Presumption Of Innocence

I have in my hand a list of 37 State Department employees who are members of the Communist Party or are fellow travelers.

            McCarthyism. Bad.

9 women have accused X of making the workplace uncomfortable.

           Accusations of sexual harassment. Good.

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

He is running in the election against our president. He is an enemy of the state. Send him to Siberia.

           Political dissent. Unacceptable.

Burning the flag and your draft card. Fleeing the country.

           Political dissent. Laudable.

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

Buying products made in China.

            Supporting a unfriendly government. Risky.

Buying American.

            Prices may be higher but it's for our own benefit.

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

Supporting the Founding Fathers (bigots) and the Constitution (bigoted).

            You're a bigot too. (Acceptance of a contrary idea constitutes – requires – a label.)

Letting the president and supreme court decide what's in our best interests. They know better than we what's good for us. Forget Congress. They can't make up their minds anyway. They'll never pass the Taylor Swift act even though American lives are involved.

            You're a patriot.

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

“I know you're an atheist but I pray for your eternal soul.”

           Hate speech. Bad.

Rape.

           Clearly a crime of love. Good.

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

Stand for the National Anthem.

            Support for our country. Perverse.

Kneel for the same.

            Loyalty to justice. Opposition to fascism. Admirable.

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

You may not agree with all these assessments. That's up to you. You have a right to your own opinion. You're free to express your own ideas. But you have no right to impose them on others. Sure, you have no sanction for harming another, but, as the German folk song says, “Die Gedanken Sind Frei.”

The American Constitution, which you may or may not support, includes this position, although there are different interpretations of what the guarantee means – especially when it seems to conflict with another right. Still, it's there. In the First Amendment. It's part of the basis of the American system of justice. As is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.

That's not the way it always works, however. The only swift justice we provide is a lynch mob.

I heard on the radio yesterday that Garrison Keillor was fired by PBS because he is alleged to have touched a woman in an uncovered part of her back. What part of her back was uncovered and why, were not disclosed, but Mr. Keillor claims that he was only giving her a hug of comfort at a time she was saddened. In an age where hugging is in fashion it's difficult to fault such an act. In any event, the System decided that no explanation or justification was necessary when they terminated him, and the media decided that the incident was newsworthy.

But that's the current Zeitgeist. Trials no longer are reserved for the courts but are the arena of politicians, the media, police departments, and the public. And the last category includes industry leaders, who fear the public relations and economic implications of association with someone tainted by public and media outcry. There has been a sudden rush to reveal past indiscretions – mostly the responsibility of others – which they feared to mention earlier. Skin contact is harassment, though I must admit that I shook a woman's (ungloved) hand once. It's important, as Mr. Keillor has learned, to find out what skin is off limits and if there are any exceptions. The presence of a duéna (chaperon) at all times would help to solve this problem.

A similar topic is dress codes. Men are justifiably accused of exposing themselves to attract a woman's attention. A woman may achieve the same goal by covering herself in alluring clothing – long splits in long skirts or none (needed) in short skirts, see through clothing, exposed undergarments (especially from Victoria's Secret), and clothing that emphasizes or discloses body parts. Women claim that they like the outfits, but they are designed (usually by men) to attract men's attentions. And if they are successful it is those wearing them who are being harassed.

Notwithstanding the long delays in the disclosures (by the way, as a child I was a liberal, though that is not true any more, since I want to distance myself from the left's predisposition to prejudice – especially antisemitism and Islamophilia), Ill take them at face value and support trial on the evidence (though it is hard to imagine what evidence apart from claimed personal recollections my be available decades after the incidents) if that is the wish of the involved parties, but if not, or there is no conviction, they should be presumed innocent (though it's hard to regain a reputation tainted by conviction in the press which, at times, acts as judge and jury). That's the way it is with most other accusations. And even if we suspect jury tampering or threats, if a court finds a defendant “not guilty” he is not guilty. And it's virtually impossible to get your name off the sexual offenders registry. (And the drunk drivers and bank robbers registries for that matter. Oh, wait. There are none.)

That's enough ranting about the specific. In general, however, my concern is that we get what we contracted for – swift justice and the presumption of innocence unless legally convicted of whatever it is that we are accused of doing. It may not get the press as much attention as current practices, but it's a lot fairer. We cannot correct the wrongs of the past with wrongs of the present. It's clear that society now encourages speaking out so that arguments in the future about not doing so will be less believable. And early trials, in the courts, are needed without overexposure in the press.

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

I said just yesterday that the essays to follow would only be fragments, but the situation with Garrison Keillor was more than I could handle in a short note. I'll try to prevent the long- winded ones in the future.

November 30, 2017

Fragments I

Sexuality

I started this recently but I have more questions than answers – both on this subject and others. In fact I've started a bunch of essays, but lack the patience to finish them. They contain ideas I haven't worked out, but the questions come rapidly and time is limited, so I leave it to you to work out the kinks, or whatever else you find. If you're interested. You can send me your take (if you want to) via “Comments” at the end. Sometimes they'll involve one subject and sometimes there'll be multiple subjects – like “Various Thoughts.” Not to worry, though. All will be named “Fragments” so you can decide to skip them if you choose.

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

Over the years the conversation has changed. When I was growing up, sex was a taboo subject but now it's part of normal conversation on the radio and television; in the media, the movies, the theater and even in political conversations.

And when I was growing up, no one talked about homosexuality; the group now designated as LGBTQ didn't exist. No one discussed ED or other sexual dysfunction. There was no such a thing as sexual dysphoria and transgender conduct. Either they were all well hidden or they didn't exist. It's now fashionable to introduce sexual issues at all possible times. The closet door is open and no holds are barred.

But in addition to discussing the joys of sex, there has been an upturn in the extent of talking about sex itself, and it's effects on society. Not only does this involve sexual preferences and practices, but also their misuse – especially in the past.

Men have always been men and I doubt that there has been a significant change in the number of rapes, although terminology my be different since the institution of marriage. It's reasonably certain that political affiliations don't affect the incidence. Whether you favor evolution or another mechanism, as the cause, but is the current flurry strictly a result of DNA?

And women have always been women. Lysistrata made it clear that divisions of power were not absolute. And Joan of Arc, various saints and courtesans, the Amazons, and what we can glean from a plethora of historic and literary works suggest that not very much has changed over the years apart from society's reaction to the situation, and the conversation.

In recent days there has been a spate or stories, accusations, allegations about sexual abuse, although there is no good definition of the term. Most of them relate to incidents that are said to have occurred decades ago, and are being reported now. Which raises two questions – why are they being reported in such an inflammatory manner, and why now – following the admissions of an admitted participant who was elected president, although prior presidential misbehavior usually went unpunished or was ignored or played down? Whether the confrontations occurred is not the issue. It's likely that's so in most (but not all) cases, though the recollection of detail may be faulty, or self-serving, or both. In days past the accusers would have been suspected of collaboration. It would have been assumed that the women were trading themselves for employment or other fiscal advantage and were complaining that they didn't get what they wanted, or they were somehow trying to shift the blame to someone else lest their families disown them.

When, and this probably applies to most cases, the accusations were factual, the delay may have resulted from fear of retaliation by the powerful man, or shame concerning the incident. The current slant of society places greater emphasis on the complaints and the likelihood of guilt on the accused. One accusation breeds many, primarily of actual incidents, which are usually remembered favorably and involve famous people – newsworthy ones with deep pockets. I discussed this situation before, but I'd look at the issue from a different perspective now.

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

Large number of allegations about sexual abuse (needs definition). (Slacks and drab outfits are satisfactory during the day but, more alluring outfits are used in romantic situations, though the women my claim that they are wearing what they like.) Allegations by a wide variety of men against both men and women years, and decades after the events cited are dealt with in other subsequent essay.

Why do women prefer enticing clothing but deny that it is men they want to entice?

Now Why, And Why Now? – “Justifications”

Societal, fear at the time, revenge, self-image, political, bandwagon, profit, fame

What constitutes “consensual?”

Calendars – cheesecake, beefcake

Whistles

Does it matter who says? – “nigger” or “bitch” – Is it permitted among some?

“I love it when you talk dirty” – Men and women”

At what point does dirty talk become an offense?

Sexuality

Men speech, women clothing –Both may incite “unwanted” contact.  Sages mandate tznius clothing by women so as not to incite their passions.  It was a problem then.

Some women state that a woman's search for sexuality is the same as a man's. Should an accusation against a woman rate the same headlines as on against a man? Should the penalties for the two sexes be the same?

Demand for equality despite DNA. Some women want to be the “same” as men irrespective of the differences. What should be the response to demands for equal salaries for those who want to choose their own work hours or have less experience on the job?

Sports handicaps – Should they persist or has Billie Jean King made equality legitimate and a 5' 2” woman should be welcomed into the NBA?

November 27, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 8

Have you ever noticed a strange smell in your house? It's more common in the country than in the city. Smells like a dead animal but you can't locate it? Don't be surprised. You're not equipped to. Evolution may have improved your intellectual standing above the “lower” animals, but it has taken away much of your ability to locate and identify odors and their sources. Most of us don't eat roadkill or its variants, so why be able to identify and locate it?

Cats For Rent would solve this problem at a rate cheaper than an exterminator. No white jackets and fancy equipment. Just some hungry cats (they haven't been fed in days – it lowers costs and improves results) that are let loose in your residence. If they can't find the source quickly, no exterminator can. And in addition to cash for their owner, you've provided food for starving animals. It's all very green.

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

Who's around to hear what people will say at his funeral. OK. At a roast of an entertainment star people speak up while you're still alive, but they usually insult you for the laughs. Very nice, very friendly, and totally insincere.

What you really want to hear are compliments – whether deserved or not. That's insincere too, but you want to take it seriously, and you want the guests to do so as well. Some of what the speakers say will be true but most will be exaggerated. So what. It's the first time in your life (wrong word?) that you're shown the respect you think you deserve. But you never hear it. The words either don't get into that wood box, or you don't hear them for some other reason.

There's batting practice before a baseball game, rehearsals before a show opens, and even preplanning of a funeral. Why not include the rehearsal of a funeral service so the guest of honor will hear the accolades. He can even edit and add to them so no one will be unaware of the accomplishments he considers most important, but which would probably be omitted by those who don't know him a well as he does. Or are less impressed by the “accomplishment's” importance. And he can suggest “slaps” at those who offended him.

It would be a good money raiser for the funeral home and, with an unhealthy meal following, there may be some heart attacks that will up the earnings..

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

There's a spate of accusations of sexual abuse going around. They're usually blamed on men and attributed to DNA that lets testosterone run loose, and society's willingness to overlook the idea that “boys will be boys.”

Those are certainly contributing factors, but not the critical ones. Periodically we read about a female predator – usually a school teacher or someone in industry who heads a department or section. In those instances, testosterone isn't the issue – power is. Control. Women took advantage of men or boys who feared that their rejection of their superior (or squealing) would result in punishment, while acceptance of the “opportunity” would lead to advancement. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts.”

Which leads me to a simple solution, and a chance to kill two birds with one stone. (Actually two directly and others in passing.) The answer is to bar men from leadership positions in all fields until a clear pattern of sexual abuse by women is established. The “one stone” of which I wrote would, along the way, immediately shatter the “glass ceiling.” (Other likely results would be that there would be a change in the pattern of wage inequality – perhaps only the direction – and an alteration in birthrate statistics.) What the Hell. It's worth a try.

November 21, 2017

Mixed Grill Number N

I won't give up even if you say you don't like these.

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

But soft. What light through yonder window breaks? – Westinghouse soft white light. But what breaks the window is a golf ball.

Toscanini – Mindless opera lover.

Cutie Pie – Who knew quince and tangelo would go so well together?

Television – Speak to a spook.

Sincere – It's too darned hot.

Parsimony – Cost of a wedding. License extra.

Down by the riverside – The feral dogs had goose for dinner last night.

Sextant – Send naughty message to mom's sister.

Palestine – Crius and Eurybia's son invented a new drink, and then the right cup.

L. L. Bean – Overpriced clothes from overpriced wrapper.

Syntax – Worth every cent.

David – Nathaniel Parker.

Hopalong Cassidy – Dance or I'll shoot your other leg.

Concierge service – Same service but higher price.

Rin Tin Tin – Dog for Hergé's creation.

Bookie of the month club – Pay up or else.

Past participle – Now that you passed it, move on to Perfect.

The Last of the Mohicans – Styles change.

I'll take the high road – Accompanied by Mary Jane.

Skeleton key – See MANIAC list or visit Loch Ness.

Thumbs – Look-alikes on social media and future fortune for orthopedists.

Never give a sucker an even break – Crush it over ice cream.

13 “Likes” – Mindy used 13 “Akhs” in her Assyrian Facebook entry. At least in the first sentence.

G rope – Go for the G string.

Crosby, Hope, and Bowdler – Morocco bound

Kill time – Might as well before it kills you.

Don't kill the messenger – Hough him and let him crawl back.

In the twinkling of an I – Narcissist's hopes and dreams.

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

Well I like them. At least most of them.

November 21, 2017

Safe Spaces And Dangerous Places

I've come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous places around is home. Not physically, but from the perspective of free speech. I arrived at that determination after learning that one of the reasons that academic institutions were establishing “safe spaces” was that students wanted a place to express their own opinions, and didn't want to hear someone offering anything that was in conflict with it. It's likely that in their own homes they were expected to be seen but not heard. So what they couldn't say at home was what they sought to have a place to say in the university.

It's a noble idea to want to exercise your right of free speech, although I think that the students, and more regrettably the universities, are missing the point. It was my (naïve) belief that one of the main purpose of higher education was to expose the students to ideas that differed from the ones with which they were familiar. It was all part of the learning process, and the goal was to prepare students for the “real” world where they would have to hear such ideas and analyze them so they could make their own decisions.

Perhaps I was mistaken, and I am confused about the role of the university. If those in academia consider their obligation to be to make students comfortable, the approach is reasonable. As would more parties be, except that some of their charges may take such revelry as a form of “microaggression,” and they might be offended and protest.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding both the university's goal and the way that it is satisfying student needs during the time that it is broadening their perspectives. Unlikely as it may be, the path to the toleration, and, indeed, the celebration, of real free speech and education may be viewed as requiring students to be led there slowly. And universities bay be subtly trying to bring their novices to that path.

Trying to imagine how that might be done, I wonder if what these in loco parentis institutions do is to assign every new student to a single room where there is no one to disagree with him (or her). Any visitor to that room will be expected to agree with all the opinions he expresses. And that means that when he visits a friend in another room – and college freshmen (and women) are a gregarious lot – it is incumbent on him to listen to, and to agree with, the views expressed by the room's occupant. Whether or not he agrees with what he hears, if he wants friends he'll have to tolerate their views. Maybe he'll even pay attention to what they think, and the thinking behind it. Sometimes the views of others make sense.

Having said it, however, I don't believe it. From what I've seen in the media, I am of the opinion that the universities are among the most dangerous places for learning that exist. Blame it on society itself if you choose, but there is an increasing focus on the spoken word and its implications. Fearing offending others and the “slippery slope” of faulting those who fault our society, students slide, instead on the slippery slope of intolerance of opinions that they think may not be popular or in keeping with their own. They don't want to hear them, and they don't want others to hear them. Instead of free speech, which they claim to support, they favor limiting speech to fashionable opinions – opinions in which they've been indoctrinated.

And the universities are supportive. Many of the faculty came of age at a time when rebellion and opposition to “the establishment” were de rigueur and they applaud, and encourage, such an approach on the part of those under their tutelage. It is their mission to inculcate distrust in them – distrust of the culture in which they live and distrust of any who support it or who disagree with them. People like that are wrong and have no right to be heard. They're Nazis, or supporters of apartheid, and their views are invalid and disruptive. Disrupting them is perfectly right and necessary.

And university administrations all too often cower before such forces. “Cower” may be the wrong word because it implies an unwilling surrender to superior forces. (Superior in strength, not wisdom.) All-too-often, unfortunately, the administrations agree with the actions of the masses. It's easy to attribute to inexperience and fearfulness, to the apprehension that faculty, students, and, most importantly, the press will view them as supporting unfashionable causes if they take a stand against mob censorship, so they either take no action against protesters or support them. The university is not a safe place for those who don't agree with majority opinion, even if that opinion is uninformed.

Home may be seen as dangerous, but the places to which many of our youth – and the teachers of the future – “escape” are far worse. Indeed, they are not safe spaces but the most dangerous to which they can go.

January 2, 2017

A Change For The Holiday

Happy Thanksgiving.

I think. (Though thinking is not encouraged all that much nowadays.)

With all the PC emphasis, there has been a suggestion that we change the name of the holiday we celebrate today to “Day of Atonement.” After all, others got here before we did so we had to steal the land from them. And since then, look at all the sins we have perpetrated. Were we not here and society in control of those who lived before Columbus the world would be a much better place. (Indeed, Columbus was one of our first embarrassments. He slaughtered many of the land's true owners, and introduced diseases that weakened or killed many of the survivors.)

And what have we done since then? We've oppressed. We've fought wars, burdened our own people, ignored the woes of others (of whom we've always taken advantage) and sinned in many other ways. We're weighed down by guilt. And it's real guilt – not simply imagined.

Most of us don't recognize our evil so those who do must eternalize the concept. So it is up to the sensitive and perceptive among us to do so – to make sure it is the backbone of the emerging catechism of the newly emerging secular American religion. And the focus of that religion is not G_d but people like us – people only concerned about ourselves. We're no longer interested in theology of the type practiced in the past. So it is our obligation to make it disappear like the history we find offensive.

The best solution is to secularize the holiday. It is not appropriate that we show appreciation for the benefits we have received from our Creator. After all, we stole them – often killing in order to do so. We cannot congratulate ourselves for bringing peace to the world – what we have suppressed we have done with nuclear weapons which threaten more that they reassure – and war continues anyway. We support tyranny, in our own country as well as internationally. We are guilty of sexism, racism, ageism, and, though the proponents of change do not note it, egotism. We have many other faults and rather than celebrate our good fortune, it is more important that we eradicate it and grieve the evils we have created for ourselves and imposed on others.

We have become a self-obsessed society, mostly because some self-obsessed people cannot abide our good fortune and, instead, blame ourselves for it. They cannot tolerate our gratitude for our accomplishments, blaming them, instead, on what we have gained at the expense of others. And when they cry, they don't want to do so alone. If they are suffering, so should we.

And we should be atoning as well, not thinking about the idiocy of the proposal.

Superheros

Our culture, one of mesmerizing electronic communication, decreasing recognition of reality, and a change in our reading habits and our heros, has been taking place. The understanding of our world, long a subject that used to require both effort and education, has been replaced by Wikipedia and Google, and classics of the past have been replaced by today's graphic novels.

But the heros whose feats we celebrate are aging, and it is becoming harder and harder to relate to them. They do not reflect us – our lives and hopes as Superman (1933), Batman (1939), and Wonder Woman (1942) did in the past. And the ones who have been appearing to assist and replace them are false syntheses based on Harry Potter, and by other such dissimulations as have captured the modern imagination – books, movies, and toys.

If they are to be replaced and accepted, it should be by real people – genuine characters who reflect us. They shouldn't be mythical or mystical constructs, but heros who mean something to us – who would be loved, and who would be representative of the kind of people we are. They would exemplify the diversity of society. In search of such real people I consulted my copy of Encyclopedia Remarkabilia (Extraorinaire Publishing Company) to locate typical members of our society on whom we could and should call to save our society. I offer two of them for your consideration. There are, of course, many others who are equally deserving of our honor.

Smyrna and Magnesia Miller were identical male twins born in a small town just outside of Keokuk, Iowa (between Keokuk and Alexandria) where they grew up unhappily. Both had gender dysphoria and both considered themselves female, but because of outdated scientific beliefs, they were not permitted to transfer from the male wrestling team at their high school to the female team. At the age of fourteen they were both bitten by the love bug (a tick) whose body fluid had three different kinds of effects on them: superimposed on their male DNA and their muscles, they had the power and wiliness of Amazons, and, secondly, the bug also had implanted in them, a love for each other. (It wasn't clear whether the two of them were translesbians or transgays, but it was certain that their passion for each other constituted incest.)

It is the third effect (not to mention their costumes), however, that makes them well-suited for the role we call upon them to play. They're able to divine whether others are telling the truth. This relates to both what they believe to be true and what they know to be factual. They can alert other superheros – at least bona fide ones – as towhether someone is disclosing his true identity (especially gender) and making valid statements or claims on which the others must rely. It is the ability to sense when all is not as it appears.

Their strength and cunning are also of help when it comes to helping the others out when there is a desperate situation. But though they sometimes work alone – a nod both to females and members of the LGBTQ community – they would more frequently assist their superhero colleagues.

Wouldn't it be exciting – wouldn't it be refreshing – if twenty-first superheros looked like twenty-first century people; if they looked like you and me?

Oh.

They don't look like you?

Your fault. Learn the drill. It starts with sensitivity. And truth.

Mixed Grill XLIX

More colorful words to dye for.

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

You herd it here – Advertising slogan from Texas

NAZI – Nauseating Anti-Zionist Imbecile (in this context “Zionist” is a code word for “Semitic,” while elsewhere it may mean “Israeli,” “Israel,” “Jew,” or “Jewish”)

Gatorade – Crocodilians went from the boys' camp to the girls'

Chop sticks – Ax handles

Farcebook – What can I say with a straight face about that waste of time. Lots of time

ETD – And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you

Ginger ale – Rail against soda

Bejeweled Deringer – Show gun

Brexit – Engress

Wattever – Any light bulb will do

Kickapoo joy juice – It ain't just for breakfast anymore

We're on the same page – unfortunately we're using different books

Head set – Ralston. Music during breakfast without disturbing anyone

Oxymoron – Creation of a moron

Tit for tat – Not tot?

Saving grace – What about Private Ryan?

A house is not a home – Nor anything but a grandstanding doctor

True grits – Breakfast of champions (credit: Naomi Rosen)

Gun of a son – Forgot to lock it up, did you?

All's well that ends – Well, maybe not all

To be or not to be – Don't worry young Hamlet, there are social promotions for all, even the antisocial

Wine and women – Sing for your supper

Eat, drink, and be merry – Like Santa Claus, ho ho ho. Merry Saturnalia

Adam and Yves – The first gay couple (It didn't last until the transgender surgery. Cain and Abel were adopted. Don't see Genesis)

Social media – Friendly psychics

Den of iniquity – Any office nowadays

Pi r² – Nonsense. Pies are round (except some rectangular pizzas) . Cakes may be squared

President of the United Stats – Used to be a math PhD

The Greatest Story Ever Told – Winner of liar's contest

Pray before you leap – Look also

The mother of all wars – So who was the father?

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

Jackson Pollack had nothing on me.

September 3, 2017

Speculation

Perhaps I'm just being morbid, but (and I suspect I've said this already) I've been pondering the different scenarios that may follow death. I imagine that I'm not alone in these thoughts – that they're universal. People wonder about what's to come, and they always have.

One of the main themes of some of the religions is that death evens the playing field: good is rewarded and evil punished irrespective of apparent treatment during life, although there is a view that reward and punishment even occur in an earthly setting. And that a Divine power watched over us all and treated us fairly. But it was not always clear. While arguing the fate of Sodom, Abraham asked G-d, Shall the whole world's Judge not do justly? The issue of theodicy is ancient.

However its age doesn't make it any more sensible than it is otherwise.

Job knew he was right, but the author of the Book Job of didn't go so far as to say that G-d was wrong. Those who came to speak with him attributed the problem to him, clearly believing that G-d was always right, so Job must have been wrong if he was made to suffer. In the end, however, G-d makes it clear that He doesn't have to justify His acts to anyone. We don't understand and we can't. It's a mistake to try. It's not sensible.

We've always tried to make sense of the unknown. We've always tried to explain it. But however logical our explanations, whatever our interpretations of the understandings we have received, they're either wrong or, at best, incomplete and problematic. Mythology, religion philosophy – all are attempts at explanations of what we don't understand. But they're all found to be faulty by subsequent evaluators and interpreters. They're really our speculations, our guesses, our theories about what lies ahead.

Perhaps we're trying too hard. We don't understand, and we're foolish when we try to do so. We are using human concepts to try to understand the Divine. Whatever we hypothesize is bound to be wrong. It's an oversimplification of an unknown. We don't even have the language, let alone the ideas needed for us to understand.

According to scientists, there are countless dimensions. They've determined this from mathematical calculations. What does that mean? I, and virtually everyone else, don't know, however people accept this unintuitive judgment, even though many won't accept the idea that there may be a spiritual or religious dimension. Einstein has taught us that our understanding of time is erroneous, and everyone concurs with his formulation, whether or not they comprehend it. We argue endlessly about evolution and “creationism,” yet we know that sooner or later new theories will be presented, and some of the old will be discarded. For now, science and reason are our benchmarks, even if we don't fathom what they are telling us.

What's the problem? We're human. And the languages we use as well as our ideas are human. We have no idea if our words and out formulations would make any sense in a world other than the one we're in. Any scenarios we propose for an “afterlife” are based on human ideas and there is no reason to believe that they make any sense. All our speculations are meaningless. We do not understand G-d (Viktor Frankel, in The Doctor and the Soul notes that, in relation to a Creator, For thousands of years [the Creator] has been called G-d, so this term will have to do irrespective of other preferences by some) and any theories we have are irrational. [Please note that words, as used here and hereafter – not in the “hereafter” – whether referring to right and wrong, rationality, or whatever, are to be understood as referring to human understandings, and, therefore, have meaning only in this world.] Put otherwise it means that any ruminations, any rational ideas about what happens after death, however appealing they may be, are irrational.

That's not entirely true. Though I reject rationality, there is one lesson that I have learned from the rationalists, and it is that there must be some Divine or extra-rational force. They've taught me that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get something for nothing – every result has a cause. And you don't get something from nothing. So if there is a Universe, some force must have created it. Even if someone believes that the laws of physics permit mass to be formed from “nothing” [and stay out of the way if it happens again] those laws had to come from somewhere.

But if any attempt at visualizing what happens in the next world is irrational, that is not the case regarding our responsibilities in this one. Even if we cannot define G-d and our relationship to Him, we can try to define our obligations to our fellows. The same Einstein who ruminated on celestial matters said Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile. Our ultimate fate may be unknowable, but our knowledge of right and wrong – and this is all but universal – tells us that we must feed the poor and help the needy. Whether or not we'll be rewarded for our concern for others is irrelevant. There's no speculation on this score.

December 22, 2016

The Suspension Of Disbelief By The Public

Women Claim Plumber Fondled Them

Cheerleader Accuses Star Quarterback Of

Making Her Feel Uncomfortable

Drug Clerk Charged With Groping By 23 Women

Suppose those headlines appeared in the weekly editions of mid-west papers. Would the stories be covered by the major media?

Women Claim Senatorial Candidate Fondled Them When They Were Young

Intern Accuses President Of Bedding Her

Numerous Women Reveal Sexual Demands of Billionaire Producer

How about these from major east coast organs?

We're titillated by the fall of the mighty and not interested in the human faults of the poor. The truth of the accusations is irrelevant.

Why are charges like these leveled by so many so long after their occurrence? One possibility is that at the time of the incident they were fearful and intimidated. Their willing participation would not have been well received if others knew what happened. Another is that the facts are not as they claimed or that they were the initiators of the interaction which they describe inaccurately. Or maybe they never happened.

But that doesn't account for the frequency with which they are leveled, and the eagerness of those purported to be victims to talk about them. And there are times when the accusations come at politically sensitive times – like just before an election Is it significant additionally that charges are often labeled against those with deep pockets?

It's likely that much of what they claim is true. That, however, doesn't account for the flurry of accusations coming out now. (It should be noted that there are no convictions, only accusations, but the politicians and the media have already tried and convicted those accused and they have made clear to the public what their judgment should be.) There is no question that wrongdoers should be punished, but in most states (but not all), while there is no statute of limitations for rape and violent sex crimes, there is a limit for bringing charges against someone accused of a lesser offense and, decades past the time of commission of the alleged offense, there is no remaining evidence (if there ever was any) of the crime. It's “He said, she said,” and the accusation can only serve to embarrass the one accused – often during a political campaign – serve as the basis of monetary litigation whether justified or not, demonstrate the claimed victimhood and virtue of the accuser, or simply serve as a cry for attention.

In all likelihood men, and male DNA, have not changed in the past few million years or so. Men have always been the sexual aggressors (though sometimes women have consciously provoked that behavior – I'll deal with the more complete issue of the sexes in a future essay) and the question that arises is why, all of a sudden, there is a rash of complaints. It could be that societal norms and expectations have changed, or it could be a political tactic, but it has now become common, and fashionable, to claim sexual abuse by someone famous. And the pattern is to accept the accusation – with or without confirmatory evidence – and reject any denials.

Our society has become sympathetic to the cries of women. And, perhaps justifiably, sensitive to all their needs.

And the press and politicians are playing it for all it's worth.

November14, 2017

Mixed Grill XLIV

Mega version. My mind (such as it is) kept whirring.

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

My neck of the words – I'm hung up on some modern slang

Anywhere I hang my head is a noose – The bigger they are the harder they fall

Waterbot – He talks a lot but where is he when you're really thirsty?

May the force be with you – But don't touch any exposed wires

Oktoberfest – July statistic

Not your father's boxing match – And certainly not your mother's

Give no quarter – Rockefeller only gave a dime. You're no better

Let sleeping dogs lie – Awake politicians do so

The way of all flesh – Take it up with the Department of Health

The way of all flush – Check it out with the Sanitation Department

State of the onion – Washington

Gang Bang – Stay out of the way when the Bloods and the Crips start firing at each other

Gun barrel – For carrying large numbers of weapons

Bullet proof – Ballistic forensics and all that sort or stuff

Secant – Nautical jargon

Bottomless spit – For the eternal barbecue

Strange encounters of the third kid – Her sibs laughed, but she cheesed on my new suit

I can't take you anywhere – Con man's lament

O tempera, o mores – Art has changed over the years

Foot soldiers – Sock and sole

Daze of wine and rosé – Delirium tremens

The latest nudes – Bottom of news stand

Pot cereal – It's not just for brownies anymore

Consensus – Number of criminals locked up

We're in the movie – Proud extras

Collage humors – Red, white, and blue bile

Band lieder – The best of the American song book

Garth Brooks – Oklahoma retirement community

Cry woof – That's enough Lassie

Rob Roy Overture – His first words whenever he met a lassie. Sometimes they worked

Spot hero – App that points out places to clean suits

Dole pineapple juice – Latest entitlement

Cheaper by the dozen – Baby chickens

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds – For Don Juan and his followers it just upped the challenge. Especially gloom of night

Survivors – The most influential Jews of all time

Down time – Rest period for geese

I'm an old cow hand – I milk aged bovines for fun and profit

Put your money where your month is – January through December. Annual economic boon for the dental association

Dr. Dolittle – But he takes insurance

Serrated – A favorite for next year's honors list.

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

Gotta look for a day job.

October 11, 2017