Que Será, Será

Bottom line. There's nothing new here. However I feel like discussing the subject and this is as good a place as any. Actually it's better than some. It's especially better than places where people can speak back and express views with which I might disagree.

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

Would you rather lose your sight or your hearing? (“No” is a cute answer, but not useful for this purpose.) It's a question that, I suspect, has crossed the minds of many people. And I'm one of them. I'm a radiologist, and I've always been visually oriented in everything, so I guess I'd rather give up my hearing than my sight, but I love Bach and I'd hate to lose the chance to hear good music.

Of course my preference is irrelevant. I may lose neither, one, or both. It's not up to me. In the words of Josephine McKenna (Doris Day and her “son” – Christopher Olsen as Hank McKenna – in “The Man Who Knew Too Much”), Que será, será – “What will be, will be.”

The whole issue came up when I was thinking about my treatment for a tumor I have. The side effects of one of the drugs I take include a neuropathy, and I have tingling in my hands, feet, and ears as well as a funny feeling in the back of my throat and some compromise of the front of my tongue and my palate. Things don't taste as good as they used to. That's what got me thinking. I suspect I'd trade my symptoms and tolerate a little more tingling for improvement in my taste. But it's not up to me.

For most of us, the best approach to life is to play the hand we're dealt. It's not a new idea and it's been paraphrased on many occasions. “If life deals you lemons ...” Another allusion from the world of cards. Which particular game is not the issue; any one suggests that what happens is a matter of chance. Rather than “chance,” some would use “fate,” “predestination,” “G-d.” “kismet,” or some other terminology, but it all boils down to the same thing – we have no control over what will happen. We might as well “lean back and enjoy it.” Que será, será – “What will be, will be.”

That's fine for most of us, but humanity has progressed because there are people who haven't been satisfied with business as usual, and the acceptance of things as they are. Rather than play the had they're dealt, they try to improve it. Generally this refers to scientists looking for answers to questions that most of us ignore, but it would equally well apply to explorers, authors, academics of many varieties, and others for whom some kind of advancement is the goal. The status quo may be comfortable, but it's not good enough for them. So they draw to an inside straight, and every now and then they make it. No, now and then we make it, for their accomplishments improve all our lot – or at least they'll improve the lots of those who will follow us.

Not all their efforts pay off, but every now and then they win the pot. Every now and then they learn or accomplish something that we never dreamed of. In fact we never even thought about it. It takes imagination or, as rocket scientists say, thinking “outside the envelope.”

And that's where most of us fail. No, “fail” is too strong a word. There are too many things we can't control, so playing the hand we're dealt is fine for getting us through our lives, and we're primarily interested in doing just that. And no more. Perhaps we'll try to improve our hand marginally – who wouldn't – however the changes we seek to make our lives, and those of our families, better, deal with what we know, and are limited by our lack of imagination.

But our imaginative brothers and sisters have upped the ante. They get what they play for. And that's our challenge. To think big; to look beyond the hand we're dealt to the hand we want. To devise a way to get there. It's fine to make the best of circumstances, but it's better to improve on them. Most of the time we won't accomplish what we want. They don't. But they keep trying, and so should we.

What will be, will be. Only if we're willing to accept it.

February 26, 2017

These Are The Days My Friend

They'll end. So let's enjoy them now.

After all, the time will come when they're seen as the “good old days.” It always happens, but in retrospect we don't always agree. Such simple things as electricity and indoor plumbing haven't always existed. And certainly not jet flight, computers, and instant communications.

But we look back on the past with nostalgia and remember the “good times” that are no more. I suspect, however, that we wouldn't want to live as our grandparents did. We latch on to each new gimmick and fad and wonder how our ancestors lived without them – as they wondered about the survival of those who preceded them. Perhaps there are some improvements that could be made, but things have never been so good. And the same was true in each generation before ours. At least that's the perception.

Well, I'm not sure. Sometimes I think we're going too fast. And sometimes I think we're going in the wrong direction. And sometimes both. For example, we're at a point when we can send a space craft to meet up with an asteroid and land on it. After that it's expected that the craft will sample some of he asteroid's contents and return them to earth. Amazing! At the same time, however, the conditions for many of those now living on earth are terrible. For some there's not enough to eat while others lack a safe place to sleep at night, or even to walk during the day. We're devoting too much in tax dollars to answer the theoretical questions that scientists have, even though we know that those answers, which may be of interest to future generations, will have no effect on our lives. In our liberal and idealistic frame of mind, we are more interested in our perceived obligation to our great, great, grandchildren (should the world survive) than to our own children. We may mouth our interest in them, but our real fascination is for the unknown – for the next big thing.

We've developed social media, and the devices that bring it to us, while becoming more and more antisocial, preferring to text rather than talk. And we can now get almost any sort of food at any time of year, including everything we need to plate a gourmet meal for our families. In fact why bother preparing food for them? We can get a ready-made nutritious gourmet meal that we just have to pop into the oven or microwave, and free ourselves from the tedious burden of actually cooking for those we say we love.

I don't mean to suggest that before the rocket ship people had enough to eat and a safe place to live. But even if they weren't able to accomplish it, they gave thought to using our resources for the sake of improving the lives of their brothers and sisters. Of course we're doing that now, but our goals are far more speculative than they used to be. Our focus has changed from what's now, to what's to come.

I certainly don't believe that the electronic age is all bad. I'm a hermit and I enjoy the opportunity to do all my shopping without leaving the house. But I'm an anomaly. If society is to survive and flourish, people must interact with each other. Face to face. Not on a machine. The world's problems won't be solved by people gazing into their palms.

And there's a lot to be said for cooking dinner. It's an expression of love and concern for each other, not just of necessity. There is communion of more than our bodies when bread is broken and wine drunk. (Mary Francis Kennedy Fisher) That, of course, will require that people have the raw materials necessary for such an endeavor. But we could take more steps toward that goal now if we chose to do so.

Some day, perhaps, people will look back at today, and suggest that it was the ideal time. They'll be wrong. It is, sadly, and age when we've given up on the present and are more interested in moving to the future – whatever the cost. We don't need to provide for those around us. We're too busy avoiding them, and each other, as we look for an easier time for ourselves now, and a quicker path to tomorrow. This may also have been the attitude in the past, but people didn't have the tools that would permit them to act on their wishes. Now we do. (Though in times to come our descendants will take note of our primitive devices. They'll also wonder about our aversion to GMF, which is simply accelerated evolution, a concept in which we claim to believe.)

And we're devoting our resources to tomorrow as well, without always considering how they might be used to improve conditions for those here now, and for those soon to come. Tax dollars, which might aid those suffering at present, are being used to answer the speculations of scientists who look to others to support their muses and clarify their mental conjectures. Perhaps their ideas will aid future generations, but it those future generations who will have to pay for them. We have to go into debt to do so now, leaving some current problems unsolved as we make the great leap forward.

There's an old saying, Don't just do something. Stand there. It contains a lesson that we haven't learned yet, but we're far beyond it. There's no going back, as much as it might be desirable. Our only hope is that we can stop and think about the implications of what we are doing now.




September 7, 2016

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

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

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

Wine And Cheese

According to the second law of thermodynamics, as time goes by things deteriorate. It has to do with “entropy” – the concept that tells us that there is a steady increase in randomness everywhere. It's all downhill. Everything changes for the worse.

Well, almost everything. An aged cheese or an old vintage may have improved with age (though we may argue about whether this means that the old is better or indicates that we should focus on the value of change through the years). I certainly have. As the years have gone by I've changed for the better. You, too, probably. Looks like it's time to reevaluate. Since it's my blog I'll use myself as the subject of the evaluation. I'm doing the typing and I can do anything I want. I'm sure you'll have no trouble with that.

There is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill (though he probably adapted it from someone else) that says

If you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35 you have no brain.

With experience and exposure to the world as it is rather than as we'd like it to be, liberals become more conservative. From Churchill's point of view this would have represented a change for the better. Even more basic, it demonstrated a belief that change is possible. That, however, is disputed.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr gets credit for that one. What we're left with, however, is a salmagundi of ideas: entropy and deterioration, things change and can change for the better, and nothing changes. And, in some way or other, they're all right. (You're right, too.)

When I was young (not that I view myself now as old) I was a liberal. Most of us were. Churchill would have predicted it. We were open to the important ideas of the time and we were aware of what was going on around us. But though over the centuries the lot of human beings had improved, we could see only the ills. It was a world in which there many inequities, and we knew how to fix them. We were idealists. We subscribed to the principle that we shouldn't just stand there, we should do something. So we elected those with proposals to solve the problems quickly and improve the lots of the less fortunate. They were people of action – idealists like us. Perhaps they were over 25, but they had hearts. And neither they, nor we, paid much attention to randomness. We were focused. We had purpose.

Well, I'm still focused. I still have purpose. As do so many of my generation and those who preceded us. We have remained the same. I'm still an idealist, and, in that sense, a liberal. Yet I no longer believe in liberalism. At least not in the liberalism practiced today. Perhaps I have not changed, but my ideas have. (And so, for that matter, have the precepts that govern the liberalism of today.)

I used to believe that no one changes after the age of about twelve. What you see is what you get. Over time I revised the age down to nine. Then to six. Then to four. But now I realize that while I may have been correct, I was evaluating personalities, not ideas. And while people and their personalities don't change, their ideas do. That's what learning is.

I haven't changed, but my political philosophy has. And that's because I'm still open and aware. I've been battered by reality. And what I've seen over the years has been the failure of too many idealistic notions and plans because proponents were more interested in acting than thinking. They wanted to change the future without any consideration of the past or present. So previously tried approaches were repeated without the knowledge of their existence; and if they knew of the earlier failures they simply “tweaked” their plans rather than looked for a more promising approach. That would have slowed them down. Little attention was paid to possible consequences apart from what was intended. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

There is nothing new under the sun. But there is little interest in the classroom in learning history. Because we don't learn from the past, however, we have no opportunity to understand it. But that's okay. Who cares? There was a time when most societies revered age. With age came wisdom. The Elders were the Sages. But those days are past. Now, like teen-agers, the young know more than their parents, and the arguments of the experienced are dismissed. We're wiser than our country's founders and all of those before us.

And our new technology has given us the ability to perform faster and better than in the past. Why learn how to multiply if a calculator can do it for you; why learn to read a clock if the genie in your 'cell 'phone will tell you the time? But we're sacrificing the abilities we once had for the shortcuts and ignorance that science can provide for us.

(Before concluding the rant, however, I must acknowledge that some things are better “young” than old; when the current is superior to the outdated. For example, fresh bread tastes better than a stale, moldy loaf. And mathematicians, develop early, while their colleagues in the humanities improve with age, assuming, however, that entropy, in the form of physical and mental deterioration don't take too much of a toll.

And there are instances when the new is better than the old. Believe it or not, antibiotics are more effective against pneumonia than leeches. But I have to admit that I prefer a Gregorian Chant to hip hop.)

Ah. Aged cheese on fresh, crisp bread. With an old vintage wine. And a Gregorian Chant playing in the background. More old than new, though parts have improved over time. Perhaps that's a philosophic as well as a culinary approach. Or revealing about my politics. But it works for me.

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

Please note that since I'm writing these long in advance I've decided to date them.
September 18, 2016

Not Guilty

“Not guilty.”

That's all it takes. Perhaps, in the timeless words of Yogi Berra, “It ain't over 'til its over,” but now it's over. That verdict ends it all (like a statute of limitations). You may be guilty of murder or of whatever other transgression you were accused, in fact you may brag about your guilt, but you beat the rap. They can never try you for the same crime again, even if there is new and irrefutable evidence of your guilt. It's over.

There are many similar instances when, because of a single occurrence, some hazard has been removed. Paradigmatic of such a situation are the words of Numbers (35:9-12), which describes “Cities of Refuge” to which one who has committed manslaughter may flee, so as to prevent his own killing by a family member of the victim. Until he is within one of those cities he is fair game for retaliation, but after that he is safe from any revenge. He had been in a very dangerous situation, but was now safe.

Generally speaking, there are numerous cases in which an individual moves from an insecure position – perhaps even a dangerous one – to one that removes the doubt and the risk, though the risks are of widely varying degrees of severity. A letter offering a job or acceptance to college, for example, may be a cause for celebration providing security that, until that moment was lacking. In those instances, however, the revocation of that position, though dishonorable, is possible, as contrasted with double jeopardy. In the case of a jury verdict there's no going back. Perhaps other charges will be filed, but you can never be tried for the same crime.

The security of a refugee reaching American land, as opposed to the risks faced a moment before, when the possibility, if apprehended, of immediate return to the land from which he was fleeing, cannot be minimized. And the protection provided by a church or some country's embassy is absolute (more true historically than recently). Perhaps it is a manifestation of the idea of sanctuary. The dangers faced until then were no longer to be feared. Those who entered have reached their own “city of refuge.” Certainly a border between countries provides at least temporary protection from retribution for violation of the laws of the land just left. And the possibility of death by abortion, an immediate and permanent risk, yields to the protection of the law immediately upon birth.

But crossing the Rubicon has its risks as well. Passing the “point of no return” leaves the past behind, but there are times when it would be preferable to be able to return. Ask any investor who missed his chance to “sell high” when he had the chance, but didn't do so before the market went rapidly downhill, or lost his chance to buy when the market was low. The previous conditions may return, but in the meantime he has squandered the possibility for profits this time around.

And in the heat of an argument, who has not said something that he later regretted? Sadly, you can't take it back once it's left your mouth. A relationship that had, until that time, been flourishing, can be damaged forever. Indeed, the same result may follow a “Freudian slip,” even if no conscious malice was intended. When you've given yourself away, there's no way to convince the hearer that you didn't really mean what you said.

We have all experienced missed opportunities. We have all missed a sale or rejected a job. We have all been in the wrong place at the right time or the right place at the wrong. Life is full of lost chances. For the most part, however, a missed chance is only a delay. Chances reoccur. A miss may be as good as a mile, but a mile is finite. You can “go home again.”

That's not always the case though. Wars, for example, leave casualties. So do accidents. And some injuries cannot be repaired. They leave permanent disabilities. We sometimes try to be philosophical about the situation, but our protestations are hollow. The euphemists among us avoid talk of disability, preferring “different ability,” but that doesn't change reality. However much we may wish, we can't make it so. There are times when we can't go back.

But nothing is more permanent than death. And nothing is more to be regretted than an unnecessary death. However saddened we may be when a loved one dies of “natural causes,” it is many times harder to comprehend and accept a death that was avoidable – either from war or violence. Our Constitution tells us that our country was formed with several aims, and among them was to “provide for the common defence [sic].” The promised protection was against foreign powers, with the against home-grown violence left to the States. There are failures in both cases, and we grieve not only for those directly affected but also for the society that cannot accomplish all it has pledged to do.

When the government itself chooses to take a life, however, it is understandable that, for many, grieving isn't adequate. The Supreme Court has forbidden capital punishment under some circumstances, but neither the Court, nor the Constitution, rejects it as an option. Still, there are many who believe that the state has no right to take a life. (Usually the popular proscription is aimed at capital punishment rather than war, but there are also those who are conscientious objectors to any form of violence.) The arguments are both philosophic – killing is wrong, and practical – the state may get it wrong and kill the innocent.

The latter possibility – the execution of someone who is not guilty – is, in many ways, very similar to the first case discussed. Both involve court rulings and in both cases the results are irreversible, though they are opposites. In one case the state provides possibly unwarranted immunity and permanent protection, in the other death – a similarly permanent result, even if exculpatory evidence later surfaces. Not all irreversible status changes are desirable – especially in this instance. An executed innocent soul may never have caused harm and certainly never will, but a freed murderer may kill others.

“Que sera, sera.” But it's not always for the best. And when it's unalterable, the potential for great evil exists along with that for great good.

Below The Beloit

 

I'm feeling old today. The Class of 2015 of Beloit (Wisconsin) College was graduated recently – not a particularly mind-boggling piece of information. Of greater consequence, however, is the fact that when each class begins there, the school publishes a “Mindset List” (https://www.beloit.edu/mindset/previouslists/2015/) designed to inform the reader of the perspectives of the members of the class. The list, unfortunately, told me far more than I really wanted to know. It hit me where I hurt. I'll impart some of the intelligence from that list, which is designed to describe the world since they were born – 1993 on average.

Andre the Giant, River Phoenix, Frank Zappa, Arthur Ashe and the Commodore 64 have always been dead.

1. There has always been an Internet ramp onto the information highway.

2. States and Velcro parents have always been requiring that they wear their bike helmets.

3. The only significant labor disputes in their lifetimes have been in major league sports.

4. There have nearly always been at least two women on the Supreme Court, and women have always commanded U.S. Navy ships.

5. Amazon has never been just a river in South America.

6. Refer to LBJ, and they might assume you're talking about LeBron James.

7. The Communist Party has never been the official political party in Russia.

8. Women have always been kissing women on television.

9. Sears has never sold anything out of a Big Book that could also serve as a doorstop.

10. Public schools have always made space available for advertising.

11. Refugees and prisoners have always been housed by the U.S. government at Guantanamo.

The facts I've listed were extracted from a 75 item list (the numbers were inserted by my word processor and aren't those of the original document), and were the ones that most reminded me of how much I've aged. When I was young (as if you care) the world was different. The facts on the list weren't simply wrong – some of them were unimaginable. I won't describe why on a point by point basis, but in the middle of the last century life was different. I'm not suggesting that life was better then, only that it was different. The idea of computers, the internet, and all that has developed out of it were purely science fiction then.

Of course not all the changes are for the better, but we've learned to live with them. One of the most surprising things to me is that I'm surprised. The alterations have been sequential and orderly, like most changes. And I've observed them with interest as they have occurred. For the most part they were incremental (for example, there were threats of a campus riot when tuition at my college was raised from $750 a year to $850 – it's a lot higher now) and, however jarring, not entirely unexpected. Looking at them now, compressing long sequences into single changes, emphasizes those changes. The nickel Hershey bar of my childhood now costs a dollar. And it's smaller.

But I'd better simply accept reality and suck it up (language has changed too, though mine is probably well out of date). It's not Beloit's fault that the years are passing. I can't wait until the Class of 2015 is my age and reading the list current at that time. Unfortunately, I'll probably be long gone. Not only is the world changing, but I am.

Next episode: “F_g=Gm₁m₂/d^2” – A Weighty Issue

Identity Unknown

It all started with religion. It often does. That's not to say that it isn't built into us from the beginning. It's in our DNA. But it's probably expressed more now than in previous times. No big surprise. Society promotes it. To one degree or another we're all unhappy with things as they are. And we're not always happy with who we are. Things can always be better. It's time for a change.ⁱ

Remember Abram?ⁱⁱ He was raised as a pagan. His father made and sold idols.ⁱⁱⁱ But Abe viewed idol worship as misguided. He rebelled, and he destroyed his father's constructions. Then, following the direction of G-d, he left his father's homeland – his homeland. He had adopted a new faith, the belief in a single unseen deity Who had created and Who ruled over the entire earth. And Abram spread his new faith wherever he went. He proselytized and converted large numbers of people, the first neophytes of the new “Abrahamic” religions.^iv

Many people subsequently changed both their outward identities and their internal beliefs and views of themselves. They did so voluntarily, based on an altered view of truth and reality. But religious conversion, which has a long history, arose from many causes – violence and military conquest,^v,vi political changes,^vii prejudice,^viii and convenience^ix are among the reasons in addition to conviction. Assimilation, and the entire concept of the “melting pot,”^x produced innumerable “self-reinventions.” And there were those who rededicated themselves to the religion in which they were born but which they had not followed. They were “born again.”

Personal reinvention, however, has a long history and has many faces. There has been rebellion against the ways of parents^xi since there have been children. The goal is often for children to be as different from the parents, and from the way they were born, as possible. It has resulted in different political philosophies, life-styles, food and clothing preferences, and the like.

People also change because of dissatisfaction with themselves. Charles Atlas made a fortune catering to the insecurity of “97 pound weaklings,” and nowadays plastic surgeons remake many who are dissatisfied with their appearances. As Tom Lehrer said, they “do well by doing good.” Cosmetics manufacturers and those in the fashion and clothing industries also profit from the desire of so many to be other than they are.

More radical are those who those who are, to one degree or other, unhappy with their gender or with the expectations that accompany it.^xii Some feminists fall into this latter group, the group that questions the expectations associated with their gender,^xiii but so do some men who would rather stay home and be supported by others. They argue – and their argument is not completely without merit – that the expectations are societal and are unfair and unrealistic.

More extreme in their rejection of usual gender roles are gays and lesbians. Bisexuals have the best – or worst – of both worlds. Proud declarations of their sexual preferences have become common. Their desires are different from what others may expect, but they demand that their practices be validated and considered unexceptionable.

And we accept those desires. We are sympathetic to them and sensitive to most of those whose self-images require changes in ways we may have once questioned. We were wrong. They are right. (Anyone has the right to define himself.^xiv At least to a degree. There has long been concern over immigration policies and the current bugaboo in this arena is that over “illegal immigrants.”^xv Admittedly many don't seek citizenship, but others do wish to change who they are.)

More radical among those wishing to change who they are are members of the transgender community. Reinventing their identity is a prime concern and, since Christine (George) Jorgensen's pioneering efforts, an identity change including anatomic alteration is possible. The reality, however, is that they may change their identities, but their DNA remains the same. One can make up a new identity, but not change genetic makeup.

The same holds true for race. However one may “feel,” however he may identify, his race is the one of his birth. We may admire people who choose the lot of those they consider less fortunate, or those oppressed by society, but they fool themselves – and, perhaps us – when they pretend to be other than what they are. The same is true of those who try to “pass” as members of another race, though we must recognize that our prejudice is usually the reason.^xvi

So who are we? It's not an easy question. We're lots of people – some are adopted identifications that we can change for whatever reason whenever we want, and some are inborn. The real problems arise when we can't distinguish between one and the other.

Nor between ourselves and the other. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

And give us the disposition to accept it of others.

Next episode: “The Lesser Of Two Evils” – Life as it really is.

 

 

 

 

I        “Mid-life crisis” is one example of identity crisis, but there are other reasons.

ii       He was later renamed Abraham.

iii       You won't find that information in the Bible. Much of what we are taught about our biblical ancestors is derived from Midrashim, explanatory stories that fill in the gaps left by the biblical narrative. If you can't find in the Bible some of what follows which refers to biblical characters, it is based on Midrashim.

iv        Initially Judaism, but, millennia later, Christianity and Islam.

v       Islam spread largely as a result of conquest and violence, and violence and terrorism remain striking features among many Muslim clergymen and their followers.

vi       Interestingly, some who are oppressed begin to identify with their oppressors. It's called the “Stockholm Syndrome.” Thus many of the conquered were forced to convert, but some did so willingly, even eagerly.

vii      The rapid growth of Christianity was aided by its adoption by Armenia as the state religion in 301 CE and, shortly thereafter, in 313, by its legalization in the Roman Empire. In later centuries, whatever variety of Christianity was followed by the ruler was often accepted by his subjects – voluntarily or otherwise.

viii     Because of societal biases, it was necessary for many to convert in order to gain benefits. Thus Mahler converted to Christianity because the law of the time barred Jews from directorship of the Vienna Opera. Such laws and various prejudices forced many others (for example the Mendelssohn family, including musical greats Felix and Fanny) to convert. And some of the later generations accepted the beliefs of their new faith, such as the Marranos who converted rather than leave Spain. [Apropos this situation, a Spanish village named Castrillo Matajudios (“Camp Kill Jews”) has officially changed its name back to Castrillo Mota de Judios (“Jews’ Hill Camp”) following a public referendum and approval by the regional government in 2014. The original change, in 1627, reflected anti-Jewish bias and has taken nearly four centuries to correct.]

ix        As an example – one of many – some convert for the purpose of marriage. Change is not always based on an inner need. Some make changes to please those with whom they wish to associate.

x        Popularized by Israel Zangwill's play of the same name in 1903.

xi        Including their religion.

xii      A good example can be found in Isaac Bashevis Singer's “Yentl der yeshive-bokher.”

xiii     They agree with Sigmund Freud's dictum, “anatomy is destiny,” and resent the situation. Not everyone accepted Freud's view. Karen Horney was one of the leaders of the revolt. She attributed the “destiny” to beliefs of society, not to any inherent quality of women. (Freud was speaking of women when he chose to attribute personality traits and their consequences to sex.)

xiv      Political definitions, like nationality, are, at least for the moment, somewhat different.

xv       Not that there shouldn't be rules and a clearly defined path to citizenship, but the long-standing fear of “foreigners” that has long permeated our society – a country of immigrants – requires education and change. Still we're more sympathetic to those who follow our immigration laws.

xvi      The problem of people trying to adapt to society's biases is the same as that of those who try to “pass” as members of another religion.