The More Things Change

“All that the Lord has said, we will do and we will hear.” Na'aseh v'nishma. That was what the Jewish people said at Sinai when they received the law. They agreed to follow the law that G-d had set for them before they fully knew or understood what it entailed.

G-d was – and is – a populist. Perhaps we don't comprehend the meaning of all the laws He has ordained, but that's not important. It's more important that we abide by His teachings irrespective of our discernment of their meaning. We follow G-d and do whatever He prescribes for us. And that, pretty much, is a description of what a populist is. It is an “individual” whose words and commands are accepted unconditionally.

Populism isn't a new phenomenon, even if we tend to think of it as such. But there are different kinds of populists: G-d decrees laws which will improve us – His goal is for us to improve our lot by following Him – but the majority of populists have a different aim. A populist's purpose is to improve his own lot by attracting a following. So he caters to its wishes when formulating his own appeal. And he convinces them of his sincerity using the oratorical talents he has perfected; he convinces them that the ideas are his own – that he believes in them (as, indeed, he might) and that he will turn them into fact. As a result the word itself has taken on negative connotations because most populists have used their rhetorical skills primarily to excite the crowd for their own purposes.

The main goal of most of them is to acquire power, and the path is usually a challenge of existing authority. There are times when those who follow the new leader are the majority, and times when it is the aim of such a leader to inspire a minority – to mobilize them in order to overwhelm a less motivated, or even apathetic, majority. Most – but not all – are rabble-rousers although, as I said, their aims may differ. Huey Long was a populist. But so were Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who, along with their "indiscretions," introduced leftist reforms in Argentina. Marine Le Pen is quite the opposite – a right-wing populist in France who may some day serve as her country's president. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populists. (Actually all politicians – indeed, everybody else as well – are. They want to be popular. They want you to like them, to vote for them, and to do what they say.) Their techniques and styles may be different, but their aims are similar. Brexit and Occupy Wall Street, different as they may have been, had, in common, that they were populist movements. Goals and likely results may not have been clearly defined, but that was of no consequence to true believers. 
 

Populists are convinced they're right, and they convince others of the same thing. There are some who are intent on improving conditions for those they rule, and others whose only concern is the religious fervor that motivates them and which takes precedence over any human concerns. Nonetheless, however, a commandment not to kill is much more beneficial than an order to kill anyone who disagrees with the leader; protecting refugees is far preferable to using the problem of refugees stir up emotions, so the inspiration of the people may be for good or evil.

People are the same. They haven't changed. But tools have. We can now do things that we wanted to do before but couldn't, for a variety of reasons. While only a few could be reached in the past, and even fewer at one time, the availability of electronic media makes the mesmerization of the masses a reality now. And its use is expanding rapidly. It was first used as an important means of communication by Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose radio “Fireside” chats (he made them from his desk, to citizens wherever they were sitting) mimicked the words of a deity to those who wanted to believe, and inspired their fealty and cooperation. And even more recently, television, the internet, and social media make it possible to inform and rally larger numbers and more quickly.

The media (and everyone else) view Donald Trump as a populist. And he is. He'eshardly the first, however. And while others may see his actions as divisive and contrary to the virtue of diversity (actually “diversity” implies division and difference), he sees himself as representing a forgotten group of citizens whose needs have been ignored by “the establishment.” And he uses the media, including the electronic media, to spread his message. Where others see the term as a negative description, he considers his actions as far more positive.

But doing the old things costs a lot more nowadays. There was much criticism of Donald Trump: that he was rich and able to buy the election. But, in fact, he and the Republican Party spent far less than Secretary Clinton. And many hundreds of millions less than President Obama in the two prior campaigns.

And a third way in which the tools have changed while the goals have not. Now we have more psychologists, consultants, “spin doctors,” and public relations gurus to help people get their messages across, and accepted by others. (People can also be tools.)

G-d was an early populist, but the people chose to obey His commands because He had already produced for them. He had given them reason to trust Him. He had taken them out of Egypt and performed miracles on their behalf.  His actions inspired them to follow His words.

Since then, however, loyalty has been based on promises of improvement rather than accomplishments. But the people are looking for those accomplishments. They have great expectations of what their government will do for them. So if those expectations aren't met they become willing converts to the preaching of someone who promises change and better things. And that's what people want and have always wanted: better things. Methods may have changed but that has remained the same.

Hoffer 4

More from Eric Hoffer. If you don't like his aphorisms as I do, skip this. As before, I've added comments to many of them.

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

Rabid suspicion has nothing in it of skepticism. The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I'm one of those who believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I guess I'm suspicious. In reality, however, suspicion has nothing to do with it. There is evil every person, and it often comes out.

Conservatism is sometimes a symptom or sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted.  I must admit to being a conservative. I picked up sterile radical ideas in my youth, but I let go of them. My ideas have grown and developed.

Those who proclaim the brotherhood of men fight every war as if it were a civil war. Nowadays it's protest and riot.

The hardest thing to cope with is not selfishness or vanity or deceitfulness, but sheer stupidity. One needs the talents of an animal trainer to deal with the stupid.

The passionate are not as a rule culturally creative, but only they make history.

Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth. Actually what it yields in the modern world is accusations and negative appraisals of anyone you don't like.

The true prophet is not he who peers into the future but he who reads and reveals the present. Or pays attention to opinion polls and focus groups. The prophet, today, sees where we are going then runs to the front to lead.

Fear and freedom are mutually exclusive.

To the old, the new is usually bad news. The old are smarter than the rest of us.

America has never ceased to be an experiment. In every generation America has still to prove that a society founded on values cherished by common people can endure, and that it is possible to fuse hordes of heterogeneous immigrants into one nation indivisible.

     [Achievement is largely the product of steadily raising one's levels of aspiration and expectation. (Jack Nicklaus)] It applies to all of society, not just sports.

Everyone expects 1975 [this was written early in 1975] to be a year of decision for the Occident, My fear is that it will be a year of protracted crisis. It is the lingering crisis that debilitates. An explosion would cleanse the air. I would welcome a blowing up of the oil wells in the Persian Gulf. A dramatic end of the fossil-fuel age could be an opening act in the renewal and rebirth of the Occident. The balance of century should be devoted to the search for cheaper and cleaner fuels. In the meantime the Occident should adopt a simpler and slower mode of life and use its manpower in a concerted effort to cleanse and water of pollution, replenish the soil, reforest the hills, and clean up the cities.

Who in the 1950s had a premonition of the witches' sabbath that would be enacted in the 1960s? Once events have taken place, a horde of commentators demonstrate that the unexpected was inevitable. Actually, chance stupidity and cowardice were chief factors. Nothing was inevitable. As I said earlier, evil, as well as stupidity, is lurking in everyone.

To give equality to people who cannot be equal is to intensify their feeling of inequality. So too to give freedom to people who cannot help themselves is to increase their feeling of oppression, Moreover, to give freedom and equality to people who cannot help themselves is to rob them of soul-soothing alibis.

Old age has made me common. I have the typical aches and predicaments of the old. It is true that my nose is not dripping when my head nods in drowsiness and I manage to keep the corners of my mouth clean.

       It is good to remind myself that it is by sheer wild luck that I have in my old age enough money to live on and no money worries at all. So far I have no misfortunes, and at seventy-three I feel that I have won the race. It is true that I am easy on myself. I have a right to an unstrenuous old age. But it must be free of boredom and a feeling of stagnation. This means that I must go on thinking, learning and writing. All I can allow myself is a slower tempo. Mostly this describes me.

The birth of the nineteenth century: the prelude to this most stable and peaceful century was a massive hemorrhage, a twenty-year war. We cannot blame war for the demented savagery of the twentieth century. It is legitimate to wonder whether the nineteenth century would have become what it was had the French come out of the Napoleonic wars as conquerors. The reason the First World War did not wind up the way other wars (including the Second World War) did was that France wanted to be the foremost nation in Europe and would not leave Germany alone. Vive la France. It could use help before it destroys itself.

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

More to come, sooner or later.

People Don't Need People

I lied. Well I didn't exactly lie, but I've changed my mind – and several other things. At the end of my last essay I wrote “Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.” Maybe I'll get around to that and maybe not, but I realized when sitting around that I'd already achieved my purpose.

Since I began spawning these narcissistic forays in October of 2010, I've written close to 375. I've spoken quite a bit of what's on my mind and, by and large, virtually everyone must agree with me since only one person has taken issue with what I've said. I refuse to believe that the reason for this is that no one is interested, but even if that were the case, if others actually read what I write, there would be concurrence with my thoughts.

Anyway, the first of my essays, “Prolegomenon,” appeared on October 5, 2010, and in it I wrote

I hope that others will benefit from my wisdom (which is a given if they read this), but even if not, just putting ideas on screen allows me to consider and develop them. I can confront my own rare logical weakness when I see (and recognize) it in front of me, and, since I always agree with the point I am trying to make, that helps me reinforce and strengthen my arguments. I make no pretense as to fair and balanced opinions. The views are my own. If I present someone else's, it's only to expound on why it is wrong.

I'm sure that the message is clear, but just in case let me explain myself. I've used this tool to help me work out some of the questions that have occurred to me – to try to come up with a better understanding of the issues and to decide on the correct answer (not just for me, but the TRUTH) to the problem I've been pondering. And I did this without even consulting Douglas Adams's computer. The answer – and it is the ultimate answer to cause of the world's problems – is not “42,” but “people,” and the computers they construct and program. If there were fewer people there would be fewer problems. And if there were none, there would be none.

The idea is, at least as far as I am concerned, worth some dilation.

Whatever issue I consider – politics, hostility in the Middle East, religion, constitutional freedoms, or almost anything else – the cause of the difficulty is human. For example, if the government isn't working (“Why,” you ask, “did he use the word 'if?' The government never works”) it's because no one is willing to hear the views of anyone who disagrees with him or to compromise; when (not “if.” I know it will happen, and I know that you'll smirk at “if”) an instance of terrorism occurs in the Middle East, it is because of people's beliefs or fears. Some people who call for freedom of speech demand that right only for themselves and would deny it to those who disagree with them; and those who are believers blame evil on people, who have free will, while those who are atheists have no choice but to agree that people are to blame.

Pogo put it best. “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We're our own worst enemies. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) practices “one-upmanship.” It's as important to us to defeat the “other” as to be right. Too often our goal is not just to help me (a more or less “acceptable” aim), but to beat you (which is more “problematic”). We're always looking for an angle or a loophole. We can't get along with each other because we always want to come out on top. Right and wrong are irrelevant.

Whether you're a Darwinist or a believer, your object is survival. It may be personal, patriotic, or religious – or there may be some other aim. But in order to accomplish it you must conquer your enemies. Life is a zero-sum “game.” Everyone's in it for himself. The one who dies with the most, wins.

The recognition of human responsibility for all our ills confirms my wish to be a hermit on a desert island. The fewer the people the better. The fewer the people, the fewer the problems. Cooperation is an illusion. Some information is OK. It's nice to be connected to the world – to know what's going on – as long as no expectations or obligations accompany that connection. Any interactions with the other participants is certain to lead to disharmony at least, with deception and competition more likely outcomes. Who needs that? I'm from the live-and-let-live school, and that will only work if I stay away from others.

And I've achieved my goal because that's the answer. It's the answer to all our problems. People are responsible. (Other people, of course.) So to have the fewest problems, stay away from people. And recognize their position as the sowers of discontent, as I do. So having clarified the issues I had five years ago, it seems to me that I have nothing to gain by continuing this series. At least not on a regular basis. If there's a particular situation or subject I want to discuss, I'll do so, but there won't be any pattern to my postings.

You're on your own.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, maybe there'll be more.  People may be bad, but I'm not.  And I have more to say.  I can't help it.  Tune in next week ...

Words Fail Us

If you've been reading these essays, by now you know that I'm a hermit. I hate people and I hate small talk. Mostly people try to inflate themselves with their comments, and I'm not impressed because I'm so much better than they. (For the record, I'm condescending and arrogant. I'm opinionated. I'm a curmudgeon. Contrary to those in Paul's audience, I don't suffer fools gladly. I hate (small) people and small talk. The people are a waste of time and their views border on idiocy.

As for my bad points, I occasionally doubt myself, which doesn't make much sense because I'm never wrong. But we all have our weaknesses, and my most foolish is that I give others the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. If they doubt me they warrant no benefit.)

I prefer solitude and silence. Well, music is OK. But, apart from news, I'm not much interested in what is said on the radio. And even the news broadcasts seem to be designed more to entertain rather than inform. I'm word weary. There doesn't seem to be any refuge from Man's inanity. As I said, I prefer silence. But, according to Jean Arp (1887-1948),

Soon silence will have passed into legend. Man has turned his back on silence. Day after day he invents machines and devices that increase noise and distract humanity from the essence of life, contemplation, meditation. Tooting, howling, screeching, booming, crashing, whistling, grinding, and trilling bolster his ego.

What's worse, is that the situation is deteriorating day by day. Arp wrote in the first half of the last century, and since then the technology has gotten more sophisticated and the language more corrupted. I won't waste my time discussing the infernal electronic gadgets with which we communicate, but I'll limit my remarks to the content – the “corrupted” language. I'm not suggesting that languages don't change with time. They all do. It's to be expected. A few years from now English will be different. And in the past it was different. The English of Chaucer is completely foreign as far as I'm concerned, and Shakespeare is difficult for me when I don't have any commentary to help me. But they're not the problem.

What concerns me more is the way we now use our native tongue. Like, I mean, whatever. Even fillers like “like” have always been an acceptable part of the language, and these, too, are of no great concern (aside from sounding stupid to me). Similarly, words borrowed from other languages – whether they represent specific items like “chutney,” or concepts like “Schadenfreude” – have been adopted and have strengthened English.

More horrifying for me – and what makes me glad that I talk to so few people – is the decision to make our language more and more a political tool. It's not something new. We have long recognized not only that the pen is mightier than the sword, but that the basis of this idea is that words are powerful. Too many among us feel we need protection from some of them.

But modern society has gone too far. We've decided that our first responsibility is to spare the feelings of others. On the assumption that whatever we find indelicate will spark the same feeling in others, we have substituted euphemisms for all “unpleasant” words and ideas. For example, a cretin (in the correct medical sense of the term) is “special,” “challenged:” a dwarf (also a useful medical concept) has “stature issues.” A person we used to call “queer” is now “gay” (although the LGBT population has no problem with the term as is illustrated by such groups as, for example, The Queer Film Society and The Association for Queer Anthropology), and if a movie like “The Gay Divorcee” were remade, the Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire roles would have to be changed significantly. Meanwhile the English language has lost a useful word and concept.

And Ginger Rogers would no longer be an actress. We consider it demeaning to have a feminine term for “actor,” although may languages are gender based. (By the way, “gender” is a linguistic term substituted for “sex” in our culture for a variety of reasons that I won't discuss here.) But nowadays we've tailored our language to egalitarian concepts. She doesn't exist anymore. (That's “she,” not she. We haven't eliminated women – just the pronoun.) And our new gender-free language sacrifices itself on the altar of egalitarian ideas. The singular pronoun for man is “they.” The singular pronoun for woman is “they.” We rebel at the idea of sexually classifying anyone. Male chauvinism must be expunged.

Indeed, we don't risk offending someone else in any way (such as saying “I see” in the presence of one who is blind visually impaired). If something is offensive to any individual we view it as an attack, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, or “whatever.” And that makes it hate speech, which is not politically correct (PC). It's considered by the PC police as offending or causing some disadvantage, or even discomfort, to someone or some group. It doesn't matter if the charge is true. If made, it takes precedence over the Constitution and any right of free speech. And even the accusation of such an offense is enough to tar the accused.

Another imagined crime is “microaggression” which is the interpretation of something that is said, by anyone, as an attack. Such a charge may not be justified by the words themselves or the interpretations of others, but if an individual believes he they is (awkward – in fact wrong – but I don't want to offend anyone) being attacked, everyone must accept that judgment. Paranoia can govern reality.

And there is the demand in too many places for “trigger warnings.” That's the equivalent in other circumstances of movie ratings (like G, PG, R, X, and others) but it's transferred to schools, libraries, and similar settings. Part of the first paragraph of an article in a recent issue of The Atlantic is illuminating:

(see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356)

Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

There is a belief among many that people should be warned against books or lectures or anything else that may cause them distress. They should be able to protect themselves from any unpleasant ideas, or concepts with which they disagree. That college students, who presumably are there to be exposed to new, and possibly uncomfortable, ideas should be protected from them, is idiotic, but that's the view of some.

What we're left with is an unrecognizable, emasculated (my word processor had no gender- neutral word for this) language, which restricts our thinking rather than expands it. We are losing the free speech of which we boast. And all in the name of sensitivity.

It doesn't make sense. I'm glad I'm a hermit.

Next episode: “Heresy” – Sticks without stones won't break very much.

Conflicting Rights

Same-sex couples are entitled to get whatever wedding cake that they crave at the bakery of their choice. It's the law. And that right – one they have always had – was granted them as well by our nation when it was founded. The baker has no say in the matter.

Our first document as a new nation – indeed, the one that made us a new nation – the Declaration of Independence, listed both the quarrels we had with the British King and Parliament, and the principles for which we stood. It clearly stated that “all men are created equal.” Not only that, but that they were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and among them was the right to “the pursuit of Happiness.” What else could the Founding Fathers have had in mind but that two men had the right to marry, and they were entitled to whatever wedding cake they wanted from whatever source they selected. It didn't matter what flavor icing they preferred or to have flowers, if they had a yen for them. They could even have two grooms on top (or, for women, two brides – a Constitutional amendment and court decisions have asserted that whatever men can do – as long as it is not proscribed by physical constraints – women can do as well). They were entitled. It was their right. (It's not even explicit Constitutionally that they're required to pay for it, though that is the subject of local laws.) And their Creator was in full agreement, having personally endowed men with the right.

At least that was the initial view of those eighteenth century pundits. They subsequently wrote a Constitution, a plan by which our new nation would function, and appended to it a Bill of Rights which spelled out the limitations under which our government would operate. In that listing, however, they omitted same-sex marriage, while making it forever unmistakable that we possessed the right to practice our religion as we saw fit, and without the interference of that government. That was the first right delineated. It was fundamental to our new republic, and central to our values. Governments had no right to specify where the Creator stood on any matter, nor had the Creator any right to decide right and wrong.

But the courts, as opposed to the Creator, have such a right; they have not only found the “right” to same-sex unions in the Constitution (they had to “find” it since it is nowhere mentioned in the document), but that such a right takes precedence over our government's specified obligation to abstain from interference in the “free exercise” of their citizens' religions. There are instances when rights are in conflict. And the Judiciary has assumed the responsibility to decide what is more important.

Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary was seen by the founders as least important, and its description, in Article III of the Constitution, is the shortest. Over the years, with no protest from the Legislative and Executive branches, although they are (in that order) supposed to hold the real power, the Judiciary arrogated the power. So the courts can decide that the “right” to abortion is more important than the use of speech (irrespective of what you thought, it isn't really protected by the First Amendment) to warn of possible consequences.

In addition to informing us as to which rights are most significant, the courts can also tell us whose rights take precedence. For example, the right of free speech guaranteed, for the courts, the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, a city with a majority Jewish population including many Holocaust survivors. How the residents felt was not relevant. On the other hand, “hate” speech, which may hurt someone's feelings, is impermissible. And an individual with “gender dysphoria” – with the DNA of one sex but a preference for the other – may choose what bathroom to use. It doesn't matter, according to court opinions, if those who properly use that bathroom object. Their rights are trumped by those of the dysphoric individual.

The problems are not simple. There may be no agreement on the issues, but there isn't even agreement on the criteria to be used. Should the justices rely on the Founders' words or what is thought to have been their intent? To what degree is precedent controlling? What is the significance of public opinion and current fashion? Should the Justices base decisions on their own views? Sometimes they aren't even clear what their own views are. Justice Potter Stewart, in an opinion on a cinema pornography case, said

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it (emphasis added), and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

It may not have been clear enough as a basis for future opinions, but it was honest. (Supreme Court) Justices and (Lower Court) judges are often subjective in their judgments, and there are times when their view does not reflect what most people consider to be wise, or to be based on American law and tradition. When matters so basic to American society are involved, some form of review mechanism would be sensible.

The Constitution was written in the name of “We the People.” Changes in it must be approved overwhelmingly by Congress and the States. In selected cases it would make sense to bring Congress and the People into the conversation. Whether that would mean the [binding?] expression of opinion on specific issues, or simply exist simply for the purpose of guiding our representatives on the larger questions of the day isn't clear. Perhaps the People should have input to questions of majority versus minority rights, or the relative strength of the branches of government, or the relationship of the states and the Federal government. The distribution of power is certainly something that the People ought to weigh in on, since perceived abuse of power was one of the primary causes for them to want “to form a more perfect Union.” It's important that some of the power be returned to those in whose name it is being exercised. I'm sure that if we're determined we can find a way to do so. The People have rights, too.

Next episode: “Below The Beloit” – Well, did you ever?

Knowing The Unknowable

I often think about those I cannot think about.

I cannot think about them because I don't know them. I see people on the street walking alone, or talking to each other; I see people who are clearly unhappy or who are happy, people deep in thought, and those singing silently to the music being piped into their ears by some electronic device; or I see people who are apparently talking to themselves. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are what, in less “sensitive” times, we used to call crazy, or perhaps they are talking on telephones that I just don't see.

I wonder about them. I don't know them and they don't know me. We live in different worlds, and I shall never know them.

Those are the ones I see. But there are billions whom I shall never encounter. Most of them live in circumstances I would never be able to endure. It's easier not to think about them. But I do. I wonder about their lives and like to think that they are as happy as I – living in a world that is familiar to them, and not giving much thought to the lives led by others of whom they have little comprehension, and in whom they have no interest.

And there are uncountable numbers who lived and died long ago – centuries and millennia. I don't remember my own ancestors, people I never knew even if I heard stories about some of them. I certainly don't remember all the others. No one does. The nameless ones – the ancestors of those living or of no one now alive – whose days ended long before ours started. A few are remembered because of some great accomplishment, but for each of them there are millions who are long forgotten.

It is part of Jewish tradition to remember the dead. We say Kaddish for them on their yahrzeits, the anniversary of their deaths. We light candles for them – the flames resurrecting the souls who have left us. And we do so again four times a year when we recite the Yizkor service, a service devoted to the remembrance of our relatives and our friends and those who have died as martyrs or soldiers for our people. We remember them and we make contributions in their memory as a kind of bribe – a deal with G-d that they receive favorable treatment in exchange for our gift. In a similar manner, we pray for the sick. We believe that in some way those prayers may be answered by G-d with the recovery of the one for whom we plead. In the hope that the greater the number of prayers the greater the chance of success, we appeal to others to join us.

But it doesn't seem fair, at least not as far as human understanding permits us to understand fairness. Who remembers the generations that preceded us – the countless souls that are no more? Will I be forgotten by G-d when, after I have died, there is no one left to say Kaddish for me? What is the fate of the childless? And is your recovery from illness more likely if there are many who include you in their prayers? Is a return of good health more uncertain if no one petitions on your behalf? Does you fate have anything to do with you or are you totally dependent on others? And if you have no others?

There are more questions than answers. There always have been. Although some will offer justifications for apparent inequities, often with an aura of confidence that does not appear to reflect reality, we're left with a world in which there is more suffering than we want to think about. So we don't think about it. We know that we can't end that suffering, no matter what we do.

But we can't do nothing, even if we can't solve the world's problems. It may be easier to accept the cynical position that our efforts will be useless, but none of us has the right to throw our hands up in the air and make no effort to help someone else. However small our contribution, it is our obligation to try to improve the lot of others, including those we don't know. Especially those we don't know, for there is probably no one looking after them or remembering them.

But whether time or money, whether local or international, it's probably worth the effort to help and to remember. I say “probably” because no one knows ultimate consequences – mundane or divine. Maybe it will help, now or in the future. Maybe not. Things don't always turn out as we'd wish, but ignorance, isolationism, and inaction cannot be justified. If we didn't know it already, the Holocaust taught that lesson. As Burke is reputed to have said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” And all that is necessary for those who once lived, and for those who live and suffer now, to be forgotten is for good men and women to do nothing. Whether we can accomplish something or not, we have to try; we have to remember those who might be lost to memory, and act on behalf of those in need. We have to think about those whose existence is almost impossible to imagine, and try to do something. Maybe we'll succeed.

We can only hope.

Next episode: “Playing The Numbers” -- Size matters.

 

People Are No Damn Good

Perhaps I'm not the best person to discuss this. I'm a loner.ⁱ I don't like talking to people and it's even worse when they talk to me. It's true I'm a doctor, but I went into Radiology and all I had to do was look at pictures. Of course I had to speak with other doctors, but that was usually kept at a minimum because they weren't all that interested in what I had to say. They didn't need help from anyone – especially someone who looked at pictures all day and didn't talk to patients.

Anyway, it won't be a surprise to learn that I don't have a Facebook page. And I don't Twitter. Or chirp. I hate cocktail parties and I avoid small talk whenever possible.ⁱⁱ Why speak to someone who hasn't the slightest interest in what I have to say. Especially if I haven't the slightest interest in what he has to say either. His questions are formulas – conversation starters – and he doesn't even hear or care about the answers. However the questions form a platform for engagement, and for the spouting of whatever inanities that he pretends to have originated.ⁱⁱⁱ And you've certainly figured out that I hate shopping. There are people there. And I have to try things on in an ill-equipped dressing room. It's easier to shop at home, using the internet.^iv

Consonant with these preferences, I don't have a cellular telephone, iPod, or other mobile device. I had a pager before I retired, but people knew better than to try to get me, so it was usually quiet. And it was always off “after hours.” When I didn't want to be disturbed, I didn't want to be disturbed. And when I was willing to take calls, there was always my land line, without gadgets.^v

Having established my credentials, I'd like to tell you a little more about why I don't like people. This is in addition to what you can infer from the information about myself that I've already given.

First of all, people are inconsiderate. No one pays any attention to a schedule^vi except to use it as a starting point after they've decided that they want to be fifteen minutes, or a half hour, or an hour late. No one wants to come on time. They may be first, and that's awkward. So if they're late for the performance of a play, don't be surprised to see them walking in front of you as they go to their seats during the first act.

And irrespective of the announcements that they should turn their cellular telephones off, it's likely that several will go off during the performance. Whether people ignore it and let it ring, sheepishly turn it off, talk aloud, or walk out in front of you depends on their mood. Good luck.

On the rare occasion that I attend a social event with a smörgåsbord or buffet I find that the food is gone before I can get anywhere near the table. The vultures have already attacked and laid waste to the fare before they allow anyone else to approach the board. It's my own fault for being polite.

I've also come to the conclusion – and it's hardly an original one – that people are only interested in themselves, and they resent anyone else's achievements. (No. They're eager to tell you of the accomplishments of their children or grandchildren.^vii A grandchild's B+ on a spelling test is more than enough reason to interrupt someone talking about the speech he gave on receiving a Nobel Prize.) While they glory in someone else being arrested for income tax fraud, they give thanks that they weren't caught. And if a friend is pleased about a low price he found for something, the first reply will be that he overpaid and it's cheaper at _____.^viii  

And people are whiners. No half-full glasses. They're all completely empty. And it's someone else's fault. No one ever does anything wrong himself, but the other guy, … Someone should be sued. And someone will. You have to make them pay. Especially companies with deep pockets. They're not going to miss the money and no one you know will be involved. So you won't feel guilty. In fact you'll feel good if you make anything off those suckers.

I should add that people are also stupid. They throw money around on iPads (and the associated telephone plans), latte, new cars, and all the latest styles and fads. They go to expensive movies, even though they've invested in fancy home theaters with massive screens and expensive high-end television packages. Using the new GPS, they drive to places to which they could walk, especially expensive restaurants. Then, of course, they pay others to get them out of debt, and they fault those with more money than they.

Are my opinions too harsh? You can ignore them if you choose, but what I'm saying is the Truth. You disagree? Well you're wrong. And I'm not interested in your views anyway.

No question about it. I would have made a good monk.

Next episode: “Don't Worry, Be Happy” – If it's good enough for Bobby McFerrin, it's good enough for me.

i        Employing modern jargon, I need my space. I'm a pacer. People get in my way. It's not that I don't like people. At least it's not only that. And I'm not claustrophobic – at least not in the usual sense. I don't have a phobia, only a need for breathing room. I would have made a great hermit. It's nice having someone to talk to, but only when I want to talk. I know it's a selfish attitude, but I like having someone around on my terms. I like to have plenty of room, and not to have to pay any attention to anyone unless I feel like it. I realize that such an outlook is intolerable to others and I try to be sociable, but my heart isn't in it.

ii     And nothing is smaller than conversation at one of those torture sessions.

iii     I don't like people “in my face,” either figuratively or, as is so often the case at a crowded social occasion, literally. Too often the person spouting is also spitting.

iv    Yes. I know that's not really anonymous.  They'll know who I am, but a machine is better than people.

v     You may have the idea that I'm a Luddite, but that's not the case. I haven't broken anything all day.

vi    Or to an appointment. Or if it's an event that has food at the end, they come just in time for the food.

vii    Where would the refrigerator industry be without grandchildren. There would be no pictures to mount and no one to stand in front of the open box trying to figure out what will be good.

viii   Somewhere else. Anywhere else. Just to put you down.