UNdoing The World's Business

The United States is the center of the diplomatic world. That's been the case for quite a while. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in establishing the League of Nations – even if the United States never joined. And the establishment of the United Nations during World War II was, in large part, based on American initiatives. In 1945 that newly-organized body was formally established when the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, and eventually was headquartered in Turtle Bay on land donated by the Rockefellers. It was a noble endeavor.

There were many reasons for constituting the organization – initially it derived from the formation of an alliance to defeat the Axis powers, but, by the time it was finally established, the war was over. Nonetheless it was believed that a forum where all nations could meet and talk would be preferable to multiple discussions and multiple treaties between nations, and it was felt that problems could be talked out and wars averted. Honorable goals, indeed.

Declarations of rights followed, and agencies were formed in order to deal with particular problems – problems whose solution would benefit us all, but primarily the impoverished, oppressed, and needy around the world. We might approximate Wendell Willkie's goal of One World.

It didn't take long to discover, however, that serious problems existed. Perhaps the most obvious of these was the veto, that allowed certain nations to block decisions of the Security Council – the most important action organ of the UN. The veto, itself, however, made sense on paper. It was clear that when the organization admitted more members – members who may not have aided in the defeat of the Axis – they might outvote the “heavy lifters” who had done the bulk of the fighting and dying during the war, the nations that founded the UN, and those nations might use the UN for their own purposes. Giving the founders, nations large in power but small in numbers, the power to block actions that might involve them in popular whims, more war, or anything else undesirable, was considered a wise action.

The result, however, was that these powerful nations, with different national interests and agendas, used their veto in the service of political aims, and they have done so to the present. Vetoes provide bargaining leverage when that is needed, and the illusion of being in control, although they know that countries that were once their allies could also veto their own favored programs. Perhaps these were unintended consequences, but they should have been anticipated.

What's left, then, is a General Assembly quite capable of righteous indignation and of talking, but a Security Council that can stymie any meaningful action – and almost invariably does. And the result is that the founders have “protected” their interests in the Council, but the other nations have hijacked the General Assembly. (And they've manipulated it – for example, making Israel the scapegoat for all the world's problems while they ignore the wars, genocides, and tyrannies around the world. Their words result largely from antisemitism and economics, but are framed in the jargon of political correctness and liberal ideology. It's Israel now, but could be another nation once Israel is out of the way.)

That is not to say that the UN doesn't have useful projects which, when not used as political tools, help the disadvantaged. There are efforts to improve health and to feed the needy; there are scientific projects and programs that provide aid in time of natural disaster. But when it comes to man-made disasters – actions and situations that might be viewed as suggesting responsibility – the UN is likely to be paralyzed by one or more of its members. And that's the case when conflict benefits one of the founding nations. Nations are more concerned about their own interests than the benefit of the world.

What are our interests? Specifically, how do we benefit from the UN? Has that organization achieved what it aimed at? Unfortunately there are still many wars, and there have been many murderous attacks to which the UN has not responded. The organization may have provided a forum for talk, but it has not prevented war, because war, murder, and even malicious speech are the acts of people – even if only a minority of people – people who have only their own interests at heart. And while they may try to affect the words and actions of the United Nations, they will not be affected by it. Their personal, and to a lesser extent their national, interests are all they care about. And they want the world to care about them too.

Has the UN made other alliances unnecessary? NATO, the EU, Confédération Interalliée des Sous-Officiers de Réserve (CISOR), the Islamic Military Alliance, the Peninsula Shield Force, and numerous other organizations suggest that this is not the case. Many such treaties and alliances exist outside the UN even though they should have been eliminated long ago.

Sad to note, however, the UN failure has not come cheap. The United States is assessed more than all the other founders combined for “peacekeeping” operations. Erin R. Graham , in an opinion essay in yesterday's Washington Post – one attempting to minimize and justify the cost to the US, – notes that “The United States also pays an estimated 28 percent of U.N. Peacekeeping budgets, due to its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member on the Security Council” but omits any mention of the far smaller assessments for the other “veto-bearing member[s].” It is of interest that our country, which supplies a home for the organization, also pays 22 percent of its total annual budget.

And there are costs to New York and to New Yorkers. In addition to the loss of valuable property in mid-town Manhattan, and the taxes that would accrue from it, there is the inconvenience of street closings and traffic congestion during General Assembly sessions. Not to be overlooked is the fat that the diplomats from many countries have immunity to all our laws, and, most annoyingly, are exempt from the parking and other regulations which we must observe.

The UN has failed, and we are all paying a high price for that failure. One solution (and I'll have more to say on the subject next week) is withdrawal from the UN and utilization of the property on which it stands. The billions saved by not supporting its bureaucracy and operations could be used to fund the kinds of health and agriculture projects which have been successful – without a “middle man” to drain off some of what we offer. And the absence of an outside controller would give us a greater ability to act in a timely manner.

Obviously it's not that simple. But the first step is acknowledgment that our hopes for unity and world peace have not been met. Perhaps we'd be better off if we were not at the center of the diplomatic world.

Violence In America

to Members of Congress

and all those pledged to protect me

I am an American. You represent me, and you control the powerful agencies paid to protect me. Yet I’m terrified. I’m terrified by the epidemic of violence infecting our country, and the knowledge that much of it was ignored by an informed FBI prior to its occurrence. It seems that the Bureau was too involved in other matters, often political, to protect our citizens from the "honest" members of society. And you are a co-conspirator. Rushing to collect political points, you turned a blind eye to your constituents.

I don’t mean to minimize the hazards of international and internal conspiracies, but though they dominate the headlines, they ignore the concerns of most Americans.

For this reason I want to present several steps you can take that might improve our security. Some will argue that they violate the principles of our Constitution, but I suspect you can find a way to circumvent this issue. The original document was written at the end of the eighteenth century by men sensitive to the concerns of the society of the time. But times change. and some interpretation of the Constitution short of amendment, a long and tedious process, can probably be found to deal with the concerns of a twenty-first century society. Our Legislative and Judiciary branches cannot be limited by eighteenth century sensibilities. (Indeed, I’m not even convinced that the Founding Fathers, in those years long ago, meant the Second Amendment to cover "sport" and hunting use of weapons by a "well armed militia.") And it is worth revisiting previously discussed issues. even if prior discussions have failed. So I suggest

1.     Formation of a committee consisting of NRA members and other citizens to determine maximum needs for valid uses of arms. I suggest a deadline (perhaps two weeks) after which, lacking agreement, a "civilian" should impose a non-appealable decision. There should always be civilian dominance over the military (in this case the NRA).

2.     With the same deadline, the courts should decide what the Second Amendment covers.

3.     A Public Prosecutor should investigate the functions and procedures of the FBI.

4.     There should be widespread publication of who gives to the NRA and who benefits from it -- especially to and from public servants and their families, candidates for office, and any political organization that supports either. There will be protests from the NRA relative to privacy and other constitutional rights, but in an age of "transparency" some means must be found to overcome them.

5.     Mental health proposals and appropriations should be publicized, and spending undertaken immediately -- especially as it relates to the possibility of violence.

6.     Other necessary measures should be undertaken that are not appealable later.

　

I hope that public sentiment will be taken into account in future legislation and with rapid prosecution of alleged perpetrators. There should be similar regard in all judicial decisions. Excessive concerns about the accused’s origin, illnesses, and "rights" should be avoided.

                           Son of Publius

What Matters Least

I suspect I've said most of this before in one place or another, and in one way or another, but I want to join the pieces (and add a few others) into a unified idea. Perhaps the impetus to do so relates to the fact that I have metastatic cancer and think about things differently from the way I did in the past. My perspective has changed.

Whether it's the political situation, the climate, or the disarray in my attic (or anything else for that matter), I've stopped worrying about the situation “in the long run.” “In the long run” is, for me if no one else, what matters least. Until now I've always had the attitude that careful long-term planning was necessary, but I'm no longer sure of that position. And I've carefully considered political and economic conditions – conditions over which I have no control. They're beyond me, so why bother?

There are several different reasons for new attitude, and I'll mention a few of them. The first is that I don't expect to be remembered for very long. I barely recall the grandparents who were alive in my childhood and I certainly didn't know much about my ancestors who preceded them. And there's no reason to think that I'll be long-remembered by my descendants either. In a 15 billion year-old universe, the time of my existence makes no difference. The “long-run” is of no great consequence when thinking in those terms.

In addition, I don't expect to be utilizing the benefits of “the long run” so I might as well take advantage of what's available in the short. I suspect that I've missed many opportunities over the years and I'd prefer not to do so again. There's a well-worn warning not to put things off until tomorrow, and not knowing how many tomorrows there may be I'm reluctant to let stuff slide. Now is the time to “go for it.” Now's the time even if I think it's a waste at this point – even if I think it's too late. In the recent past I may be have been concerned about starting something that I might not finish, or may have thought that buying something that I may not have time to utilize fully, is stealing from my heirs. But I can't let that type of reasoning dominate my desires or my actions. I don't have time for overthinking.

My goal is to do what I can while I can. And the most important thing I can do – even more important than providing for myself – is to help others. Not to get too corny about it, I'd like to be remembered, at least for the short term, and I want the memories to be favorable. Which means, of course, that what I do has to be seen in a favorable light by those who know me but will outlive me – family and friends.

More important, though, is that acts of kindness, hessed according to the Hebrew concept, make me feel good. It's good to know that others are benefiting from what I do, but, additionally, in the time I have left I want to feel good. And this does it – whether by direct actions or by friendly and comfortable interaction.

That's not to say that some long-term planning doesn't play a part in the process – whether through longer range efforts (we were part of a project to collect and distribute linens and clothing to poor immigrants to Israel) and through bequests and by ensuring the fulfillment of commitments. Those kinds of efforts can be very rewarding, and I'll continue to do what I can, but my focus has changed to the more immediate – to what's possible in real time, an emphasis on the here and now.

So my stress is not on what matters least, but what matters most. In part that means the enjoyment of my time, which is best accomplished by doing what I've always done – to pretend that nothing has changed. And that helps me in my wish to provide an example for those around me – to seem brave and accepting, victorious over what may be viewed as scary. Denial does it again. When virtue is subtracted from the picture and the practical reality is that I can't change anything, I don't want anything to change. My heirs will understand. I'll have enjoyed myself and, I hope, given strength to others.

[It just occurred to me that writing this essay more than a year before it will be published represents long-term planning.  So be it.  I'm enjoying myself now.]

January 27, 2017

Mixed Grill N + 4

Mixed Grill N + 4

My crime, your punishment.

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

The greatest Tory ever sold – Neville Chamberlain. It was a bill of goods.

Mother Goose – Expletive diluted.

Times square – Occasional (token) Republican Op Ed columnist.

Microdot – There were mushrooms on the Yellow Brick road.

Fire drill – Old-fashioned dentist's tool.

Dycameral intersectionaliture – Anti-Semites and House of Reprehensibles.

Three little words – Just say “No.” Foyer alarm.

Hit on Ms – Did she or didn't she? You can't examine.

Honor thy father and mother – Sleep with them both.

Pundit – Tells jokes on the way to Punjab.

Takes 2 to tango – Or 3, or 4, or whatever turns you on.

Peter and the wolf – Prokofiev the gigolo.

Washington crossing the Delaware – It worked because he had E-Z Pass.

Bun Home Richard – Crapper.

Long Ranger – Has gun will travel. Even to Toronto.

Paint the town red – Mixed red paint and mace spray for women wearing fur coats.

In front of every silver lining there's a cloud.

Ten little Indians – Stereotyping.

Melancholy bubbe – Grandma's in her dotage.

Donkey hottie – Jackass with big ass.

La Mer – Water Music By Handel.

I Want You – WWI American national sexual harassment.

Tar and feathers – New fashion craze.

Between Iraq and a hard place – Saudi Arabia.

Red sails in the sunset – Communist rides at night.

Revenge – Venge again?

Hail Mary – Make a pass at girl named Mary. Unlikely to succeed.

Made in China – By young women seeking employment.

Accelerator – Fastest hatchet in the west.

Every little movement has a meaning all its own – Attributed to W. A. Mozart.

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

You can count 0n the Russians for a solution to every problem. Of course you maynot always agree.

January 29, 2018

Times Change

It's hard to take. Things, we're told, are better than ever. But I don't believe it. The weather is getting worse, retail stores are empty and jails are full. The Democrats are fighting with the Republicans – as they have since the Republican Party was organized in 1854. Abraham Lincoln was their second nominee for President (John Fremont was the first, in 1856), but hard as the battles were then (John Breckinridge, John Bell, and Stephen Douglas were the opposition in that campaign), current politics is worse than it's ever been. There has to be a way to forget the present and the disputes that the media thrusts in our faces and move into the future. But there isn't. So my solution is to focus on the past.

And what comes to me is an image of Abraham Lincoln. Not that we were contemporaries, but he was an example for us of a true and a great American – what we should all be like. So, back in the middle of the twentieth century, when heroes were heroes and villains villains, what did they teach us?

They taught us that Abe Lincoln studied his law books by candle light.

Shouldn't he have turned on the fluorescent lights? Or used the internet? Or kindled his Kindle rather than the candle wax? But if I didn't have these things as a child, certainly he never had them. Those things weren't available to him a century earlier. Electricity, although it existed and had even been discovered, hadn't been put to much use. There was no internet and there certainly weren't devices based on wireless technology. However useful those items may be to us, Abe Lincoln, or anyone of his time, wouldn't have even dreamed of them.

A few centuries earlier – before Gutenberg – there weren't easily accessible books, especially law books. Even after him it took a while for the spread of his printing press and its products. And before Prometheus stole fire from the gods, man – even the greats like Lincoln – wouldn't have even been able to light candles. But, of course, that was then. And we have since learned how to make fires and even burn books. To that degree there was “progress.”

Times change (or so “they” want us to believe). Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Our lives are very different from those of our forebears. Certainly medicine has progressed since my childhood, and movies, and electronics, and a wide variety of “things.” But people are the same.

We're quick to quote Santayana. We admonish those who follow us not to ignore history for fear that they will repeat it. But by emphasizing the remembrance of things past we forget the future. What our parents liked, what worked for them, is not necessarily what we need if there is to be progress. We may be cautioned not to waste our time reinventing the wheel, but sometimes a wheel is not what we need. Perhaps the reason we cannot solve our problems is that our “solutions” are little more than rearrangements of those problems and of past solutions. Too often we fiddle with the wheel when we need an entirely new approach.

Unfortunately, all our changes are superficial. Song styles may differ, language may change and prices may rise (when I had my first car the goal was to find a filling station at which I could get gasoline for 16.9 cents a gallon), but we accept these as evidence of progress without any real alteration in the causes of our difficulties. A computer only increases our ability to recognize those problems more quickly, it does not change human nature. We're as involved with ourselves and our own ways as we've always been. History doesn't repeat itself, it simply persists. Repetition would suggest that are points of progress from which we return to the past – that where we are is different from where we once were. And, unfortunately, there's nothing new under the fluorescents.

So, it grieves me to say, however much we may need it, real change is improbable. We might as well accept that. The technology will improve, but no matter how we tweak the world around us nothing will really be different. Our science and electronics will make quantum leaps and we'll live longer allowing us to take advantage of them, but we and our children will never understand each other. Things past will continue to be irrelevant. I may be entitled to pass on my wisdom, however no one is obliged to listen. So however much I may yearn for change, I know that it's unlikely to come.

Politicians, being human (more or less), will continue to fight. Like the rest of us, they've learned nothing. And our children will repeat our mistakes. Even though there may be new twists, there will be old attitudes and old vanity. Our words won't change anything. Abraham Lincoln said: “As our case is new, we must think and act anew.” But we won't. Maybe I hope for too much. Perhaps the generations, notwithstanding our attempts to engage our offspring, weren't meant to communicate. Nothing in the future is likely to be fundamentally different. But who cares? That won't be my problem.

January 26, 2017

Sense And Sensibility

Sense And Sensibility

When I was growing up there was a spate of r0ad signs demanding the impeachment of Warren. The target was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Governor of California, he had been appointed to the position by Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States – his nomination having been approved by the Senate and then by Congress. He was, however, more liberal – and he led the Court in a far more liberal direction – than had been anticipated.

Had the choice been a bad one? Was Governor Warren unqualified for the position? Absolutely not. Was he the right man for the job? Perhaps not. The two criteria don't necessarily go together. Chief Justice Warren was well-schooled in the law, the Constitution. and in American government, but his political philosophy – whether you view it as right or wrong – was not shared by large segments of the population. And the principal advocate of our judicial system differed in many of his views from those for whom he judged the law.

The Constitution was written at the end of the eighteenth century when our country was founded, and the document contained the compromises expected in such a contract. Not everything was agreeable to all our Founding Fathers, but it was a good start. It was the basis for all our laws, although there has been a lot of debate about some of their wisdom. Our outlook has changed regarding many subjects over the years, including the contents of our founding rulebook. Fair enough. Times change, and with them ideas. Over the years there have been numerous laws, at all levels, that have aroused the dismay of citizens – often dismay reflecting changes that simply mirror a reaction to societal differences over time rather than some political quibbling. And even moreso court decisions – especially those of the Supreme Court.

It's not a surprise. Since the beginning there was a call for a a regular review and updating of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was among the group favoring frequent change, feeling that children should not be bound by the views of their parents – moral or legal. In addition, however, perhaps nine eminent legal scholars should consider the perspectives of the American population – both the majority and significant portions of the minority – when they decide upon the “established law” that will govern our society. It's sad for example, that Roe v Wade, a decision long ago repudiated by the plaintiff, should still be inspiring invective and hostility so long after it became the law of the land, over the protests of so many. And it is surprising that “Doe,” of Doe v Bolton, whose suit accompanied Roe's and, according to the nine sages, supported its conclusions, disclaimed it and maintained that it was brought in her name without her knowledge, but was contrary to her wishes and beliefs.

And there are other issues about which we ask the enlightened nine to decide right and wrong although they are making sociological as well as legal decisions. The original Founding Fathers (all men) accepted the concepts of slavery, and the limitation of the franchise to certain men. Yet we manage to nullify these features of the “law of the land,” features with which the nine disagreed and which violated societal norms, by simply “interpreting” them out of existence. The Constitution is not inviolable when we want to change it.

Perhaps our Justices should consider how the American people feel and how they they'd vote when they consider the cases before them. More is involved in the law than the law than the law.

Various Thoughts XVIII

One of the most contentious issues in the dispute between theists and atheists concerning the origin and development of life is the structure of the eye. Many believe that it is too complex to have developed randomly. It is the debate between undirected evolution – which posits that the complicated structures within the orbit developed and learned to function together as a matter of pure chance – and the planned formation of a visual organ in of a sensory system suitable for each individual species, “directed evolution,” (a concept acceptable to many “believers”).

More complex, however, is reproduction itself. We no longer undergo binary fission, but how did we get from there to where we are now? If individual mutations are responsible, how did they happen to occur in a functional order and how did life survive through the intervening period, when the new system was developing – and that must have been a long time? New systems require new organs, new hormones, and new behaviors. All this by chance?

Without an eye there can be persistence of life. Perhaps olfactory sense could substitute during the intervening generations. But there would be an immediate end to life if there were no reproductive mechanism. Even if male and female organs developed simultaneously in individuals, those individuals would have to be in the same continent – near to each other and to find each other – and know what to do with their new parts. What are the odds?

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

I thought I'd throw in some questions about “cruel and unusual punishment [CUP]” and similar problems. Most of the issues apply to death in one way or another. First of all, I'm concerned about FDA rules. Some states permit capital punishment and use drugs to effect it. Since I don't think the FDA has approved any drugs for killing people, this constitutes “off-label” use. Is this CUP and is it permissible? Some states permit suicide, including assisted suicide. May you use off-label effects to do yourself in? I know that outdated pharmaceuticals are disqualified for executions, but I wonder if a “loved one” supplies a drug one day beyond its expiration date for employment by a suicide, has he committed a crime?

On occasion, death-penalty opponents invoke the legal process to delay an execution. Is it CUP to make a convict wait for his end a second time? May such outsiders convince the courts not to execute him but change the sentence to “life without parole” when the individual involved would rather die than spend fifty years in prison, or is this CUP? If they succeed it is contrary to the wishes of the convict involved. And is either penalty, itself, CUP?

Who should pay the costs of execution? Is it a right, according to the First Amendment, for someone opposed to capital punishment because of his religion, to seek reimbursement of his portion of such costs? And who pays the medical costs 0f those who attempt suicide but fail – especially if they were “assisted” incorrectly?

Do long periods of pre-trial confinement of those who cannot afford bail, who may flee, and those considered too dangerous to be on the streets? Suppose they are ultimately found not guilty. Should they be reimbursed for the time they served though rendered innocent? And since a speedy trial is part of our tradition (“justice delayed is justice denied”) is it CUP to allow lawyers to delay proceedings for any reason?

It all becomes more complicated because the laws of the various states are not the same. Should they be?

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

My “quality of life” may not be ideal, but I'll take it. My sense of taste is markedly reduced, making eating more a chore than a pleasure, but that's partly because my appetite leaves a lot to be desired. That symptom preceded the loss of taste so I can't put all the blame there, but together they take some of the excitement out of life, leaving a degree of boredom, but I'll take it. (By the way, “boredom” and “bedroom” share the same letters, which is fine considering the fatigue brought on by the chemotherapy and other meds. And also because I'm getting older.) I have a neuropathy which affects my feet, lower legs, and fingers. Because of the leg and foot involvement I totter. I'm unsteady and I fall or nearly fall a lot. And the finger symptoms make it hard for me to button buttons and hold some things. I'm a wreck.

But I'm alive and I'll take all the trade-offs.

I'd probably be far less sanguine if I were suffering – if, for example, I had unbearable pain. But I don't. The pain I have is well controlled and no real problem. Were I in pain I might be less interested in continuing the status quo. Some states would permit me to commit suicide. They might even help me. But I wonder if the solution to this problem, and others, is to eliminate it by suicide rather than deal with it. Some would follow the route of invoking nothingness but it's not for me. I prefer hope, denial, and a good pain management team. With their help I can maintain my belief in the “absolute” that harm to any individual, including the self, is wrong – even in the face of a less than ideal quality of life.

January 4, 2018

Mixed Grill XV

Here are some more of the hash (not the illegal stuff – although it ought to be) that I've been serving. It consists of quotations, puns, and assorted comments. I enjoyed doing it, irrespective of the reception you give it.

Spoiler: And you thought you had suffered enough. Not yet. I've got more for you.

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

Waterboard – Listening to “La mer” over and over again is torture

Mother of Pearl – Sadie

The Point of No Return – To keep money in the store's coffers on the day after the big sale

If a chicken and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half – Call Guinness

College dormitory – Misnomer. It's the city that never sleeps

I used to be a conformist and wear a crew cut. Now I'm a nonconformist – and wear a crew cut (Clem Labine in interview by Roger Kahn)

Fly by night – The flying Dutchman

Rin Tin Tin – Son of a bitch

Parmigian – For Italians on the go

European Union – Contradiction. A formulation of international statesmen, European intellectuals, and other oxymorons

Amazing Grace – A gentleman never tells

I see where you're coming from – Now go back

Ice box – Ali in Denali

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying (Woody Allen)

Eight track tape – Olympic-sized finish line for simultaneous events

None of the above – It's a miracle. She made sainthood and you can raise your head and pray to her

Run for the roses – Melissa Reese needs to change her stockings

Put it there – Instructions to Tiger Woods

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it (Lawrence J. Peter)

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – From the printing, through the staining, to the shredding of a five dollar bill.

Macadam Road – Right behind Lady Godiva. On the same horse. Fortunately he had what to hold on to. He was protecting her good name. Or whatever.

The Great American Pastime – Arguing about the great American past.

Burner phone - Kitchen communicator

Casual sex - LGBT variant. A new oppressed minority group to add to our victims list

Pianofort - Perhaps for a rich six year old with a water gun

Pupulist – One who adopted too many from the pound

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use (Søren Kierkegaard)

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

Suffer some more next month.