The Modern Approach

Times change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I remember President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational. Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners," ("first they came for ...") the "1%," the government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.

I return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who misunderstood his message.

I'm willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft, kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent – continues. They believed that this was what they could “do for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their actions – their own lives and the lives of others.

Whom did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right" on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on their behalf.

The protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights," some of which require much teasing from our founding documents – or may not even be there – usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).

And the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in the past. More important is what the law means. At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is right.

That's not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can." For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the rasher "because I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly, although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis. The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought – only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians (including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more important.

And that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines. And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

There was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.

It's time to return government to those we've elected.






April 28, 2017

When in Rome

Right or wrong?

It's a question that most of us ask ourselves from time to time. Most of us. Not all because some aren't concerned about the answer. But those who do ask are usually concerned. And they're involved in an activity which is new to them. They haven't formed an opinion and the boundaries and rules aren't clear. Often the goal is to do what's legal rather than what's right, and in such a situation you have to know the rules. If you're going to exploit the law, you have to know the law.

It's not a new problem, but the answer may be difficult. There's an old joke about a student preparing for a test and obtaining the questions asked on previous exams. Noting that the questions seem the same from year to year he inquires of student senior to him and is informed that though the questions are the same, the answers change. (And that's the case regarding right and wrong – from time to time and from place to place.)

One and one will always be two (in base 2 or above) but it's less clear that human sacrifice is legitimate. The latter issue is one that is based on societal beliefs, preferences, and judgments, and they're subject to change. Which raises a question I've mentioned on many occasions in the past: absolutes. I haven't changed my opinion, although many will consider it old-fashioned and insensitive to the current, understanding, persuasion. It's not multi-cultural. It doesn't recognize that different societies view things differently and to oppose what may be practices that may be the norm elsewhere betrays a lack of tolerance, or worse on my part. But I accept the idea that there are absolutes.

And the different societies which I mention aren't all separated simply by location, but by time as well. Does that change the principle? Was it ever, anywhere, justified to sacrifice babies to the “gods?” It was the practice in some ancient, and not so ancient, societies and cults to do so, but we would reject it immediately, irrespective of the fact that it might have been a “normal” practice somewhere at some time. There are absolutes, and, among those who care about right and wrong, I suspect there are strictures on their behavior which supersede the customs of the society in which they find themselves.

If, however, such absolutes exist, there has to be a source. For me that source is the Bible, although I know that some of the absolutes it contains are shared by societies that have never seen one. (I'll come back to that point presently.) It's a good guidebook, although the sages of Judaism have advised us to obey the laws of the state in which we live. There's an exception, however. If secular law conflicts with Torah (Biblical) law, we are to follow that in the Torah. (“Right” is defined by the Torah.) By doing so we deny the following of the aphorism about Rome and its practices. When they conflict with our laws we don't follow them, although we may comply with local customs otherwise. Indeed, when we're in a Jewish community with different customs we follow theirs rather than our own. It's our practice to try to follow the rules of the community in which we find ourselves.

That leaves one subject to be addressed: the fact that there are some absolutes which exist in societies unaware of each other. Somehow or other we all recognize certain limits to our choices. And some of them are shared, even though other practices may be at great variance. How have we achieved this common position when many of our other customs are so different from other societies?

Suggesting that some of these are obvious and serve to protect us as we protect others is begging the question. It may be true, but it doesn't explain anything. Why are certain things obvious? Why should everyone have, in regard to some aspects of our lives and beliefs, a common view of right and wrong? The only explanation that I can conceive of in this age of electronics is that we're all programmed in the same way – at least in regard to some moral as well as physical characteristics. It's in our DNA.

But sometimes cultural influences override DNA. When human sacrifice existed in some societies, they believed that what they were doing was right. At least those in charge thought that their practices were proper, even if there were some who disapproved. That doesn't mean that they were right any more than it means that we should give free rein to cultures among us that have traditions that deviate from the absolutes. Every society has rules, and the hierarchy of its restrictions includes, or at least should include, the absolutes.

But when there is disagreement about the absolutes, who decides what they are? G-d. The One who created us and assigned our DNA. There is a right and there is a wrong. Even if there are some who are unwilling to acknowledge them.

When in Rome, or anywhere else, do what the Romans do. Unless you know that they are doing wrong. Then do what your conscience – as controlled by your DNA – directs you to do. If the society in which you are chooses not to follow the absolutes, it is wrong. That's not a matter of different societal norms and sensitivity to the practices of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

In the words of the cliché, “do the right thing.”






March 28, 2017

The Source of Wisdom

It wasn't long ago – a few weeks ago (or a few days depending on whether you calculate from the day this was published or the day it was written) I wrote

I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it.

And I'm going to deal with that issue here. But let me start with the words of others.

G-d said it. I believe it. It's true.

I saw that on a bumper sticker. That's certainly an answer. And it's an answer to virtually all questions. If you seek it, it is there.

But some may not be satisfied and ask for additional verification. They may wonder about the source.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Those are among the lyrics of a song that was popular some years back. Simplistic, isn't it? But we all accept this kind of reasoning, even if we don't recognize that fact. We just find our gospel in different places.

I was reading a book recently, Alan Schwarz's A.D.H.D. Nation, and I was very impressed by it. It said so many things I knew to be true, about how we, as a nation, had taken a syndrome that involved a relatively small number of children and magnified it into a problem affecting three to six times the number of people who may have it. It's become fashionable – and an excuse for all sorts of failings. It provided a justification for taking drugs. And it involved all age groups.

In fact many of the books I read also confirm other views I have. The subject doesn't matter, but they're usually political. They clarify important issues and provide documentation of all the salient points that support my opinions. I'm in the avant-garde and the world is slowly catching up – at least I hope so. But I've always been ahead of my time.

The same is true of the newspapers and magazines I read. They're also among the enlightened, and their articles, opinions, and letters also parallel the views I hold. They substantiate all that I think and say (though admittedly I try to avoid actually speaking to others whenever I can). It's clear that others recognize the wisdom of all the views I hold.

Still, when I hear others speak (even if I don't speak, I listen) I usually find myself subjected to drivel and absurd ideas and thinking. Surely they'll learn, but they're not yet on the road to wisdom. What they say is almost as inane as what they read. I know that because they sometimes specify the newspaper from which they've gotten the nonsense. They treat the New York Times as if it were the source of the gospel. They believe everything that it deems fit to print. (How do I know? The New York Times tells me so.)

Will Rogers said, in a self-deprecating manner, “All I know is just what I read in the papers,” and he was a very smart man. But he continued, “and that's an alibi for my ignorance.” The ideas that he took from those papers (and I'm sure he wasn't talking about the paper I read) were nonsense, and, in his droll and “innocent” manner, he made that clear to his audience. So those who read those papers, and those who take seriously what they have to say and who repeat it, are speaking nonsense. The readers of those rags probably hold those perverted views anyway, and that's why they choose inferior media. Most of the media are ignorant. They don't agree with me. So most people are similarly ignorant. They reflect the nescient notions (no, I am not William Safire) that the media they follow advance.

It is reassuring to mention that the books I read and the media I absorb, reinforce the wisdom that I know to be reliable. As opposed to the misinformation swallowed by others, the sources I value are wise. They are perceptive and understanding of the meaning and implications of what they are reporting. And they can be relied on.

So if they agree with me, and they do, they prove my correctness – not that I ever doubted it. After all, I'm always right. And if you don't agree, you're wrong.

[If you consider this circular – or (incor)rectangular for that matter – reasoning, you're wrong.]

September 28, 2016.

Incompatibility

Among the most important of absolutes – and you already know I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱ – are right and wrong. “Although it's not always obvious what is right,” as I said last week, “if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.”

We want to teach our children what is the proper road to travel. We want them to do what is right.ⁱⁱ Every time.ⁱⁱⁱ We want to educate them to do so, but as we seek the proper educational approach for them we want to choose one that reinforces our own beliefs. And in the United States^iv there are two primary approaches that need to be considered – scientific and religious.^v Both present rules; both offer structure; some of the rules however, if not the absolutes, overlap, but their explanations of the underlying “realities” differ.

Because any exploration of “rules-based” behavior is based on the absolutes and the realities that dictate that behavior, it seems reasonable to spend a moment^vi on the competing points of view on those points of view and the principles that govern them. In the case of the scientific model, the one used in public education and a large number of private schools, it is assumed that the universe and its contents came about through natural and logical means and are value-free. Proponents present mathematical and other scientific proofs which, even though we may not understand them, demonstrate how we got to where we are.

If science, however, bases all of existence, on “what” and “how” rather than “why,” if only “is” and not “should” makes any sense, then if its adherents follow some system of right and wrong, and values, they are products of their various societies, developing independently, and differing from place to place. And there is nothing that makes one set of rules superior to another. The rules, even if they are the same as those of others who reject their origin, are based on society's choices. Man is the measure of all things.

Those whose reality is a religious one, however, generally accept the idea of an unprovable system of creation with an unchangeable set of absolutes that apply to everyone irrespective of the society in which they live. Certain acts are “wrong” no mater where they take place, and they cannot be justified by local custom. “Right” is right and “Wrong” is wrong. It is a perspective that many view as irrational.^vii

Incomprehensible equations may be fascinating to scientists and they may view them as scientific gospel, but they clarify nothing and provide no guide to living on this earth and with our fellow humans. A cosmology that proposes that matter created itself and that the Big Bang was the beginning of all existence (except for the laws of physics that have always existed) and predated the beginning of time and matter is not satisfying to everyone.

The use of the Big Bang and evolution as tools by an eternal Creator who guided the formation of the universe as we know it, and who provided us with guidelines for living in the environment He created, and among the people who dwell in it, makes more sense to them, although most adherents freely admit that they don't understand all its features.^viii To the scientific, this view makes no sense at all.

There are, presumably, many other possibilities, but these are the two most commonly voiced now. Admittedly, using “sense” as a criterion for evaluating the “irrational” has problems, but in this case, while both have problems, it seems to me the “irrational” makes more sense than the “rational.”

So what is “right?” It comes back to the issues of predictability and chaos avoidance, as I mentioned above. To reach those goals, some absolutes, however they are derived, are necessary. There has to be predictability. It's mandatory. After all, there is only one answer to the “Ultimate Question” – the question that brings us the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.^ix Don't panic. I'll get there and I'll tell you what to do. Every time.

Next episode: “All The Answers” – And my recommendations. A few new questions also.

I        I believe that there are certain principles by which we must all live, and what is absolute is absolute. Those who deny it are absolutely mistaken.

ii       At least most of us want that. “Right,” however is difficult to define. It's often simply what we do. If it's good enough for us it's good enough for our children.

iii      We all justify exceptions when it is convenient to do so, if only to excuse actions we, or those we favor, have taken. That doesn't make it right. The exception doesn't prove the rule. It only demonstrates our inability to follow it.

iv       Actually everywhere.

v        What the science advocates would label “rational” and “irrational.”

vi       I'll really spend the rest of this essay on that subject and return to the underlying issue next week.

vii      Or, at least, “non-rational.”

viii     There is no denying that different religions, and different strains within them, would have competing versions of the rules, but most would agree on the absolutes.

ix       Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

42

How is a compulsive like a multiplication table?

No. That's not the first line of a joke. It's the first line of a discussion of several matters that came to mind this morning as my children were preparing theirs for school. [This particular essay will be the first in a multi-part series, but, for the moment, I'm not sure how long it will be. In all likelihood it will have two or three parts, but I can't be absolutely sure at this time. We'll both find out as I go along.]

I'm an observant Jew. But I admire ISIS and atheists. ISIS would strip me of my life and atheists of my beliefs. Yet I respect them both – at least in one particular way. I'm in awe of them. They have views which they hold very strongly. Members of ISIS would kill or die for them,ⁱ though I suspect that most atheists wouldn't go quite that far. But they don't hesitate to expound their views and when they talk – especially ISIS – the world listens. And in the United States, especially in legal settings, the atheists usually get their way. It's almost as if the Constitution prohibits religion.

Yet the Constitution and the Bible are very much alike. Both are filled with absolutes in the form of laws and standards. Both are subject to interpretation, and there is considerable disagreement about how to interpret those absolutes.ⁱⁱ But there are absolutes. There are rules. And in a world in which virtually anything goes, the discipline provided by rules, however you interpret them, and the structure they give to our lives helps us work our way through our quotidian struggles, is the factor that makes our lives more understandable.

On my refrigerator, held on by magnets, is an aging, typed list of assignments which were the responsibilities of my children as we prepared for the Sabbath. (They – the children – have families of their own now, but the document remains and serves as a checklist for me of chores that have to be done each week. I usually remember them all, but it's a good crutch.) There were other sets of rules distributed or posted that solved many problems before they occurred. I'm in agreement with those “experts” who favor structure for growing children; who believe that even though children seek independence, the existence of firm control is reassuring to them. I favor that view not because of the experts but because it makes sense, and my children responded to it. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. They are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress.

But that approach isn't limited to parenting. In almost every profession there's a checklist that has to be followed by a practitioner so he can be sure he doesn't miss something. Take a pilot for example. There are certain things he must do every time, and every time he must do them in the same way. While that doesn't guarantee that every flight will be a safe one, it ensures that every precaution that can be taken has, in fact, been taken and the odds are better that there will be a successful outcome.

The same is true of the compulsive and the multiplication table. In both cases there is something that must be done the same way every time. There may or may not be a listing of precisely how – whether it's some particular act, as it might be for someone who's compulsive or, as with a multiplication table, the result of some specific act, but it should always be the same. People who straighten pictures, straighten pictures. Every one they see if that is possible. Multiply nine times eight and it will always be seventy-two. At least in base ten, which is the template usually used with children. Both compulsion and the multiplication table deal with some kind of absolute. It may be an absolute for a person or for everyone. But it is invariable. Gravity always brings things closer together. If it doesn't, it's not gravity.

Among the most important of absolutes – and I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱⁱⁱ – are right and wrong. Although it's not always obvious what is right, if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.

Next episode: “Incompatibility” – Competing(?) absolutes.

I        They've made meaningless the entire concept of “mutually assured destruction” as a method for discouraging future conflict. They welcome destruction.

ii        There are many writers of commentaries on both. They deny that they are changing the contents – albeit there are many who would like to do so – and insist only that their interpretations of those contents clarify the meaning.

iii      At least within a given society for many of them. For others, however, there is only the belief that what is absolute is absolute.

The Only Thing

Have you ever gotten into a fight with your spouse, your lover, or your partner. Of course you have. And however much you love him (or her) you want to win. You give no thought to how the other party may feel – you're only focused on the idea that he will acknowledge that you're right.

We want to win. No matter what. After all, we're better and smarter than anyone else. We want to be right no matter what the cost. Even if there's “collateral damage.”

(Have you ever secretly wished that you'd lose? Probably.ⁱ But primarily so you could provoke feelings of guilt in someone elseⁱⁱ or earn the sympathy due an underdog. Winners never get any sympathy. Admiration, respect, or fear perhaps. But not sympathy. A real poster child for your causeⁱⁱⁱ is a dead one – even if you killed him yourself, or he isn't really dead. That'll get you sympathy and prove your virtue and the evil of your enemy [competitor]. So it's a valuable tool – especially when you're wrong. And if by some fluke you turn out to be right, you can always say “I told you so.” That's pretty satisfying.)

The bottom line is that we are all participants in the daily activity of competition.^iv Not just people – though they are my main concern today – but all forms of life. Self-preservation. Survival. And evolution is the reason we have gotten to this point. Whatever you consider the source of evolution, it has produced the RNA and DNA patterns that make plants and animals what they are. And whether or not we believe that our DNA made us do it – whatever “it” is – there is no question that our genetic background is largely – if not entirely – responsible for our attitudes and our actions.

And, for better or worse, the human race is composed of competitors. There are many who contend that males are more competitive than females, but that probably isn't true. The fields may be different, but the game is the same. Whether we compete based on brains (a battle of wits), beauty, words, skill, or strength, we fantasize that we're superior to everyone around us, and it is our constant challenge to prove it.

Nowhere is this more evident than in sports. People are willing to maim themselves, and damage themselves for life in order to win glory, even though they'll be forgotten as soon as the season, or their career, ends. For whatever reason, success on the fields of dreams and other sports became an end in itself. "Football is not just a matter of life and death; it’s much more important than that” was the way Henry Sanders, coach of UCLA put it, and he meant it. He's also credited with saying “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing,” though the words are often attributed to Vince Lombardi.

The competition is also an economic one,^v whether personal or commercial. On a purely personal level we don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to try^vi to keep up with us. But of greater national concern is the competition for consumer dollars. Cereal, gasoline, new cars – the argument is always the same. Our product is superior to our competitor's.

All of this is superimposed on political campaigns.^vii By pitting candidates against each other they provide a competition for our interest and our votes. It's often a negative competition. We vote against candidates rather than for their opposition, though that may be what's necessary. And the same is true of the various propositions on the ballot. Interest groups on both sides have promoted their arguments widely, in the hope of convincing me of the virtue of their cause.

(The wish to lose exists here [in politics] as well, in order to claim virtue later. That is especially true when your candidate has no better answers than the opposition and you'd rather that the opposition failed than see your choice do so. Later you can point to his failure as evidence that the voters should have sided with you. All the possible “solutions” are losers and you'd rather the other side lost than yours. And behind all the rhetoric is the knowledge that you're right – irrespective of the facts and the arguments on both sides.)

The ultimate competition is war. Animals mark their territory and compete for food and sex. But, by and large, their desires don't go beyond that. They're focused on their own survival and that of their species. The dreams of humans are less limited. We seek prestige, power, and property for ourselves, as well as better conditions for our people. But their benefits are less important than the advantages we gain for ourselves.^viii The individuals – specifically we – are more important than the species. It doesn't matter who gets killed as long as we win.

Competition, however, is simply the response to challenge. Whatever the challenge, it is usually outside of ourselves. That can be good or bad, but usually it's the latter. There are times when outside challenges are appropriate: times like seeking employment or or earning a living; times when competition is necessary. But most often the challenges, and the competition they produce, are aimed at self-glorification or worse – when the goal is to defeat someone else, or put something over on him. Right and wrong are not the issues then – only winning. The aim may not be to lose a friend, or to make a fool of yourself, however that may be the result, even if you don't mean it.

Forget the others. Challenge yourself. “Be all you can be,” as the Army puts it.^ix

That requires some thought, however. And that's your challenge. It's certainly more important than what appears on some phony “reality” show. It will probably sound sappy, but you are more important than television. There's more to life than “getting away with murder” simply because you can while others can't. The idea of doing what's “right” is the right is the thing;^x figuring out what you're best at can be a real challenge, and doing it is even more so.

And make a point of admitting you're wrong. Even if you aren't. Especially when it's obvious you aren't. When the person with whom you're arguing realizes that the admission is insincere, you'll have won.

Next episode: “Original Intent” – That's not what I meant.

 

 

i        It's an especially important technique when your argument is weak or you know you're wrong. You certainly don't want to admit that. You don't really want to lose, but you expect to. So you plan to spin the defeat into a moral victory.

ii       He'd really feel terrible if something happened to you – even if it was self-inflicted. He'd probably blame himself, and that would be fitting. After all, he's responsible for the problem. Whatever the outcome, he caused it. Don't let him off the hook.

iii      One that will win people over to your side even if you,re wrong.

iv       Battle.

v        Especially in sports.

vi       And fail.

vii      It always seems to be campaign season.

viii     Food and sex in addition to power, prestige, and property.

ix       I'm not suggesting you enlist, although that might be the right choice for you.

x        Spike Lee, 1989.

I Think I Missed Something

I attended a dinner recently, and at the other end of the table were two friends who were having a heated conversationⁱ about politics. Actually, from my (disad)vantage point, I could only hear snippets of the exchange, but I knowⁱⁱ both of the participants and their points of view, so I'm fairly sure I know what they said.

Part of the argument centered on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, with one of the parties arguing that both the Constitution and the Supreme Court sanctioned gun ownership, and the other condemning it and contending that we no longer have militias, and that no one needs, or should have, a gun. There were other topics mentioned, but they were similarly laced with polarized rhetoric. It was a typical dispute between a “crazy” conservative and a “bleeding heart” liberal. Both had a lot to say, but neither was listening. And neither had the capacity to say “I don't know.”

Were they involved in the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” debate, I suspect that they would also have been poles apart, although the pro-lifer would probably have favored the death penalty, while the pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) advocate would have opposed it categorically. And if the subject were the Patriot Act or some similar question regarding National Security and surveillance, One would support “whatever is necessary” while the other would be adamant in expressing horror at the intrusion of the government into our lives and thoughts. Yet contrary to all reason, the latter would encourage legislation that enlarged the government while the former would recoil at such a prospect.

The problem as I see it – and I've written about this before – is that we tend to be so involved in rhetoric and so enamored of our ideology that we haven't the time nor any interest in questioning it. We're not interested in its inherent logic. As I noted recently, we're more interested in accomplishing our goals than in analyzing where our those goals will lead. Logic is not our strong suit.

It all boils down to right and wrong – or at least the views of right and wrong existing in the imaginations of single-minded ideologuesⁱⁱⁱ who see no valid alternative to their views. And there is no room for compromise. It's a “take no prisoners” situation.

Is it too hot? That shouldn't be a surprise. We're undergoing global warming. Are we setting records for the cold? That, too, is a result of the warming. Perhaps there's too much snow or rain, or maybe there's a drought. All of these have a single cause – global warming! And tornadoes? You guessed it. The selfish producers of carbon-based fuels are to blame. They not only pollute the earth at ground level but they destroy the ozone layer above that protects us from the sun's rays. And since we all use carbon based fuels, we are all responsible.^iv

Of course there are others who are convinced that those who rant about warming are disingenuous, or simply misinformed – the historic facts don't support the claims. Not only are we going through a warming period consistent with the variation that has always taken place on earth, and not something based on fuel usage, but the blaming of all weather conditions, both desirable and undesirable, on a single cause is just plain “junk science.” Humans are not responsible for global warming and they cannot cure it. Those contending thus are as certain of their position as are the people whom they oppose.^v

Another example of the phenomenon is in the news all the time. Russia is taking over Ukraine; Iran maintains its “right” to enrich uranium, although there is universal anxiety over the potential for developing nuclear weapons; genocide is a daily occurrence in many African countries; Christians are being killed by Muslims and the battles between Hindus and Muslims are vicious; the “Arab Spring” has turned into winter; there is unrest in China, South America, and Iraq, and there are wars and conflicts in, among many other countries, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and Kashmir. There are even numerous assassinations and other murders in the context of the drug wars in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere.

Yet the world^vi seems to have found only one way to stop the injustices it sees all around. The worst offender is Israel. Whether it involves Church bodies, academics, nations and international organizations, consumers, or simply individuals with prejudices, the response they propose for all the problems we face is to boycott Israel. Indeed, the BDS movement^vii is the answer to anything to do with the Jews and enables you to deny antisemitism while indulging in it. And if such an accusation should arise, it's probably being made by the Jews^viii who use it to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Another illustration of the phenomenon, and I'll leave it at this although there are numerous other examples, is the current dispute over homosexuality. There are many who believe that it is the cause of all the disasters to which we are subject. Humanity is punished – especially the countries and localities where it is tolerated – for such behavior. They view natural disasters as the penalty for the actions of a single “deviant,” or the toleration by society of the LBGTQ^ix movement as a whole.

At the same time, for supporters of the movement, the absence of their members from some activity is proof of sexism. Television shows, movies, plays, and written works that lack someone with their sexual orientation are intolerable. As with other manifestations of the “traditional family” and “traditional values” in general, such views have no place in the twenty-first century outlook. Absence of a recognizable member of the LGBTQ community is ipso facto evidence of prejudice.

That, sadly, seems to be the way societies – not just our own – are turning. Not only do large groups find themselves unable to recognize and accept the truth,^x but they cannot tolerate the idea that there is any virtue in the views of those who disagree. There's no room for reassessment of their views and certainly not with compromise of those views so as to achieve a harmonious society.^xi Mind over matter. We live by the rule that the “underdog” is always right and anyone who has a different view, or who favors the ideas he was taught as a child – including the love of his own country – is wrong. We live in a post-traditional world, and we live with new truths rejecting any reliance on the old. In our multicultural, morally relative reality, we accept almost anything, especially if it is a denial of what our parents believed. It is rebellion writ large. It requires that we take the side of anyone lacking power – whether or not he is right. We believe that might makes wrong. Certainly that's the mantra in the United States.

But I must be missing something. It seems to me that we're looking for “right” in the wrong places. To a degree, we want to be different like everyone else. We want to be virtuous in an evil world. But most of all we want to be right. No, we are right, and we support the right causes even if others oppose them.^xii We accept whatever those whom we see as the weak say, and do whatever they want us to do. And we rebut the strong even if, were we to pay attention, their arguments would make sense. But why listen to such tripe? I think we have a kind of blindered vision that directs us to what it is acceptable to see and believe. And we're prevented from seeing (or thinking) anything else, tolerant of the views of others we consider oppressed.^xiii We place tolerance above realism. We are fanatics who espouse the received wisdom espoused by the good guys and we do, rather than think. We don't hear anything that contradicts our preconceived ideas, and we accept unconsidered principles as we engage in what used to be considered scapegoating.

So we're pigheaded and left with endless arguments in which no one will ever convince his opponent. And we're left with a society that will go its own way – one we may consider foolhardy – irrespective of logic. But that's okay. The pendulum will swing back and everything in vogue today will be rejected. Of course that won't end the arguments and allow us to compromise. We're all too sure of ourselves. So we'll switch sides or find something different to argue about.

Next episode: “The Right To Know” – Of course that doesn't mean you understand.

I       Actually it was an argument. There's no point in mincing words.

ii      And respect.

iii     Fanatics! But I feel so judgmental writing that.

iv      The liberal is likely to hold this opinion.

v       That's the view of the conservative.

vi      As exemplified by the endless condemnations generated by the UN.

vii     Boycott, divestment, sanctions. Of all the countries in the world, and with all the conflicts and injustices that we suffer, all the groups aim their weapons only at Israel. They are not concerned about anything else.

viii    Jews make up only two tenths of one percent of the world's population yet they are believed to control all the instruments of power, and antisemites maintain that they oppress everyone else.

ix      Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. As with BDS, we seem to have an affinity for acronyms. That's been one of our national fixations since the alphabet soup of the Roosevelt administration (FDR not TR).

x       I'm the only one who knows what that is and I'm not telling.

xi      That's the way politicians gain votes, and “intellectuals” earn brownie points.

xii     And often because others oppose them. It's guilt by association. If a “bad guy” has a certain view, it must be wrong. And anyone who takes him to task – who is thus on my side – deserves my support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

xiii    No, we automatically accept them.