Maddie Got A Gun

And a Tanach (complete Jewish Bible).

My granddaughter was inducted into the Israel Defense Force last week and my wife and I were there. It was just outside of Ashkelon, right by the Mediterranean. And we were proud.

We had just arrived in Israel a few hours earlier for a planned visit, and decided that with a little help from our son (the inductee's uncle) we could get to the event. He was also visiting but had arrived about a week earlier and he planned on driving to the event. So we hitched a ride. And we didn't regret it. It all took place in a dirt field and was very amateurish, but we didn't regret it at all.

There are several reasons why people enter military service. Among them are the draft, the hope of learning a useful occupation, time out for people who don't know what they want to do with their lives, the wish to kill, and other such admirable goals.

But Maddie joined for another reason. Like many of her cohort, she did what she thought was right. Yes. Some people join the military because they believe that the defense of one's country is a noble goal. Maddie is from New Jersey, but seems to have committed to moving to a country that embodies her ideas and ideals, notwithstanding the view of others. It is a country that issues a Tanach along with a weapon, because it believes the faith and the history in that book will help inductees better understand their mission.

Patriotism and the conviction that your home and your people are worth defending are powerful motives for enlistment when there is a threat. However they're anything but the universal justifications for service or for waging war. All too often war is a quest for “things,” a wish to get more, and the actions of the opponent a desire to keep what it has. The things may be territory, resources needed by a country, a conquered population, or wealth and status for those directing the attack. They may be political, economic, or religious, but the “bottom line” is that the provokers want something that they don't already have – something that is not theirs.

According to Jewish law and tradition there are legitimate reasons for war, including defense, but an attempt should be made first to avoid the war – to find a way to attain peace. War has, for millennia, been imposed on the Jewish people not only by the nations that surround Israel but by those who want to eliminate the religion altogether. Unfortunately that mindset persists, and the primary wish of the countries that occupy the region (apart from Israel, of course) is to destroy the nation and drive its citizens “into the sea.” Indeed, the main occupation of the United Nations is to find fault with Israel which, despite its tiny size and despite the conflicts, killings, and refugees all around the globe, it has made the butt of its righteous indignation, condemning it more that all other countries put together. It's an obsession promoted by many of its members; an obsession which has been made the main distraction from the world's other problems and, very specifically, from the nations that are promoting the vitriol.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but the two together, ideas and arms, make for the best defense against the spiteful nature of wars and people who are acting with only their own benefits in mind.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah)

In the meantime, however, a gun and a bible make a good start. And Maddie has them.

I Pledge Allegiance

When I was young ….  No, you're yawning already. I'd better start again.

الله أكبر Allahu akhbar. There. That opened your eyes! (Note to anti terrorist operatives and their computers: This is not a personal sentiment. I don't agree with it or its implications at all. It was only intended to get the attention of the reader.)

They're words that inspire fear under certain circumstances – situations marked by violence. But the words also contain a message for the rest of us. They're often accompanied – either in person or on a video – with a pledge of allegiance to ISIS, another terrorist group, or to Islam in general. And they're said by people who know they will die in the action in which they are participating. In that regard they recall the words of Nathan Hale, who, in 1776 at the age of 21, about to be hanged by the British for spying, said I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.

There was a time when Americans saw something as more important than their lives and comfort – a time when they valued their country and its ideals. And that view persisted for centuries. Perhaps there were dissenters, but our national perspective was one of confidence and determination. Frances Bellamy, a minister, wrote The Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 (adopted from a pledge by Colonel George Balch) and it was almost immediately incorporated into school curricula. Indeed, after it had been in use for fifty years, the pledge was adopted and a Flag Code was adopted by Congress, and within it was the following:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

The pledge was considered a unifying act, and it solidified the patriotic attitude of Americans, especially the children. Not everyone agreed with the practice however, and in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that children could not be forced to recite it. Half the states have not accepted statutes encouraging its recital – and there has been considerable controversy about it since 1954 when the words “one nation, under G-d” were added. (Balch's original pledge included mention of G-d.) Nonetheless the courts have decided that the First Amendment bars its banning by opponents from the classrooms. Despite that, the Supreme Court has also expressed the opinion that burning or otherwise desecrating of the American flag is simply a manifestation of free speech, and is protected.

Perhaps liberal Americans, including the courts, motivated by guilt, self-doubt, or the inspiration of political correctness didn't recognize the importance of love of country, but Islam, and especially its jihadist offshoots, did. Using mosques and clerics, the schools, television and the internet, it has convinced adherents that their faith superseded secular law. It emphasized the Koran and Islamic traditions and denigrated other cultures. And the violence inspired by such teachings has not only involved lands in the Muslim world, but has spilled over into nations previously unaffected, often as the result of individual actions. Though only a small minority, whether born in the land where they pursue jihad, the children of immigrants, or immigrants themselves, there are many who seem to be predisposed to behave in a manner contrary to the principles of the country in which they act. We may choose to view them otherwise, but they are members of a community – we are all members of several communities, often with conflicting values – that has taught them to take action against those who believe differently from them, and to be willing to die in order to eliminate those infidels. They are united. Their view of right and wrong is not the same as ours. Yet, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, we try to understand their feelings and to justify their actions without openly identifying the causes of those actions and the nature of the perpetrators.

And it all starts at home. Members of a family are likely to defend each other against the outside world – even when we know they are wrong. We protect those close to us – those who have similar backgrounds. They are our family. They are like us. So if we are a minority, or if we are different in outlook from our neighbors who may have values other than ours, or if we are new – even if we have not been infiltrated in order to do violence – there is an increased possibility that we will favor our own ways over those of the society in which we find ourselves. (See The Price of Prosperity by Buchholz for a discussion of the problem and some suggested remedies.) Family loyalty is strong, especially when individuals are taught from birth about the primacy of an ancient culture and its teachings, about loyalty and honor.

The existence of higher values themselves is worthy, though the particulars are misguided, and the nature of ours differs. Imbuing our values in our children, however, requires our teaching them of our nation's history; of explaining the context of acts in the past which may differ from current ideas; of emphasizing commonality and our love of country and its symbols. And it requires the open questioning of values contrary to our own, rather than simply accepting them as moral equivalents protected by the Constitution. We can permit the expression of contrary views as protected by the Bill of Rights, but our rights to express disagreement with them are equally protected, and the refusal to defend our ways is a lesson that our children will learn from us. If we disparage the actions of our government and those who defend us, so will they.

America has many faults. But, I believe, far fewer than most other countries. And we have mechanisms to correct them. The mechanisms may be cumbersome, but they should be followed rather than acts to promote other cultures and destroy our own. Patriotism may be out of style – it may be politically incorrect – but if our nation is to survive we must take steps to promote it. If we burn our symbols, we hurt ourselves.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

May the New Year bring unity and strength to our country.

Fear And A Changing Attitude

It's interesting that “the party of the rich,” the Republican Party, is now attracting the poor – not the minorities, but the poor among the “majority” who fear a takeover by the “immigrants.” And interesting as well that the Democrats count among their followers the headliners in the movies and theater – the high-salaried “stars” – and the liberals, opposed to injustice, who believe they speak for the downtrodden, though among them are many of the wealthiest of our citizens – members of the fabled one percent. And they have added more to the campaigns of their favored candidates than the conservatives whom they blame for distorting the First Amendment and the political process with their money – however that's not really the point.

There is no denying the conservative nature of some of the leaders of industry, since free enterprise is one of the primary tools of their success. But now, in addition to private industry, large government and extensive regulation have provided jobs and income for large segments of our population – whether union officials or the executives who employ them; whether middle-class or higher. And the ninety-nine percent, and, even more so, those who claim to speak for them, demand increased taxation of the rich – of the one percent – although they are often of that class whether or not they admit it. In fact whether or not they recognize it.

Around the globe, however, there is a swing toward a conservative mindset that encompasses the lower middle-class and poor of many nations. It has many causes, but nationalism, religion, and economy are its tap roots. The concept of Eurabia, however applicable it may have been a decade ago, has become a more prominent issue as migration from a war-torn Middle East has increased recently. And the populations of many of the affected recipient countries involved have become more and more and more concerned. And more and more conservative.

The recent “Brexit” vote is illustrative of the renaissance of isolationism which is one of the hallmarks of the new attitude. Patriotism and xenophobia accompany it, with increasing fear and rejection of the immigrants. In part this reflects an economic concern – there is fear that the market will be flooded with unemployed “foreigners” who will take jobs from the homeborn. And they'll change the nature of the society. Whether or not the fears reflect reality, they're real. Elections in many of the involved countries demonstrate the “rightward” turn of the public.

There is also worry that among the immigrants are some who actually threaten their new homes. War has raged in the Middle East throughout history, and terrorism is a feature of the last few decades. That terrorism has spilled over into nations around the world, and the perpetrators almost invariably have connections to the Middle East – to (contrary to political correctness) Islamic governments, clerics, and organizations. With very few exceptions they are Muslims.

Those involved in violence are a minute minority of Muslims everywhere, but their impact, physical and political, has been tremendous – causing fear everywhere, and sometimes even retaliation. (Retaliation, when it occurs, is generally irrational and based on ethnicity rather than ethos. It usually has nothing to do with the attitudes and actions of the victims, only with their ancestry.) Anxiety about the risks associated with the immigrants may be overstated, but it is increasing, and probably is an intentional result of the terrorists' efforts. Whatever increases tensions between nations benefits the radicals. Islamophobia may result from terrorism, but it also results from people's fear of terrorism. And since Islamophobia's existence is “proof,” for those already convinced, that the society is evil, the terrorists gain from inducing it.

Small as the risk may be, however, it cannot be ignored. And neither our protectors (military and police) nor our politicians are likely to ignore it. Actions taken by our protectors are usually aimed at the benefit of society, while the words and actions of politicians are generally undertaken in order to obtain personal gain. The populism that xenophobia can arouse is a powerful political tool for them.

Perhaps the elimination of the terrorists, by whatever means is necessary, is a step the world should be taking. Defending them as understandable victims of an unjust West only validates their claims and justifies their acts. Many of our own people insist, however, that we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's not “who we are,” and doing so allows “them” to win. (What we're doing now, though, doesn't constitute a win for us, nor make it likely that there will be one.)

On the other hand, the ideas of survival, self-defense, and a “just” war need to be worked out. There is no virtue in suicide or extending our necks to the sword. That's not who we are either. Turning the other cheek to tyrants is tantamount to approving their actions. We reject the role of “world policeman” viewing it as a pejorative designation, but isolationism isn't the answer. We cannot as easily reject our responsibility to help those who need us – though it sometimes seems to be national policy to do so.

Perhaps finding a middle ground between their ways and ours is the best approach. Perhaps some will view that as a compromise with evil. Whatever we decide, however, that decision should come soon. Whether or not we allow it, they're winning. We're turning to the right largely because of the perceived threats of immigration. The “sympathetic,” if naïve approach of so many of our citizens, needs to be rethought. There is a new alliance of conservatives with many of the poor who fear the changes that are occurring around the world and are beginning to speak out. If, as we claim, we oppose injustice, its time for us to listen to their concerns.

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

Following the writing of this essay and its publication, a terrorist (“no terrorist connections” but a pattern familiar in Israel) drove a truck into a crowd and then started shooting them. It was apparently a “lone wolf” attack making prevention of similar attacks difficult. But it emphasizes the need to understand both the psychology of the killer and of the theology that promotes such horrors. If it happened in Israel, it's likely to happen elsewhere.

Enter Brexit

Werner Heisenberg was born December 5^th, 1901. I'm sure of that – but not much else about him. Except for the fact that he was uncertain.

His uncertainty arose from the idea (fact) that “everything in the universe behaves like both a particle and a wave at the same time.” That's the way author (of, among other things, How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog) Chad Orzel describes the problem, and that it results in the Heisenberg Principle: that you can never simultaneously know the precise position and the exact speed of an object. You may know how fast you're going, but not where you'll end up. Or you may know where you are and where you're heading, but not have any idea of when you'll get there.

I don't pretend to understand what it all means. I'm not a dog, so the explanation eludes me. But it's clear that the principle, which is one of the basic ideas of quantum physics, operates on all levels – not only those of sub-atomic particles.  Proof of that was provided last week when British voters expressed their will to leave the European Union. The decision was unexpected, but the Brits decided to wave goodbye to the continent. Whether the world will ever be the same is uncertain, but even if it is, when that would occur cannot be guessed.

There's a lot being said and a lot being written on the subject, and it's all very tentative. At this point no one knows the timetable for action, not even the British themselves. At least they won't admit to any formal program. (It would be surprising, however, if they hadn't considered possible scenarios, and their reactions to them, prior to the vote, but they aren't revealing any plans yet.) In the meantime, stock markets around the world are fluctuating wildly and negatively to the results of the vote. Economists, bookmakers, and other oracles had expected a decision to remain, and the markets had been going up in anticipation of that outcome. The actual result was a (n alarming) surprise to all of them. The world's largest gambling houses – the stock markets – had bet wrong and were scrambling to minimize their losses. In Heisenberg's terms, they could see what was coming and when, but they had no idea where it was going.

The economic effects of the vote shouldn't be a surprise however. The “science” of economics is advanced well beyond Heisenberg. Economists know neither where they are going nor how fast. They speak with confidence, but the results of their predictions are often wrong. And the prophesies of different practitioners often contradict each other. That's the case even in “normal” times, when there is no extraordinary circumstance like the current crisis.

What's to be done? Many in England are calling for a “do-over,” a repeat of the balloting. Some claim that they didn't have any idea of what the results of separation would be. They had been misled by the plan's proponents. Others stated that their votes had been intended merely as protests – that they hadn't expected this result. But there will be no new vote. The results are final.

But maybe the results are a signal of what's to come. They had as much to do with nationalism, immigration, and pride as they did with economics. And these are all international issues. Perhaps those favoring isolationism around the globe will feel validated by the British vote. Populism may propagate like a wave around the world. England may be the leader of a spreading movement.

For while the wave of the future may lead to world-wide uncertainty, it may not contain a particle of truth. One possible explanation is that the damage is being caused by the rhetoric of paranoids who haven't thought out the implications of their actions. Perhaps unintended consequences are the heritage of this vote, and of others to come.

The time has come to stand there and do nothing. Populist-led action and change are not necessarily the recipes for improvement. We mustn't be led blindly into the “last refuge of scoundrels.” We don't know what lies ahead; indeed there's a lot that we don't know, and never will. Heisenberg has told us this. Brexit proves it. The only possible positive result will be that we learn from it.

A Solemn Day

“Four score and seven years ago ...”

The words, known to most school children and their parents, are the opening words of the Gettysburg Address, probably the best know speech by any American. The world will long remember them.

Fewer of the children and adults know that they were uttered by President Abraham Lincoln
on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Pennsylvania. The battlefield was filled with the graves of “who here gave their lives that that nation might live.” A year later, on July 4^th, 1864, those graves were decorated with flowers by local women, and that practice was later adopted in the form of a national holiday, Decoration Day – which we now observe as “Memorial Day,” although the character of the holiday has changed completely.

The decoration of graves by family members is an ancient custom, although the practice originated to memorialize single individuals. There is dispute about the origin of its observance as a recollection of the deaths of the numerous soldiers lost during the Civil War, but the practice certainly began in several locations before the Commander-in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic (the GAR, an organization of Union Army veterans), General John Logan, called for the establishment of a national holiday – Decoration Day – to commemorate the sacrifices made by so many. In that form it was first held on May 30^th in 1868.ⁱ Although the practice was not at that time an official holiday, it was taken up by localities and states and, soon, the Federal Government.

The observances varied from time to time. Decoration of the graves was an important feature, as were the speeches that recalled the sacrifices of the dead and the atrocities of those who had opposed whichever side was favored by the speaker. The flag was lowered to half-staff and memorials were held for the fallen. In some locations parades were held.

Subsequently, as national military cemeteries were established, and as more died in other wars, military observances became more formalized and more ritualized and, in 1967, the name of the holiday was changed to Memorial Day. Although the name had been adopted in some locations earlier, it was changed under Federal law at that time. As both the old and the new names testify, it was as solemn day – one of remembrance and appreciation.

Things changed, however, the following year with the passage of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act which changed Memorial Day, along with Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day,ⁱⁱ into Monday holidays near their original dates. This created three-day weekends for Federal workers, and soon for others as well. And those holidays, memorials of our history, became joyous celebrations, accompanied by paid leave and barbecues. In the case of Decoration/Memorial Day, what had been a solemn day, a day to remember those who died preserving our freedom, became a time of celebration, picnics, automobile races, and the unofficial beginning of summer. The politicians, primarily for PR purposes, continued to pay lip-service to the original intent, but it was clear that the day had as little meaning for them as it did for most Americans. The only ones who cared about the meaning of the holiday were those who had lost friends or family members. Most of the rest of us viewed it as a day off with pay.

But whenever we observe the day we must remember that it originated as a day to decorate the graves of those who fought and died for us, and became a day of memorial for them. They may not have fought willingly, they may have opposed the wars in which they were called upon to take part, but because of them are free and we are alive. Perhaps we, too, questioned some of the choices our government made, and would have preferred another form of conflict resolution, but we chose the government and authorized it to make decisions for us. We are responsible, and we owe our heroes our respect.

We can't go back. We are alive and they are dead. We can argue about whether those deaths were necessary, but we cannot change the facts. We cannot bring them back. We may take a day off from work and celebrate, we may have a barbecue or go on a picnic. But if we forget that they didn't get a day off, and their action was no picnic, then we deny our own history. We deny our national goals, converting patriotism to frivolity, and the sacrifice of others to a day off for us.

We have an obligation: we must continue to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us. We must remember. For if we do not, our entire raison d'être perishes from the earth.

 

 

 

 

I        May 30^th was chosen, according to government sources, because that corresponds to a time when many flowers are in bloom and can be used for the purpose. The date does not commemorate any specific event.

ii       By 1975, in response to veterans' pressure groups, Veterans Day observance was returned to November 11^th, the day of the armistice that ended the First World War. Even so, some communities observe it on other dates and irrespective of the day of the week that November 11^th falls, a day off from work is arranged for Federal employees, and some others. For many of them the meaning of the holiday is less significant than the time off.

Mom, Pop, And Jack The Killer Giant

I happen to like a lot of fat on my steak. Preferably charred. With salt. And a nice glass of wine.

Perhaps I'm a megalomaniac. After all, that's what was sacrificed to the gods. Meat, fat, salt, wine – and, of course, the sacrificial meat and fat were burnt. No. I don't think I'm a god. It's just that I like a fatty piece of meat.

But where can I get it? Nowadays all the meat that's available is trimmed of all visible fat, as much as they can get. Fat, after all, is bad for you.ⁱ

I have to admit, though, that I'm ambivalent. Not about the fat, but its source. There are very few butchers left – especially if you're looking for kosher meat. Sure, there are some cuts available at kosher supermarkets, but the choice isn't very good and there's no one who will trim it the way I want it, or provide the types of meat in which I'm interested. If it's not what sells the fastest to the most consumers, the giant chains aren't interested. They won't carry it.ⁱⁱ Even the middle-size supermarkets tend to avoid anything but the common cuts cut commonly. Money's the monarch and one size fits all. That, however, allows lower prices, which is something I like. I suppose that if I looked hard enough I'd be able to find a butcher who would give me what I want, the way I want it. But the search would be a great effort, matched only by the prices. So proximity and parsimony win almost every time.

The problem, though, is not limited to food, for it involves virtually all consumer products. The “big box” stores and major chains are rapidly displacing the smaller operations – the “Mom and Pop” stores – in which I shopped when I was young. They were solitary operations without franchises or other evidences of plurality. And the staff – usually the family of the owner – paid attention to your requests. That was a time when the customer, not the purchasing agent, was always right.

That was also the time of the “five and ten.”ⁱⁱⁱ It had whatever you were looking for, rather than what was being remaindered. The focus was on the products, not the profits. Perhaps that's why those stores are out of business now. The current trend's example of a similar kind of operation is the dollar store, but they tend to have different stock each day.^iv Whatever is a bargain for the vendor. Whatever guarantees a profit. Take it or leave it. Don't expect them to order something else for you. Ditto the chains. The small mom and pop operations have been driven out of business by the giants.^v

But there's a lot more to it than that. A small store that sells something will usually stand behind it and provide whatever service is necessary if there is a problem. The person you spoke to when you made the purchase is your neighbor^vi – the same person to whom you will address your questions, and there isn't likely to be finger pointing and blame of the manufacturer or distributor. If a repair or replacement is necessary it won't require a reference to a higher authority – like a service desk or department on a different floor^vii – or the issuance of store credit. The price may be a little higher, but the ulcers will probably be fewer.

And there is also an international aspect to the issue.^viii I'm not suggesting that my steak has to be imported, but that the relentless search for a lower price for everything will probably lead not only to the chain store, but to products manufactured outside of the United States by underpaid or underage workers. Choosing that bargain requires the trading of personal financial interest for a national economic handicap. It's hard to argue with the search for higher quality wherever it may lead, but if the only goal is a lower price, an argument can be made for nationalism. At a time when we are suffering with a high unemployment rate, actions which preferentially encourage importation are certain to increase our problem. However chauvinistic that sounds, it cannot be easily dismissed.

Lest I seem too much the patriot, I'm not. I can't resist a bargain any more than anyone else. When faced with a tempting price I don't know anything about slave labor, and I make no effort to find out. But part of the calculus of a bargain involves what happens after the purchase. If I'm apprehensive about the service I may require, I'm more likely to shop locally than more distantly – especially on line. I don't like sitting on the telephone waiting for someone overseas, who doesn't really understand me or my problem, trying to talk me through a solution. And, I admit, I have trouble on occasion understanding what is being said to me.

So it really boils down to that calculus. It seems to me that it's reasonable to seek a genuine bargain if I can be sure that the low price I get more than compensates for any possible complications – like having to go back to a distant store or repackage what I got from one of the package delivery services. But when local services and products are available for a reasonable price, I prefer to encourage small, local businesses. After all, I like my meat^ix like I like my meat. One size doesn't fit all.

 

Next episode: “Because I Said So” -- Admit it. You've used that line.

i     I remember walking through an open-air market in Morocco with my wife. All the cuts of meat that were displayed showed the same degree of overtrimming that I see here in the United States. They, too, had accepted the gospel that fat is unhealthy. So the flies and other insects swarmed over well-trimmed meat.

ii    We live in the age of green. Not only environmentalism, but money, dough, jack, greenbacks, scratch, or whatever the common currency of the day is called.

iii    Known by many as the “five and dime,” signifying the cost of the merchandise.

iv    The same is true of many of the big box and chain businesses. The selection is governed by what is available at a good wholesale price, and can give the store a good profit. If only one brand or model of a particular product is being promoted by the manufacturers, that's all you'll find. And it may be different next time.

v     That's also the case with rural operations. The family farm is gone – replaced by agricultural production in the hands of huge corporations.

vi    I know that has a Frank Capra ring to it, but local businesses are usually run by local people – often those you know. Especially in a small town setting.

vii    Somewhere far off and with a long line.

viii   Apart from the fact that most of the stores and farms are owned by multi-national corporations.

ix    And fat.