The Modern Approach

Times change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I remember President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational. Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners," ("first they came for ...") the "1%," the government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.

I return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who misunderstood his message.

I'm willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft, kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent – continues. They believed that this was what they could “do for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their actions – their own lives and the lives of others.

Whom did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right" on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on their behalf.

The protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights," some of which require much teasing from our founding documents – or may not even be there – usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).

And the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in the past. More important is what the law means. At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is right.

That's not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can." For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the rasher "because I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly, although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis. The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought – only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians (including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more important.

And that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines. And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

There was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.

It's time to return government to those we've elected.






April 28, 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

Say What I Say Or Shut Up

If I've said it once … – no, they wouldn't let me say it. They shouted me down.

That's the current status in academia and, for that matter, much of the non-academic community. Too much of our society has come to a point of intolerance, and demands agreement with the “accepted” point of view. Most in the news is the approach of our universities to differences of opinion among students and, more important, the role of faculty. Students must be bearers of a socially acceptable political philosophy – they probably are anyway – and faculty don't hesitate to indoctrinate them in their own opinions resulting in students' fear of being penalized if they should hold otherwise. And, in addition to the incitements of bellicose students, faculty sometimes provoke student protests against speakers with whom they disagree. Those they oppose are wrong, and students shouldn't (have the opportunity to) hear their views. No one wants to be thought of as violating societal norms and opposing his “friends.” So there is conformity with the beliefs and wishes of others.

Those in charge, fearing negative reaction, set up “safe spaces” where only the opinions students want to hear (or are told that they do) are permitted. Opposition is silenced – forbidden, despite the fact that one of the most important functions of an academic institution is to expose students to different points of view. It is better to reinforce popular positions than to risk questioning them.

Freedom of speech is simply an extension of freedom of thought. And everyone is entitled to express his thoughts. Anyone may argue with them but may not silence them. While the courts have permitted limited restrictions based on safety, the suppression of opinions is not acceptable. There have been alien and sedition laws from time to time. While they were defended as safety measures, their imposition was wrong and they have been withdrawn. And the courts find a Constitutional right for what many would consider pornography (and I am one of them) and a threat to the safety of our society, especially the young, in view of the fact that it is rampant graphically and orally. Expletives are rarely omitted in our society, except by those trying to make a point.

In short, censorship of almost any kind is proscribed. At least by law. But more and more we are experiencing the loud expressions of the politically correct, and the silencing of views that differ with their ideas. Protests and intimidation provide the censorship that is prohibited by law. But isn't the insulting of those with whom you disagree politically as much hate speech as the expression of negative views of those whose ethnicity or sexual preferences differ from yours? And isn't attacking them a hate crime? Yet these acts are rarely prosecuted as hate related.

Free speech has a long history in our country. It's a basic right as defined by the First Amendment to our Constitution. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled on numerous cases dealing with it. (There have also been cases involving freedom of religion – another First Amendment right – but I'll deal with them another time.) For the most part they have confirmed our rights, even though there have been many who would like to still those whose views differ from theirs. And they have included groups (Citizens United and other organizations wishing to express a view). We have long accepted the right of the media to do so and if a rich newspaper can express opinions, it's not clear why other organizations should not have the same right. Free speech may not be free, but it should apply equally to all.

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. (Thomas Jefferson)

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. (Louis D. Brandeis)

We'd be better off if those who promote “Truth” would listen respectfully to others who may subscribe to a contrary “Truth.” And even more so if they talked to each other and worked out their differences of opinion.

Sez Who? 2

In an earlier essay (May 29, 2011) I wrote about free speech and its defense, concluding that all speech should be permitted and that, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis,

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I noted Justice Robert Jackson's words as well

The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

While I still agree with those sentiments, I am aware that I didn't spend any time on an important underlying problem – the plethora of “speakers.” What I mean is not that everyone is talking at once, although that's certainly true – and, sadly, there is “a good deal of rubbish” around – but that there are so many who are “experts” and we are getting our instructions and our marching orders from more and more of them. And obeying those in charge is even more complex. So determining what is valid and what isn't often presents difficulties. I have my own views in this regard, but I realize that others may disagree. Nonetheless, I shall present my appraisal of the various sources of “the rules of the road” – those telling us what to do, or pretending to be more virtuous than we, and to know more than we do. To one degree or another they direct our thinking and our actions, though they often contradict each other.

Among the oldest standards, and the ones considered by so many to be the least rational, are those that are spiritual in origin. The Bible and other religious codes contain the absolutes that we are to accept, because they are “right,” and whatever contradicts them is wrong. By and large they don't accept the idea of cultural diversity and contrary opinions, and the responses of believers to disagreements are a blind eye and ear in the face of perverse notions, tolerance, argumentation, and war. Luckily my religion boasts the correct rules and I am thus the bearer of ageless wisdom. But, I suppose, you feel the same way, even if our traditions don't overlap. (I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it. PS – I'm not interested in war.)

According to the religious approach, the absolutes were announced by G-d, and are universal. There's no such thing as “moral diversity.” Right's right and wrong's wrong. But not everyone holds this view. (They're wrong of course.) So we've wound up in a situation of national anarchy. Every country makes its own rules, and they usually differ from each other and from the religious absolutes. That's what I mean by “national anarchy.” Secular laws are whatever the legislators want them to be – what they or their contributors find the most appealing – without any necessary linkage to propriety and justice. No. that's a misstatement. Since they make the rules, they define “propriety” and “justice.” It's whatever they say it is, and you'd better do what they say.

But even that's not correct, at least not in our country. And I presume elsewhere as well. Our legislators set goals and leave it to others – unelected bureaucrats – to make the regulations that we have to follow. Penalties result if we don't do so, despite the fact that the rules were never approved by those our Constitution decreed responsible for doing so.

Secular law, however, is superimposed on a large number of other sources of instruction that abound in our lives. Among them are “common knowledge,” customs and traditions (“We've always done it that way”), fashions, rumors, societal “norms,” the expectations of others, and numerous other guides. Our bookstores are filled with handbooks for us “dummies” so that we'll do things in the right way.

And besides the sources of instruction are the authorities that tell us what we should do are those who tell us what we must do. At home it's our parents. Elsewhere it may be teachers, bosses, doctors, accountants, union stewards, and similar experts. And, of course, judges. Their opinions and biases, after all, supersede the written laws which, in any case, they interpret. In actuality, they have the last word. Ignorance of their views is no excuse for violating them. (You certainly don't want to contradict a dictator. At least not if you value your life.)

That's the minimum. There are other authorities of all types and they both set standards for us and manage our lives. Hebrew National answers to a “Higher Authority.” And federal and state authorities make sure that we're following the rules. And the MTA and similar agencies govern our ability to go from place to place. There are others, of course, which only deal with us in particular areas of life. In my case, for example, the JCAH (Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals) decided what constituted proper medical practice, setting the rules as to how to follow their wishes but, every few years, when we were finally beginning to understand their rules, they changed them.

What's the answer? What should we do – especially when standards and rules disagree? There are different approaches, mainly based on your philosophy. But rather than outline the approaches themselves, it will be more productive to review the criteria you'll use to choose.

Your level of belief may lead you to choose religious edicts rather than others while attachment to life may take you in another direction; abiding respect for your nation's history and customs may govern your actions but the suggestions of your lawyer or accountant may direct the way you abide by the law; the guidebook for dummies may point you in one direction and your personal trainer may go the opposite way. It doesn't matter what you choose. You're wrong.

So the best answer is to do whatever you think is right; to take the approach that you think is most consistent with your personal philosophy and your ultimate goals. But be prepared to take the consequences if things don't work out. Those who practice civil disobedience with the knowledge that they may be arrested are doing that, but it's what they've chosen to do; it's what they believe to be right.

So speak your mind, and either make a decision based on what is important to you or flip a coin.

Just remember. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

September 21, 2016

Ya' Wanna' Know What I Think?

Probably not. But I won't let that stop me.

There's no end of polls. You can't open up a newspaper without seeing the results of the latest survey of our opinion. They're often color-coded – blue for the Democrats and red for the Republicans – so you don't even have to read them to know what we're thinking. You don't even have to know how to read. And the more I hear of American public opinion, as conveyed by these polls, the more convinced I am that many of our voters don't know how to read. I know I became convinced long ago that most of them don't know how to think.

The presumptive candidates for the Presidency from the major parties are, apparently, both disliked and feared by the majority of voters, but that doesn't stop the electorate from expressing a preference when asked. Both candidates reflect the views of many of our citizens: one says whatever comes to mind. He doesn't waste his valuable time thinking about what he's saying or contemplating the implications. He has no interest in promoting the views of his supporters – only in expressing his own prejudices. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.” Fortunately for him there are a lot of people who think the same as he, and will fight for their unconsidered views. So he is, strangely, representative of much American opinion.

The other candidate is focused on the wishes of a large number of voting blocs and, does her best to vocally support them all – after finding out what they want. Not surprisingly, then, she, too, speaks for a significant number of citizens – since she is leading them. From behind. “Look before you leap.” In the past she has made many errors of her own, but strives to ignore them and show how she supports everyone else. And her position has been (adversely in my view) affected by the stands of an opponent in the primaries with a large number of outspoken and opinionated supporters who place “intellectual opinions” above intellect – who also don't consider the implications of their positions, though they are ready to fight to defend them.

Of course no one has bothered to ask me what I think. I'm not sure, however, whether that pleases or disappoints me. As I look at the published polls – and they must be right or they wouldn't be in print (“Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.”) – the pollsters choose not only the questions they ask, but the acceptable answers. So participants are forced to decide between the alternatives they're offered. I guess that's necessary for the pollsters, but it really doesn't give the people whom they question the opportunity to say what they actually think. Instead they are faced with Yes/No questions (most of the choices are binary) or ones determining the degree of agreement or disagreement an individual has with a specific statement. I guess I'd be flattered to be asked my view, but frustrated at the limitations in being able to offer it.

I must admit, therefore, that I was delighted when I came across IStandWith (https://www.isidewith.com/) on line. I suspect that there are many other sites like it to help inform the voter of available choices, but they would be difficult to summarize for the media, so they're not the ones that make the news. Perhaps that's the reason that published polls are sometimes in error.

In any event, this poll not only offered the polarized choices, but both a variety of more nuanced views ("other stances") and the opportunity to state one's own thoughts ("add your own stance") on a very wide variety of issues (and their questions change from time-to-time). At the end the computer will compare your views with those expressed by the candidates of all parties, allowing you to determine how your ideas compare with theirs. It also lets you designate the level of importance of the various issues and breaks down opinions on those matters separately.

I'm not sure that I'm always happy with where my own views lead me, but it's a better start on informing myself than seeing the latest pol poll in the papers. I can't be sure the site doesn't have its own biases, and an algorithm that is designed to convince me that I favor some particular candidate, but it's a good start and spells out some of the candidates' views as well. Now if I make a bad choice, I'll be better able to defend it.

He Who Pays The Piper

A fascinating – and, to a degree amusing – article appeared on the front page of today's (May 23, 2016) New York Times. Its title was “Adelson's Era: Do Billions Erode Press Freedom?” and it was written by Sydney Ember. The article contends that the owner is putting pressure on the Las Vegas Review-Journal staff to conform to his views in the publication of the news. A specific concern is that newspaper management is guilty of “editorial interference.” The owner himself denies any participation in the nature of the stories carried, and the editors also state that he has played no part in their decisions, but it would be naïve to claim that the same editors, knowing a little about their boss, weren't eager to please him.

It's certainly a significant fear, but perhaps it is unwarranted. Before I discuss its validity, however, let me digress.

I mentioned my wedding last week, but let me make one additional comment which is apropos in light of my discussion today. We chose the band. And while we didn't have a precise play list, we let them know what kind of music we liked, and they were happy to present it for us. By and large the specifics were their choice. Not a big surprise. At least it wasn't then. But times change.

Courts have taken to deciding the nature of a baker's or a photographer's services, and who is entitled to them. Specifically the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court argues that various aspects of cohabitation are covered by the Constitution under the rubric of “privacy” (which, however, is not a right identified in the Constitution). Based on those views it's hard to claim that the choice of music at our wedding might not be considered by the Judiciary to be just as much a Constitutional issue as “Press Freedom.”

The concept of a free press began in this country with the acquittal of John Peter Zenger, in 1733. His trial established the right of a newspaper publisher to air his views. That was before there was a First Amendment or, indeed, a Constitution, but it was a freedom needed then, one that's still the basis of our liberty. And it is a freedom that includes the right of property [newspaper ownership and the right of the owner to publish what he wants], also viewed by our founders as a basic principle upon which our country was grounded.

Press freedom, as I said, is one of the pillars on which our country and our liberty stand. (Some restrictions on it exist but they are limited and governed by, among other things, the laws of libel, sedition, and public safety.) All of the media enjoy it, but it doesn't guarantee that all press organs will be objective – nor should it. They needn't all be fair and balanced. And they're not. All have editorial policies which reflect the biases of their management. And all observe the five esses (in addition to the five double-u's) of journalistic messaging: selection, size, space, slant, and spin. (It's funny to see one paper accuse another of tampering with the news. They all do it. Even on-line, “trending,” and “social media” sites. So we have a lot of sources available and can choose the point of view to which we already adhere.)

The New York Times is a good example. It's a “liberal” paper (reflecting the views of those who own and run it), which means that it is left-leaning, anti-Republican, and anti-Israel (pro-Palestinian – favoring the “weak minority” of Muslims in the Middle East). That's not an accusation, it's a fact. [Adelson is a Pro-Israel conservative Republican which justifies his selection for a front-page condemnation.] And that's what the Times's readers want. It's been in business long enough that the staff knows what is expected of them. Applicants are likely to share the same philosophy, and those hired can be relied on to tell the stories that management wants, and tell them in a way that is desired. (Indeed, they may be “advocacy journalists” who include opinion in what readers assume is objective reporting.) The staff has been selected. Of course when there is new management of a paper the shaking-out process has not yet occurred and staff, who might not have sought employment under the old ownership, are not yet in place. And when such a change occurs current members of the staff may decide that they don't want to hew to the new line.

Selection plays another part in the process. The choice of stories, and their placement, also reflects the paper's (management's) perspective, and is aimed at getting the “right” message to those who only read the front page or the editorials. Those stories that cannot be ignored, but which may conflict with the approved message, are likely to be buried inside or otherwise inconspicuously. The same is true of (small-print) corrections which, though undesirable, must be made when the (prominent large-print) news presented is in conflict with reality.

Size is another criterion considered when a story is published. More space (including number of or articles as well as their length) is devoted to what carries the preferred message, and less to what opposes that viewpoint – if it is published at all. Look at the letters to the editor and you'll see that those questioning the paper's view tend to be short, and they are overwhelmed by those that support the agenda. Strange, then, that the Times was critical of the Review-Journal for shortening stories critical of its owner.

First paragraphs of stories – the ledes – present the slant. They tells the impatient reader all (s)he needs to know in order to have the correct perspective on a subject. While a more accurate understanding of the situation might result from reading the full story – with important facts “clarifying,” and possibly contradicting, the premise of the writer found deep in the story. Fortunately most readers don't get far beyond the first paragraph, so they know only what they are directed to “know” based on the initial slant.

But the icing on the cake – what tops it all off – is the headline. And that is the artfully written spin that directs the thinking of the laziest of readers. Once they've seen the headline they know, and probably agree with, the outlet's message.

All in all, when, for example, the public reads an editorial supporting a President who has knowingly misled the electorate, they will know that the editors are only laying out the organ's dogma. Readers expect the media to present the views their owners are trying to sell. After all, no one is surprised when an auto company fails to disclose all its product's problems or a lawyer tells only what is favorable to the jury. We believe what we want to believe – but we probably believed it before someone tried to convince us. It doesn't take billions to do so, but we'd take it if it were offered to us.

The Sixty-four Dollar Question

It's time to think. And I'm going to help. I have a bunch of questions for you. Even if you don't print them out, remember your answers. Before you answer them, read all of the choices and justify why you agree with them or disagree. You may feel that multiple answers are appropriate for some of the questions, so mark whatever you believe. The marking key comes after the questions, and will be explained then. Please don't cheat and look at it before answering since it may affect your responses. Work with me.

1. The NASA space exploration budget should be
   a. whatever they need to discover the secrets of the Universe.
   b. increased so we can explore our own solar system.
   c. increased at the same rate as Social Security.
   d. limited to whatever is necessary to protect us from other nations.
   e. eliminated.

2. Marriage should
   a. be a religious sacrament with no governmental rules.
   b. be between one man and one woman.
   c. be between two committed people irrespective of their sexes.
   d. involve as large a group as wish it.
   e. be eliminated. It's an outdated concept.

 

3. Darwin's theory
   a. isn't a “theory,” it's a fact.
   b. should be a required subject in every school.
   c. has internal errors and contradictions.
   d. should be taught alongside Creationism.
   e. is an erroneous and harmful fraud.

4. Political officials
   a. have accepted a lower salary in order to perform a public service.
   b. seek benefits not known to the public at large.
   c. view local offices as stepping stones to national ones.
   d. are often untrained for the job they have assumed.
   e. are crooks.

5. The National Debt
   a. is unconscionable and should be eliminated.
   b. can be stabilized if we have a balanced budget.
   c. will be a burden for our grandchildren.
   d. is appropriate and our grandchildren will find a way to deal with it.
   e. is necessary if we are to redistribute resources from the super-rich to the needy.

6. College education
   a. and its associated increased income is a right of all Americans and should be obligatory.
   b. is an option that should be available to all who want it irrespective of background if America is to keep up with the rest of the world.
   c. should be limited to the qualified but supported by the government.
   d. is a dalliance of the rich.
   e. should be eliminated in its present form and replaced by training in useful skills.

7. “Right” and “wrong”
   a. are absolutes that apply to everyone.
   b. are relative concepts that are properly determined by individual societies.
   c. are tools of the rich to establish dominance over the poor.
   d. are suggested guidelines rather than instructions.
   e. are nonsense. You're on your own and you only go around once.

8. Entitlements
   a. are guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
   b. should be paid for out of taxpayers' money even though this may be viewed as income redistribution.
   c. will be most effective if they are international, and they should be managed by the United Nations.
   d. should be decided upon by the people, not politicians.
   e. should be eliminated. No one is “entitled” to what he does not earn.

9. Wagner's music
   a. is uplifting and magnificent.
   b. forms the basis for modern music, like what we have today.
   c. is good, but not great like the work of Bach and Mozart.
   d. is unsettling and it lasts too long.
   e. is anti-Semitic and should be banned.

10. Free speech
    a. has no limits.
    b. should be limited only if its use could lead to physical danger to others.
    c. must not be hateful nor insulting. Some censorship is necessary.
    d. differs from nation to nation. American standards are not generalizable.
    e. does not permit one to make another feel threatened or uncomfortable.

“The sixty-four dollar question” is not a term that is heard very much anymore, having been replaced by “the sixty-four thousand dollar question.” The term originate on a radio quiz show (“Take it or Leave It”) during the 1940s and reflected a reasonable payout for the times and for the medium. Sixty-four dollars in 1940, when the show started, would be worth a little more than $1073 in 2015.

But with a change in medium (radio to TV) and the public desire for excitement, ”The $64,000 Question” was born. (There were also numerous parodies of the program, including 'Bob and Ray's “The 64-Cent Question.”) That's the term used nowadays. And it's understood to designate a very difficult question – usually an issue rather than an actual question.

What I've given you, however, are actual questions, and you'll probably want to know how you did. So here's the way to determine your results:

                              For each question you answered “a,” - 5 points

                                For each question you answered “b,” - 4 points

                                For each question you answered “c,” - 3 points

                                For each question you answered “d,” - 2 points

                                For each question you answered “e,” - 1 point

If you didn't answer the question you have scored 0 points. If you have given multiple answers to any question, add up all the scores, removing the highest and lowest of them.

Add the results.

Multiply by the score for not answering a question.

Add 100.

That is your final score (assuming you're not arithmetically challenged). 100% Congratulations!

The quiz, as you may already have noted, is one of opinions, and yours are just as good as anyone else's (except mine). For you, then, it's a perfect score. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers – only opinions.

But the purpose of the quiz was the asking, not the answering of the questions. The intent was to give you the opportunity to think about some of the issues that have been bothering me. I thought I'd drag you down too. Misery loves company. There are many more problems troubling our society, and the ones I've selected tell you a little about my thought processes but, as I noted above, the goal is for you to consider these topics – to decide what you think about them but, more important, to try to figure out why you feel as you do. Insight is the real reward.

And since your questions are probably different from mine, you may want to consider them. You've probably got anwers already, but give some thought to other possibilities and examine why they are or are not satisfactory. Perhaps you'll change your mind; perhaps you won't. But you'll understand the problem better.

And once again, Congratulations!

Next episode: “All Men Are Created Equal” -- And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

I Think I Missed Something

I attended a dinner recently, and at the other end of the table were two friends who were having a heated conversationⁱ about politics. Actually, from my (disad)vantage point, I could only hear snippets of the exchange, but I knowⁱⁱ both of the participants and their points of view, so I'm fairly sure I know what they said.

Part of the argument centered on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, with one of the parties arguing that both the Constitution and the Supreme Court sanctioned gun ownership, and the other condemning it and contending that we no longer have militias, and that no one needs, or should have, a gun. There were other topics mentioned, but they were similarly laced with polarized rhetoric. It was a typical dispute between a “crazy” conservative and a “bleeding heart” liberal. Both had a lot to say, but neither was listening. And neither had the capacity to say “I don't know.”

Were they involved in the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” debate, I suspect that they would also have been poles apart, although the pro-lifer would probably have favored the death penalty, while the pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) advocate would have opposed it categorically. And if the subject were the Patriot Act or some similar question regarding National Security and surveillance, One would support “whatever is necessary” while the other would be adamant in expressing horror at the intrusion of the government into our lives and thoughts. Yet contrary to all reason, the latter would encourage legislation that enlarged the government while the former would recoil at such a prospect.

The problem as I see it – and I've written about this before – is that we tend to be so involved in rhetoric and so enamored of our ideology that we haven't the time nor any interest in questioning it. We're not interested in its inherent logic. As I noted recently, we're more interested in accomplishing our goals than in analyzing where our those goals will lead. Logic is not our strong suit.

It all boils down to right and wrong – or at least the views of right and wrong existing in the imaginations of single-minded ideologuesⁱⁱⁱ who see no valid alternative to their views. And there is no room for compromise. It's a “take no prisoners” situation.

Is it too hot? That shouldn't be a surprise. We're undergoing global warming. Are we setting records for the cold? That, too, is a result of the warming. Perhaps there's too much snow or rain, or maybe there's a drought. All of these have a single cause – global warming! And tornadoes? You guessed it. The selfish producers of carbon-based fuels are to blame. They not only pollute the earth at ground level but they destroy the ozone layer above that protects us from the sun's rays. And since we all use carbon based fuels, we are all responsible.^iv

Of course there are others who are convinced that those who rant about warming are disingenuous, or simply misinformed – the historic facts don't support the claims. Not only are we going through a warming period consistent with the variation that has always taken place on earth, and not something based on fuel usage, but the blaming of all weather conditions, both desirable and undesirable, on a single cause is just plain “junk science.” Humans are not responsible for global warming and they cannot cure it. Those contending thus are as certain of their position as are the people whom they oppose.^v

Another example of the phenomenon is in the news all the time. Russia is taking over Ukraine; Iran maintains its “right” to enrich uranium, although there is universal anxiety over the potential for developing nuclear weapons; genocide is a daily occurrence in many African countries; Christians are being killed by Muslims and the battles between Hindus and Muslims are vicious; the “Arab Spring” has turned into winter; there is unrest in China, South America, and Iraq, and there are wars and conflicts in, among many other countries, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and Kashmir. There are even numerous assassinations and other murders in the context of the drug wars in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere.

Yet the world^vi seems to have found only one way to stop the injustices it sees all around. The worst offender is Israel. Whether it involves Church bodies, academics, nations and international organizations, consumers, or simply individuals with prejudices, the response they propose for all the problems we face is to boycott Israel. Indeed, the BDS movement^vii is the answer to anything to do with the Jews and enables you to deny antisemitism while indulging in it. And if such an accusation should arise, it's probably being made by the Jews^viii who use it to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Another illustration of the phenomenon, and I'll leave it at this although there are numerous other examples, is the current dispute over homosexuality. There are many who believe that it is the cause of all the disasters to which we are subject. Humanity is punished – especially the countries and localities where it is tolerated – for such behavior. They view natural disasters as the penalty for the actions of a single “deviant,” or the toleration by society of the LBGTQ^ix movement as a whole.

At the same time, for supporters of the movement, the absence of their members from some activity is proof of sexism. Television shows, movies, plays, and written works that lack someone with their sexual orientation are intolerable. As with other manifestations of the “traditional family” and “traditional values” in general, such views have no place in the twenty-first century outlook. Absence of a recognizable member of the LGBTQ community is ipso facto evidence of prejudice.

That, sadly, seems to be the way societies – not just our own – are turning. Not only do large groups find themselves unable to recognize and accept the truth,^x but they cannot tolerate the idea that there is any virtue in the views of those who disagree. There's no room for reassessment of their views and certainly not with compromise of those views so as to achieve a harmonious society.^xi Mind over matter. We live by the rule that the “underdog” is always right and anyone who has a different view, or who favors the ideas he was taught as a child – including the love of his own country – is wrong. We live in a post-traditional world, and we live with new truths rejecting any reliance on the old. In our multicultural, morally relative reality, we accept almost anything, especially if it is a denial of what our parents believed. It is rebellion writ large. It requires that we take the side of anyone lacking power – whether or not he is right. We believe that might makes wrong. Certainly that's the mantra in the United States.

But I must be missing something. It seems to me that we're looking for “right” in the wrong places. To a degree, we want to be different like everyone else. We want to be virtuous in an evil world. But most of all we want to be right. No, we are right, and we support the right causes even if others oppose them.^xii We accept whatever those whom we see as the weak say, and do whatever they want us to do. And we rebut the strong even if, were we to pay attention, their arguments would make sense. But why listen to such tripe? I think we have a kind of blindered vision that directs us to what it is acceptable to see and believe. And we're prevented from seeing (or thinking) anything else, tolerant of the views of others we consider oppressed.^xiii We place tolerance above realism. We are fanatics who espouse the received wisdom espoused by the good guys and we do, rather than think. We don't hear anything that contradicts our preconceived ideas, and we accept unconsidered principles as we engage in what used to be considered scapegoating.

So we're pigheaded and left with endless arguments in which no one will ever convince his opponent. And we're left with a society that will go its own way – one we may consider foolhardy – irrespective of logic. But that's okay. The pendulum will swing back and everything in vogue today will be rejected. Of course that won't end the arguments and allow us to compromise. We're all too sure of ourselves. So we'll switch sides or find something different to argue about.

Next episode: “The Right To Know” – Of course that doesn't mean you understand.

I       Actually it was an argument. There's no point in mincing words.

ii      And respect.

iii     Fanatics! But I feel so judgmental writing that.

iv      The liberal is likely to hold this opinion.

v       That's the view of the conservative.

vi      As exemplified by the endless condemnations generated by the UN.

vii     Boycott, divestment, sanctions. Of all the countries in the world, and with all the conflicts and injustices that we suffer, all the groups aim their weapons only at Israel. They are not concerned about anything else.

viii    Jews make up only two tenths of one percent of the world's population yet they are believed to control all the instruments of power, and antisemites maintain that they oppress everyone else.

ix      Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. As with BDS, we seem to have an affinity for acronyms. That's been one of our national fixations since the alphabet soup of the Roosevelt administration (FDR not TR).

x       I'm the only one who knows what that is and I'm not telling.

xi      That's the way politicians gain votes, and “intellectuals” earn brownie points.

xii     And often because others oppose them. It's guilt by association. If a “bad guy” has a certain view, it must be wrong. And anyone who takes him to task – who is thus on my side – deserves my support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

xiii    No, we automatically accept them.