Doing

Why do I do what I do?

I can think of lots of explanations. Of course I follow the law, although there are times when it doesn't make any sense. I'm hardly the first to point out the gap between the law and justice, but the law's the law. And until it's changed we're obliged to follow it, at least that's the rule. “Right” and “wrong” aren't the issues. Only what legislators have specified are our responsibilities – even if “our” representatives were rewarded by lobbyists for taking such positions.

Let me get out of the way at the outset the force enunciated by Freud – the superego. It is the conscience that we usually ascribe to parental brainwashing, and it's the force that opposes id, which could lead to anarchy. Id tells you to do whatever you want to do, but superego says “no.” It holds the taboos of family and society and, to a very great degree, controls what we don't do. But I'll deal with it later. In the meantime, let me deal with the external forces.

Secular law, and the precedents it follows, have been our guidelines for a long time. The “Social Contract” which was reformulated by Hobbes and Locke (long after Socrates accepted the authority of the state) suggests that people have ceded control to their governments in order to establish conditions under which they can survive. It was up to the state to protect us from oppressors, although there have been many instances of the state taking such a role for itself.

Allowing both secular and religious law, however, especially as imagined in the Age of Enlightenment, sets the stage for both cooperation and a conflict between the two. There is a concept in Jewish law of Dina de-Malkhuta Dina – the law of the land is the law. It is a talmudic principle that we are obliged to follow the secular law that is not in conflict with religious law. There's a long-standing tradition in Judaism to support secular authority. It's an early exposition of the Social Contract. From Avot:

Rabbi Chanina the deputy [High] Priest said: “Pray for the welfare of the government (lit., monarchy), for if not for its fear, a person would swallow his fellow live.”

And there were others – prophets – who conveyed the same message to a people exiled from their own land. But it has its limits in Torah law. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes in To Heal A Fractured World

The existence of a covenant with G-d means that all human sovereignty is delegated, conditional and constitutional. This gives rise to the principles of crimes against humanity and justified civil disobedience. If there is a conflict between the laws of humans and the law of G-d, the latter takes priority. This is the greatest single safeguard against tyranny, totalitarianism and the rule of might over right. It is also the principle that brought into being one of the great moral institutions of humankind: the prophet, the world's first social critic. The man or woman who “speaks truth to power” does so on the specific mandate of G-d himself.

He points out that our first loyalty is to G-d, but we have responsibilities in terms of the secular government where we live.

That certainly provides a background for my actions, but it doesn't really explain anything. The secular laws under which we live were written, and are written still, by people just like us, and our form of government is one in which there is a constant rewriting of statutes by other humans. Some of the laws are wise and should be followed – but, as Rabbi Sacks notes – not all.

And there is extensive debate concerning the authorship and authority of the different levels of religious law. Whether or not one accepts the idea of an original Divine origination, the copies that we have now, and certainly the commentaries, were human creations. Our traditions tell us that they are the will of G-d and that we should follow them, but it is easy to wonder about the authority of redacted, contradictory, and interpreted works conveyed to us by people like us.

Following them is clearly part of our tradition. Or, I should say, traditions. We follow the ways of our parents, our teachers, our shuls or our communities, our geographical areas and the strain of Judaism in which we were raised. But these are all the creations of humans who do things in certain ways, and they're not necessarily in agreement about how things should be done. And they're not necessarily good. Commenting on a musical interpretation. Toscanini said “Tradition is just the last bad performance.” Some attribute the assessment to Mahler, but whoever said it the view is clearly expressed that there can be problems with traditions – people make them, and people can disagree about them.

(To be continued)



December 21, 2016

Men Are Men. Women Are Women.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But not everyone accepts this formulation. It's the current view that people are what they consider themselves – what they think they are or what they want to be. DNA is not what they view as the deciding factor in the mix.

That's the mood of our society – actually of many societies. The watchword of the day is choice, and people are less inclined to be bound by existing scientific concepts or conventions that many associate with the past. It's not all bad but it raises some problems.

Evolution. We're divided into species, which are defined as groups that cannot fruitfully crossbreed. Perhaps they can produce offspring for a single generation, but not beyond. Survival and continuity of the species are important goals. Males and females of particular species are designed to procreate, though the offspring may have individual traits that vary from the “norm.” Homosexuality may occasionally occur but it is not ordinarily the “norm.” Most species are controlled by instinct and not by conscious choice. They don't make decisions based on intellect – not because they have none, but because the issue of sexual identity is not a part of their choice system as are meat and vegetables and territory, and safety.

We're human. We have a kind of intelligence that allows decision-making about a variety of things. And we can think about a lot, including who we “are.” “Who we 'are'” means that we can ponder our sexual identity as well as every other feature. And we can make decisions about that identity – decisions that we expect others to accept and, in recent years, decisions that we expect others to endorse. We no longer feel bound by the definitions and the expectations of the past. We now have LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer people), and transgender as well, so identifying themselves and demanding support and understanding from all around them. And they maintain that theirs is not actually a life-style choice or a disease. They are born with the disposition to their sexual orientation. It's normal, and those who oppose it are bigots.

But “lower” species really show us the way. And the way is about survival of the species. In most instances the male has the responsibility for the survival of the present – protecting his family – while the female, by bearing children, provides for survival of the species into the future. In those animals we see pair-ups in male/female matings, and things seem to work out. “Boy-girl” relationships are usually dominant.

Only human beings, at least some of them, seem to question that course of action, and they are supported by those in society, the public opinion of their supporters, who promote free choice for all on all subjects. In their view everyone should be able to make whatever choices he/she/it wants. If someone deviates from what was the pattern until recently – that of humans as well as other species – it's our obligation to praise such action, not to criticize it. “Right” and “wrong” are better taught by the media than by parents and clergy. Any production or publication that does not feature, that and does not promote homosexuality and transgender identification, is viewed as sexist (much as a production that does not feature a mixed-race couple is racist).

I wonder if that “normal” condition existed in prehistoric times. If, as they say, it's a normal condition for them and they were born with it, we must assume that it's genetic and has been passed down for eons – millions of years, six thousand, or somewhere in between depending on your frame of reference.

And if it's genetic, if it derives from DNA, the response should be obvious: those who favor same-sex marriage should encourage it, but if you oppose same-sex marriage you should also encourage it. What better way to be sure that the responsible DNA doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Win-win. They get what they want and those who don't favor that life-style choice – and it is a choice if we agree that when and where it was considered taboo there were fewer manifestations of that life-style – are likely to see the numbers going down. It may take a long time, but it may ultimately change societal fads and fashions.

The Changing Jewish Heritage

In recent weeks and months there has been a lot of dispute about the control of religion in Israel by the Chief Rabbinate. There are some disagreements among the Orthodox, but most of the complaints come from the Reform and Conservative movements. Maintaining that they are as much Jews as the Orthodox since Jewishness is dependent on heredity rather than practice (a strange claim at a time of increasing acceptance of patrilineal descent, acceptable intermarriage, and the “welcoming” of non-Jews) they demand equal acceptance of their rulings and practices, and equal access to all Jewish sites on their terms. This doesn't seem to be in accord with the “status quo” agreement that went into effect when the State of Israel was founded, but that was then and this is now. The world has changed and there are many, especially Americans, who believe that Israel and Judaism should change as well.

The focus of the argument at this time is the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Wall is under control of the Rabbinate, which requires observances at that site to be according to (Orthodox) Jewish tradition. All services held there must observe its practices – separation of the sexes, traditional services, and others – rather than be change to accommodate those who want something else.

But it's not so simple.

When Martin Luther was born, “Christianity” meant what we now call Catholicism. But his demands, and those who followed him, didn't achieve what he sought in Rome, and the Protestant movement, with a variety of practices among its many adherents, was born. All those who joined the new churches were Christians. They all accepted a heritage which views Jesus as the savior. Many of those in the early church were Jews, but they disagreed with the traditions under which they had been raised. Indeed, those with an uninterrupted matrilineal line from those early Christians are, according to Jewish law, Jewish, though they are, for the most part, unidentifiable and would probably reject the designation. Some, however, would welcome it. There are many who view “converts” as hereditary Jews who are unaware of their family's history and there have been many actions against Jews in the past that forced them to accept other faiths.

In any event, you can be Christian and of another faith than Catholicism. Another faith. A Seventh Day Adventist or a Mormon wouldn't expect the Pope to change the Church's practices because he disagreed with them. Neither would a Pentecostalist demand the “right” to hold services in the Sistine Chapel because he is a Christian. That may be the case – indeed it is the case – but they're of different religions from the “mother” church. The Catholics know it and the Protestants agree.

Similarly it can't be argued that the Reform and the Conservative movements derive from the same source as Orthodox Judaism. But they're very different in many ways. The essay on Reform Judaism in The Jewish Virtual Library reads, in part,

Between 1810 and 1820, congregations in Seesen, Hamburg and Berlin instituted fundamental changes in traditional Jewish practices and beliefs, such as mixed seating, single day observance of festivals and the use of a cantor/choir. Many leaders of the Reform movement took a very "rejectionist" view of Jewish practice and discarded traditions and rituals. For example:

• Circumcision was not practiced, and was decried as barbaric.
• The Hebrew language was removed from the liturgy and replaced with German.
• The hope for a restoration of the Jews in Israel was officially renounced, and it was officially stated that Germany was to be the new Zion.
• The ceremony in which a child celebrated becoming Bar Mitzvah was replaced with a "confirmation" ceremony.
• The laws of Kashrut and family purity were officially declared "repugnant" to modern thinking people, and were not observed.
• Shabbat [the Jewish Sabbath which occurs on Saturday] was observed on Sunday.
• Traditional restrictions on Shabbat behavior were not followed.

Many of the new practices were subsequently abandoned, but the new movement had published its 95 Theses as much as Luther did four centuries earlier, and “Jewish Protestantism” was born. Jews were practicing a new religion that was significantly different from the one that had been observed by their ancestors.

“Conservative Judaism” began as a compromise position between Orthodox Judaism and the new movement but it has since moved to the left and also represents a separate religion. Those who follow it may be “Jews,” but their religion is not Judaism. It may be appropriate to work with them when our needs coincide, but to suggest that we observe the same religion and tradition – that we accept the same heritage as those who follow Conservative and Reform practices – makes no sense whatever.

It's time we recognized that all who label themselves as “Jews” – and there are many who reject the designation entirely – are not of the same religion.

And Israel follows the Jewish heritage even if others don't.

Mixed Grill XLVII

Are you sure you're ready?

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

Full metal jacket – Forget it. I'm not into outrè fashion

Alexander's ragtime ban – Only waltzes from now on

Cat scan – Looking for Mr. Goodrat

Bye bye Miss American Pi – I don't think metrics will change it

Back of the buss – The tongue

Impasta – And the crooked will be made straight. That may be a good thing in general but it's bad for rotini

Ketchup on the rye – Not on my corned beef

I got a son in the morning – Induction you know

Brothel can you spare a dame? -- The beginning of the escort service

My heart belongs to daddy – But the jewelry, condo, sports car, and wardrobe are mine

Pulled pork – This little piggy went to market. Unwillingly

One-eyed, one-horned flyin' purple people eater – I didn't know that unicorn cyclopses were omnivorous. Or purple

Tight end – One beer too many before the game. So he got on his knee. Unintentionally. Actually he fell flat on his face

Rue de la pay – Expensive Parisian mall for American tourists

Don't block the sox – Old warning. Boston variation

Elephant in the room - Say what you will, her father's rich

We will not be moved – They will overcome the landlord

Home plait – Residential hair styling

Altered state – California. Of course they'll deny it

Weigh down upon the Swanee River – The Florida Mafia at work

Mankind – Notwithstanding what feminists say, most are

Buy all you can buy – Great new camo store in the mall

Hello Young Losers – Las Vegas theme

Robin the bot wonder – Talk to Botman's protégé

I never met a dog I didn't like – Far Eastern chef's approach (Allegedly. Please don't accuse me of racism)

Second chance – Do over. I can't tolerate losing, especially when I blew it

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

Ready or not, there I went.

October 1, 2017

Too Much Information

Prehistory. Prehistoric.

Before recorded time there was unrecorded time. I'm not talking about the Universe and its origin and age. From time-to-time I suspect that we'll use our limited resources, not too wisely I think, to answer the questions of curious scientists, without improving the lot of those who are paying the bill. But that's neither here nor there, and it certainly isn't the point of this essay.

I'm more interested in the unrecorded time on earth – the time we call “prehistoric.” Even after the appearance of our species – and there are many others as well – we lacked an understandable written language, and the way to record and transmit it. What happened then?

Santayana, and many others have written that the knowledge of the past is invaluable to us in planning our futures and in avoiding past mistakes. We learn. We “stand on the shoulders” of those who preceded us. But we can only do that if we know what they said and what they did. Hence there are archaeologists, who try to reconstruct the past from evidence left by our antecedents even those who didn't know how to record them, or made no attempt to do so.

They left information though. They left evidence of their existence, their interests, and their skills. They may not have left written histories, but there are paintings and tools, cooking fires and burial mounds, and many other artifacts. With detective skills the archaeologists can determine a little of what preceded us and tell us about it.

But if they can do so without information being created intentionally, what will happen when, a few thousand years from now, they try to piece together the twenty-first century, and beyond? Recordings, movies, television tapes, social media – the mass of information provided by entrepreneurs and the self-absorbed will be massive. It already is.

Consider Facebook and YouTube, for example. There's so much on them to sort through. It may be embarrassing, as almost all of it is, but it tells a lot about our society. As do all of the other sites that allow people to express their views – usually on subjects of no interest to anyone but themselves – and to display the photographs and videos that they've taken on the numerous devices they have. It's money down the drain, and they subject all their “friends” to it. Surely they'll be fascinated as we are.

And, of course, there are the blogs, like this one. I'm not immune to polluting the present and the future with my personal views. I know they'll be of no consequence to others, but that's not my problem.

But what about the future. Ultimately others will look back at our time and try to learn from us as we have learned from our past. What will they find? Fortunately we'll never know. If we did, we'd blush or hide. There's far more than we might want to reveal, and there's no taking it back. Once it's on the computer it, like a diamond, is forever. Or is it?

Do you remember eight-track tapes? And Betamax? The formats are no longer produced. And the devices that played them have no value. Do you remember tape cassettes with computer programs, and floppy discs?

Times change. Perhaps in the future the nonsense we produce today will cease to be of value because the information will be incompatible with the devices they have, and they won't have access to it. We can only hope.

They'll still have our paintings and our tools. And our cemeteries. And by then the space explorers will be returning – perhaps not much older if they've really been speeding – so perhaps they can help out. Or, at least, they'll give everyone other things to think about.

Mixed Grill XLII

Unfortunately there's more where this came from.

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

YouTub – I see you finally cleaned up your act

One for my baby and one more for the road – Another day, another doula

On the road – Kerouac, Crosby, and others

Graphic navel – Work of a tattoo author

French roast – Gallic gaul

Safety net – Mustn't hurt the butterfly

Sexual incompatibility – One early person, one late person, one television set

Security breach – (Breech?) Taylor Swifty

Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket – Actually it was rising stars. They were caught by studio executives with long-term contracts and the movie moguls made much money

Tiger balm – Medicine not alcohol

What would Jerry do? – Turn Tom into a plough share

Country fair – Could be better

Pantry raid – Midnight mayhem for treating hunger

"Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" – "The Alphabet Song" on steroids courtesy of Kermit and others

Penn and Grand Central – Stations of the crass

Beef bourguinon – French complaint

Scenic – Monitor Santa's sleigh in the moonlight

Sumo resting – Fat wrestler sitting on his fat [feel free to add to this definition]

Sneak attack – Surprise roast

A few short words – A, I, O. EU is, unfortunately short on _____ and long on _____

Phenom – Designation of a cost listed on your utility bill, among many others. You don't understand it but you have to pay it

Coach – Money bags

Peter and the wolf – Gilmore is now a member of the Puck gang

Euphemism is a euphemism for lying – Bobbie Gentry

Abandon Hope all you who enter here – Especially Dorothy Lamour

Stain remover – Honor killing

Selfie – Cost of a portable telephone.

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

Don't think you're free of my idiocy yet.

August 18, 2017

Common Sense – Part 2

In apparent contravention of the Constitution's designation of Congress as the lawmaker, it has become common for our representatives to hand a rough outline of their wishes to the bureaucrats to flesh out. It's less time-consuming for Congress to leave the details to someone else. So the rules and regulations that control our lives are written by non-elected but tenured civil servants whose ideas become enforceable law. “The Free Dictionary” (on line) includes the following definition of a regulation – but remember that regulations, though issued as they indicate, “by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress,” are written by government functionaries and have “the force of law” even though Congress may never review them.

A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control.

Regulations are issued by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress. Administrative agencies, often called "the bureaucracy," perform a number of different government functions, including rule making. (Emphasis in original)

For example I can illustrate some of the silliness with tidbits taken from Philip Howard's book, “The Rule of Nobody.” They're only a sample because, sadly, the rules cited are only a minute sample of the idiocy that fills the manuals of those who run our lives. This is only a tiny sampling of the regulations that have been set for the evaluation of almost everything that we do. There are regulations for everything, and we're responsible for doing whatever they say. Logic is irrelevant and these regulations may not seem to make sense, but so what.

In 2011, the Community Soup Kitchen, New Jersey, was told that it must shut down its meal service. No official actually decided that there was anything wrong with the kitchen. For twenty-six years it had served upwards of three hundred meals per day to the elderly and needy, without incident. Members of various church congregations made food in their homes and provided countless grateful people with a potluck meal. That was the problem: New Jersey law requires that all food-service establishments must have their kitchens inspected, and doesn't have a provision exempting potluck meals. The health department couldn't inspect the kitchens of all the contributors, including parishioners from three dozen churches so officials felt they had no choice but to order the pantry shut down.

In 2011 the Colorado proposed new rules for day care centers. [They would be required to provide] “at least two (2) sets of blocks with a minimum of ten (10) per set” … Do regulators expect day care workers to count the blocks each morning? [You can be sure inspectors would.] … After public outcry, the rules were put on a back burner for further consideration [rather than immediately added] to the thirty-seven [37] pages of regulatory fine print that already exist, including that … “the light must be dim at nap time to provide an atmosphere conducive to sleep.”

Kansas code … There shall be no more than 14 hours time between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day. Which means that if someone eats dinner at 4 PM (s)he must be awakened at 6 AM for breakfast or there is a punishable violation by the nursing home.

Also in the Kansas code The nursing facility shall employ activities personnel at a weekly minimum average of .09 hours per resident per day. And Kansas must employ supervisors with mathematical skills.

One restaurant owner in New York was fined because the cheese patties next to the griddle [to be cooked in cheeseburgers] were 45 degrees not the required 41 degrees.

Government is filled with … stories of distortion of public goals to satisfy bureaucratic metrics – for example the end-of-year practice of agencies to go on a spending spree on unnecessary projects so that Congress doesn't cut their budget the following year.

A seventh grade girl in Indiana was suspended for a week in 2010, even though she immediately gave back a pill (for attention deficit disorder) that a friend had put in her hand. The principal said that he had no choice, since she technically had “possession” for a few seconds. Indiana has “zero tolerance rules.” He was playing by the book. It's less clear who wrote the book.

Another rule: Windowsill height shall not exceed three feet above the floor for at least ½ of the total window area. That's a clear indication of compliance. Don't mess with the inspectors.

(See also: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/suffocated-by-red-tape-12-ridiculous-regulations-that-are-almost-too-bizarre-to-believe)

Binary rules like these are innumerable, and there can be no overstating the harm they cause. Their existence allows action without thought. Perhaps at one time some of them made sense, and the rules provided guidelines for action and for the evaluation of the actions performed. But it is unlikely that they ever made sense as “hard-and-fast” limiting criteria for the evaluation of any program. Yet they have become the points of reference by which our acts are judged. (The inspectors view this as following the letter of the law.)

It is no longer necessary to determine whether any particular action is logical – whether or not it is appropriate under the circumstances. Either it fits the previously prescribed criteria or it doesn't. Almost everything that we do has been reduced to components that are either “right” or “wrong.” And those that are “wrong” are not permissible. If an inspector (or, as I will indicate below, anyone else), who doesn't need to really understand what he is evaluating, views any item on his checklist as unfulfilled or improperly fulfilled, the project can, and probably will, be rejected. It's bullying. The need for the project is irrelevant. Whether or not the goals set out are met doesn't matter. And the bureaucrats don't have to go through the tedious job of choosing inspectors who know or care about whatever they are evaluating.

The ability to judge – to find that all the rules have or haven't been followed – provides an industry by itself. When a documented failure to meet criteria exists there is opportunity supplement income by certifying the those criteria have, indeed, been met. It simply takes the joint agreement of the inspector and the inspected, however that agreement is met, in order to find compliance with the rules. We read all too frequently of such situations, with inspectors certifying compliance when it doesn't exist. And they may be more sensitive to real or imagined infractions when outsiders – lobbyists or others – convince them that such a determination will be in their interests.

Who benefits from these regulations? Ideally the public, but because they can be abused, and because they are abused, they often work to the detriment of the public. A lobbyist who gets a rule written that only the company he represents can follow may eventually be the cause of great expense to his competitors and the people they employ and serve. And those who know what the rules are can often find ways around them . Lawyers may specialize in determining what you can get away with legally.

It's often the case that laws, and the rules and regulations that flesh them out, have superseded common sense, substituting thoughtlessness and profit for useful concepts. They have substituted rules for common sense. But from where did they arise? There are, of course legal precedents that are followed irrespective of their appropriateness. But the rules? They come from representatives who have not thought through the implications of what they propose – what they mean in the “real world” and “on the ground” situations. They come from those who would benefit from the rules and have enough influence to have them imposed. They come from bureaucrats and other public “servants” – often long dead – who once justified, or do now, their existence and salaries by writing rules. And the often included their own biases and preferences in them. And the rules, once enacted, became the enforceable law of the land.

And the laws and regulations can be used as excuses to delay or derail important projects. All you need is an experienced lawyer who can find some deviation from a rule written long ago for another reason or which had no use even then. Or institute a law suit that has no real basis.

Can anything be done? Maybe. At least for some things.

It's not plausible that there will be a change in all laws and regulations. Certainly not all at once. Ideally there might be some kind of citizen panel to review them – perhaps one containing “experts” in the law and in the field being evaluated. Of course it would require some kind of agreement as to how such a might be selected, but sooner or later we have to come to grips with the dilemma of such choices. And the expense of the panels should not be overlooked. But if the number of rules and inspectors can be reduced it may be economically beneficial. Right now we're having trouble with other choices. Too political, and the two parties have difficulty with compromises, but that's a separate issue.

The same mechanism should be available when it is believed that a project is being stalled or canceled without good reason. A panel should be established to make such a determination. Some fear that a panel like that will lack the expertise to make a reasoned decision, but we trust juries in cases of life and death. Surely we can trust our fellow to decide that a nursing home should be licensed even if the windowsill is an inch high. We should be controlling the rules. They should not be controlling us.

Similarly State and Federal laws should be reviewed for applicability in the twenty-first century. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be reviewed every twenty years or so – that one generation should not be bound by the laws of a previous generation. Perhaps his view was extreme, but the time comes when the past has passed, and we should update it. It's not an easy proposition and will require a lot of planning, but now is the time to start. The common sense we should have is not that of the eighteenth century.




December 14, 2016

Mixed Grill XLIII

I hope you're sitting down.

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

BLT – Brandy, lime, and tequila. Go easy on the lime

Audubon's Birds of America – Source for the goose

Mail Call – Something for every member of the gang. Chain letters for all

Kale and spinach shake – You gotta' be kidding. It may be healthful (though I doubt it). Anyway, I'll take steak

Organ(ic) meat – Cow tongue in cow dung. No artificial fertilizers. Gluten and GMO free

Bite the Duse – Early, and silent, vampire film with Italian star

Power Point – Just before the Big Bang

Wearing of the grin – He just won the Irish sweepstakes

Columbus discolored America – Did he introduce racism to America or multiculturalism? Whichever is your perspective, he never set foot on our soil

Humpty Dumpty – Boston party planner circa 1773

Meals on Wales – Scouse, crempog, and cawl for example

Relativity – How much your cousin devours at consecutive meals

Fast food – Leg of cheetah with fries, or nothing at all

Social network – Catches all sorts of butterflies

Pomp and circumcise – The bris of the year

When in debt – Try the lottery

I only regret that I have but one laugh to give to my country – Rodney Dangerfield got no respect

Tippecanoe and drown – Actually Whigs float

When the shades of night are falling – Have them fixed. I know this guy who …

Bon appetit – Enjoy the bones

The lost chord – Now I can't even find my khite

Weather report – Thunder

Golden gait – Trotter's goal

Alphabet Soup – Conversation on the internet

The Einstein joke – Einstein on a train asks the conductor “What time does Boston get to this train?”

Protest – Cricket or rugby match

Saturday Night Fever – Peggy Lee's original ailment

Village idiom – You expect them to talk funny so far from society

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

You can stand up now. Especially if you can't stand what you've read.

Paineless Common Sense

Rant time.

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

(A) long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises a formidable outcry in deference to custom. (Emphasis in original)

That idea, which is the opening thought in the preface to Thomas Paine's work, appeared in 1776, but it is the backbone of a serious problem we face today. And though I suspect that similar problems have occurred in the past, we have brought them to a point far advanced from any previous occasions.

The work was Common Sense, in which he presented arguments concerning the justification for the secession of the American colonies. He was an Englishman but it was obvious to him that a separate nation had formed. He didn't view it as an extreme idea, only one that was fully justified by the circumstances he discussed. It was common sense.

Sadly, common sense isn't so common. We are ruled by precedents we don't understand, formulated by people we don't know, and enforced by others whom we never authorized to do so. We have created a class of people trained to use what was written to justify whatever is advantageous. It works for them because they're the ones who do the writing. But they move on and leave their handiwork for future generations. They leave it for us.

Paine's work, and that of numerous others, provided the rationale for the American Revolution, the historical event upon which our society is based. We are ruled by a Constitution that delineated our form of government, and, subsequently, was the basis for many others around the world. We depend on law and on the precedents set before in order to determine what is acceptable behavior. That is the way it was in ancient days, and that has been the more recent procedure as well. Religious law and secular law follow the same pattern. Both are capable of change, but sometimes the change is slow. So there are times when we're left with rules that were thought to be sensible at one time but aren't. But they're on the books. (Some of the most ludicrous examples can be found in American law, and secular law is the focus of this discussion.) For example

In Montana, it is illegal for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays, and illegal for unmarried women to fish alone at all.

New Yorkers cannot dissolve a marriage for irreconcilable differences, unless they both agree to it.

And in Arizona, donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs.

Laws like that are simply silly, and we can laugh at them without any great concern that they'll be enforced. And most of them are specific enough, and useless enough, that their repeal wouldn't be opposed by any sensible individual. They arose as the result of individual episodes, and were forgotten and left in place.

Unfortunately, however, we have other rules that limit us more, and that are unlikely to go away, and we need ways to deal with them. We don't understand them all – often by intent (Nancy Pelosi's comment about HR 3962, The “Affordable Care Act,” however that comment was meant, exemplify the concern: “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....” It is especially interesting to consider the fact that the statute contains 363,086 word while the US Constitution, including all 27 amendments, has 7,591.) Our laws are not known by the vast majority of our citizens, nor would they be acceptable if voters could understand them and their implications. (For example, environmental impact laws make it possible to block projects – irrespective of their merits – and they are often employed for that purpose by those who oppose the projects for whatever reasons.)

It's worth remembering what James Madison wrote

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. (Federalist 62)

Long and unreadable statutes can, in addition, be used to camouflage the benefits they provide for those who support their authors' campaigns. Our representatives have no interest in our awareness of the favors they are doing for the lobbyists, and for the industries that will pay them to be lobbyists in the future. Their “support” of our needs takes the form of legislation to bring projects – often unnecessary projects – to their districts to use as propaganda for the next election. And once they're on the books, people forget about them and don't protest them. They exist, they control, and have the superficial appearance of being right.

Those considerations, however, only illustrate the visible problems. In the words of Al Jolson, “You ain't heard nothing yet.” The invisible ones, and the ones that make common sense entirely unnecessary, pose a different kind of problem. They are the rules and regulations that govern our lives. They are the ones we don't know and, hence, never consider. We never think them wrong. And, as Thomas Paine pointed out, (A) long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises a formidable outcry in deference to custom.

Continued next week.



December 14, 2016

Various Thoughts XVII

Variations on a theme.

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

It's become a frequent occurrence. Sports figures fall to their knees or link arms (or both) when the National Anthem is being played at the beginning of one of their games. They're exercising their First Amendment rights – their freedom of expression. I wonder if they display their love of the Constitution and kneel every time they hear the anthem, wherever they are and whenever it's played, or only when they're in the spotlight and can make a political statement (or are showing unity with their teammates). Does a football star kneel at a baseball game when the anthem is played and everyone is standing?

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

I heard on the radio that the Republican action on the ACA (“Obamacare”) will be defeated in the Senate. The merits of the original bill or the proposed replacement are not at issue here. What interests me is the voting in the Senate. The report stated that four Republicans would vote “no” and, joining all the Democrats, they would prevent the bill from passing. The Senate, and, to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, is ruled by “Groupthink” rather than individual decision making. There is a party position to which all are expected to adhere. It's politics. The candidates for whom we voted based on their expressed opinions on a variety of issues, eventually vote in lockstep, supporting what the party favors and opposing whatever the leaders of the party oppose. There's no room for compromise. In this particular instance there are four Republicans who oppose their party's position. They shouldn't expect party support in the next election if they continue to think independently. All the Democrats are hewing to the line.

And that, sadly, is the rule. More and more supposedly independent “representatives,” our representatives, follow the instructions of party leaders instead of what they have promised to voters. Disregard of the party is of greater significance, and potentially more damaging, than disregard of the voters.

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

I used to think that fashion was a term that referred to clothing, changing annually according to the whims of designers. And it was strictly a matter of economics. By changing what was “in” each year, by building guaranteed obsolescence into every garment, it was possible to stop consumers – especially rich ones – from thinking for themselves. It became a competition. And what should have been choice based on individual preference became adherence to what had been accepted as “right,” at least at that time.

Now I realize that my view of fashion was too constricted, too limited. I had been considering the word while blindered. It's clear now that “fashions” – fads – exist in all fields. All that's required is that the individual let someone else decide what's “in,” and that failure to follow the fashion marks you as an outsider.

That's what has always been, and that's what we see all around us now. Certainly clothing fashions – even lower end, like baggy pants and garments that are torn – are involved (although among a different group from those who prefer Paris offerings) as well as slang, sexual mores, television programs, tattoos and the like. Most significant in my view is the readiness of people to protest whatever the “smart” people tell them is evil. Although the protesters are usually opposed to the “system,” they march at a moment's notice, often without any real knowledge about the particular situation to which they are objecting. But it's “in” to be part of the movement. And even more so to be arrested for “exercising your rights.” Especially if you're a lower level politician who needs the publicity to work his way up. It's in fashion to protest. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Everybody's doing it.

Fashions and fads permeate our society. And you'd better adhere to them or you'll be exposed on Facebook.

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

All of these are permutations of the effect that society and conformity have on the individual. And it's increasing all the time. Soon enough we'll all look alike and have the same opinions, or we'll be ostracized.

September 27, 2017