upbeat next week.

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

Not surprisingly, I've been thinking about death. I haven't gone back to look at previous entries and I may be repeating myself. So it goes.

I'm saddened by the idea that won't be able to see how others evaluate my life and my passing. Or, for that matter, anything else. Right now when I get tired I eagerly take a nap or, in the evening, go to sleep for the night, confident that I'll wake up. And then I'll evaluate any dreams I remember and plan for the day ahead. It's routine. I know that I'll be able to think about it and about anything else that I want. The idea that I'd never know about the past or the future is daunting; that I'd never have any knowledge of my family or anything else is unimaginable.

No matter how I try to formulate my ideas all I can decide is that in all likelihood what comes next, if that is anything at all, is completely separate from my experience on earth. I suspect that I'll neither know, nor have any interest, in my earthly existence. And I won't be aware of those I left behind. As I have no knowledge of any existence before I was born, I suspect that I'll have no knowledge of this one later on.

First of all though I should mention that I'm using human reasoning, which doesn't make any sense in this situation, but it's all I have. I'm not convinced there is any kind of life or existence of the soul after death. That's certainly something which common sense rejects. Common sense, however, doesn't seem to be in any way related to extra-rational “reality.” If that – something beyond rationality – is a component of the whole picture there is no way for us to make sense of it using the tools we have.

But if human rationality teaches me anything – if it has any application – it tells me that there must be an extra-rational component to whatever there is. And I don't know how atheists could deny it. Even if they believe that everything is explainable by the use of universal physical principles and formulas, they believe. One of the main themes of the physical sciences is that everything comes from something. So if there is a Universe, and if there are universal principles and formulas, they had to come from somewhere. There is no rational explanation for something from nothing.

And that brings me to the pondering of the possible post-earthly scenarios (at least the ones of which I can conceive in human terms) which may pertain. These are the few possibilities that G-d (that's the term that most use when speaking of the “extra-rational” force) lets us consider. There are surely others to which we are not privy.

What is most often viewed as likely is that the end of life is the end of life. Nothing follows it. It is eternal nothingness. (Of course the whole concept of “eternal” is, itself, beyond human comprehension.) While that may be the perspective of those who refuse to believe in belief, it doesn't make much sense for anyone who has accepted the idea of an extra-rational force – for what is the purpose of creating life that is finite and never understands its own role?

Of course “sense” is not the issue (and it's conceivable that “purpose” is inconsequential or meaningless), but it's difficult to reject what we've been taught all our lives. The issue would be the nature of that existence and its purpose.

Some picture an after death experience in terms of observation of the world by us as “angels,” or some other form of unearthly beings. We can see what is happening to our families and everyone else, but can effect nothing, though we can affect others through their memories of us. It's an idea that permits us to believe in a kind of extension of our earthly existence – an afterlife.

For many religions the post-passing period is one in which reward and punishment take place. It is one in which there are “Heaven” and “Hell” and, perhaps, something in between. And that view allows them (us?) to expect the physically, socially, economically, or otherwise deprived to be brought to equal terms, or perhaps to exceed the lot of, those who have followed the “rules,” whatever they are. And it allows the privileged ones to ignore the needy with the view that they will be rewarded later on. On the other hand, perhaps there is also the elevation of those who have sacrificed so that others my have a more rewarding earthly existence.

What constitutes Heaven? Is it an existence of leisure? Is there a “personal” relationship with our Maker? Is it the continuous learning of G-d's laws? Is it the enjoyment of whatever pleasures each person fantasizes?

There other possibilities as well. Some of which we can't even imagine. They are beyond the apprehension of the human mind. We cannot analyze them in rational terms.

The bottom line is that I don't know. And no one else knows either. What we are taught are the beliefs of others, for by the time they are “experiencing” that phase of existence or non-existence they are no longer in contact with us. So all we're left with are the beliefs and fears that we create for ourselves, and that's where I am now.

December 4, 2016

Mixed Grill XLVI

You must fight struthonianism .no matter how tempted you are when you see my posts.    (Look it up in the OED)

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

Istanbul – Constantinople 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trolley dodgers – ER staff

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

Blind sided – Unexpected home construction bill

Bowl we vill – Immigrant proposes American pop sport as entertainment

Penny whys – An annoying little girl's questions

Pound foolish – Crush the dumb (like Penny)

Thirty gays have September – But they're not interested

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

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

Sine qua non – 0⁰

Let there be life – Anti-abortion creed

My heart belongs to Danny – Shifting loyalty

Hope for the beast – Let the Beauty be mine

The big apple – It has big worms

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

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

Pray before you leap – Better than just looking

Social media – Whiskey sours

The time of your life – The “golden” years

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

Début de siecle – When the Tour de France was young

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

You fought too hard.

September 14, 2017

Our Children, Our Food

To begin with, notwithstanding the title, this essay has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift's proposal. Now that that's out of the way I'll proceed with some food for thought. Note as well that this essay and “Our Children, Ourselves” are a unit totally unrelated to other discussions of parenting and written at a later time.

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

Crediting Hashem for our children and the way they turn out, a friend of mine wrote, “I am a firm believer in that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get. If you are lucky, you can move them maybe an inch, but that’s it.” I'm not quite sure I fully agree with it, but I think my view needs a little expansion.

First of all, as I mentioned in a previous essay, I'm sure the child will develop along the lines he learns from his parents and friends, and from his teachers. But even that needs to be clarified. It's more than I said before. I'm comforted by the knowledge that, according the Jewish teachings, there are three who contribute to a child's birth, the mother, the father, and Hashem. But it's not over with that. What comes next is of great importance, not only to them, but to the society, and the world, in which they live.

There's an old, and bad, Jewish joke – a chestnut as it were – that claims to express the meaning of our holidays and our celebration of them. It boils down to “They tried to destroy us. We won. Let's eat.” As I said, it's a bad joke, but in its own way it explains a lot of what we understand about our children and our religion. All references to food and Judaism begin with the “Jewish mother” who is forever trying to feed us – to stuff us – no matter the circumstances. She is our first teacher. We get our initial education along with our mother's milk. It may start as simple comforting and feeding but, sooner or later, leads to the simple stories and ideas of our people. And later on, as the parents set the table for Shabbat dinner, they are preparing their children for the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly the bentching following the meal does so.

Those considerations, however, raise the question of how are children are fed both physically and spiritually. Before Sinai the Jews wailed for food and water. Perhaps, however, they sought Hashem's laws which hadn't yet been revealed. Perhaps their hunger was not only for physical food but for the Torah that revealed to them how they were to live. It would be from the Torah that learned both of their heritage and their future. That was the mahn and the water. And the quails as well. And there they would learn other lessons as well. They'd learn, along with all the other mitzvot, that, according to the laws of kashrut, they should not be eating whatever they want, but what Hashem wants. And they would learn from what they ingested into their mouths and minds, both the physical food and the message it transmitted.

They would also learn, after being instructed to “love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” that if they turned aside from Hashem … the land [will] not yield her fruit.” The words come as part of a paragraph which deals with reward and punishment and, equating “fruit” with Torah and the halakhot, it tells us that if we do not follow Hashem's laws, they would not be ours. A meet punishment.

The same prayer, the Sh'ma, tells “And these words … thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children.” In the end the goal is “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord swore unto your fathers.” Both we and our offspring will be rewarded if what we feed them is not only food for their bodies but for their spirits as well.

It is interesting to give thought to the excesses of learning, for that can be understood to be the transgression of the rebellious son mentioned in D'varim (Deuteronomy). His gluttony can be understood to be the eagerness to go beyond the Torah and learn false teachings. “They [his parents] shall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” That is how his parents might describe the behavior of a son who has strayed from his tradition. He has ingested words and ideas other than those of Hashem, and it is as if he had eaten of foreign fruit.

As parents we have a responsibility, along with all the others, of feeding our children nourishing food for their souls as well as their bodies.

My friend accepts the idea that children are unchangeable. It's possible that we have the same view, only that when she believes “that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get” she is presuming that the development that we teach and encourage is already built into our offspring no matter what we do. Perhaps, but I think it's our responsibility to help them along even if they don't need help. We learn that Hashem's omniscience is compatible with our free will. Similarly proper training of our children does not interfere with the development He plans for them. It is an aid not a challenge. After all, all three of us participated in his (or her) creation.

Let's eat. Spiritually. And let's feed our children the same.

August 31, 2017

Various Thoughts XV

I have no bucket list. There's nothing I want to do that is not part of my ordinary life. I don't mean there is nothing left, only that there is nothing that I find missing from my life that needs to be done before I die. I'm satisfied with what I do and what I have. All I want for my remaining time (may it be long) is to continue living the way I have been up until now. I am rich. According to Ben Zoma, the rich man is "The one who is satisfied with what he has…" I'm satisfied. What I did yesterday I'll do today. I don't need to see Bali Bali.

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

One of the biggest areas of contention in our time is income inequality. There are certainly many who are happy living off handouts, or engaging in projects that yield illegal gains. They're a minority, though, and I won't consider them in this effort. And the issue of the power of the rich – especially the multinational corporations – must be considered as well.

Most people blame the inequality on the rich, without considering why they're rich. They would end incentives to progress. And there is no consideration of how their resources affect others. Perhaps they pay low salaries, but maybe not. Still there are inequalities, justified or not. What can we do? And should we do it?

Perhaps the most striking example of the discontent it has caused was the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” and its numerous spin-offs. The protesters railed against the 1% without ever defining them. Some were involved in business, but many are sports stars and entertainment figures. In fact the latter groups may be the majority. I don't know (I don't have the expertise) but I'm suspicious. They're people we love and admire and who admonish us about whom to elect. And the politicians themselves of course – especially former presidents and others who command obscene speaking fees or otherwise benefit from their influence. In all likelihood the majority of people who make up the 1% aren't those we imagine them to be.

But those issues are misleading. The protest organizers' actual goal is activity rather than achievement – the appearance of accomplishing rather than any actual accomplishment. They're interested in ideology and bragging rights. When confronting the 1% they paint them as evil capitalists who oppress everyone else and who should pay for all of the projects advocated by the leaders of the dissent. And when it serves their purposes, they move on and draw their followers into another crusade.

Notwithstanding the induced antics of the insurgents, however, there is a problem of increasing income inequalities that should be addressed. The problem is a difficult one because it not only involves workers and management, but also stockholders, consumers, those in other countries, economists, advertising firms, and a variety of others. And it involves patent rights, lawsuits by consumers, development of products and services, marketing, as well as numerous other functions. We have laws against usury, laws limiting the amount which credit card companies can charge, Medicare and similar agencies that limit the income of their target groups. And bureaucracies that control prices. Is it possible to limit profits and salaries of executives in some of our companies? And if there were limitations on what could go to stockholders there would be more money available for workers' salaries. Extensive bookkeeping and auditing would be necessary to ensure calculations according to standards established for those industries, but it would allow some diminution of the inequality while allowing reasonably high salaries for a firm's directors.

Similarly, the power and influence of multinational firms should be limited by preventing their representatives them from interactions with public officials – especially those in other countries. Perhaps we're too forgiving of the mergers of large firms when we investigate the economic consequences of a merger and display less interest in the political.

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

A final thought. Cleaning up after a flood or other natural disaster is enormously expensive. Where possible, we might consider ending flood and other insurance if people have collected on it twice. Clearly that couldn't apply to cities or other relatively high population centers.

It makes sense, however, when considering areas at high risk of flood, fire, and wind damage. An area subject to the payment of insurance claims, as well as the cost of repairing infrastructure damage, will be a recurring drain on the resources of taxpayers with the sense to live in safer places. It would require relocation of people from homes established by their ancestors, but perhaps the funds saved could be used to build new towns that are safer than the old. The saving of citizens' lives is even more important than the money.

We might even lower other entitlements to cover expenses. They've piled up over the years but perhaps they were instituted to get votes, and we'd be better off without them. Savings there could also be used for relocation efforts, and even to fund job training so the entitlements would be less necessary.

But our first priority should be to get our citizens out of harm's way. We've gotten better at predicting disasters. Preventing them and protecting Americans would be more desirable, and it might be economically advantageous.

September 5, 2017

There He Goes Again

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but (and I've said this before also) I'm not interested in rereading all my previous essays to make sure I'm not repeating myself.ⁱ One of the joys of aging is that we say the same things over and over. (My wife has heard some of my thoughts and stories ad nauseam, but wedded bliss also has a down side. She knows that, and she usually suffers in silence.) That, of course, is not the only reason I cover the same territory more than once, but my life up until now isn't changing and whatever I've thought I've thought, and whatever I've read is read, so all I have are the resulting views, even if I don't know where particular ones came from. It all forms part of my past experience, which is the major source of my current ideas. And it's well known, and has been for a long time, that there is nothing new under the sun. So if you've heard this before, remember that its repetition is better than the sun burning out.

I have some recommendations for parents. In my infinite wisdom I've lectured them before about how to raise their children, but I want to add to it. It's about education. Although I spent most of my career in medicine in academic settings, I'm not a professional educator. I've never taken courses in how it's done. I've relied on the enjoyment of my subject (Radiology) and the irritating ability I have to needle my students. And to make them think for themselves. And they catch on because they are learning the subject since they want to – they're well beyond the age of compulsory education but they're in the process of learning a trade.

In any case the subject of interest – childhood education – has piqued my interest because of the fact that I'm aging. Never having studied the subject, and having neither basic knowledge of it nor experience in it, I can be completely objective. Lacking the tools of the trade and a life devoted to childhood education, I won't be bothered by subjectivity. I'm purely a dilettante, but so, I suspect, are some of the “experts” who write books and make wise recommendations on the subject. If they can do it, so can I. Judge for yourself.

There seem to be some subjects that I tend to forget as the years pass, areas of interest to me in which I know basic concepts but not all of the ones I've learned more recently. All sorts of memory aids are available, in terms of advice about how to remember and, especially, a plethora of herbal products that their promoters claim will make your brain younger.

And that's just what I need – a younger brain. I need a brain with fewer vascular plaques and more neural connections. I have quite a few, and they've served me well, but some of them don't seem to be working as efficiently as they were in the past. It's not a unique experience, but it is an aggravating one. Some of it may have been avoidable and some inevitable. And I cannot discount the contribution of aptitude to acquisition of knowledge, nor aging as a reason for its loss, but there is certainly a contribution to learning that is based on the input of facts and skills at an age when the brain is prepared to receive it.

And that's what I want to discuss. It's well known that children learn fast – faster than us adults. Which leads to the obvious lesson. The earlier you start to educate your children the better the result will be. It's become an industry – partly sensible, but too much of it is without merit. And too much of it involves parental pressure rather than presence and encouragement.

It is undeniable that professionals are better prepared to conduct educational programs at all levels, but the competition for seats in the “best” schools, and early registration in order get a place for children, is not the way to go. And pressure on children to get high grades is little more than a form of bullying. That's not to suggest that doing well isn't desirable, but too often approval is withheld by parents seeking perfection. (On the other hand, rewarding everyone for everything, including just showing up, limits the value of merited praise.)

Additionally there have been gimmicks. One of the most famous and popular of the commercial entries into the market has been “Baby Einstein.” It is claimed to heighten a baby's understanding of the world around him by the use of classical music. It's alleged that the stimulation that the music provides will lead to an improved vocabulary. And because a parent can “educate” his child without any personal involvement or expense of time it's popular.

However it doesn't improve vocabulary. What seems to help with vocabulary is vocabulary. Surprise. Not a list of vocabulary words read to a baby, but talking and reading and an honest show of affection. Attention and concern (especially by a parent) are necessary. Babies learn a lot, and they learn fast, but they can only learn what we teach them. Perhaps those exposed to Baby Einstein will wind up with increased ability in music, but that wasn't the goal.

Language is skill that babies are best prepared to learn. So childhood is the best time for them to learn it. Even more than one language – preferably separating one from another. As we age we lose the ability to do so. Polyglots usually start young, even if they don't finish their education in the subject until much later. In the meantime they've learned how to learn. They may not be aware of that. It may simply be the development of certain neural pathways, but it's there. And they learn from others, whether parents, teachers, or peers. Language, especially, may be learned on the street from friends. Interaction is important, so recordings aren't likely to achieve very much. Perhaps in the future that interaction will be provided by computer applications, but for now we need people. A machine, however, cannot replace a loving parent or teacher or a friend.

There are, of course, some areas of study that flourish even without parental or societal reinforcement. A genius, after all, is a genius. Math, physics, chess, and some other theoretical subjects (even music) are often beyond the grasp of parents. But encouragement and concern are not. And love is not.

There are no gimmicks. There are inborn abilities and there is love. It's less expensive and far more efficacious than what they're hawking, and what zealous parents are buying. But it takes time and it takes true concern. Sadly that's too high a price for some.

December 6, 2016

I     I'll try not to repeat this idea too often in future essays, but trust me. I'll forget.

Cleveland, Chicago, America

I heard it on the radio this morning. Cleveland won its twenty-second consecutive game. They already have the American League record. The National League (and the Major League) record was set in 1916 and belongs to the New York (now San Francisco) Giants. It's twenty-six and surpassing it, or even reaching it would be quite an accomplishment. But that's not the point. The team has worked together to set the AL record, and they're deserving of enormous praise for that feat.

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series for the first time since 1916. They'll probably get into the playoffs this year, but they're 14½ games behind the Dodgers, who have the best record in the NL thus far. They've slipped.

What happened? What's the difference between the two teams? Three things: talent, teamwork, and confidence. Not to belittle the Cubs, but Cleveland has it and they're inconsistent. Cleveland expects to win each day and they perform. The rest of the league fears and respects them. The Cubs play reasonably well, but it's a day-to-day affair.

And that's the story of America. We're Chicago. It's a place we earned following, first of all, a revolution that surprised the world (or at least Europe). A long period of international political dormancy, then premier status, and now, at best, inconsistency. We used to be the envy of the world, but now, though we have a better than even record – our people are doing well economically by world standards – our performance is inconsistent.

Following World War II the United States was viewed favorably by our friends and with great respect by our enemies. We were the leader of the “free world.” We were rich enough to help out many of our friends and strong enough to keep out our enemies. We showed that strength during the Cold War and held our own until the Soviet Union imploded.

It is not surprising that our riches and the strength offended many nations and people, even if these attributes had been courted with so much solicitude before. When the threat was lifted the solicitousness turned to envy and any offers we made were seen as attempts to impose our values on others. We abandoned our friends and pandered to our enemies. Our rulers backed off and apologized for our behavior without pointing out how our generosity had helped others. And we surrendered to the United Nations our obligation to take action when it was indicated. Some may view it as a virtue to be one of many rather than a leader in difficult times, but we ended up as an ignoble, ignorable, and disrespected nation. Even those we relied on looked at their own situations paying no heed to anything we said. We had counted on them but they no longer counted on us.

Current blusters intended to show determination and dedication are viewed as hollow threats. No one takes our current administration seriously. The demonstrations that our president can not control himself or his own party bring into question our ability to deal with our own needs, let alone those of others. We decline to take actions around the world when we consider them as justified. Someone else has a veto. Our foreign policy is no longer our own.

What can help? Only a pattern of strength, support, loyalty, and honesty. And confidence coupled with teamwork. Talk won't do it. As the cliché states, “Actions speak louder than words.” That, however, is all to the good since most of us are embarrassed by the words.

Chicago is the “Second City.” Has America lost its first place status and dipped into the second tier of countries? Time will tell. But it won't take a century.

September 15, 2017

Windfall

“Lucky you! You just won the lottery and your windfall will make life very comfortable for you and your family. A windfall is a crazy bit of unexpected good fortune. First used in the fifteenth century, the word windfall originally referred to fruit that the wind blew from the trees.”

I just found that definition on line. I was looking for it because I wanted to confirm my understanding of the word. It seems only to have positive connotations, though it derives from damage to a tree. And many trees have suffered from all sorts of insults since the fifteenth century.

I heard yesterday that a woman was suing the city of New York because a tree fell on her and caused significant injury. It's a real tragedy and brings up the question of what is an accident or an Act of G-d and what is someone's responsibility. There were times when the former concept – an accident – was accepted as a reality, an unavoidable fact of life, but those days have passed. Now everything is someone's fault and the deeper his pockets the better. A falling tree can provide a real windfall, especially if its owner has a big bankroll.

Let me provide a little context:

According to The Associated Press, “[Hurricane] Harvey has so far killed at least 70 people who drowned in floods, got crushed by trees and died during power outages -- a surprisingly low toll that experts say reflects heeded warnings, swift action by first responders and volunteers, and no small amount of luck. … In 2005, Hurricane Katrina claimed more than 1,800 lives. Hurricane Ike was blamed for at least 20 deaths after hitting the Texas coast in 2008.”

Other reports tell us that the cost of the hurricane may be as much as $11 billion. That's an early estimate and it will certainly be many times higher, but no one struck by a tree is suing the United States and increasing the cost.

The tree in this case was in Central Park which is under the control of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. Its budget for 2017 was $480 million. “According to the Parks Department, street trees in New York City are pruned every 15 years; in the past, each tree was pruned on average every 7 years. In 2012, the tree trimming budget was $1.45 million per year … In 2013 the Parks Department had fewer than 100 climbers and pruners to maintain all of the City’s 2.5 million trees.” (That note comes from ekilaw.com, a law firm soliciting suits related to NYC tree damage – damage by trees, not to them .)

Acknowledging those facts, it's interesting to note that the woman is suing for $200 million. That's nearly 42% of the Parks Department's entire 2017 budget. The stated goal is to force the city to take better care of its trees. But I wonder if the possibility of a windfall wasn't part of the calculus in embarking on this noble crusade.

Many were killed by falling trees during Hurricane Harvey, and in other storms. No one was killed by this incident which involved one of two and a half million trees. Was it an accident or a result of negligence?

Should taxpayers bear any burden, especially one of this size, for they provide the contents of the city's “deep pockets?” The results were certainly tragic, but concern for the victim, by itself, doesn't justify a lawsuit and payoff. And if the department's budget for tree trimming is one and a half million dollars, even if is decided that the department was at fault for this accident, a suit for $200 million seems disproportionate.

Companies have been put out of business or damaged badly by this kind of vindictive lawsuit. While the suit is presented as a public service, I wonder how often it is simply viewed as a big money maker – a windfall for plaintiff and lawyer alike. And a sympathetic jury is manipulated into facilitating what some may view as extortion. (And lawsuits are sometimes used to delay or destroy projects often because of the ideology of the plaintiff, not the facts. Pier 55 in New York – a $250 million dollar project approved by both the public and political leaders – was stopped after six years of lawsuits by a few people. I read about it today.)

Life doesn't come with a guarantee. It has risks to which we're all subject. There are those guilty of acts that cause harm, but the public shouldn't always be held responsible for unavoidable acts and accidents. (Is the city to blame if someone is murdered within its boundaries?) Notwithstanding the view that it's invariably “someone's fault,” we can't always ensure happy lives or compensation for everything viewed as actionable by a lawyer.

We waste enough money on the whims of our “representatives.” We needn't do it on the whines of all our citizens and their lawyers. Their windfalls are often our losses. A windfall was originally an unexpected benefit. Now it's a business.

September 14, 2017

Lessons From The Akeida

I don't know what I'm talking about. You probably concluded that already, but you view it as something negative and I consider it as positive, an advantage. I'm ignorant. I have very little background in past explications of the Torah. If I don't stand on the shoulders of giants it's simply because I don't know where those shoulders are. I'm free to say what I want. If I agree with what the sages of the past said it is by coincidence, not intent; if I disagree, it is not a matter of disrespect, but a different perspective.

I'm particularly interested with the Akeida at the moment. Some of its lessons resonate with me and I thought I'd explore them.

G-d told Abraham to sacrifice his son. The first verse of chapter 22 of B'reishit (Genesis) tells us that this was a test. Our sages view it as the tenth test of Abraham that Hashem imposed upon our father in order to determine the extent of his faith. The story of the Akeida (the binding for the sacrifice) is a familiar one and I won't repeat it. I will, however, note a number of tests and lessons that I find in the story.

The first lesson is that the story doesn't end where the story ends. His mother's reaction, and the events that followed, although not spelled out or connected must be connected, but I'll discuss that later.

Starting at the beginning, however, Hashem tells Abraham to take Isaac somewhere and to sacrifice him there. He doesn't specify the place. It's all a mystery. Earlier Abraham had been instructed to leave his parents' home – his birthplace and his own home – and travel to a new land. In the Akeida he is given the same message, using the same words, lech l'cha. It's likely that on both occasions Abraham wondered where he was being sent, but in neither case did he question the command. He would go wherever Hashem wanted him to go – no questions asked.

When he went, Abraham made the necessary preparations. He didn't know where he was going but he knew what he would be doing there, so he took along a knife, fire, and wood. Perhaps he would not find what he needed in the mysterious place so he made sure he would have them and could fulfill Hashem's wishes immediately. He prepared to do the mitzvah as soon as it was possible.

Abraham was prepared for the task. And, specifically, he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac. He bound his son, prepared a place to do so, and raised the knife. But he was stopped before he could perform the act. This was, after all, only a test. Hashem knew what would be the outcome of the episode. He knew that Abraham, however saddened at the death of his and Sarah's son, would do what was asked of him, but Abraham didn't know how firm were his beliefs. He might have softened at the last minute and set his son free. The test taught what no meditation could. It was important that he recognize that he was prepared to all that G-d asked of him, no matter how much it “cost.”

In the end, however, Hashem provided a ram as the offering. A door was closed. Isaac would not be sacrificed, but another was opened and a ram would be substituted. Hashem, by the availability of the ram, provided for completion of the mitzvah even under trying circumstances. But Abraham had to want to perform the mitzvah for the “miracle” to occur.

And Isaac had to be willing to make the sacrifice. The only contact he had had with G-d was what was told him by his father. There had been no personal contact. Still he was ready to accept Hashem's commandments and His judgment. Isaac's sacrifice – his life – would be more significant than Abraham's, but it would be made on the basis of the teachings of his father, “tradition,” the first transmission of our faith from generation to generation, but, though younger and stronger than his father, he submitted to the verdict of death without question or complaint – at least none recorded in B'reishit. Judaism was born.

While Abraham was away, Eliezer and Ishmael (according to Midrash) and a donkey awaited him and it is likely that on his return he related the events. The donkey, who I suspect, was an ancestor of Bilaam's, heard and learned that following Hashem's commands and preserving Judaism were praiseworthy, and he passed on the message to his descendants.

But I mentioned Sarah. How does she fit in? She heard an incomplete retelling of the Akeida from a messenger. Believing that the sacrifice had been carried out she grieved and died. Adam and Eve had not grieved the loss of Abel and this is the first occasion on which grief occurred. And it has been a human emotion ever since.

The story ends with the purchase of a burial site for Sarah. Wanting there to be no dispute over the ownership of that site, Abraham purchased the Cave of Machpela on the edge of the field of Ephron. Current events teach us that we cannot trust all of the people with whom we deal. Perhaps we are being punished because Abraham, himself didn't accept the fact that all the land was Hashem's and that all he had seen was granted to him. Instead he acknowledged the idea that there was a human owner and he paid a mortal for land that was G-d's.

Those are the tests and lessons of which I wrote. They were of Abraham and his family and they occurred millennia ago. Or are they tests and lessons for us? Do they guide us in how we should act and Whom we should believe. The Torah was written a long time ago but its lessons are eternal.

September 12, 2017