Prayer

I love my (Jewish) heritage and its rites and rituals. I try to recite the prescribed liturgy, davening [praying] three times a day. But there is one prayer that contains a verse that confuses me. I don't really understand what it is saying. (There are others of course, but they are not the subjects of today's effort.) I'm fairly sure that I have, in the past, admitted to my difficulties with our prayers, but I want to use this example to illustrate one particular thing that is giving me trouble.

The prayer is called Tachanun, and one version or another is said on most days. The verse in question, originally from Samuel II, has been translated as Let us fall into Hashem's [G-d's] hand for His mercies are abundant, but let me not fall into human hands. The statement is by David, and the translation is by “Rabbi Artscroll,” a term used both approvingly and satirically to characterize the interpretations found in a series of books by Artscroll, the publisher of many books, all adhering to a fairly rigorous rendition of Jewish law. I suspect that there are many explanations of this verse in our literature, but, for me, they are all closed books.

There are many problems that can be related to this apparently simple and straightforward verse, and they are ones that are universal, but I'll focus on an apparent distinction between two types of punishment – one which is merciful and one which, presumably, isn't – and that one of the punishments, though likely to be longer, is more desirable than the other. The verse is followed by another that pleads for mercy, asking Hashem to accept our prayers and grant us compassionate treatment. The implication is that our fates are decided at the last minute and our prayers can cause Hashem to change plans for us.

It's generally accepted that, until the moment of our death, we can repent for sins we committed and we'll be forgiven. And every year, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, we seek the same forgiveness, in the hope that our lot in the following year will be better than it might have been. We assume that our destiny is changeable, while we simultaneously believe that G-d knows, and has always known, what is going to happen – that is, our future is determined even before we pray. And that's because He knows what we will do – whether or not we pray for mercy. It's a common construction, but it raises the issues of free will, omniscience, predetermination, Divine control, and others. The idea is comforting, however, and it's easy to ignore those issues.

But back to the focus. And that is the question regarding punishment inflicted by man and that originating from G-d. The words expressing preference from David suggest that Divine punishments are more merciful than those of man. One might wonder if a “natural” death, one often prolonged, is better than a sudden, traumatic one inflicted on us by one of our fellows. The verse, however, could be understood to indicate a belief that the latter implies torture and pain while the former is accompanied by comfort. We'll never really know David's thinking on the subject.

The proposed possibilities, though, miss the point. Our heritage teaches us that G-d controls everything – the events that we consider good and what we deem “bad.” So, if that is the case, both of the punishments about which David ponders are Divine in origin. We have learned that evil people may be made agents of G-d and used to perform evil deeds that promote His “agenda.” They do so of their own “free will” and are punished for their acts, but they are acts which G-d controls. And penalties are warranted both for the one being punished and the one doing the punishing, for he will suffer both for this act and for his other evil behavior.

But if we accept the idea that all punishments in fact reflect G-d's will and are under His control, how do we explain David's statement? Certainly he understood “the system” better than we. He surely would have known that whatever happened to him, whether by “Hashem's hand” or by “human hands” reflected G-d's will, and while he might hope for the former, he couldn't change what was to be. The only reasonable interpretation isn't an interpretation at all, but that it was a literal expression of his prayer, for, as he put it, His mercies are abundant, and David was both expressing his desire for mercy and his faith in Hashem, as he did in Psalm 145 – You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing.

It's our hope as well. Most of us aren't masochists, and, while we know that death is inevitable, we don't want to suffer. That's our hope, but G-d has already decided, and all we can do is to act in a way that will justify it having been a favorable decision.





March 10, 2017

Incentive

It's all too common. We hear about it all the time. There's been a leak. I'm not referring to the kind involving (actual) plumbers, but the kind that means that information is given to someone not authorized to have it, by someone in the know. Usually the “someone in the know” has an ax to grind or is prompted to do so for political purposes – like a “trial balloon,” an incriminating document, or the wholesale release of stolen files. And it's leaked to the media. (“Whistleblowers” fall into the category of leakers but may have different motives, although at times it may be hard to differentiate them from those with a political end.) Indeed, sometimes leakers are simply looking for personal publicity.

In a sense, leakers are bribers. There's an incentive. They're providing something in order to gain some kind of benefit from what they're doing. And bribery is common. It's a serious problem not only in the political arena, but far beyond that as well.

A bribe is the payment of anything of value to a public official (dog-catcher, policeman, state or national legislator – or candidate for such a position, restaurant or construction inspector, Cabinet member, assistant or adviser to one of those, etc.) or to anyone else who has some form of authority or knowledge that can be valuable to the one offering it, and helpful to the one receiving it. (Among the other types are payment for “inside information,” payment to a judge for a favorable decision, etc.) There may or may not be an explicit consideration for that payment at the time or in the future – the bribe may just be a “good-will” offering with no specified quid pro quo. The category includes statements and votes as well as tangible gifts. And it includes donations to the bribed individual's favored charity.

More often the payment will go to the official, his employee, or to a relative. It's a reasonable assumption that the official was aware of the bribe, even if it was not made directly to him but intended to reach him. If it can be demonstrated that he had no knowledge of the bribe he should be exonerated and the guilty parties prosecuted. (The official, however, should be more careful about who is in his employ or family.) If the briber is doing so on behalf of his own employer, that leader – not only the organization if any, but the individual(s) involved – should also be sanctioned. Greatly. But that's not always the case.

Despite the seriousness of the act it's a crime that isn't adequately punished. Of course it brings shame on those involved (often more for being caught than having participated in the forbidden behavior). But in politics some consulting position is likely to replace anything lost. And sometimes there is job loss or a fine, but these, which are usually the sum total of the costs of doing “business,” should only be the starting point.

Let me suggest some added reparations which should be demanded of those involved.

In addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the bribed individual should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe (or, if it is information, its potential value if it would accomplish what is expected of it – whether or not achieved), and he should be barred from holding any public position in the future. (The “future” includes the election taking place at the time the bribe is disclosed.) Association with any public official, or organization dealing with the government thereafter should be publicized and punished. Travel to a state or national capital should also be publicized much as the movements of sex offenders are.

Moreover, in addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the briber, including former public officials, should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe, and he also should be barred from holding any public position in the future. The bribe should be publicized to his constituents and employers. If it his employer (or its agent) who designated the bribe, that employer should pay into the public treasury ten times the value of the bribe, from his own assets – not the company, and he should be barred from holding a position of authority in that or any similar organization or organization that has dealings with the government. Association with any public official thereafter should be publicized along with travel to a state or national capital.

An individual who discloses a bribe (in which he doesn't participate) should be given the value of the bribe by both the briber and the person bribed. This would be in addition to whatever is paid to the public treasury. No individual should lose his job because of his disclosure of any illegal activity.

A public official who turns in a bribe-offerer should be paid by the briber the full value of the bribe for his (the official's) public use while the briber is subject to the penalties outlined above. (If the public official subsequently supports the cause of the briber it would be viewed as representing acceptance of the bribe and he should be punished accordingly.)

One final note: The bribe is not always obvious. It may result in the addition of a provision in some legislation – a provision that aids an individual, organization, or industry, or it may come in a form that “aids” constituents who will vote in the next election. Such bribes may be harder to identify or prove, but disclosure, and the light of unremitting publicity, may be helpful in discouraging their use. The media are good at flogging dead horses. (Fortunately not mine.)

Well, here I am on my high, but unflogged, horse. I'm imperious. And I'm certainly a loudmouth. It's easy to be virtuous. No one has ever given me a bribe. I have nothing to offer. There's no incentive to offer me an incentive.

January 15, 2017

Speculation

Perhaps I'm just being morbid, but (and I suspect I've said this already) I've been pondering the different scenarios that may follow death. I imagine that I'm not alone in these thoughts – that they're universal. People wonder about what's to come, and they always have.

One of the main themes of some of the religions is that death evens the playing field: good is rewarded and evil punished irrespective of apparent treatment during life, although there is a view that reward and punishment even occur in an earthly setting. And that a Divine power watched over us all and treated us fairly. But it was not always clear. While arguing the fate of Sodom, Abraham asked G-d, Shall the whole world's Judge not do justly? The issue of theodicy is ancient.

However its age doesn't make it any more sensible than it is otherwise.

Job knew he was right, but the author of the Book Job of didn't go so far as to say that G-d was wrong. Those who came to speak with him attributed the problem to him, clearly believing that G-d was always right, so Job must have been wrong if he was made to suffer. In the end, however, G-d makes it clear that He doesn't have to justify His acts to anyone. We don't understand and we can't. It's a mistake to try. It's not sensible.

We've always tried to make sense of the unknown. We've always tried to explain it. But however logical our explanations, whatever our interpretations of the understandings we have received, they're either wrong or, at best, incomplete and problematic. Mythology, religion philosophy – all are attempts at explanations of what we don't understand. But they're all found to be faulty by subsequent evaluators and interpreters. They're really our speculations, our guesses, our theories about what lies ahead.

Perhaps we're trying too hard. We don't understand, and we're foolish when we try to do so. We are using human concepts to try to understand the Divine. Whatever we hypothesize is bound to be wrong. It's an oversimplification of an unknown. We don't even have the language, let alone the ideas needed for us to understand.

According to scientists, there are countless dimensions. They've determined this from mathematical calculations. What does that mean? I, and virtually everyone else, don't know, however people accept this unintuitive judgment, even though many won't accept the idea that there may be a spiritual or religious dimension. Einstein has taught us that our understanding of time is erroneous, and everyone concurs with his formulation, whether or not they comprehend it. We argue endlessly about evolution and “creationism,” yet we know that sooner or later new theories will be presented, and some of the old will be discarded. For now, science and reason are our benchmarks, even if we don't fathom what they are telling us.

What's the problem? We're human. And the languages we use as well as our ideas are human. We have no idea if our words and out formulations would make any sense in a world other than the one we're in. Any scenarios we propose for an “afterlife” are based on human ideas and there is no reason to believe that they make any sense. All our speculations are meaningless. We do not understand G-d (Viktor Frankel, in The Doctor and the Soul notes that, in relation to a Creator, For thousands of years [the Creator] has been called G-d, so this term will have to do irrespective of other preferences by some) and any theories we have are irrational. [Please note that words, as used here and hereafter – not in the “hereafter” – whether referring to right and wrong, rationality, or whatever, are to be understood as referring to human understandings, and, therefore, have meaning only in this world.] Put otherwise it means that any ruminations, any rational ideas about what happens after death, however appealing they may be, are irrational.

That's not entirely true. Though I reject rationality, there is one lesson that I have learned from the rationalists, and it is that there must be some Divine or extra-rational force. They've taught me that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get something for nothing – every result has a cause. And you don't get something from nothing. So if there is a Universe, some force must have created it. Even if someone believes that the laws of physics permit mass to be formed from “nothing” [and stay out of the way if it happens again] those laws had to come from somewhere.

But if any attempt at visualizing what happens in the next world is irrational, that is not the case regarding our responsibilities in this one. Even if we cannot define G-d and our relationship to Him, we can try to define our obligations to our fellows. The same Einstein who ruminated on celestial matters said Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile. Our ultimate fate may be unknowable, but our knowledge of right and wrong – and this is all but universal – tells us that we must feed the poor and help the needy. Whether or not we'll be rewarded for our concern for others is irrelevant. There's no speculation on this score.

December 22, 2016

From Your Mouth

You probably know that I've been sick. I don't hide it, and I don't hide from it. What is, is.

One of the results of my malady is a biweekly visit to the clinic for chemotherapy, and I leave with a bottle of poison attached to me by a tube. I carry the bottle around for a couple of days before it is disconnected. The carrying is in a pouch attached to a belt, and I'm nervous that something I do will cause everything to fall apart. It probably won't, but I remain nervous. I usually don't leave the house during the two days I'm receiving the medication, though I must admit the side-effects are milder than I anticipated. (I had some nerve damage from a previous drug, but that's been discontinued, and I'm scheduled to receive treatment for those effects.)

But, in the words of W. C. Fields, “I digress.” What I really want to note is that because of the treatment I won't be saying Kaddish for my mother on her yahrzeit in a few days. That requires a minyan and I'll be staying home. (For those who don't understand, that means I won't be saying the prayer for the dead which is ordinarily recited on the anniversary of someone's passing. For that, according to the laws of Judaism, I need a group of ten men, which would require a trip to synagogue. Since that would take place during the time I stay home, I'll miss it this year.) The purpose of the prayer is to elevate the soul of the deceased, and I regret missing the opportunity to do so.

Yesterday I brought in to synagogue the name of a friend who is ill. I'll recite my own prayers for her health, but a more formal prayer is offered by the synagogue for the recovery of those who are sick, and I wanted her to have this as well. So I submitted her name.

Such sentiments are not restricted to my religion. How often has someone who is going through a difficult situation said “Pray for me?” It doesn't matter what we believe. We seek the support of those we love, and of others too. And we offer it as well. Even to those who are no longer with us. We're told by our sages that our prayers are valuable to those in need, and, by this means, we help those whom we love. Can we do otherwise?

But I wonder about the validity of this teaching. And I wonder whether my prayers have any effect. I'm not questioning my religion itself, or that of others, but I still have questions regarding the usefulness of the practice. It seems to me that ultimate rewards and punishments are based on the actions, good and bad, of the individual involved, not whether others try to use their influence to improve conditions for others, alive or dead. The most evil of people will sometimes influence others to love them, and, by doing so, inspire prayers when they seem to be appropriate.

Have those prayers any effect? (Especially if they don't really reflect the reality of the virtues of the subject?) Can the words of humans change G-d's decisions? Are such decisions reflective of predetermined actions? Do the wishes of the living affect the treatment of the dead?

The question, however, is much bigger. Its repercussions extend far beyond our wishes for those who are suffering, or for those whose suffering is over. The question involves us, and for most of us our own well-being is of greater consequence than that of anyone else. Of course there are exceptions, but the rule remains.

The issue relates to prayer in general. Has it any value? Do human words affect people's standing in the “eyes” of G-d? We believe that G-d knows our thoughts, so our words are not only unnecessary, but poor reflections of our intentions. Indeed, we also believe that G-d knows our intent before we do. Which makes our mouthing (or thinking) of our hopes and wishes, of our intents and desires, our praises and thanks, of little value.

Formal prayer is more for our own psychological benefit than for any improvement in our condition or that of others. And when we pray in the presence of others during a formal service, we display a discipline and a determination to ourselves as well as to others. Perhaps there is free will rather than (in addition to?) predetermination, and perhaps our words and our actions do matter. Perhaps that discipline, and those words and actions, are aimed at helping others. Surely G-d would reward that, even if He knew in advance that it would happen. Perhaps the reward would be our own satisfaction at having done what is right. Perhaps, our prayers for those who are no longer with us actually have a positive effect, as we hope the prayers for us of those who follow will have.

Or perhaps they, and all other prayers, only benefit us. I don't know, but, G-d willing, I'll say Kaddish for my mother next year.

May 2, 2017

Proportionality

When my sons were still young, a while back, I used a method of discipline for violence which, I suspect, would now be at best frowned upon and, at worst, would subject me to punishment by protectors of “abused” children. The method was simple. If one of my sons struck the other, the penalty was that the injured party, under my supervision,ⁱ was permitted to strike the aggressor in the same way – as hard as he could.

My wife and I were blessed with childrenⁱⁱ who accepted the system and agreed that it was fair, and who ultimately accepted their sib's blows with resignation. They knew the rules and they knew the consequences of violating them. There were no excuses. They may have tried to justify their actions but, in the end, admitted their faults and acquiesced in the resulting turnabout. They knew that an appeal to a different judge – their mother – would be fruitless, and they knew that they could not manipulate the system. Perhaps we were just lucky or perhaps the system contributed to their behavior, but the level of violence and acting out was low.ⁱⁱⁱ

The subject comes up because of the extensive criticism that Israel has been receiving regarding its actions in the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. (Today is August 8th, but this won't be published for a while.)  Proportionality is a complex and loaded subject – one that I've avoided until now – but the debate on the events there seems to be centered on it, rather than the situation which has triggered the fighting, so I can no longer ignore it.

Proportionality. Perhaps the most conspicuous, but least understood, concept related to the story. So the most useful start in what will probably turn out to be a two or three part^iv discussion of the subject has to be historical, political, and linguistic. According to Wikipedia,^v

“The proportionality test was first developed in the High State Administrative Courts (Oberlandesgericht) in Germany in the late 19th century, to review actions by the police. The proportionality test originated systematically with the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht.”^vi

And in terms of current international law,

“The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.”^vii

These words are well-crafted, like most diplomatic verbiage, but may yield varying (and contrary) interpretations. But what is “right?” What does it mean?

According to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecuter at the International Criminal Court,

 

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

“Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).”^viii

It remains a little opaque, but it seems to prohibit “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.” Hence it permits such actions if reasonable in relation to the anticipated military advantage. It does not seem to permit, however, causing the deaths of civilians for political purposes.

As I noted, the interpretation of these criteria may be confusing^ix but, as I'll indicate next week, there seems to be a disconnect between what the world says, and what is actually happening.

Next episode: “Proportionality – Part 2” – More of the same.

i        To make sure the injured party himself played fair, lest punishment result.

ii       And still am.

iii      I don't mean to suggest that my children (two sons and a daughter) saw eye-to-eye on every issue, but they learned how to manage their disagreements in a reasonably civilized manner. As I said, we were blessed.

iv       Or maybe more. I hope you don't get too bored.

v        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

vi      According to that nugget, “proportionality” was a concept invented and developed by the nation that gave the world the Holocaust. While invoking the Holocaust to shed light on other situations trivializes it, it is worth mention that those who speak of proportionality frequently raise the issue, and condemn Israel for “Nazi-like” behavior.

vii       See note iv.

viii     Moreno-Ocampo, Luis (9 February 2006), OTP letter to senders re Iraq, International Criminal Court.

ix       As I mentioned, it isn't even clear what “proportionality” means – or, better, “proportional and not excessive.”

Why?

"[O]ne would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally."ⁱ

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”ⁱⁱ

Both of the views cited, and many like them, form the common wisdom by which we all live. The idea is intuitive, and we all accept it. Even assuming the death penalty is not an issue, we are repelled by the idea that an innocent person might be incarcerated for murder or any other crime.ⁱⁱⁱ

But why is that the case?

Surely no one would want to be punished for something he hasn't done, and we are a society of individuals with rights. We would not want to trample on the rights of any of our citizens. But we are a society, and however important the individual may be, our first concern must be for the good of all. The greatest good for the greatest number. So said Jeremy Bentham, and such was the view of Utilitarianism. It's a philosophy that places the good of the many over that of the one.

With that idea in mind, therefore, it might be advisable to rethink our approach to the penal code and its enforcement. Although we may feel that the prison system will rehabilitate those who pass through it, statistics suggest otherwise. A report published by the United States Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,^iv cites a study demonstrating a 67.5% recidivism rate for criminals released in 1994.^v The study compared that rate to a prior determination, in 1983, and noted a 5% increase in that time. The definition of “recidivism” used was rearrest^vi within 3 years, so the reconviction rate was lower – 46.9% in 1994 and 46.8% in 1983. But we learn from this that nearly half of those released from prison were reconvicted within 3 years.

There are no separate figures for murder, however (“only”) 41.9% of “violent offenders” who had been released in 1994 were reconvicted.^vii It is likely that there were relatively few murderers in that group, which would make it difficult to get an accurate statistic specific to that crime, but it is also likely that some of the murderers who were released killed again. Chances are that they, like so many of the other members of the “violent offenders” group, renewed their previous behavior.

And that makes it important to make an important determination: do more deaths occur at the hands of the State (rightly or wrongly), or of convicted murderers? If the latter predominates, our handwringing over mistaken convictions must be rethought. Saving a murderer from punishment when his case is “tainted” may be viewed as a victory by some, but not by the family of one killed by him after he is released. And not by his victim either.

This is not to suggest that prosecutorial misconduct should not be pursued vigorously^viii or that we should not review possible miscarriages using the latest technological means available. Nor do I suggest that we not give consideration to outlawing the death penalty, but our national guilt complex may be unwarranted. Limiting the number of cases that are dropped or bargained down, and those overturned because of “technicalities,”^ix may prove to be beneficial to “the greater number.” The conviction of any innocent is a stain on society – and mechanisms should be put in place to bring them to a minimum or, if possible, eliminate them entirely – but the victimization of an innocent citizen is also a stain – especially if caused by a system more intent on protecting the rights of the accused than the rest of its members.

The justice system is not perfect. But it's better and more honest than the majority of those who suffer at its hands. However cruel it may seem when we discover that someone was wrongly imprisoned, it is heartening to know that fewer crimes – and that includes murder – occurred because that system prevented them. Those who did not suffer for that reason, and, therefore, aren't aware that they have been spared the trauma or death that might have been their fate, should keep that possibility in mind when they protest what they see as an unjust system.

Protecting the rights of the innocent on the street may not be more important than securing those of the one who is arrested, but ignoring them calls into question the justification of society itself.

Next episode:  “Social Socialism” – Equality above all.

I         De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470), Sir John Fortescue

ii           Sir William Blackstone (1765)

iii       While the first refers quite specifically to capital crimes and punishment, the second seems to include all offences and their penalties.

iv        See http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

v         Some had served out their sentences and some were paroled.

vi        Which is, of course, not proof of guilt.

vii       It had been 39.9% in 1983.

viii     Perhaps a parallel panel should review all cases of murder that resulted in a conviction. Perhaps such a procedure should not be limited to instances of murder.

ix       The distinction between a constitutional protection and a technicality should be reconsidered, and greater reliance placed on judges and juries to decide when evidence is pertinent, irrespective of the manner in which it was obtained, and those who use improper means to obtain evidence (torture, for example) should be punished for their deeds. If that is done publicly and with severe enough penalties, the goals of the Constitution can be achieved without releasing dangerous prisoners and placing citizens at risk.

The Bottom Line

                                                                                                 

Some time back I wrote about parentingⁱ and, in light of recent experience, I thought I'd address one aspect of the subject again. One point I made then was that I thought that properly administered corporal punishment (spanking) could be a useful and an appropriate tool.

Yes, I know that many consider it to be abuse. And I am also aware that there are many studies that condemn spanking, suggesting that it is associated with negative outcomes for the children, including aggressiveness as adults. Ever since the time of Dr. Spock – and probably well before – it has been the practice of many to speak to their kids rather than punish them; to treat them like adults. The reality, of course, is that they are not adults,ⁱⁱ though some who have survived many more years than they act like children.

But before I discuss the issue, let me relate the “recent experience” which I mentioned. No, I have not had any children lately. But my wife and I hosted my daughter and her family (one husband and five children between twenty-two months and twelve and a half years. They've gone home now after three weeks and my eardrums are recovering. I had small children once (a long time ago) so I know what's likely to happen, but my tolerance for such shenanigans isn't what it used to be. Testing is expected, but sometimes it goes too far. There was no striking of the children but there was much yelling and screaming – both from the parents and the children. The dynamic was very different from “the old days” when children would “be seen but not heard.” Perhaps spanking is now frowned upon, but that's the way it was.

In the interim, however, the practices of parents vis-à-vis their children have changed – largely in response to the opinions of “experts,” governments, the courts, social workers, and meddling neighbors. There are those who view children as small adults who should be treated as such, with logic rather than aversive therapy; with the tongue rather than the hand. Indeed, in the country where the children were born and are being reared,ⁱⁱⁱ corporal punishment of children by parents, is unlawful.^iv Whether or not that's the reason for the attitudes of parents and children,^v there are several countries that have accepted this kind of policy.^vi (It's of interest, however, that spanking is legal in all of the United States as well as most of the world.)

Let me clarify what I mean by “spanking,” since the reader may assume that I am calling for wholesale battery for all offenses by all children. First of all, spanking should never be the first line of defense. It should be used selectively and only occasionally. Most children act like children, and most make honest mistakes that they regret. It is important that adults not act like children and that they avoid mistakes that they might regret. Parents should be able to recognize such “normal” rowdyism and unintended actions and deal with them in a non-violent manner. In most cases a stern rebuke^vii will be taken to heart by a child who feels he is in a safe environment and has loving parents. A discussion of the problem may be all that is necessary to help both parent and child understand what happened, and it may lead to a fruitful plan for future behavior for both.

On occasion, however, further steps are necessary. For some, who are convinced that corporal punishment will turn their children into abusive bullies, the “further step” that is employed is yelling and threatening. I don't place much stock in it. Children who are testing are quick to learn when they are facing a paper tiger – when the bark is worse than the bite. We teach them to walk away from those who taunt them, with the knowledge that “names will never hurt you,” but the same (it won't hurt you) applies to parental screaming. It's full of sound and fury, but in the end it signifies nothing. Except for teaching them that yelling and screaming are acceptable tools. A child who is yelled at, but knows that he has nothing to lose, will yell back, and yell at other times.

Spanking, however, and sending a child to his room,^viii make it clear what is unacceptable, and demonstrate that there are consequences for that kind of behavior. I know that many – perhaps most – experts disagree, but I am convinced that there is a place for corporal punishment when other forms of control are ineffective. The parent is usually bigger than the child he is spanking, so fighting back will not be a very useful tool for the child. As for the punishment itself, in this instance I agree with most of the experts. It should usually be imposed on smaller children – between two and six years old – and with an open hand on the rump. And it should be used only occasionally. (If an older child requires punishment, other means should be sought, or if it is needed frequently, consultation with a psycholgist may be appropriate.) As I emphasized in my prior blog, “Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.”

It is normal for children to distrust authority. “Because I said so” won't seem a logical justification for some acts you require of them and which they are resisting, but there are many times, especially when danger is involved, when a long discussion is not reasonable and when the imposition of authority is necessary. Children may dislike and distrust authority, but they must learn to repect it and, on occasion, to fear it.^ix And they will usually benefit from the setting of limits and the imposition of enforced guidelines. In fact they probably seek them. That's what testing is all about.

One final word. If a child's behavior is too different from what you expect, consult your pediatrician. The problem may be your expectations, or it may be a condition involving the child – one that requires remediation. In either case, the sooner the situation is evaluated, the better for you both.

But, as to the bottom line, spanking, though not a first choice, should remain a choice.

Next episode: “Rights And Wrongs” – Depends on whose bull is gored.

i      “Parenting For Dummies,” February 6, 2011.

ii      That message was emphasized over and over when I was on my pediatrics rotation in medical school. They have different diseases, are in different stages of development, have limited experience, and very different interests from adults.

iii     Israel

iv     Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking.

v       I've never discussed this legislation with them so I don't know if they're aware of it, or if that it is the reason for their behavior.

vi      Wikipedia, ibid. See footnote iv.

vii     Rebuke, not yelling.

viii    Nowadays we impose “time outs,” but they're no different from the “Go to your room!” of old.

ix      There are many with whom such an idea will not sit well, but even those who practice civil disobedience, who violate the law in the hope of changing it for the better, expect to be punished by properly constituted civil authorities. The law is the law and should be respected, along with the authorities who imposed it.

The Need To Know

 

Suppose your stockbroker were right two-thirds of the time – twice as often as he was wrong. You'd make a profit. That's much better than you could do on your own. After all, just by guessing, by sheer luck, you could probably get it right half of the time. Then, however, you might only break even.

But even though you were already making a profit at sixty-seven percent, you might look for an adviser with a seventy-five percent success rate. And then even higher. It's not likely that you'd suspect your new advisor of “fixing” stock prices or controlling sales, or whatever it takes to pick a winner, but only that he was better educated, harder working and more adept at researching, possibly even possessed of better intuition than his predecessor, and would have a better chance of predicting what was going to happen. It doesn't take control to be able to anticipate the future, nor inside information, only skill and knowledge.

If someone had in his possession all the pertinent facts and could apply them to every conceivable situation, he would not need to control the future even if he might seem to know what was going to happen.

Rabbi Akiba said, “Everything is foreseen [by G-d] but freedom of choice is given.”ⁱ It seems to be a contradiction, but now that we know about DNA it all makes sense. For our DNA is the regulator of what we do. And the Giver of the DNA certainly understands where it will lead and what we will do. Our choices are predictable, but the foreknowledge of what we will choose does not imply control. Thus there is no contradiction between free will and foreknowledge. There is no predestination.

But every solution causes its own problems. Rabbi Akiba certainly didn't know anything about heredity, so he could not have based his view on that. I suspect that he, like all the rest of us, was aware that there was a lot more he did not know than what he did. But for him, there was no source better than the one he used – the Torah.ⁱⁱ Perhaps its pronouncements required interpretation, but their truth was not in question. It contained, after all, the words of G-d. The interpretation of those words, however, no matter how true they themselves might have been, often raised issues which required new understandings – new interpretations of the old. And so it is with heredity and with DNA.

The obvious difficulty is that the idea is based on the concept that G-d is the Creator of all beings, and it follows that He who gave the DNA controlled our future actions in doing so. And to the degree that our decisions are based on the milieu in which we live, and the people surrounding us – people whose actions also result from the DNA assigned to them – each of our actions and responses in this world created by G-d is really controlled and predictable.ⁱⁱⁱ So that makes the belief of Rabbi Akiba one that is difficult to understand. It's just as well that he was unaware of the science we have now. But if free will does not really exist, how can we justify a philosophy of reward and punishment?

Back to square one.^iv

 

Next episode: “Square One” – Another approach. But one that works only if you want it to.

i     Avot, 3:19. A section of the Jewish Talmud.

ii    The five books of Moses. The first section of the Bible.

iii    That's the nurture to go with the nature (DNA).

iv    Actually it's square zero. We're nowhere at the moment. “Square one” implies that we've started.

Parenting For Dummies

It's very much in vogue nowadays to say that “it takes a village to raise [sic]ⁱ a child.” That idea was popularized by a politician, a lawyer, who was probably seeking votes (at that time – 1996 – for her husband, but probably in the expectation that it would serve her well personally in the future). The idea, of course, wasn't new, having its origin in an old African proverb, and, in fact, “It Takes A Village” was the title of a book that appeared two years before hers – just about the time that her ghostwriter started hers.

In any event, the concept may have been applicable in seventeenth or eighteenth century Africa – and, indeed, the ideas of cooperation and responsibility that it proclaims are certainly true today – but it is currently more rooted in politics than parenting. The idea would certainly have been popular among the founders of the kibbutz movement in Israel in the early and middle part of the twentieth century, because many of them favored the communal rearing of children.ⁱⁱ It is also probably considered “correct” in societies elsewhere that look to the community as the source of goodness and wisdom, and minimize the individual, whose primary value is as part of the group. And among women.^iii,iv And it is a way of blaming the larger community for any failure in a child's upbringing rather than accepting personal responsibility. We are, after all, a litigious society, and always looking for someone else to blame.

But there are problems with such a system. Now that there are usually smaller families, and most live in cities lacking social communities similar to those in African villages, the idea does not seem to be as applicable.^v In all likelihood, each member of the social circle in which the child and his/her^vi mother exist will have read a different book by a different “expert,” and every one of them will tell of the ''right” way to rear a child – one unlike all the others. Hence the village will “raise” the child in different, and often conflicting, ways – ways which are likely to be at odds with any inclination of the parents. That, of course, will be confusing to the child and make him less, rather than more, likely to act in the civilized manner that mother and father had in mind.^vii What's to be done?^viii,ix

The problem is that there are too many “experts” – especially in a village.^x The solution, obviously, is another expert, but one who works within the context of a family. And that's I. I make no pretense at originality. Parents have been raising children forever, but from what I've seen and heard, too often they may go off in the wrong direction.^xi What I'll try to do (and succeed at doing if you're paying attention and if you really care how your children develop) is to give some basic rules that are guaranteed (or double your money back) to make you a good parent.^xii Even if it's not easy, it can be very rewarding.^xiii

First of all, the best parents come in pairs: preferably two people who are of different sexes (with genders that match the sexes) and who like each other. In addition, it is best if they have like ideas about raising children, and ideal if those ideas are the ones I am giving here. Those ideas center on the concept that children know they are children and, though they wouldn't admit it, they are aware that they don't know everything.

Proper family structure is critical to success in bringing up children.^xiv Parents may have different philosophies on the subject, but they should be worked out in private – never in front of the children. The decision of one of them, once expressed to the child, should never be contradicted by the other.^xv The children should never profit by playing off one parent against the other. In fact, punishment for such an attempt should be considered. A vital aspect of parental behavior is consistency – both on the parts of the parents individually, and the two together. If the children can anticipate the results of their behavior in advance, there is likely to be less “testing.”

Children need structure^xvi – both in the family hierarchy and in the way their lives are run. There should never be any question about who is in charge. And it should never be the children.^xvii Children should be taught the “rules” as early as they can understand them,^xviii and the penalties for violations should be clearly delineated. You should never make a threat you are not prepared to carry out. And you should always carry it out. They should learn to respect you. And, equally important, you should respect them.

At times this will require corporal punishment^xix which should be dispensed when the children refuse to do what you tell them to.^xx After a few applications they will get the point. Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.^xxi A respect for authority rather than a questioning of it will serve them better in life, and properly performed it won't turn them into homicidal maniacs. The frequent alternative, prolonged yelling, is more likely to contribute to testing as the child tries to see what he can get away with, knowing that the only risk is noise, which he rather enjoys.^xxii A side benefit of the judicious imposition of the “rod” rather than screaming is that the other children in the family will learn by what they see happening to their sib, and will be less likely to test.

As with yelling, children learn a lot from their parents.^xxiii,xxiv Two examples will illustrate this point (although the actual situations are too numerous to mention): if you eat what they'd like to have (perhaps a snack, something else more tasty than nourishing, or the last portion of a food they like) while telling them they must eat something else (like okra or broccoli), they may refuse food altogether. And if you partake of self-serving dissembling when speaking to your spouse, they will learn to lie. Never lie in front of your children.^xxv Never! As early as feasible they should learn that trust is the basis for relations between people. As they expect you to tell the truth – especially when you offer them something – you expect them to tell the truth at all times. The penalty for not doing so should always be greater than that for whatever they're trying to hide.

Food is a different problem. Children often refuse food because of its appearance and before they've had the opportunity to taste it. And it's fun to throw it around. Fortunately children eventually get hungry. Negotiation over meals is not permissible. Ideally the child will be told in the morning what will be served for dinner. And when dinner is served it should be a “take it or leave it” affair. The children are under no obligation to eat, but if they're hungry the food is before them.^xxvi And it's useful to establish regular meal times during which all members of the family will sit together at the table whether they choose to eat or not. Of course neither newspapers nor other reading materials should be permitted during meals.

There are times when a child, for whatever reasons, displays what is often viewed as “middle-child syndrome” – even if he in not a middle child. He may become belligerent or teary. He's sensitive. But he needs reassurance that everything is all right and you still love him. Sometimes all it takes is the suggestion that he go to his room and rest, and come back when he feels better. A few minutes of your undivided attention and a good hug then are wonderful reinforcement of the entire process.

One more note should be kept in mind. (There are many more pieces of advice I could offer, but those here will probably provide a good starting point and you'll learn the rest as you go along.) Your children will sometimes try to help you. But, of course, they'll have their own ideas about what constitutes help. You'll probably try to emphasize that “help” is doing what you need to be done, not what they feel like doing.

Remember that, when you consider your own responsibilities. You may mouth the mantra “I'll always be there for you,” but that support is of greatest value when they need it, not when you have some free time and can give it without disrupting what you're doing. And whether or not you think they need it, it's worthwhile, for both of you, if you throw in a physical demonstration of love every now and then.

Finally, outside experts like me don't have to live with the results of their recommendations, but you do. Neither do they have to face the everyday problems not outlined. That, of course, doesn't make the recommendations wrong. But it places all the real responsibility where it belongs – on the parents.

Good luck.^xxvii

Next episode: “Proust For The Masses” – From the past to the present.

i     “Rear” is probably a better word to indicate nurturing, and it saves a letter. It's also a good site for the application of disciplinary measures. More on that later.

ii     It's interesting that the model of group children's houses is less in favor now and there has been a return to the nuclear family.

iii    My intent is not to be sexist – even if this is read that way – but a recognition of the greater interest of women than men in the rearing of children, and in the fact that women are, by their nature (again this may appear sexist even if there is scientific backing), more social than men.

iv    Perhaps supporting the previous point is the fact that the politician, her ghostwriter, and the author of the original book were all women.

v     Societal, as well as absolute, “norms” play an important part in child rearing as well as everything else. We have to live in the society in which we exist. However other patterns may be closer to Truth in a Platonic sense, if they differ significantly from those around us, they will be detrimental.

vi    That's my nod – and my only one – to egalitarianism. At this point I'll revert to more comfortable and historically based language patterns.

vii    If your mindset is centered on the village, though, ignore the sanctimommies. You'd be best following the suggestions of some grandmothers (and the grandfathers). They've been through the experience of raising children, and they survived. And they've probably heard all of the “rules” that the academics promote and can balance them against life in the real world.

viii   The lawyers have taught us never to ask a question unless we already know the answer and it is one we want to hear.

ix    Although some would suggest locking up your children until they're thirty (children should be neither seen nor heard), and then throwing them out of the house, that's not always the best alternative.

x     "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." -- Winston Churchill

xi     In this matter, as well as in many “self-help” matters, the ones who read this material and try to put it to use are the ones who don't need it. The dysfunctional, who might benefit, aren't likely to be reading such works. Intelligent people would probably do as well, or better, (and save a lot of money) by following their own instincts. That was the pattern until a few decades ago

xii    It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I know the right way to rear children, just as I know the Right way to do everything.

xiii    The instructions that follow are long. I offer no apologies. You'll have twenty or thirty years to work them out.

xiv    Division of responsibilities (work, housekeeping, cooking) need not be in accordance with what some view as usual social “norms,” (actually the concept of responsibility will be covered in a future essay) but should be understood in advance so there is no need to argue over it. Both parents should play a prominent part in child care.

xv    Every now and then it may be necessary, after such a private discussion, to change a decision, but that should be done and explained by the one who made it, not by the other parent.

xvi     Children are, by their nature, destructive and disruptive. It goes with the territory, and you'll have to break them of those tendencies. You should know, however, that both are normal even though correction is necessary.

xvii   Children know how to push buttons. Be alert.

xviii   Lists and schedules of activities, chores, and the like are a good way to provide structure and to delineate expectations. Responsibilities should be spelled out clearly. So should bed time. If the child is regularly late for sleep or a school bus or something of the like, make the scheduled time earlier. That might be hard on you as well as the child, but it may have to be done.

xix    If you think logic will work you're living in another world. “Children, I guess, must have their own way the minute that you say 'no.'” – The Fantasticks, 1960, Schmidt and Jones.

xx    Yes. I know. It hurts you more than it does the child. Live with it. Both of you will be the better for it.

xxi   There's a lot to be said for reward and punishment. Although I've emphasized the punishment, don't forget the rewards. Bribery is a useful tool when rearing children, and the people who advise against it are flat out wrong.

xxii   Babies cry. That's the only way they know to get attention (but you don't have to jump every time it happens because children are healthy, resistant and resourceful beasts). As they get older they learn to yell and scream. If they hear yelling from parents it will feed into that tendency on their part. A calm voice with an explanation, a spanking, and love are a more effective alternative. And they're less bothersome to the neighbors. Sound and fury don't necessarily indicate anything, either from children or parents.

xxiii   In “The Nature Assumption,” Judith Harris points out that most of what children learn is from their peers, rather than their parents. But I am convinced that this must refer only to the specifics (of which there are many) rather than basic principles.

xxiv   Children also learn from their sibs, especially bad habits. And they always believe (whether it is true or not) that you are favoring the other. It is important to get them to focus on their own behavior and their own benefits rather than to compare themselves to a sib. And it's important that you don't make such comparisons.

xxv   Or, for that matter, anyone else.

xxvi   A single backup meal, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, could be available at all times, but no more than one. Otherwise there will be interminable negotiations.

xxvii   You'll need it.