Windfall

“Lucky you! You just won the lottery and your windfall will make life very comfortable for you and your family. A windfall is a crazy bit of unexpected good fortune. First used in the fifteenth century, the word windfall originally referred to fruit that the wind blew from the trees.”

I just found that definition on line. I was looking for it because I wanted to confirm my understanding of the word. It seems only to have positive connotations, though it derives from damage to a tree. And many trees have suffered from all sorts of insults since the fifteenth century.

I heard yesterday that a woman was suing the city of New York because a tree fell on her and caused significant injury. It's a real tragedy and brings up the question of what is an accident or an Act of G-d and what is someone's responsibility. There were times when the former concept – an accident – was accepted as a reality, an unavoidable fact of life, but those days have passed. Now everything is someone's fault and the deeper his pockets the better. A falling tree can provide a real windfall, especially if its owner has a big bankroll.

Let me provide a little context:

According to The Associated Press, “[Hurricane] Harvey has so far killed at least 70 people who drowned in floods, got crushed by trees and died during power outages -- a surprisingly low toll that experts say reflects heeded warnings, swift action by first responders and volunteers, and no small amount of luck. … In 2005, Hurricane Katrina claimed more than 1,800 lives. Hurricane Ike was blamed for at least 20 deaths after hitting the Texas coast in 2008.”

Other reports tell us that the cost of the hurricane may be as much as $11 billion. That's an early estimate and it will certainly be many times higher, but no one struck by a tree is suing the United States and increasing the cost.

The tree in this case was in Central Park which is under the control of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. Its budget for 2017 was $480 million. “According to the Parks Department, street trees in New York City are pruned every 15 years; in the past, each tree was pruned on average every 7 years. In 2012, the tree trimming budget was $1.45 million per year … In 2013 the Parks Department had fewer than 100 climbers and pruners to maintain all of the City’s 2.5 million trees.” (That note comes from ekilaw.com, a law firm soliciting suits related to NYC tree damage – damage by trees, not to them .)

Acknowledging those facts, it's interesting to note that the woman is suing for $200 million. That's nearly 42% of the Parks Department's entire 2017 budget. The stated goal is to force the city to take better care of its trees. But I wonder if the possibility of a windfall wasn't part of the calculus in embarking on this noble crusade.

Many were killed by falling trees during Hurricane Harvey, and in other storms. No one was killed by this incident which involved one of two and a half million trees. Was it an accident or a result of negligence?

Should taxpayers bear any burden, especially one of this size, for they provide the contents of the city's “deep pockets?” The results were certainly tragic, but concern for the victim, by itself, doesn't justify a lawsuit and payoff. And if the department's budget for tree trimming is one and a half million dollars, even if is decided that the department was at fault for this accident, a suit for $200 million seems disproportionate.

Companies have been put out of business or damaged badly by this kind of vindictive lawsuit. While the suit is presented as a public service, I wonder how often it is simply viewed as a big money maker – a windfall for plaintiff and lawyer alike. And a sympathetic jury is manipulated into facilitating what some may view as extortion. (And lawsuits are sometimes used to delay or destroy projects often because of the ideology of the plaintiff, not the facts. Pier 55 in New York – a $250 million dollar project approved by both the public and political leaders – was stopped after six years of lawsuits by a few people. I read about it today.)

Life doesn't come with a guarantee. It has risks to which we're all subject. There are those guilty of acts that cause harm, but the public shouldn't always be held responsible for unavoidable acts and accidents. (Is the city to blame if someone is murdered within its boundaries?) Notwithstanding the view that it's invariably “someone's fault,” we can't always ensure happy lives or compensation for everything viewed as actionable by a lawyer.

We waste enough money on the whims of our “representatives.” We needn't do it on the whines of all our citizens and their lawyers. Their windfalls are often our losses. A windfall was originally an unexpected benefit. Now it's a business.

September 14, 2017

Our Children, Ourselves

Too many parents make life hard for their children by trying, too zealously, to make it easy for them. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On a couple of previous occasions I've written about parenting. In this essay I want to address the reality of being a parent, and what our expectations should be of our children and of ourselves. It's something we don't think about all that often, except to complain or brag about the kids. We rarely consider what our own role is in their development. There's nothing original here, and I've probably said most of it before, but it bears repeating.

What is our role in their upbringing? We have responsibilities. What do we want of our children? What do we expect of them (and ourselves)?

In all likelihood we want our children to be healthy and confident. We want them to be well educated and capable of dealing with society both fiscally and emotionally. We want them to love and respect us, and we want them to know right from wrong. And we want them to have a better life than we.

In the past children were raised with the anticipation that they would help out on the farm and support their parents as they got older. However much they may have been loved, life was not made easy for them just as it had been difficult for their parents. They were expected to marry to continue the cycle, but care for, and assistance of, their parents was expected. Children, and future generations, provided joy for their parents, but we made demands of them. They served us and now, as times have changed, we must serve them. The bargain, in prior years, required contributions from both sides, but now it is primarily the parents who must take responsibility.

That doesn't mean that we must make life easy for them. We do them no favor by catering to all their demands. Goethe had it right. It takes what may be perceived as a hard childhood to provide the necessary preparation for a productive and rewarding adult life. And, to a degree, that “hard childhood” is difficult for us as well. But it's worth it. What follows are some of the lessons I've learned from some reading and from rearing my own children, of whom I'm very proud.

One of the qualities that please parents is the quickness of their learning – even before they start a formal education. And every parent believes “my children are smarter than yours.” They're learning every moment even without the intention to learn. They internalize whatever they see and hear around them. And that makes their parents their first teachers. So everything you do should be a model for what you want of them. If they see you dealing fairly with them they're more likely to deal fairly with others. If they perceive that you are lying to them, they'll interpret that as meaning that lying is acceptable. If you want them to work hard, they should know that you work hard. And if, for example, you want them to visit your grave, be sure that they've seen you visiting your parents'.

They'll base their political and religious philosophies on what they hear and experience in the home. At least as a starting point, though they may alter their views as they learn from others well. And it's from you that they'll absorb their first biases. So it's up to you to set an example. In short, don't say or display any traits that you don't want them to have. It's not easy. We're not perfect, even if our children believe that we are – at least they believe that in their early years.

Also important to their development is structure – rules, responsibilities, expectations, and care in what they do. Though they will rebel against them – complain that you're demanding too much of them – and it might be easier to give in and do their chores yourself, such a practice won't contribute to their development of responsibility. It may be harder to insist on them completing their own tasks rather than palming them off on you but that's what you must do. That includes homework and other school projects. It's not unreasonable to help and direct them, but in the end they must do the learning themselves – learning that will benefit them in their adult years, even if they doubt its relevance in their childhood. They'll tell you they hate and resent the other jobs too. Even so, however, the knowledge that you're depending on them to perform those tasks is important for their self-image, and the successful completion of their assignments is certain to contribute to their self-confidence.

Importantly, they'll learn, by your fairness and firmness, a respect for proper authority. They may ultimately reject particular authorities, but, assuming everything is being done for the common good, they'll work to support those acting on their behalf and serving as their leaders.

In addition, they should learn to accept others not in authority – even those who may lack some of the abilities they themselves have; that they're responsible for, and must attend to the needs of others who are not as fortunate as they, whether physically or economically.

Most important, however, is their experience of your love – especially the knowledge that you've given up some of your own wishes in order to help and please them. They should know that you respect their informed decisions (applauding whims teaches the wrong lesson) and that you learn from them as they learn from you. And they must know that choices appropriate to their age are theirs; that they are not fulfilling your fancies or are required to achieve what was beyond your ability. As the cliché goes, it's not about you.

In the long run, however, you get no guarantees. There's nothing more satisfying, though, than knowing that whatever the outcome, you've done your best for your children.

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

I have more that I want to say on the subject however it will have to wait. But it will come. Enough for now. Pop psychology 101 is currently on vacation.

August 30, 2017

Look Ma, No Hands

In 1967 I was inducted into the Air Force. The base to which I was to report was in Texas, so in August of that year we drove west. We had a Checker station wagon which had a vast capacity, and we set up a playpen in the rear. Our oldest (then our only) son rode, and played, in the playpen during our ride. We now know that we were abusing him and he should have been in a certified car seat for eight-month-olds. Nor did he have any form of seat belt. Perhaps he would have enjoyed the ride less – we would have – but he would have been safer.

I taught the kids to ride bicycles also. There were three altogether. And all succeeded, with the usual falls and scrapes that go with the territory. No helmets or other forms of protection apart from the clothes they were wearing. And driving. That also went reasonably well, although they took no separate defensive driving course and there was no seat mandatory wearing of belts at the time – at least not when I started with the oldest (and even later, when they were new, they were viewed more as an inconvenience than a help). Just practice. And no accidents. They all passed their driving tests and lived to tell the story. (All three are alive and well with families of their own.)

So why am I wasting your time with these unexciting reminiscences? Because they were unexciting. None of my practices would be acceptable at present, but they all went smoothly then. We didn't know better. Perhaps I'd do things differently now but that's only in part because of the risks of the procedures, and in part because of the public reaction to them, and because of the more recent laws. I'm inclined to believe that we're overdoing what we view as our mandate to take care of everyone.

The Constitution calls for us to “promote the general Welfare,” but that directive comes right after we're instructed to “provide for the common defence [sic].” The same words appear in Article 1, Section 8, with common Defense [sic – here the noun is capitalized] again linked to general Welfare. Nonetheless, it's hard to ignore the fact that the government's largess is a good way to garner votes. So give-aways of benefits are likely to continue. Leaving that issue aside, however, it's hard to understand the linkage between the “general Welfare” and government mandates. Our officials seem to be committed to protecting us – whether we want it or not. And while they may be justified in taking steps that limit our ability to harm our fellows – they may protect others – it's difficult to interpret the constitutional mandate as authorizing Congress – or anyone else – to protect us from ourselves.

I don't mean to suggest that we should not take reasonable steps to do so, and to protect our children as well from harm, but we should do it. (We're all responsible for every one – but our first responsibility is to ourselves and our families. Others may have a responsibility to us, but before we look to them we should consider our own responsibility.) And we should do it because of the wisdom of doing so, just as we get insurance for those situations that warrant it. It's reasonable for there to be a requirement that we have liability insurance, so that we can pay for any damage to someone else's health or property that we cause – the protection of others – but if we are prepared to pay the costs for injury to ourselves, an argument can be made that we should not be forced to pay for that insurance – nor health insurance in general.

Societies were formed to provide protection for individuals otherwise at the mercy of others. For that we are willing to sacrifice some of our liberty. But neither our sacrifice of liberty nor the guarantee of safety is absolute. We undertake major construction projects knowing that the loss of life is inevitable in their execution; we build motor vehicles although we are aware that motor vehicle deaths will ensue; we regulate, but we do not forbid, the use of toxic drinks, foods, and drugs because of public demand for them – including some that were once illegal – and because of the revenue they generate. We're willing to take some risks in life – especially with the lives of others – when we consider the benefits to outweigh them.

But not all. The government has taken over the responsibility to care for us from the cradle to the grave. At our own expense. In addition to the money (of ours) that it distributes to those who are “needy,” it regulates those who provide services for us (eg OSHA makes sure they are safe) as well as those who provide products for us. To be sure, we benefit from such services – or at least some of them. It has also, notwithstanding the First Amendment, assumed responsibility for making sure we speak to everyone politely. We must not say what might be offensive to a member of a “minority” group (what the government doesn't proscribe, like “microaggressions,” will be forbidden by some other group), and any crime we might commit against them is a “hate crime.” No aspect of our lives is considered off-limits by regulators.

There are risk-takers among us (whom we often view as the “accident-prone”) and we will not change that, no matter how hard we try. It often results from the stage of frontal lobe development or associated problems. Or it may be linked to hormonal levels, or to psychological issues. It's hard to argue that it's society's responsibility to protect us from our own physiology or pathophysiology. Perhaps it is reasonable to modify the penalties we impose on those who commit crimes which we attribute to psychiatric causes (or to family or social situations) but most people believe that some punishment is justified. Whatever the cause, most people are responsible for their actions.

Similarly, people should be expected to take responsibility for their own actions, unless they impinge on the safety of others. The Constitution calls for us to protect ourselves from threats by other citizens or by other nations. We have police and a military, as well as firefighters and the like. And regulation of industry isn't unreasonable, since individuals can't really defend themselves against the large companies that set prices and control our actions – and sometimes cause danger to us. Unfortunately, however, first we have to stop letting those industries make the rules and author those regulations. Congress, getting its funds from lobbyists, is happy to let them do so. And they're the ones who make and sell the car seats, bike helmets, and the like that their servants, members of Congress, impose on us. That's not to suggest that much of what they sell isn't useful, but its obligatory nature is something that needs rethinking.

Adults should be treated as such – not just as children in need of governmental protection. And society should demonstrate an expectation that individuals take care of themselves and their families, and of others. Charity is laudatory, in fact it is everyone's responsibility. But it should be voluntary, not mandatory. Otherwise it's not charity. And it's not up to our government to protect and support everyone, especially industry, at our expense. If our representatives represented us, they would demonstrate an expectation – and require – that industry respond to our needs, rather than bribe private enterprise to care for us.

And, of course, Congress should not be paying us to vote for them. If they act in our interests, and allow us to do so as well, they'll have our support. If they restore our rights and our liberty to us, we'll reward them. If they don't, we'll know whom to blame.

Middle Men

And women. Especially in Catholicism. That's a little vague and requires some explanation. However you've probably figured out that the subject for today's disquisition originates in religion.

The primary point of concern relates to those to whom men (and women) refer their prayers. By this we usually have in mind G-d, and the Saints to whom many pray, seeking their help in particular circumstances. And while such appeals are usually addressed to G-d, in this particular instance the petitions are to humans. Admittedly the individuals in question have been carefully vetted for their positions of responsibility, and are believed to have helped others through their demonstrated ability to perform miracles. They have shown that even before they were granted sainthood, an appeal to them was efficacious.

Judaism, however, forbids the short-circuiting of the system. It prohibits substitutes. There are no intermediaries. Prayers are only for G-d, and there are no humans – nor others – to whom we pray. There is one G-d, and no other power exists for the purpose of attaining His mercy. Hence such prayers are prohibited. There are some that have made their way into the Jewish liturgy (eg Machnisei Rachamim in Selichos) but most authorities either explain them away or have substitutions for them, lest people have the impression that there are others besides G-d capable of granting our entreaties.

It's certainly not an ability within the realm of human competence. An appeal to “pray for me” suggests that there are individuals whose influence is great enough that even if they cannot grant our wishes, they are reliable conduits. The same is true in the common expression “from your mouth to G-d's ear.” Its anthropomorphic character is, itself, problematic, but the overall nature of the request suggests a power greater than any human possesses. (Indeed, it is noted that one of the principles of faith, as codified by the Rambam, explicitly opposes the practice. As the Rambam writes: “It is only fitting to pray to God and it is not fitting to pray to any other.” – Rabbi Ari Enkin in Torah Musings [on line].)

The prayers of another, either human or angelic, on your behalf, then, would seem to be not only useless, but heretical. Yet we do it all the time. Reward and punishment would logically be induced by the actions of the individual in question – if not by his results of those actions, at least by the intent. But in Judaism we address to the Machnisei Rachamim (those who deliver the prayers) an appeal to the angels that they assist us by personally presenting our prayers and supplications before G-d – Rabbi Ari Enkin.

We ask them to pray for us – or at least deliver our prayers – as we pray for others. We say prayers for the sick, seeking their recovery from illness; we say prayers on the anniversary of the deaths of dear ones; and we recite similar prayers several times a year at services of remembrance (Yizkor). To a degree we're offering a bribe to G-d, promising a charitable donation along with our appeal. And we ask others, often on line, to join in our entreaty. Those others may not even know the individual for whom they are praying, but we hope that their numbers will add weight to our plea.

I'm sure that such behavior is not limited to Judaism, and that others share the view that the prayers of humans can affect the actions of the Deity. It's something we want to believe, but we have no assurance of its effectiveness. It's more to please ourselves – to affirm that we care about the other party, and we're taking whatever steps we can to improve his lot, whether he is living or dead. If it helps him, great. If not, at least we tried.

And while we maintain that there are no intermediaries in our religion – certainly none like Catholic priests who “channel” forgiveness of sins – a blessing of the congregation by Kohanim is part of many services, and we sought their offering of sacrifices on our behalf in the days of the Temple. But harking back to our early history, Moses shouldn't be overlooked. He was the first to act as a middle man between G-d and the Jewish People, carrying tablets with G-d's words to those people. There was no interpretation – and none necessary – of those words. In addition, over the millennia our sages have “interpreted” G-d's words to us. They have spoken “for” Him, acting as a kind of intermediary from Him to us. 

How do we rationalize these acts? Many don't, and they claim that the inconsistencies of our religion are based on the fact that it was created by humans, and is not transcendent. At the other end of the spectrum are those who maintain that G-d gave some wise men the understanding of His ways, and we are to follow them, irrespective of our own level of knowledge. And there are many views in between.

My approach is that of ignorance; I believe that it is my responsibility to make my appeals directly to G-d (and lacking any other explanation for existence than the non-rational, I believe in some Power beyond human discernment) even though I don't always understand what is required of me. And for that I rely on our traditions. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I believe that no one can act or speak on my behalf and, in the end, I am responsible for my own actions and, for the rewards or punishments which befall me.

But I'm sufficiently inconsistent to continue to offer my own prayers on behalf of those I know who are in need. I'd like to believe they help. I guess that makes me a middle man.

Or maybe a muddled man.

Trust

We're in the process of refinancing our home. Mortgage rates have gone down and we might as well take advantage of that fact. We've done this before and we've learned that one of the requirements for a mortgage is insurance on the dwelling in question. Makes sense. If I'm asking you to risk your money it's not unreasonable to recognize that you'll want to be sure that the collateral is secure. And it's reasonable that I should pay for the insurance since I'll have possession of the house, and I'll have to maintain its value so that it will be in good condition should it ever be necessary to turn it over to you.

Similarly, we just leased an automobile. It is, for all practical purposes, our car. If anything happens to it it's our responsibility – at least for the next three years. We have to return it to the dealer in the same condition as we got it.

It seems logical that whoever has possession of a valuable item will care for it and take responsibility for it. That might mean insuring it, but if it is to be returned to someone (or even if that is only a possibility), the one who is in possession of an item should guarantee its safety. Even more so if that person is being paid to perform a service on it.

It comes as an unwelcome demand, then, that the Post Office and UPS (as well, presumably, as other firms) require a payment for insurance for something under their control. And that's just what they do.

It seems strange to be asked if I want to insure something that they're holding and delivering for me. It's almost as if they were saying “we're not reliable, but that's your problem. Just pay us, and if you're worried about whatever you've entrusted to us, just pay us a little extra and we'll insure it for you.” If they have some concern about what they do, it seems to me that they should pay for the insurance themselves or self-insure and accept the responsibility for their own acts. I know this will increase their costs, and they will raise the rates I have to pay, but I can't imagine the local dry cleaner asking me to insure what he's cleaning. If I'm paying for a service I don't expect to have to leave a tip in order to be sure I'll get it. And I certainly don't expect to be asked for one – however they phrase it.

Perhaps expecting others to take responsibility for what they do is old-fashioned. But I'm old-fashioned.

Hail Mary, Heil Hitler

Many – if not all – of those who see this title will find it offensive. And it is. It is the appositioning of opposites. The former is an appeal to an immaculate symbol – an appeal to one who would help the petitioner in a quest for virtue. The latter is a denial of virtue, a pledge of loyalty to evil – the promise to support a fatally flawed individual despite those flaws, and possibly because the “supplicant” shares them.

Numerous individuals follow now, or followed once, one or both of these philosophies, but I am not one of them. I am neither a Christian nor a Nazi. Nonetheless, the two phrases weigh heavily, as I consider the role of belief and concern in the formation of the ideas of an individual and the ideals of a society.

Yes, the title is offensive, but it serves to illustrate some points that interest me. They deal with the relationship between religion and the secular world. The roots of Christianity extend more than two millennia into the past – the length of those roots depending on whether you see Christianity as an Abrahamic religion, inextricably linked to Judaism, or if you date it from the events depicted in the Gospels. In either case, however, it's old. Nazism's roots are also long, a heritage of patriotism – which has long served as a rallying cry for populists – and anti-semitism which is almost as old as Christianity. 

However that link, age, is not the focus of today's essay. Different as their current philosophies and goals, however, there is a plausible connection between the two which illustrates a feature of religions in general, and it is this feature that interests me today.

The Gospel of Matthew records the following as Jesus replied to an inquiry from some of his followers about paying taxes to the emperor,

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 21:22]

Jesus drew a distinction between Rome and Judaism (which was his religion). They were two separate realms. It is a distinction which German citizens found perfectly acceptable – even desirable. Church and State were separate. They may have proselytized more forcefully at one time, but their religious decrees were no longer imposed on others. The era of theocracy had passed, and they could remain Christians while following the dictates of their Führer at the same time. There was no obvious conflict. Or at least, none on which most of the people acted.

The origin of the obligation to accept secular law is attributed in the Talmud (and later by Rashi) to Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BCE, and it is still an accepted precept in Judaism. (In fact, a prayer for the secular government can be found in most prayer books.) While Jewish practice is to be followed if there is a conflict between religious and secular law, when there is no direct conflict we are obligated to follow the law of the State. I assume the same is true of Christianity, but the license to obey “Caesar” was well known, and it was appealing to the Germans.

Having noted the existing secular and religious legal systems, separate if not equal, in contrast to most western religions (and probably in the east as well, but I am not familiar with those creeds), the practices of Islam are striking.

Islam recognizes only a single legal system, Sharia, and adherents view it as applying to everyone – whether Muslim or not – and everywhere. Moreover, a major goal is the conversion of everyone to Islam and to its laws. There is no such thing as secular law. In any country where there are Muslims there is pressure to be ruled by Sharia, especially, but not exclusively, in lands where they are in the majority. As opposed to a separate secular legal system which is to be followed when there is no conflict with religious law, there is a desire to have clerical determination and administration of all regulations. There is also the desire that those regulations apply to all citizens including those who are not (yet) Muslim. And there is the determination as well to bring those non-Muslims into the fold – often by means that would not conform to secular law, or to the religious laws of most other groups.

Which brings us back to the issue of a balanced relationship between secular and religious constructs. There is certain to be oppression when there is unyielding religious law – law that demands blind obedience untempered by any system of secular justice. But, as the Holocaust showed us, an unyielding secular government, blindly followed by those who consider themselves religious but who don't apply their religious principles to unjust laws, and don't follow spiritual teachings and place them above those laws in order to obtain an honorable society, is also likely to place many at risk. Morality is more important than loyalty; tolerance than compulsion.

The answer then – at least in my view – is an acceptance of a dual system, but the placement of the religious, the humanist, practice in a position of dominance where they conflict. Virtue must always take precedence over evil.

Text And Pretext

 

Like so many Americans, I have been disenchanted with the media. More accurately, I don't believe what I see and read. John Peter Zenger risked his freedom and his life for the right to publish what he considered to be the truth. The first amendment to our Constitution guaranteed that right. It was a right that could lead to an informed public – a public that was objectively apprised of events and could practice democracy in the knowledge that they could make informed choices.

We live in a free society. We can elect representatives and we can influence their policies to some degree by the expression of our beliefs and our wishes. Indeed, our country is great because it reflects, at least in part, the attitudes of a free people.

Attitudes, however, are based on information. Some of that information comprises the views and biases of those who rear us. These color our opinions by predisposing us to accept certain ideas while rejecting others. It's a sad fact that xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, sexism are often ingrained: they are truth, “common knowledge.” The new information we seek, the ideas which we accept or reject, however, are given us by others. And to a major degree, they are the members of the media.

Unfortunately, however, we have reason not to trust the media. A Gallup Poll taken in December of last year indicated that only twenty percent of the population viewed television reporters [and, presumably, other journalists] as demonstrating a high degree of ethics. That's down from thirty-six percent in 1981 – not very impressive figure itself. But, as the press knows, notwithstanding its low credibility it's the only game in town, and people react to what it says. So even if they don't trust the source, the ideas are absorbed, becoming part of their stock of accepted facts. If they are not exposed to other ideas, they can neither react to them nor incorporate them – only to what they are told.

So if there is little mention of the abduction of Christian girls in Africa, or the killings occurring in Iraq, they cannot be of much consequence. If little space is given to the nuclear threat from Iran or the invasion of Crimea, it is not our concern. But if an inordinate amount of space is devoted to a single subject – and here I refer to the situation in Israel and Gaza – that becomes the topic which is most worthy of our attention, whether we believe everything we are being told or not.

And there is good reason for cynicism. The story from Gaza presented by most of the media – a very serious affliction of the New York Times and many other sources – is unbalanced. It includes official Palestinian government reports with the claims unchecked, stories by Hamas sympathizers hewing to the party line, reports of those who fear injury or loss of credentials for accurate reporting, and censorship of uncomplimentary reports. And only certain events may be covered, with only authorized scenes photographed. The “creation” of reality that supports the Hamas narrative is encouraged. In short, propaganda is freely mixed with news. And news that does not support the propaganda is squelched or denied.

I understand both the underlying biases and the pressure to protect sources. Truth is not merely discouraged, it is dangerous. The lives of journalists are at stake. That is the reason that the information coming from Gaza and from similar venues is limited and censored. Those who wish to stay report the story the way Hamas wants it, and the others live in fear, only describing the true situation when they are out. Even then they are often reluctant to tell the whole story out of concern for friends and colleagues still there. And all too often, those reporting from Israel find it easier and safer to report Hamas's claims rather than to risk going to the scene. It also fits their own liberal stereotypes and biases, and the wishes of their editors and advertisers. “Advocacy journalism” has become the norm.

It is also difficult to ignore the complicity of Europe and the UN. The changing demographics in Europe, with increasing numbers of Muslims, means that anti-Israeli (actually antisemitic) sentiment is rife, and there is a good market for those newspapers that tell and sell Hamas's story. No version inconsistent with the Muslim narrative is ever told, so all that the people know and believe is what Hamas tells them. Will the Europe with which we are familiar exist in twenty-five years, or will it have become “Eurabia?”

As for the UN, it is largely comprised of Muslim states and sympathetic countries around the world that either have increasing Muslim populations or are dependent on the Arab states for oil and investments. In addition, experience has shown that UN troops and organs do better in Muslim countries, and fewer are abducted or killed, when they overlook the faults of their hosts and blame Israel for all the problems that exist. That they ignore storage of rockets in UN schools and hospitals in Gaza, with the knowledge of UN representatives, while blaming Israel for destroying them, is an example, as is the use of antisemitic texts in UN schools.

The problem is gigantic, but the solution is straightforward. Tell the truth. The whole truth. A serious description of the problem – reporting what reporters who have left Gaza have seen – would be a good start. The recognition and citation of media distortions would be helpful, although it would not be surprising if no branch of the media wanted to criticize another. Facts should be checked before publication, and when this cannot be done readers should be informed that they are simply claims. It has to be clear that journalists take their responsibilities seriously if they want to earn back the trust of the public.

For if people cannot believe one set of stories reported by the media, they may question the remainder of what they are told. And that is what is happening.

The Devil Made Me Do It

One of the most memorable lines from “West Side Story” comes during the song “Gee, Officer Krupke.” Proudly declared by Riff a gang member, the words, in defense of his antisocial behavior, were “I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.” We're entertained by the wordplay and the concept it conveys, but we also laugh a little nervously, both because we know he believes what he's saying,ⁱ and because we're concerned about a society in which criminal behavior may be excused because of “mitigating” conditions.

One of the more frightening ideas, and one we know to be true, is that people become set in their ways early in life. And the “ways” are, in large part, ones they've learned from others. Over the years we've learned a lot about human behavior and the factors that influence it, recognizing that there are many we're powerless to control. One of the most important of the factors relates to the people around us and their views.

Another song sheds light on the problem. The words are by Oscar Hammerstein II, and they come from “South Pacific.” “You've got to be taught” points out the effectiveness of early education. “You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight.” And it is during this period that we poison our children, while at the same time warning them about playing with the “wrong” friends.

Riff, apparently, was conditioned both at home and in the schoolyard, and he continued to associate with those who would reinforce the dangerous ideas he had already learned. Having been taught the behavior he displays, he should not, in a modern country like ours, be held responsible for it – or at least the faulty upbringing and the lessons it fed him should be viewed as extenuating circumstances and excuse any punishment due him. At least that's what he believes. Certainly such a childhood is just as likely to cause deviations from civilized normsⁱⁱ as Twinkies.ⁱⁱⁱ

There are at least two bottom lines to this situation: one is that no one is responsible for anything he does. It's not his fault. There is always an outside influence like a person or a condition^iv of some sort that is the guilty party.^v It's certainly not him. And the second is that early childhood education is largely responsible for people's behavior later in life. The song from “South Pacific” tells us what we must be taught: “to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught.” Children taught to hate and fear^vi will hate and fear. And chances are good that they'll inculcate in their children the same biases and paranoia.

Without spending unwarranted time on how disdain for responsibility affects the children, a subject which I may address in a future post, there are a few suggestions I'd like to make which may, at least to a degree, mitigate the situation. Thus all include education.^vii Certainly there are other treatments which should be applied, but for the sake of this essay I want to limit my thoughts to the education.

Parents – or future parents – should be taught parenting skills. No such subject was taught in the “olden” days,^viii but in our modern urban society, these skills seem lacking in many of the people who, willingly or otherwise, become parents. It is likely that not too many will participate voluntarily, but this kind of education can be made a part of the package that includes the spectrum of “entitlements” proffered to those who require them, and can be a condition for the receipt of other aid.^ix Apart from parenting, adults should be taught a variety of other subjects which directly involve their own lives and those of their children. These may include nutrition, sex education, civics and money management. The level of the teaching should be tailored to the group involved.

Classes can be given in a variety of places – public buildings where benefits are distributed, social centers, schools offering adult education, and even prisons. It would be naїve to believe that all who are urged or forced to attend them will do so, or that all who attend will benefit from them, but to the degree that attention is paid to the material offered, there is likely to be some improvement in behavior and some help for the children of participants.

Similar material, adjusted for the age of the students, should become part of the curriculum of both public and private^x schools. Giving the classes in several grades will emphasize the importance of the material presented and allow for the elevation of the level of the education as the children get older.^xi Much of this material is already being presented but repackaging it in the form of family skills may make it more interesting to some of the students. And, as is true with all teaching, its repetition improves the likelihood of its retention.

Bad parents treat their children in a way that is likely to turn them into bad parents as well. It's the curse that keeps on cursing. The profits society can realize from children who are carefully taught the right lessons cannot be overstated. Whatever can be done to break the cycle will provide benefits and cost savings that are certain to exceed the costs incurred in the programs that yield them. Perhaps it will help both the deprived and the depraved.

Next episode: “The Great Debate” – It ain't what you say but the way that you say it.

 

 

 

 

 

I        And maybe we do too. We know for certain that he'll make use of the free pass he expects.

ii       Which is certainly not to suggest that something is proper because it is a societal norm.

iii      Actually Dan White didn't claim that the Twinkies and other sweets he ate made him murder George Moscone and Harvey Milk, but that his taste for them resulted from depression (indeed, they proved that he was depressed) and the depression lowered his responsibility for whatever he did.

iv      That includes issues as diverse as genetics, poverty, life experiences, and Twinkies.

v        I'll deal with that issue at a future date.

vi       A good example is the inclusion in textbooks supplied to Palestinian children by their hate-filled elders, a large body of anti-Israeli (and anti-semitic) propaganda which amplifies the malevolence they are taught elsewhere. In general, prejudice is learned at home, but school and teachers may influence it greatly – as may biased friends.

vii      Since I'm finessing the “guilt” issue.

viii     Nor did it seem necessary. Perhaps we ignored the issue, or perhaps people were more civil in a less advanced civilization.

ix       That is not to suggest that those who do not require welfare don't need better training in parenting skills – only that we have less leverage to involve them.

x        That may be one way to get through to those not requiring welfare payments.

xi       Age-appropriate videos could even be shown at Day Care Centers in order to give small children a head start.

More Food For Thought

                                                                                                  

When was the last time you had a good home-cooked meal?

I asked that question last weekⁱ as I bewailed the change in food preparation methods in our country in recent years.

But it was the wrong question. It made too many assumptions – most of them either incorrect or too smug. Let's start by taking apart the question itself:

     a. When was the last time

     b. you

     c. had

     d. a good home

     e. cooked

     f. meal?

“When was the last time” – The implication is that it was some time in the past.

“you” – It's not clear, but this probably includes your family, or others for whom you are responsible.

“had” – Once again there is the assumption that you did. And that means that it is no longer the case.

“a good home” – Indeed. Any home. Too many of our own citizens, let alone others around the world, lack any home at all – good or otherwise.

“cooked” – Whatever home they have would need cooking implements and fuel which aren't necessarily available and affordable.

“meal?” – As opposed to whatever – if any – food can be found.

Those, however, are only details. More important questions revolve around the assumption that you have had a “good home-cooked meal” at some time. If so, it seems that it must have been some time back. But there is also the implication that such a meal is desirable and that you are entitled to it. Why should that be the case? Is anyone “entitled” to have such a meal, and if so, aren't we all entitled to it?

The original question seemed straightforward, but there are implications that require some comment. Whoever is asking the question seems to assume that he deserves such a meal, and on a regular basis. It's likely that he expects someone to make it for him and that the failure is not his own. He probably has to go out to some (expensive) restaurant in order to enjoy the kind of meal that is his due.ⁱⁱ Presumably his cook (who may be a spouse) has been cutting corners.

At this momentⁱⁱⁱ there are over 7,137,291,000 people in the world. The original question would probably never occur to most of them. And many among them would have no other experience than making rice, or some other cheap staple, with little else to nourish them. They only have home-cooked meals, if they eat at all. Indeed, some would have little to eat of any sort, apart from what they find in the fields or forests. When we wonder about home-cooked meals, we are dealing with a quandry of the privileged.

We are privileged. And we are responsible. It's easy to say that the poor – even those in our own country – should fend for themselves.^iv Or that their own governments should provide for them. The United States gives aid to many countries that are in need, but many of our own citizens resent the sending of their tax dollars elsewhere. Charity begins at home.

But that view has its own problems. Many of those same people resent paying the taxes that fund such home-grown programs as food stamps, and other plans to assist the poor. For them, “home” is the address at which they live, and while they are happy to accept government benefits, they are reluctant to pay for them. Another problem is that for many of them, charity doesn't begin at all. And whether or not we agree with their perspective, it is easy to understand a view that says that others have no right to give charity in their names – to give away their money. Moreover, if anything is given, they should have the right to choose the recipients. After all, it's their money.^v

So a better attitude is for you to choose the charities and donate before you are asked.^vi And, before you ponder the complexities regarding the issue of your own home-cooked meals, it would be appropriate to give some thought to those who don't even understand the question.

Next episode: “Complex Problems” – Do they require complex answers?

i       “A La Whatever,” January 19, 2014.

ii      Even then, there's no guarantee that it's made from scratch. More likely there are partially prepared products for restaurants. There may be many dishes on the menu, and it may be difficult to prepare them from fresh ingredients every day. “In Season” is often used to suggest that the product is fresh, but don't forget that it's always in season somewhere.

iii     Ten thirty AM on December 30, 2013.

iv      We are quick to find ways to blame the victim and to justify our own behavior.

v       Decisions of this sort are difficult, and legislators and regulators use their own preferences and biases to make them. Sometimes the choices are based on voter preferences, but not very often, and only after the legislators have told the voters what is “good” and what is “right.”

vi      You. Not the other guy.

Not My Fault

                                                                                                              

The punch line is: “None of us was driving Officer. We were all in the back seat.”

You had to be there. It was part of a joke by Peter Lind Hayes about a drunk old lady whose car was involved in an accident, and it was very funny at the time.ⁱ Nowadays it's not so funny. We'd blame someone else now, rather than talking about ourselves.

In fact, nowadays we always seem to be focused on someone else. Everything is hisⁱⁱ responsibility. If something goes wrong he either caused it or didn't prevent it. Nothing should be blamed on me, and if something goes wrong, it's always because of what someone else did or didn't do. Or, perhaps, what he should do. Certainly he's responsible for my well-being. If I have needs, he has to fill them.

According to the Wall Street Journal,ⁱⁱⁱ the Bloomberg administration had a program that “paid poor families for basic behaviors such as going to the doctor, attending school and doing well on tests. … adults are rewarded for working 30 hours a week … and parents still get paid for dentist visits and annual medical checkups.” Ideally such a program would make it adventageous for the poor to do the things that used to be considered intelligent and that would benefit those who engaged in them. Now, it seems, society considers it appropriate to bribe people to do what might be good for them. In all likelihood, if we don't do that they'll spite us by not taking care of themselves. Perhaps it's cheaper to bribe them than to pay the costs of remediation later on, but it provides an incentive to act irresponsibly. In any event, “the experiment was largely a flop.” It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that in my day (stop yawning) the individual was considered responsible for his own welfare. Intelligent behavior was assumed.

I first noticed the problem in mid-career in medicine when I learned that it was the doctor's fault if a patient did not follow instructions or didn't show up for an appointment. It seemed strange^iv that the doctor would be guilty and held accountable if the patient didn't take his medicine, or if he didn't care enough to return when scheduled. Actually it shouldn't have surprised me. After all, it takes a village to raise^v a child. And it takes a village to support him and his family. And the village better do it.

The Bible tells us that we are responsible for each other. It urges us to give charity. In a way, that's how many of us view the situation, and the responsibility for dealing with it. All problems can be attributed to society, and society should correct them. That's the origin of social programs around the world. In the US we have Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, homeless shelters, Head Start, and a host of other programs designed to support those who can't, or won't, make it on their own. The idea is basically one of universal insurance. We all pay the government and it supplies the services needed by those who are unable to provide for themselves.^vi And since we get govermental funding through a graduated income tax, that means that the rich pay for the poor. That's fair, isn't it?

Well, it certainly sounds fair.^vii Unfortunately for that to really happen we have to place the line between “rich” and “poor” fairly low.^viii Even much higher taxes on the “one percent,” or even the ten or twenty percent, will be inadequate to pay for all the programs we've taken on. Usually they are “feel-good” programs pushed by those who never inform the voters that they will pay for them. All they do is to inspire guilt in those whom they have chosen to be the insurers. It's good politics. They get votes from the guilt-ridden for their compassion, and from the poor for their support. From the perspective of both, the government has deep pockets and is responsible for the care of all our citizens.^ix Most forget, however, that we are the government, and we are the insurers of the welfare of our fellows.^x Ultimately, no one is responsible for his own well being. We are all responsible for that of others.

And none of us is responsible for anything that goes wrong. It, too, is someone else's fault. Another hoary joke is that if you fall, it isn't your doctor who tells you if something is wrong, it's your lawyer. And he^xi tells you whom you should sue. That way both you and he will get a payoff for whatever happened. Even if no one else caused your problem, there is likely to be someone who can be blamed. It's surely not your fault if something goes wrong. Someone has to pay. We're an extremely litigious society. The media are filled with advertising by lawyers who will try to get you money for anything that can be construed as blamable on someone else. Sadly, there is a refusal of the acceptance of any responsibility by individuals.

So there will be many who, whatever the demonstrated outcome of such efforts, will continue to encourage bribing people to act responsibly. Perhaps they'll favor subsidies for obeying the law. And general no-fault insurance for whatever people see as the inequities of life. After all, the government will pick up the tab.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Democracy” – “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i       About a half century ago. Maybe more, but, as the saying goes, “Who's counting?”

ii          Or her.

iii       'Good Behavior' Still Pays Off, September 25, 2013.

iv        And unjustifiable.

v       Some prefer “rear,” but that's the cliché.

vi      After it pays for expenses and corruption, of course.

vii    Another name for this approach is “socialism.” The basic idea is a redistribution of wealth so everyone has the same amount. It is irrelevant why someone is rich and another is poor. Both deserve the same amount of resources. Take from the “rich” and give to the “poor.” We are all our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.

viii    By the way, who decides where to draw the line?

ix      And, for that matter, anyone in our territory – citizens or not. But at this time I won't pursue the issue of those here illegally.

x      There is no consciousness of the fact that those same individuals (all of us) underwrite it. When it's viewed simply as a government program, we ignore the bottom line that it comes from the taxes we pay. And it is the politicians, who aren't paying for it but are out for votes, who decide what is a problem requiring societal correction.

xi     Or she.