That's All There Is

I'm dying. But so are you.

Déjà vu? It's not an original thought, but I admit I used the same words in Various Thoughts XIII on August 3^rd, 2017. Then it was theoretical and intellectual, but now it's for real. If it hasn't happened already. Consequently this will be my last post. If I have anything to say in the meantime I'll slip it in between essays already scheduled for publication.

First of all, I've been very lucky. (My wife, too. We've shared in our good fortune.) I have cancer. Death is inevitable and isn't worth wasting space on. But we've had (that's me and Phyllis) over fifty-seven years together, and they've been good years. We have three children, thirteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren so far, and all have been good kids. No drugs or other of the evil signs of the times. All have remained faithful to their faith, and their propects look good. They love our people and they love Israel. I couldn't be more proud.

So what prompts this message? I've been losing weight despite attempts not to do so, and having some pains and discomforts I can't explain. Perhaps it's nothing but I doubt it. I'll report the findings to my doctor and get her take on the situation. And undergo the tests and whatever therapies she proposes.

In the interim, however, I've decided to record some thoughts I have. If you've been reading this blog, none of them will surprise you, but I wanted to jot them down anyway. They're about me rather than the disease and will explain a little more about who I am. As for my style in this essay, it's likely to be erratic. I'll record my ideas as I think of them, and that means they may not be in any logical sequence.

I live in a blue state but I'm purple – disappointed in the “new liberalism” (populism and antisemitism) of the left and attracted by some of the policy positions of the conservatives. I agree with concerns over the needy, in a religious and human way (and based on my upbringing in a liberal household), but I don't think protests and throwing money at them is the answer. On the other hand I support a more conservative view of our economy and national strength, but oppose our thumbing our nose at the rest of the world. I support Israel which has become the convenient target of antisemites and of the left in general – especially out of our country – even if I don't support all of Israel's policies. But I should add that I don't support all of our country's policies either and I consider myself a patriotic American.

Like most conservatives I'm old-fashioned. My clothing is stodgy and square. It's not unusual for me to be one of the few who wears a suit and tie to Shabbat and Yom Tov services. I relate better to the values and customs of my youth (including the music) than what is currently in style. I know the same can be said of every generation that preceded mine, and that this will always be the case, but I cannot help feeling that we're moving too fast – especially in our tendency to declare all dissidents to be right, and those who consider themselves oppressed to be declared protected minorities. I regret our inclination to protest whatever we don't like – and that's a very recent development – rather than to try to work with those we oppose. Ideology has taken precedence over common sense.

I'm Jewish, which you may have deduced from what I've written here, or learned from previous essays where it has been expressed unequivocally. I try to follow the precepts handed down to us by our sages. It's what I do, and I'll continue doing it as long as I can. I'm a creature of habit, and Judaism provides habits which resonate with me – habits I love. But I'm a little troubled that most, if not all, of the laws were written by humans. Even those attributed to G-d have been recorded – if not formulated – by humans. They may have been inspired, brilliant, and wise, but they were human and passed down to us, often with commentary, by people like us. No matter. What they say makes sense and seems fair. Admittedly we judge them using human not divine standards, but that's all we have. They tell us there is a G-d but it's not something we can confirm independently. It still doesn't matter. And, of course, I have no concept of death. The idea of an afterlife seems to have come about as a reaction to Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong but it's hard to ignore the fact that it wasn't mentioned in our early teachings.

I'd like to believe that there is such an afterlife and that it is a continuation of this one, similar to what is taught children. But I suspect that if there is such an existence it would totally unrelated to the one we are living now and we'll have no knowledge of this one or the people we knew. We have no knowledge of what happened before we were born and there is no reason to believe that we'll remember this life after it ends. But who knows. Human thought and logic don't apply. (FOR MY FAMILY: There's a lot more on my views of the subject on the Asus and on my flash drives. See Thoughts.doc. It's in “documents” on the open Office menu for drive C, and in “The Imperious Loudmouth” menus on the flash drives.)

I live (or lived, as the case may be) in Mount Vernon, New York, and in the same house for over forty-seven years (as of the time of this writing). I decided long ago that I'll never move because that would entail cleaning out the attic, and I'm not prepared to do so. It will be my children's problem and give them the chance to find all my old secrets, as well as some items that may have accumulated value over the years. It will also give them the opportunity to bump their heads. But they'll be careful. They were reared in this house and know their way around, so they know where to look and what to look for.

I have an agreement with Phyllis (full disclosure: it's not really an agreement but a demand I've made) that I'll die first. She keeps the books (she's far more organized that I) and I'd never be able to manage our affairs without her. I suspect it will be far easier to live without me than without her, although I know that a period of mourning will delay any immediate consideration of the issue.

Sadly, Phyllis is ill as well. Diagnosed much more recently than I, but ill nonetheless. Hence there will be a race. We both want it to be a marathon rather than a sprint, but that is out of our hands. To the loser belong the problems.

I probably should express some of my wishes for my family and for the world. None will be either original or unexpected, but all of them are deeply felt. For my beloved wife I wish happiness and a long life. I trust her therapy will be helpful in this regard and keep her symptoms and her disease from progressing. She's dedicated herself to working for the community and to the lives of others, and deserves the best for herself as well. I hope that she'll have the companionship that will make her happy. I know she has many friends through her Medicare counseling position and from members of the community. And, of course, the love and concern that she'll receive from our family.

As for that family, I wish unity. And mutual love and concern. I love them all. I hope they (and the rest of those who can do so for that matter) make an effort to care for the needy and afflicted wherever they may be. I mentioned earlier that they were all good and we were lucky. I pray that our luck will continue. Our grandchildren, at least some of them, are working out their plans for life and I wish them well. And all of my children and grandchildren have shown their attachment to the Jewish People and to the land of Israel. I couldn't be more pleased.

My wishes for the world are equally grandiose – though I am less sanguine about their accomplishment. I fear that my wish for world peace will never reach fruition. There are always power-seeking and self-absorbed people who will seek to enrich themselves at the expense of others. For them the power they feel while ruling a country and making it victorious over others will always exist, and it will prevent the compromises and accommodations necessary for us all to lay down our swords and join hands.

I am also concerned that prejudices will remain despite every effort to eliminate them. Antisemitism has been around for millennia and is achieving new strength as large nations and brainwashed people search for a convenient scapegoat to which they can point. Nations do it to distract their constituents from the real problems they face. Individuals pass their biases on to their children – biases they were taught by their parents and their leaders.

What I really want will take a miracle. It is that people learn to work together; that they learn to compromise for everyone's good; that they accept the idea that they cannot have everything they want but can contribute to the good of others. I believe in absolutes – at least some absolutes. I believe that in the DNA of all humans are instructions about how to live with our neighbors. After all, rules about human interactions are common to all of us. And they tend to be very similar. It's a human instinct. There are some outliers, with damaged DNA, who don't accept those absolutes, but most of us do. Perhaps evolution will ultimately rid humanity of its morally damaged. That is my hope and my wish.

My consolations are that I believe there is a G-d and that, from time to time, He authors miracles.


PS.  Irrespective of what I've said, check next week to see if there are more posts.

Enjoy!

August 7, 2017

For The Sake Of Our Children

As you sow, so shall you reap.ⁱ

I'm a proud sow and so. I almost called myself a defiant sow and so, but I thought better of it. “Defiant” is a very bellicose word. It suggests a militaristic approach: an angry, arrogant, and aggressive one that is the antithesis of every value I hold. I envision a world in which peace and freedom are the primary characteristics of all humanity.

I believe – as I'm sure you do – that our children should grow up in such a world. It would be a world in which love and fellowship would guide our every move; it would be a world in which Mankindⁱⁱ would be “at one” with all the plants and animals that share our world and, in fact, with the Universe itself. That was the world sought by some friends of mine – a couple – who, in the Woodstock Era, played a major role in the founding of a commune based on these values. The commune was known as Eutopiaⁱⁱⁱ and the founders envisioned a community in which all members were equal and participated in all aspects of the society's life. Not only would the adults be able to promote and experience a moral and ethical life, but their children – and they would come eventually – would mature with only those views which their parents knew to be true, and to be the proper foundation for lives of virtue. Nothing was too good for their children. Nothing was more important.

And the early members of Eutopia were dedicated to the idea that they were all residents of the same sphere, and all shared responsibility for protecting it as well as themselves. Their motto was “Save our world and save ourselves.” And soon enough they became known as SOW And SOs.^iv And so it was that they – and now I – have come to change the world.

First a little about the Eutopia they built: The residential units, which are little more than dormitories, are single storied constructions^v situated on a prairie in South Dakota, not too far from Rapid City. The community is adjacent to the Black Hills and the South Dakota Badlands, and its main structure – which serves as a meeting hall, the seat of “government,” and the site of any “large” congregation – especially a noisy one – is underground, built into one of the foothills. The intent was to place such a site in a location from which loud noises would not emanate. This would be a protection against sound pollution. Since they were living among the wildlife native to the area, it would have been unfair to disturb the true owners of the land in their homes. Similarly, no light escaped from the meeting hall, so as not to be intrusive in this regard. There were skylights, however, so that there would be light during the day with no use of electricity. But they were covered at night.

The dormitories, too, were shuttered at night so no light would escape. Since no radios or television sets were permitted, noise was not a major consideration.^vi And the light was provided by candles, which the residents made themselves. There was electric light – low power consumers such as fluorescent and LED – in the meeting hall, with solar and wind energy for generation of the electricity, as well as with the power provided by a backup generator. It was run using vegetable oils, so as not to require fossil fuels. No official use of animal products was permitted nor was any exploitation of non-human species.^vii Thus they were all vegans and the foods they ate were all home-grown without any animals used for plowing.^viii And they eschewed the use of any fertilizers – the chemical ones were not natural, and the natural ones originated from animals. Plumbing needs for the dorms and the hall were solved with wells^ix for the inflow, and a septic field for the outflow – widely separated, of course.

Food was a major concern. They were all vegan converts but, for the most part, largely unaware of what that meant, and how it was different from vegetarian. So when they learned that honey was forbidden, as well as mayonnaise and many commercial breads and cakes, they had to make some adjustments. There were other strict rules: everything had to be natural and organic; no gluten was permitted nor were there high-fructose corn syrup, fats (especially trans-fats), artificial colors or favors, or anything considered an allergen – especially nuts. And nothing that had been radiated or contained GMO ingredients. Specifically that related to genetically modified plants, since no animal products were permitted.^x They were “green,” and let permitted breads sit until covered with green mold before they ate them. They knew that penicillin came from bread mold, so this was a way of treating some infections. They also used vegetables and fruits rich in anti-oxidants, recognizing that there was oxygen in the air all around and in the air they breathed. It's a problem for which they (now “we”) have not yet found a solution.

I'm one of them now, but things haven't changed much over the years. We keep contagion to a minimum with rubber gloves to protect our hands and cotton elbow-covers which are always worn in case we should cough or sneeze. These, like the rest of our clothing, are laundered using washboard and stones. No artificial soaps or detergents are ever utilized. For our personal needs we use sanitizing liquids, towelettes, and natural soaps with anti-bacterial capabilities. It's a hard life, but our children are worth the sacrifice.

Finally, we teach – no, we emphasize – love and tolerance. We never attack each other,^xi but if we did we would turn the other cheek. We're very much at peace. And we're self-governing. That means that each of us makes his own rules which we value as long as they don't impinge on others. Some may view this as anarchy but we see it as complete freedom. Peace and freedom are what our lives are all about.

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

Those words were written several months ago but I learned something which I conveyed to the elders and, after lengthy discussion and, ultimately, action by the group, everything has changed. What I learned was what I overheard. It came from our children, who had a council of their own^xii – a council that we established and supported. One of them, one with an iPad^®, informed the rest that virtually everything we taught was nonsense with no scientific basis. The general response was that they all knew that already but didn't want to confront their parents. As soon as they were old enough they planned on moving out and joining the “real world.” They had tolerated this silliness to achieve peace. Soon they would have freedom.

They understood the value of peace, but otherwise they had learned almost nothing from our wisdom. Although many members were ill or had died young, our sacrifices were for naught.

And now, as there is no Utopia, there is no Eutopia.

Next episode: "Nota Bene – Not" –  There is an end to all good (bad and mediocre) things.

I        While that expression derives from Galatians 6.7, it is actually a rephrasing of an older idea originally found in Ecclesiastes 11.1, “Send your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it.” Some translations prefer the word “Cast” rather than “Send,” but the one I used, Tanach, the Stone Edition by Artscroll, chose “Send.” A footnote in this volume reads ”Charity should be given even to strangers; generosity will not go unrewarded.” Later in chapter 11, in verse 4, Kohelet, identified earlier as David's son, King Solomon, speaks both of the man who will never sow and the one who will never reap. A modern of the expression, one somewhat different in implications, is “What goes around comes around.”

ii       And that certainly includes women and children as well, but the masculine form is used because that has been the tradition in the English language, as it is in many other tongues. For this reason it is important to state that wherever a masculine noun or pronoun is used it refers to both sexes and to all ages, unless it is otherwise stated.

iii      This commune was to be ideal, and all of its principles were to be followed. Only those who agreed to them would be allowed to join. The clear delineation of those principles was an important factor in convincing others to commit themselves and to join. Even more so, however, was the dedication of the founders to a goal that appeared to be as close to perfection as possible (while still being achievable). They were charismatic personalities, and their beliefs were so powerful and attractive that those who heard the message were mesmerized by it and yearned-for permission to be a part of the movement. The marijuana also helped.

iv       I myself joined the movement only after a couple of decades. I had not known of its existence originally even though it was organized by some friends, but, ultimately, when I learned about Eutopia, I was completely taken by everything it represented (even though marijuana was no longer a staple there), and I petitioned for membership.

v        Wheelchair accessible.

vi       Some of the younger residents had iPads^® or other electronic devices that were battery-run. They were intellectually harmful and were discouraged, but no one made a fuss as long as they were used quietly.

vii      Any product that had been tested on animals was forbidden. The included most cosmetics and virtually all medicines. We did use traditional formulations and those generally considered safe even though never tested. Also used were vitamins and those preparations that strengthened our immune systems so we wouldn't need FDA approved medicines. Vaccination of the children was rejected both because the vaccines contained animal products and because everyone knew they were unsafe.

viii     They did use corn-oil powered tractors, however initially there was much debate on their use because of the measurement of their engines by horse power. Of course they recognized that they weren't using actual horses, but they also knew that the concept had developed from such use, and they were hesitant to benefit from the original exploitation. Eventually, however, they were accepted, though it was viewed as a compromise of their original principles.

ix       Bottled water was proscribed because of the wasteful and toxic plastic bottles and the fact that some of the waters contain added ingredients like fluorine and chlorine. Natural water was more healthful and less expensive. (Apropos the plastic bottles, on the rare occasions when we purchase commercial products we make sure the packaging is minimal and recyclable. No plastic packaging is permitted.)

x        Free-range and hormones are obviously not issues. Nor is the use of antibiotics in animals.

xi       And we avoid contact with the outside world. Even so, we have great love and respect for those we never see.

xii      Even at a young age we taught them self-government was the backbone of the community.

Plausible Deniability

 

My time of day is the dark time
A couple of deals before dawn
When the street belongs to the cop
And the janitor with the mop
And the grocery clerks are all goneⁱ

That's my time, too. It varies though, since dawn comes up at different times at different times of the year. And in my neighborhood the streets are mostly empty. No cops and no janitors. There's an occasional car which is usually driven by someone delivering newspapers to the houses nearby, or other things to the one store open at that ridiculous hour for the convenience of people on their way to work. They value a hot cup of joe to keep their eyes open as they drive.

I value the solitude; the quiet, and the time to think, provided by a walk through the empty streets, and the cool, or even cold, air of the morning. It's peaceful and it's private. I am unobserved and I am unsupervised.

Sky Masterson wanted to share his “time” with Miss Sarah Brown, and no one else. And that was possible at the time the story was written because it was before the time of video surveillance at every corner and at every store. But there is no privacy now in many areas, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision that it is a Constitutional right. Fortunately there are no camerasⁱⁱ along my early morning route so I can relax.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg also wanted privacy. In their case it was from the listening ears of Nazi intelligence officers. So they went for a hike in the Danish countryside. What they discussed wasn't recorded and they described their conversation differently, but there is no actual record documenting what they said. They wanted privacy and secrecy and they got both. As did “Andrey Botvinnik” and “John Honeyman,” who took walks in the woods near Geneva. Their conversations, in Lee Blessing's play,ⁱⁱⁱ conversations believed to be based on those of Soviet and American diplomats, involved nuclear policy and were unofficial discussions between two men who came to be friends. The conversations were off the record and the men could change their minds without international repercussions. Whatever they said could be denied. Plausible deniability is a valued and proper tool in government – even if it may seem to be unethical. But if something like WikiLeaks comes along it is hard to deny what was not intended for publication in the first place. Privacy in conversation, and the discipline not to reduce all our thoughts to the permanent record, are our best protections against nosiness and the urge to “let it all hang out.” There's no hiding from a working paper which may later be changed because it is recognized to be ill-considered, but which, in the meanwhile, found its way into the hands of someone more interested in “transparency” than laudable motives and results.

Those days, sadly, are over – the days of privacy and secrecy. You have to be suspicious of those you're with – even those you consider friends. With the miniaturization of transmitters, unsuspected everyday objects, like buttons or pens, can betray your words to others. And there are long-distance listening devices as well. The woods are no longer safe, even if you're talking to yourself.

But it does not require hidden cameras or transmitters. Surveillance cameras are everywhere and we have stopped noticing them. But more frightening to me is the fact that almost everyone carries around some sort of recording device. It may be a video camera or even a camera telephone. In some ways, I suppose, that's a good thing. But for the most part I think it intrusive. In fact, the portable telephone itself is not for me. I don't need to “touch” someone at all times. And I don't want to be called when I'm looking for privacy. Nor do I want to hear the conversations of others, which often shatter the peace I seek.^iv I don't need to hear someone screaming into the telephone what ought to be private information. I don't want to know. And I don't need to have my life placed at risk by another driver who may be more interested in gossip than in the road. There may be laws against such behavior, but they're violated so frequently that they might as well not exist. We certainly don't have the means to enforce them.^v

The unseen threats to our privacy are even worse. They're worse, in large part, because even if we know they're there, we don't think about them or recognize what they can do. We may even view them favorably if we are aware of their presence. Having a GPS chip which can connect to a distant site may be of help in locating us if there's an emergency. But most of the time there's no emergency. Even so, our telephones, GPS navigation system, hand-held computers and similar devices know where we are at all times. We're never alone, even when we want to be.

I admit it. I'm a hermit. So I may be oversensitive to intrusions. And I know there is no stopping what we view as progress, whether I like it or not. But, perhaps, technology, and its detritus, are coming at us too fast. Perhaps what we want is overwhelming what we need. I'm convinced that it is. I suspect that too many people are so seduced by the wizardry, the newly discovered abilities, the speed, and the convenience, that they are blinded to the implications. What looks as if it is freeing them is actually doing the opposite. Mae West thought “too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” But it can also be destructive.

Bohr and Heisenberg once hiked to Elsinore – the site of Hamlet's castle. Hamlet had his demons, in the form of ghosts. I have mine too. But they're in the form of Big Brother, and all my little brothers and sisters all around who may be watching me. Leave me alone. I just want peace and quiet. I don't want Sarah Brown, or anyone else, not even Mae West, sharing my private time.  I want to be alone.

Next episode: “I've Got It Coming” – Don't I?

i     Sky Masterson, from Guys and Dolls, by Frank Loesser.

ii     As far as I know.

iii    A Walk in the Woods, 1986.

iv    Nor do I need or want to hear the loud racket of ring tones which are presented to me from the pockets of others wherever I go, and most annoyingly during a concert or religious service.

v    At least not at present. The time will come, however, when automobile manufacturers will not only remove the devices they've already installed – telephones, computer screens, and the like – but will find a way, when the engine is running, to deactivate those brought into their vehicles from outside. Or at least those in the front seat. Taxi and bus drivers may get edgy without their telephones and intercoms, but we'll all be safer. Even GPS's are distracting.

Wishing Will Make It So

 

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.

This was Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer dating back to the mid-1930s. It was known as the “Serenity Prayer,” and its message carries that emotion.

In January, 1946, addressing the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, Pastor Martin Niemöller said

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It was for the wrong reasons, but Pastor Niemöller made the right decision. He acted from apathy – from a lack of concern about others – but had he spoken up, nothing would have changed, except for the likelihood that he, himself, would have been taken away sooner. It wasn't that he had the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what could and could not be changed; it was simply that he didn't want to get involved. But that was because even in retrospect – his poem was composed after the war – he saw words as his only option. Words. As if the pen were mightier than the sword. But it isn't. Words are certainly powerful, but that power has its limits.

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

More words: Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that reads, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

It's nonsense, of course; it's the kind of self-righteous and vacuous pronouncement that characterizes much moralistic rhetoric; the kind of philosophy that, some decades ago, produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers -- stickers sported by people blinded to reality, who felt morally superior to those aware that the world contained individuals who preferred war to love -- who would come to a war -- people with whom we had to deal.

The unwritten message is that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek; don't fight back. But that leaves you blind while the attacker can see. Or perhaps you are already blind. Turn a blind eye to evil and only the good are disabled.

An eye for an eye won't work. Certainly no eye for an eye rewards the "bad guy," putting him further ahead of the good. Even "an eye for an eye" merely allows him with more eyes to continue, coming out even or benefiting from the situation. It's the strategy of the war of attrition, of the uncaring who force those who do care to capitulate in order to prevent further loss of life. It's carried out by those who don't value the lives they sacrifice – especially if they're other people's lives, most especially women and children. President Reagan said, "History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

But must we wait to be blinded before responding? Should we not care when we're not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed. And what's a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should the relatives of those who died on 9/11 be satisfied that those directly involved were killed? How do you dissuade those willing to die, or have others die, for their cause: those who know they'll ultimately be freed if captured before completing their missions – given another opportunity to murder? How do we discourage terrorist acts, apart from giving in to the terrorists or blaming their victims for existing? Sadly, the views of too many are governed by politics and economics rather than concern for right, wrong or justice. But I doubt that the families of the Lockerbie victims are comforted by the "rehabilitation" of Muammar al-Qaddafi,ⁱ or that the families of those killed on September 11th, 2001 get closure knowing that Saudi Arabia is our "good friend" and ally.

But what, if not "an eye for an eye?" If we cannot prevent murderous acts, two eyes for an eye or three or four will lessen the advantage, punishing those who choose violence. Disproportionate? Not really. They who would try only to limit rather than stop terrorists may feel morally superior, but any tyrant will gladly yield the moral high ground for the terrestrial low ground. They'll concede morality in a shot. But it's you who will be shot.ⁱⁱ Terrorists mustn't be appeased. Those who send others to murder are themselves murderers and should be punished appropriately. In times of peace the death penalty may be fit for debate, but wars must be fought with complete victory as the goal. Were we too quick to reject Senator Goldwater's 1964 "[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" and to veto our generals' call to fight wars to win rather than to achieve a stalemate? Nearly one hundred years before Goldwater, President Lincoln spoke of "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right ..."ⁱⁱⁱ Perhaps these should be our watchwords. "Firmness" and "Right." We shouldn't be embarrassed by fighting for what we know is right. We mustn't be blinded to what is right by moral relativism or self-defeating breast-beating. Our actions should be swift and overwhelming. "Shock and awe" may have been too limited geographically, and ended too soon. If our acts seem harsh, the costs of inaction must also be considered. After the "War to end all Wars" came the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which outlawed war entirely. Then came Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time." But these were followed by the Holocaust and, more recently, Cambodia. And now we have Darfur, Rwanda and Mumbai. Still we have not reacted. The world is not Hollywood. Wishing won't make it so. Action is required.

Turning the other cheek, accepting less than justice may make us feel morally superior, but there is no superiority in death over life, no virtue in slavery over freedom. Refusing to fight back may make us feel good, but it will leave us, and the world, blind and in chains. Words have meaning. But without actions to accompany them – to back them up – they are self-indulgent tributes to our vanity, to moral superiority irrespective of the physical cost.

Though he believed we must accept the things we cannot change, it is worth noting that Reverend Niebuhr, in his “Serenity Prayer,” urged us to have the “Courage to change the things [we] can.” He was a “liberal” but supported interventionism and power politics, rather than depending on words and hope alone. We can all learn a lot from him.

Next episode: “Invitation To The Dance”

i     Or the “compassionate” release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

ii    Of course your mortality will be accompanied by morality. You'll die happy and virtuous.

iii    Was President Lincoln a war-monger and extremist? Should we reevaluate him, or our criteria for “extremist?”