Cutting Off My Nose

I'm getting acupuncture.  (I feel like a voodoo doll.)  I don't really believe in it but it was suggested to me by someone I respect, and I decided to give it a try. So far it hasn't done anything, and I don't really expect it to. I'm a skeptic. All that I read about it is that it has no scientific basis and positive results seem to be the result of the placebo effect.

My greatest fear is that it may work. Yes, I know I'll feel better, but I'll have to admit I was wrong, and that could be more troublesome than my symptoms.

I suspect it's a common feeling – I know it is for me – to want to be right, even if there is a cost. It's especially true when my outlook is pessimistic. I may, for example, want candidate A to win an election, but he's an underdog and I predict that candidate B will win. If candidate A wins I'll get the policies I want, but I'll be wrong. In my eyes and the eyes of others. Which is worse? Unfortunately being wrong is often worse than getting what I really want.

Another situation in which I'm ambivalent – one which has repercussions for others as well – is that in which I feel that I'm not properly appreciated by someone else; usually,though not always, someone important to me. And the thought that goes with that is “He'd (or she'd) really feel bad if something terrible were to happen to me. That'll serve him right.

I don't really want anything bad to happen, but I do want to punish someone else – to show him how empty his life would be without me. And how guilty he'd feel if he believed himself to be responsible somehow. Especially if he felt responsible for my absence or not being concerned for me when I was around.

The most common example of the phenomenon relates to insurance. We sink a lot of money into it, initially with the hope that it will serve as protection against a problem that might arise. Later, when everything has gone well, someone will begin resenting the cost of protection against problems that have never occurred. Some will look for ways to collect even if nothing goes wrong. Or he may look for what may be considered wrong so as to collect some of what he's already paid. Or even more. We don't want things to be wrong, but if we've paid for protection we want some return – even if it means that we suffer some harm.

In certain ways it's a competition. We “bet” against our own wishes and don't know whether we want to win or lose. We bet against our friends and family and sometimes consider losing face to be worse than experiencing a negative turn of fate. We look for ways to punish others, despite our knowledge that we're really punishing ourselves. But that's the way to win, and that's more important than anything else.

There's no doubt that insurance falls into this pattern. The insurance company has deep pockets and we don't. Our original intent was to protect ourselves, but it's not fair that because everything has gone well for us the insurance company is getting all our money. Ideally we can find a way to get our money back without suffering any harm in order to do so, but sometimes we think about other scenarios in which we my suffer harm but we recover what we've put in – or more.

The worst situation, however, is the one in which we feel that it's necessary to lose in order to win. We're usually looking for sympathy. And it's often from someone in particular. But in order to get sympathy, something has to be wrong. And it has to worse than whatever your “target” will describe. (He's competing too.) That's the down side. The sympathy, itself, is the up side. Is it worth it? That really depends on your competitive spirit and your endurance of whatever problem you have. Some glory in the sympathy but others would forgo the sympathy if they were problem-free.

And that's the way it is for all of these questions. Is the competition worth the discomfort? I guess that depends on you. As for me, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

June 5, 2017

Mom And Pop

Fat is out. But I like fat. Preferably charred. However fat's become a “no-no.” There are people more interested in my health than I am, and they control what I can eat. I remember a trip that my wife and I made to Spain about a decade ago. One of the things we did was to take an excursion and cross from there to Morocco, I think to the city of Tangier. Before recrossing the Mediterranean we stopped off in the city's open market. Everything and everybody was there. There were colors galore; fabrics, crafts, fruit and vegetables, and whatever you've seen in the movies. And there was meat. Sides of various animals were hung in front of the venders' booths, and flies swarmed around them. It was hot. There were some displays of cut meat available for purchase, and in every case the meat was trimmed to a point where there was almost no fat left. Even there the threat to health required the trimming of fat, even if insect-born diseases weren't of great concern.

I also recall an attempt I made to get what I liked from a local market in the Bronx. Unfortunately the market's owners had adopted the practices of larger stores. Their meat was already cut and packaged, and the corned-beef must have had only a sixteenth of an inch of fat. But there was a butcher there and I could have meat cut according to my wishes, so I ordered, for the following day, some corned-beef with a lot of fat. When I returned the beef set aside for me had meat with about an eighth of an inch of fat. That, I guess, was “a lot” by the standards of the day.

And, sad to say, we accept those standards and live by them because we have no choice. We can choose to have an abortion, but we cannot choose to have fatty meat. And our access to those who, in the past, would listen to us and fulfil our requests is all but nil.

I was in a shoe store a few weeks ago with my daughter and the clerk there asked he what size she was. Only when my daughter requested it was any attempt made to measure her feet. I looked for shoe laces in the store but didn't see any. And, of course, there is no place in my area to get them (actually there are a few in the local supermarket, but the selection I risible), or to have my shoes reheeled and resoled. That, unfortunately, doesn't matter since the shoes available nowadays are made with unreplaceable (and often hollow) rubber bottoms. So there is no longer any need for a cobbler. And modern manufacturing techniques have made his craft outdated.

And there are no blacksmiths, wheelwrights, real butchers, sawyers, tinkers, coopers, or many other craftsmen who once existed (fortunately we have a fish monger not too far away, although his prices are impressive). That's not to say that these skills are no longer needed, but to lament the fact that changes in society have obsoleted so many of them, or changed the magnitude or the nature of the establishment or individual who is offering a needed service. In some instances, and they're certain to increase, mechanical devices or robots do jobs once performed by humans (and another threat is the depersonalization of workers related to outsourcing); often “Mom and Pop stores have ceased to exist or been replaced by “big box” companies that deal in volume and can undercut any competition they have. (I remember going to the candy store when I was young. It was always a treat and an adventure. That experience is no longer available.)

We also live in an age when the philosophy of manufacturers is “one size fits all.” “We know best.” That allows them to package everything according to the standards of the day, and we have to take it or leave it. We take it. It may not be individualized to meet our needs, but we'll make do. We'll meet the manufacturer's needs. We have no choice.

When I was young you could get fatty corned-beef at the local delicatessen, but those days are gone. Now that we've decided that fat (and gluten and sugar and salt, as well as a host of other goodies) is bad for people, it's been eliminated or loudly rejected by a society that permits alcohol (except for pregnant women), cigarettes, and, in some states, “recreational” marijuana.

They don't float my boat. But Pop would. And fatty corned-beef would.

April 25, 2017

Eligite Diem

It's usually carpe diem, but scholarly as that may sound, I prefer eligite diem. I hope I have that right. It's been over sixty years since I took Latin and my memory's fading, however I think I'm right, and even if I'm not you probably won't know the difference. Ego caterva, “I hope.” (And I hope I have that right as well.)

Let's start with definitions. We'll get them out of the way before proceeding. Carpe diem, the common expression, means “seize the day,” while eligite diem, if my Latin is correct, means “choose the day.” They represent two different philosophies but are by no means mutually exclusive.

The first, carpe diem, seize and enjoy the day, tells us not only to “play the hand we're dealt,” but to improve on it – to take advantage of every opportunity. To make the most of opportunities, by whatever means is necessary. And it's good advice. Not being cowed by the world we face but making the best of every situation is not only realistic but good practice. As the saying goes, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” But it may not always be possible – unless you thought in advance to get sugar. So it's not the best philosophy to live by.

Eligite is about choosing, and that's good policy: preparation for what's in store. It may be tedious and tiresome, but understanding the challenges ahead, anticipating the opportunities and when they'll come along, gives you the opportunity to choose the time to do whatever you have in mind. The decision is yours. You act when you're ready rather than react to a sudden occurrence when you may not be prepared.

The thought came to mind soon after reading Consumer Reports, a magazine that evaluates and rates a wide variety of products, telling of their advantages and disadvantages. Those, however, are advantages and disadvantages in the mind of the reviewer. The magazine's articles are designed to enumerate the evaluation criteria, and to tell how each product measures up in regard to them. Clearly some consumers will be more interested in one feature than another and their choices may vary from those of the reviewer. Recognizing the different approaches of the magazine, and how it describes all the features in each of the products it tests, the reader can make the decision.

As a mental exercise, I began wondering about the different days of the year where I live. How would I rate them? What yardsticks would I use? I knew that my choice was likely to differ from others who live in the area. The criteria that came to mind immediately, the ones that varied through the year, were primarily weather and hours of light and dark. There were also the days when taxes were collected and the days that were observed as holidays – not that I work and would benefit from a holiday. Every day is a day off. Religious holidays were also factored in as I searched for the best day of the year. I knew then, and I know now, that my decision would be different from that of others, but I knew also that it didn't mean anything anyway. It was, with only one exception, a silly exercise.

But the one exception was, by extension, an important one. It became clear to me when thinking about desirable days and the criteria that were meaningful for me, that the best way to seize the right day was to prepare for it – to decide in advance about what is likely to happen, and when. For example – and most parents are aware of it – it's better to know when their childrens' homework is due and to “encourage” them to deal with it early, rather than to help them out when the deadline is nigh. “The day” may never come and we may never have the opportunity to accomplish what we want if we wait to seize it. And, assuming money is available, it's better to pay bills immediately, than to avoid them until the last moment when you may have spent the money on something else. Overdraft protection is nice, but if you've avoided the need for it you're ahead of the game.

Most financial planners will advise you save or invest on a regular schedule rather than waiting for an “opportunity” – to choose what is best rather than hope for it to arrive. If it does come and you can seize it, all the better. But if that's not the case you're still in good shape. To get into that position you'll have to have studied all the factors involved, and chosen the best schedule for yourself based on income, anticipated expenditures, and historic patterns of variation of the economy.

And it's best to put off purchases until the days when you know they'll be most fruitful – when you'll do the best. Perhaps that will be on “black Friday” or possibly on the day that your local supermarket doubles the value of coupons. (Or about two weeks before Valentine Day. Prices on flowers go up markedly the week before. Don't wait until you have to seize the day, unless you know with certainty that an opportunity is coming.)

There's nothing very esoteric about what I'm saying. It's all common sense and you know it all. But for most people it's not a major consideration. Yet all it requires is a little thought about what's coming – a little planning rather than a reaction to to what happens outside your control: study and preparation rather than luck. It doesn't always work but it makes more sense than waiting and hoping, and acting, because you have no choice, at what might be an inopportune moment. Deciding, all of a sudden, that you want to get married on a beautiful spring day may be romantic, but not if you had hoped to do so at a particular site, which is not available on the spot. And not if you want others to attend. And not if you want to feed them. Planning and preparation aren't exciting. Impulsive action is far more glamorous. But the former approach is more likely to prove successful, and anyway, it doesn't exclude the possibility of seizing chances. It only limits them to times when they are, indeed, possible without prejudicing other actions. And when you're prepared to take advantage of them.

I don't lead a very exciting life. In fact in many ways it's boring. But it's predictable, and that's a big help. Something may happen of course, even though most things will be arranged, but I can deal with most changes, and I much prefer boredom to excitement if excitement brings risk. I prefer to choose when it suits me, rather than be surprised and faced with the need to make rapid and unconsidered decisions.

So education, planning and preparation allow me to choose the best time to act, rather than to react hurriedly to an unexpected situation, even a favorable one. And I may choose to do so in a way different from my neighbor, who may himself be acting differently from others. But I'll be ready to make a considered choice – even in the case of a surprise. If I've prepared well enough to choose I'll be ready to seize the day if it should come. If we seize anything, though, it should be the chance to choose.






February 6, 2017

It's Time For A Change

[This is a rather long essay. I hope it's worth it.]

There's an old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it. “ Well, it's broke. And it's important. It's the American government. There are many who wonder about the ability of our public officials to deal with the problems that face our country. Many even doubt that legislators “our representatives,” have as much interest in us as in their own welfare.

We like to think we have “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but we don't. The only part the “people” have is in choosing those “sworn” to represent them, but they're actually ore interested in solidifying their own power. They pander to those who support them, and are aided by those they benefit.

Have you ever been polled? Has your opinion ever been (allegedly) sought in defining the issues of the day? Chances are that after your demographics were carefully defined you were given two sets of questions – binary ones (yes/no, more/less, etc.) and those that ask you to put your interests, or those of the poll, in order. There was neither room nor time for nuance nor opinion about compromise.

That would complicate things. It would make things difficult if not impossible. Our “leaders” could no longer lead from behind. Working groups, task forces, and committees may offer additional information, but they are costly, unwieldy, and reliant on the views of an unrepresentative few, and they are less likely to be employed.

After the vote on some important issue, however, your “representative,” after asserting that he voted just as he said he would, will use all manner of interpretation and nuance to explain a vote that is contrary to your wishes. It will be his way of vindicating all the deals and exceptions he made in an effort to obtain votes on some other issue of more importance to him. He will use nuance to justify the turning of a binary question into a thousand-page bill. The reality is that the agendas of our politicians may differ from ours.

In all likelihood, the Founding Fathers anticipated disagreement regarding policies and there were many who railed against the establishment of political parties, but it didn't take long after the establishment of the republic for parties to develop. Two parties. And that's the problem. They convert all issues to binary questions when they present them to the voters, but leave themselves more room for maneuvering. And all decisions are based on party, not voter, loyalty. It's all “black and white.” “My way or the highway.” Compromise is evil.

I can't fault their approach. In the end, all decisions are binary even if we find it difficult to figure them out. But I'd like to offer a use of that system that might make it easier and more rewarding for us, if not for the two major parties. It's not likely to happen because of the vested institution of government already in place. Those in power would oppose it. But there are those – and Jefferson was one – who favored periodic review and alteration of the Constitution. Perhaps now's the time.

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

We live in the age of the internet and our dependence on it will only increase. We live at a time when people don't hesitate to express their opinion on line. At the moment they're mostly negative comments, but that can change when their importance is demonstrated and when we become more mature. For the same devices that spur comments can also be used to “connect” us. And that's what's happening. Like mail and the telephone before, we assume everyone has, or has access to, a computer – at home or in the form of a “smart phone.” There's always the library for those who don't. Toward what end? Expressing a preference or opinion.

But there's not much room for choice when there are only two parties and representatives hew to the dogma dictated by their leaders. (“You're either for us or against us, and we have long memories.”) So you're really voting for the party-line and can't rely on the “promises” of your “representative.” And for the party there is only black and white. No grays. There's no choice.

What I propose – and I recognize that it would require a great deal of determination to organize – is a multiplicity of parties with shades of difference on different issues. We've had third parties before, but they were mainly reactions to specific problems and not designed to deal with the subtleties of many different issues nor to last for more than one or two election cycles.

Suppose there were seven parties (“seven” is an arbitrary number put up for the sake of discussion and should not be taken seriouslyⁱ – the number might be fixed or depend on percentage in a previous poll of some sort); suppose the voters were polled on what issues were important to them an the different parties gave their views (indeed their reaction to the views might be used to determine which parties could contend); suppose the vote was proportional to the voter percentages: it might play out as follows. The questions could be framed by the participating political parties in order to force their opponents to confront them. I'll give a couple of sample questions. (Remember that since a long list of questions would be given, and the parties would express their opinions on a wide variety of issues, their answers would be limited to 140 characters or some such familiar number.ⁱⁱ) And, while all candidate's views and their percentages would be listed, the “official” responses would be given by the plurality choice within each party.

What are your views on gun control?

Party 1.: Eliminate all weapons.

2. Eliminate firearms as opposed to other weapons.
3. Register all firearms and exclude ownership by those with histories of mental disease, drug use, or crime.
4. Register all firearms and their users (who have been vetted for any suspicious activity).
5. Eliminate all automatic weapons.
6. Eliminate all firearms but handguns and they must be visible.
7. Leave laws as they are.
8. Another answer.
   Other parties would also give their views. – 9 and up.

And

How do you feel about DACA (Normalizing status of “dreamers” – children of illegal immigrants).

Party 1.: Tighten borders. Prosecute all illegal immigrants.

2. Prosecute both parents and children. They have violated our laws.
3. Prosecute parents but deport children.
4. Leave both parents and children in place but prosecute other illegal immigrants.
5. Leave both parents and children in place but deport other illegal immigrants.
6. Deal with parents as you would deal with other illegal immigrants but provide a path for citizenship for children.
7. Deal with other illegal immigrants as you would normally do but provide a path for citizenship for DACA parents and children.
8. Provide a path for citizenship for all “illegal” immigrants.
9. Legalize all residents.
10. Another answer.
Other parties would also give their views. – 11 and up.

On the basis of responses to these questions (gun control, illegal immigration, and all the other issues of significance to the politicians) the public would both choose the “seven” parties that would run. The “twenty” (or whatever number) questions that would be considered for election itself might be from among these, or new questions determined by a voter poll. (Since it would be a proportional election with party slates rather than voting for individual candidates, they, and their order on their party's candidate list should be recorded so that voters would have a rough idea of for whom they are voting but) Each person's vote should be for a party based on a consideration if it's positions on all the issues which would be formulated. Listed (remember this is this internet so there's room) would be a distribution of candidate views and choices of answers. There would be a short view but also a hyperlink to a longer (but limitedⁱⁱⁱ) view for each for each candidate who desires it. Included might also be a description of the party's performance on the issue to date.

Two (at least) results are likely – the voter would have a truer sense of the issues about which he's voting, and the representatives would be more free to choose their own ways – indeed almost forced to by the on-line statements they made – they'd be less under party control and more likely to compromise on issues important to the voters. Congressional decisions would be based on plurality vote, or by another formula decided separately. All sponsors of bills presented for consideration would be listed, as would any connection of those who would benefit (excluding those who contribute up to a stated limit) to the party or its candidates.

The results of “off-year” elections – every four years not divisible by four (eg 2018, 2022, 2026) – would be used to determine presidential choices. The three parties with the most representatives could put up candidates and the one with a plurality (or whatever) would be elected. There would be no Electoral College. Votes would be made over the internet based on the same short and hyperlinked longer responses to questions of significance at the time of the election. Those questions would be decided beforehand by the voters, and voting results, though done over a period of days or weeks, would not be revealed until a specific deadline is reached. Since the material necessary would be available to all voters simultaneously, there would be equal significance to every vote – not just the ones on the east coast. At issue would be issues. Negative advertising would have far less impact.

Admittedly the process would be complex and require a lot of reading, but this would ensure the greatest participation of those most interested in the process and the results. Knowing of the importance of the results to everyone, translations to all languages would be available on line if requested.

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

There's another consideration that shouldn't be overlooked – especially now. Do we trust those whom we've elected. Responses from previous elections would remain on line and we'd be able to compare promises and performance more easily – especially if the new computer system was programed to do so. The program would also flag exceptions voted for, and which exceptions aided donors to, or supporters of the party in question. That would allow us all to judge the reliability of the promises and votes (all would be recorded – no acclamation or votes by hand). In short, we'd know what they offered and what they delivered. And to whom.

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

It's not likely that the two established parties would support such changes since it would cost them control of the government, but We The People are supposed to run things and the representatives are there only to serve as our agents.

December 30, 2017

iAs with “seven,” all numbers should be viewed as arbitrary. They are simply listed to provide room for discussion. Obviously they ar subject to change. The only condition that the increased numbers provide the voters with room for nuance.

iiSee below.

iii These would be longer, but not so much that they wouldn't be read or understood.

Men Are Men. Women Are Women.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But not everyone accepts this formulation. It's the current view that people are what they consider themselves – what they think they are or what they want to be. DNA is not what they view as the deciding factor in the mix.

That's the mood of our society – actually of many societies. The watchword of the day is choice, and people are less inclined to be bound by existing scientific concepts or conventions that many associate with the past. It's not all bad but it raises some problems.

Evolution. We're divided into species, which are defined as groups that cannot fruitfully crossbreed. Perhaps they can produce offspring for a single generation, but not beyond. Survival and continuity of the species are important goals. Males and females of particular species are designed to procreate, though the offspring may have individual traits that vary from the “norm.” Homosexuality may occasionally occur but it is not ordinarily the “norm.” Most species are controlled by instinct and not by conscious choice. They don't make decisions based on intellect – not because they have none, but because the issue of sexual identity is not a part of their choice system as are meat and vegetables and territory, and safety.

We're human. We have a kind of intelligence that allows decision-making about a variety of things. And we can think about a lot, including who we “are.” “Who we 'are'” means that we can ponder our sexual identity as well as every other feature. And we can make decisions about that identity – decisions that we expect others to accept and, in recent years, decisions that we expect others to endorse. We no longer feel bound by the definitions and the expectations of the past. We now have LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer people), and transgender as well, so identifying themselves and demanding support and understanding from all around them. And they maintain that theirs is not actually a life-style choice or a disease. They are born with the disposition to their sexual orientation. It's normal, and those who oppose it are bigots.

But “lower” species really show us the way. And the way is about survival of the species. In most instances the male has the responsibility for the survival of the present – protecting his family – while the female, by bearing children, provides for survival of the species into the future. In those animals we see pair-ups in male/female matings, and things seem to work out. “Boy-girl” relationships are usually dominant.

Only human beings, at least some of them, seem to question that course of action, and they are supported by those in society, the public opinion of their supporters, who promote free choice for all on all subjects. In their view everyone should be able to make whatever choices he/she/it wants. If someone deviates from what was the pattern until recently – that of humans as well as other species – it's our obligation to praise such action, not to criticize it. “Right” and “wrong” are better taught by the media than by parents and clergy. Any production or publication that does not feature, that and does not promote homosexuality and transgender identification, is viewed as sexist (much as a production that does not feature a mixed-race couple is racist).

I wonder if that “normal” condition existed in prehistoric times. If, as they say, it's a normal condition for them and they were born with it, we must assume that it's genetic and has been passed down for eons – millions of years, six thousand, or somewhere in between depending on your frame of reference.

And if it's genetic, if it derives from DNA, the response should be obvious: those who favor same-sex marriage should encourage it, but if you oppose same-sex marriage you should also encourage it. What better way to be sure that the responsible DNA doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Win-win. They get what they want and those who don't favor that life-style choice – and it is a choice if we agree that when and where it was considered taboo there were fewer manifestations of that life-style – are likely to see the numbers going down. It may take a long time, but it may ultimately change societal fads and fashions.

Sez Who? 2

In an earlier essay (May 29, 2011) I wrote about free speech and its defense, concluding that all speech should be permitted and that, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis,

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I noted Justice Robert Jackson's words as well

The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

While I still agree with those sentiments, I am aware that I didn't spend any time on an important underlying problem – the plethora of “speakers.” What I mean is not that everyone is talking at once, although that's certainly true – and, sadly, there is “a good deal of rubbish” around – but that there are so many who are “experts” and we are getting our instructions and our marching orders from more and more of them. And obeying those in charge is even more complex. So determining what is valid and what isn't often presents difficulties. I have my own views in this regard, but I realize that others may disagree. Nonetheless, I shall present my appraisal of the various sources of “the rules of the road” – those telling us what to do, or pretending to be more virtuous than we, and to know more than we do. To one degree or another they direct our thinking and our actions, though they often contradict each other.

Among the oldest standards, and the ones considered by so many to be the least rational, are those that are spiritual in origin. The Bible and other religious codes contain the absolutes that we are to accept, because they are “right,” and whatever contradicts them is wrong. By and large they don't accept the idea of cultural diversity and contrary opinions, and the responses of believers to disagreements are a blind eye and ear in the face of perverse notions, tolerance, argumentation, and war. Luckily my religion boasts the correct rules and I am thus the bearer of ageless wisdom. But, I suppose, you feel the same way, even if our traditions don't overlap. (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. PS – I'm not interested in war.)

According to the religious approach, the absolutes were announced by G-d, and are universal. There's no such thing as “moral diversity.” Right's right and wrong's wrong. But not everyone holds this view. (They're wrong of course.) So we've wound up in a situation of national anarchy. Every country makes its own rules, and they usually differ from each other and from the religious absolutes. That's what I mean by “national anarchy.” Secular laws are whatever the legislators want them to be – what they or their contributors find the most appealing – without any necessary linkage to propriety and justice. No. that's a misstatement. Since they make the rules, they define “propriety” and “justice.” It's whatever they say it is, and you'd better do what they say.

But even that's not correct, at least not in our country. And I presume elsewhere as well. Our legislators set goals and leave it to others – unelected bureaucrats – to make the regulations that we have to follow. Penalties result if we don't do so, despite the fact that the rules were never approved by those our Constitution decreed responsible for doing so.

Secular law, however, is superimposed on a large number of other sources of instruction that abound in our lives. Among them are “common knowledge,” customs and traditions (“We've always done it that way”), fashions, rumors, societal “norms,” the expectations of others, and numerous other guides. Our bookstores are filled with handbooks for us “dummies” so that we'll do things in the right way.

And besides the sources of instruction are the authorities that tell us what we should do are those who tell us what we must do. At home it's our parents. Elsewhere it may be teachers, bosses, doctors, accountants, union stewards, and similar experts. And, of course, judges. Their opinions and biases, after all, supersede the written laws which, in any case, they interpret. In actuality, they have the last word. Ignorance of their views is no excuse for violating them. (You certainly don't want to contradict a dictator. At least not if you value your life.)

That's the minimum. There are other authorities of all types and they both set standards for us and manage our lives. Hebrew National answers to a “Higher Authority.” And federal and state authorities make sure that we're following the rules. And the MTA and similar agencies govern our ability to go from place to place. There are others, of course, which only deal with us in particular areas of life. In my case, for example, the JCAH (Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals) decided what constituted proper medical practice, setting the rules as to how to follow their wishes but, every few years, when we were finally beginning to understand their rules, they changed them.

What's the answer? What should we do – especially when standards and rules disagree? There are different approaches, mainly based on your philosophy. But rather than outline the approaches themselves, it will be more productive to review the criteria you'll use to choose.

Your level of belief may lead you to choose religious edicts rather than others while attachment to life may take you in another direction; abiding respect for your nation's history and customs may govern your actions but the suggestions of your lawyer or accountant may direct the way you abide by the law; the guidebook for dummies may point you in one direction and your personal trainer may go the opposite way. It doesn't matter what you choose. You're wrong.

So the best answer is to do whatever you think is right; to take the approach that you think is most consistent with your personal philosophy and your ultimate goals. But be prepared to take the consequences if things don't work out. Those who practice civil disobedience with the knowledge that they may be arrested are doing that, but it's what they've chosen to do; it's what they believe to be right.

So speak your mind, and either make a decision based on what is important to you or flip a coin.

Just remember. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

September 21, 2016

Single Issues

If there is one thing all thinking-people oppose, it's the single-issue voter, who makes what should be a complex decision, because of a single factor: for example, an anti-abortion political candidate who favors trade with China, waffles on the issue of gun control, opposes global warning legislation, and supports LGBTQ members, may be chosen or opposed because of passionate statements about conservation – either for or against.

It is understood, if regrettable, that a decision may be made solely out of fear. Where there is no secret ballot, a “wrong” vote – like one against a tyrant – may be enough to get oneself killed. Only a fool or a selfless idealist – not always mutually exclusive – would take the risk of defying those more powerful.

But in a free society like ours – one in which no one will know what position we took on a particular issue or candidate unless we choose to disclose that information – there's no hazard involved in voting as our conscience dictates. Yet, to a greater or a lesser degree, we're all single issue voters.

And, while we're loath to admit it, we all know it to be true.

For some the single issue of consequence is the political affiliation of a particular candidate. The voter has decided before the election – even before the nomination – one way or another in regard to choice. Particular positions are irrelevant. The decision often represents views indoctrinated in childhood and based on the preferences or prejudices voiced by one's parents. And sometimes it is in rebellion against them. But it is a decision that takes precedence over any actual consideration of a candidate's stand on the various issues that make the campaign so complex for others.

There are, however, many “uncommitted” voters who are intent on basing their votes on the specific campaign promises made by candidates – what they say they will do in regard to the important questions of our times. Those voters are concerned with prospects in many areas – foreign policy, the economy, the environment, choice of a nominee for an available seat on the Supreme Court, and “rule of law” are examples. But, for the most part, they don't have clear-cut criteria for choices. They don't ascribe particular weights to each issue. They all must be considered. They're all important.

Eventually the time comes when a decision must be reached however. Since there are no strict points of reference, though, the eventual choice is usually based more on “feelings” than on science. And those feelings are often based on a particular issue which is, for the voter, the crucial “tipping point,” the issue most critical to that elector. And, absent the single factor of party loyalty, the uncommitted citizen – and that is what most of us claim to be – often finds the balance difficult to resolve, falling back on the one considered to be that of the greatest importance, whether it's gun control, jobs, abortion, animal rights, or whatever, basing the choice on a perception of a “right” or “wrong” stance on that issue. “Are you for me or against me on what really counts?” Not an intellectual decision, but one based on the gut. And, ultimately, based on a single factor. It's all-important.

And that's why politicians take clear and un-nuanced positions on so many issues so much of the time. Their goal is to attract the voters for whom that particular issue is the critical one. No one should believe that they actually mean what they say; what is more important is that they say it. And what is most important is that they get elected.

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

As I write this we're in the middle of a presidential “battle” between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (I know this will be published long after the election, but that doesn't really matter in terms of the points I'm trying to make.) It's a bitter and very convoluted election with many substantive matters at issue – matters about which I have very strong feelings. Under ordinary circumstances I might even want to make a decision based on one of those issues. My problem is that I don't trust either of them. I usually try to base trust on past performance, but the more I learn about the two of them, and specifically how they have acted and performed in the past, the less confidence I have in their stated positions on my one issue. Or anything else. So I'll vote for Johnson. I guess my one critical issue this time around is trust. And I don't know enough about Johnson yet to distrust him.

Plus Ça Change

Gustav Mahler was born a Jew in Vienna in 1860. Having written symphonies and other important musical works, and acted as a conductor, he was appointed director of the Vienna Court Opera – assuming he would convert to Christianity in order to gain the post, since no Jew would be so appointed. He did. But despite his conversion he continued to receive abuse at the hands of an antisemitic press. And for similar reasons his music was banned by the Nazis. He was born a Jew and would always be a Jew.

Louis Armstrong, another musician, always claimed that he was born on the fourth of July in 1900. That, however, was primarily a publicity ploy. He was born on August 4, 1901, and the fourth of August would forever be his birthday, whether he celebrated it then or not.

People change their names, religions, and other defining features, often for professional reasons. Those causes are external. However they may feel about the changes, they're advantageous when it comes to dealing with the world around them. (And sometimes they're even pleased with them.)

But there are internal causes as well. More and more cases are arising of individuals not satisfied with their “birth sex” (they prefer to call it “gender” which is really a linguistic term, but many of them feel that the language is biased against them) as dictated by their genetic makeup, and duly recorded on their birth certificates. There are several ways of dealing with this dissatisfaction, but I will only raise one of them at this time (there'll be another a little later). It is the response of some who believe that their anatomy doesn't accurately reflect who they “are.” They are really members of the opposite sex. And they demand to be treated as members of that other sex.

The implication of this view most obvious to others is that the dissatisfied ones may seek to use the public toilets assigned to the sex of their choice. Although some jurisdictions have tried to limit toilet use to those whose birth certificates attest to membership in the group for whom the facility was designed and designated, the courts have tended to yield to the feelings of the afflicted or confused – a small “oppressed” minority with a discrepancy between their psychology and their chromosomes. The feelings of the majority are not relevant, nor have they the right to object (although it is undeniable that some “straight” people do accept their views). What is written on the birth certificates is not dispositive.

But why does society limit personal preference to sex alone? Actually we don't. We allow people to change their names and “divorce” their parents, so it would make sense to allow all those interested to alter their birth certificates to reflect desired places of birth, preferred dates of birth (which means their age), their parents, race, religion, doctor, and anything else that might appear on the certificate but wasn't consonant with their feelings. Because those feelings – their psychological needs – are of greater significance than reality. And if a thirty year-old considers himself fit for the presidency, shouldn't he be allowed to run – even if he wasn't born in this country? But the implications of such changes would be extensive, like those of sex changes, and would involve both the economy, detrimentally, and the legal profession, most positively.

Indeed, why should we limit those changes to birth certificates? Why can't we decide, if we so choose, that we're minority members, and entitled to the benefits of Affirmative Action; why can't we hold that our IQs are higher than what may be measured, or that we're qualified for a particular position because it is our belief that we are – and the refusal of that position is a challenge to our rights; why don't our passports, or our marriage licenses, or our credit reports, or, for that matter, our mortgages, contain the information we feel they should have? Why shouldn't others be obligated to accept our views? What's so great about reality that it should take precedence over what we feel or what we want?

But though you may alter and adjust matters more to your liking, you haven't really changed anything. Your “corrections,” alas, are irrelevant.

Even so, the choice of sex will remain while other choices will be denied. A ten-year-old who reads the newspapers and feels mature enough to vote will neither be able to change the state law that prescribes a higher lower limit, nor adjust his birth certificate to indicate a different birth date. There are vogues and prejudices that govern our behavior, and that's not one of them.

But vogues are not reality. Someone born with XX sex chromosomes is female; someone with XY is male. Period. All the rest is psychology and feelings. Albin Mougeotte (in La Cage aux Folles) had a healthier and more down-to-earth approach: "I Am What I Am." It is an acceptence of reality with a “rest-of-the-world-can-take-it-or-leave-it” attitude. Procaiming it proudly and loudly he doesn't require that others change their ways, but he has no hesitation about living his life as he sees fit. There's no need to revise their views or anything else.

If, however, society, with the imprimatur of the courts, decides that it is legitimate (and privileged) to alter what it says on a birth certificate and reinvent yourself, it's hard to justify limiting that “right” to sex, although it's hard to deny that our society is preoccupied with sex and our courts preoccupied with “rights,” actual or what it considers desirable. But it seems more logical to recognize reality and deal with it than bend to the winds of culture-war. Perhaps you believe in miracles. Perhaps you believe that “wishing will make it so.” But it won't, and you might as well get used to that truth.

Mahler was Jewish. And attempts to change that reality may have provided some benefits, but they came with damage as well – some in his lifetime and some after Mahler died. Some to him, and some to other Jews. The implications of an act often outweigh the intent of the act.  What is, is. The more things change, the more some of them change while others remain the same.

I Pass

I have the vague feeling that I've written this already, but I can't find it among previous essays so I'll try again. I can think of three plausible explanations for this problem: the first is that I never wrote it. Perhaps I painstakingly worked out the details mentally but never wrote it down. Or, as an alternative scenario, it's possible that I actually wrote it down, but not in any of my essays. I could have written notes for a future blog or worked out the whole thing but recorded it somewhere else.

The third possibility is that I wrote it out in one of my previous essay, but simply can't remember where or when. I lost it. Because I'm losing it. (I know that is happening.) Unfortunately this seems to me to be the most likely explanation for what happened. Which leaves you to pay for it. (In fact if that's what happened, just you wait. I'll repeat my absentmindedness – euphemism for the real situation – and you'll pay for it again.) So if it looks familiar, please forgive me. (And if you know where it comes from, please let me know. I'll be your best friend forever. Or at least until Tuesday.) Chances are good, however, that no matter what the explanation, it won't affect very many people since very few read my words. I'm talking to myself.

In any event, with the presidential election coming soon, I wanted to comment on voting possibilities. As you probably know, I oppose both major party candidates. That leaves me with only limited choices and I'd like to outline and discuss them.

The first possibility (of three – parallels my mental state, doesn't it?) is to let the election pass without voting. If I can't vote for either of them in good conscience, why should I? How can I support someone whose views are anathema to me, whatever the reason for doing so. The major problem for me with that approach is that I subscribe to the obligation to vote. It's my civic duty. Corny as it sounds, I accept that. And since so few Americans vote, my absence from the polls won't be noticed, and it won't have any effect. It's a wasted non-vote. It's not the wasted vote that so many would consider it.

Another plausible response is to choose the lesser of the evils. There's no question in my mind that both of the candidates are poor choices, but perhaps one is worse than the other. However supporting the lesser of evils requires me to support evil. And, as I asked above, how can I support someone whose views are anathema to me – even if the views of the other are even more so? Voting for someone whose loss would please me really is a wasted vote. He or she might actually win.

It's not all that appealing, but there is another choice. It's a loser and I know it, but it gives me a chance to protest and be heard while remaining within the system. Voting for a third party makes a public statement that I consider the two main candidates to be unfit for the office. It's quite unlikely that anyone will believe such a vote to be a positive statement about the individual chosen because, frankly, so little is known about any but the candidates of the major parties. So if enough people opt for third party candidates the message of dissatisfaction will be heard, and may yet have some effect on the actions of whoever wins. Or it may have an effect on candidates and policies in the next election. It's even conceivable, even if unlikely, that some state may be won by such a candidate and both major party candidates deprived of a majority. I doubt that such a possibility will occur, but it would be very instructive for the candidates, the government, and the people, if the House of Representatives debated the issue and had the responsibility of choosing the next president.

And that's the option I shall choose. I'd prefer voting for a major party candidate whom I could, in good conscience, support, but since that alternative doesn't exist this time around, I can only place country above party and reject them both by selecting third-party candidates.

The ticket for me will be Johnson and Weld. How about you?

In My Expert Opinion

(I think) I've talked about experts and expertise in the past. (To paraphrase the Latin translation [from Greek] of Hippocrates – Ars longa, memoria brevis.) I'm fairly sure that I shall discuss this issue in the future as well. But for the moment I want to focus on a single aspect of the subject – only I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just see what develops.

It all started when I was reading about art. Actually art was just one of the subjects discussed in a book I'm reading: A War For The Soul Of America – A History Of The Culture Wars by Andrew Hartman. The book covers a lot of territory, most of which I'll address some other time, but the discussion of art pointed toward a somewhat more inclusive and, in the minds of many, oppressive practice.

The discussion of art as one of the battlegrounds of the culture war (which is basically a war between liberals and conservatives played out in many arenas) centered on the photographic works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe (recipients of grants from the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts). Serrano's subject in “Piss Christ” was a bottle of his own urine into which a crucifix had been placed, while Mapplethorpe depicted, among other things, naked men performing acts of sadomasochistic homosexuality. Their exhibitions were viewed by liberals as manifestations of free speech, while conservatives saw them as sacrilegious and, in the minds of many, Anti-American. Liberals felt that any action taken against these exhibitions would amount to censorship. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it:

The American people strongly support public funding of the arts and reject the know-nothing censorship the right wing is trying to impose.

Conservatives thought differently. Most didn't consider their opposition to be censorship, but opposition to taxpayer support of an anti-religious agenda. In the words of Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican House Member:

Artists can do whatever they want on their own time and with their own dime.

But the comment that interested me most was that of the book's author. Hartman writes:

… liberals … maintained that the NEA, representing the national community of art experts, should be free to decide which art merited funding.

There are two important premises of this view: that the taxpayer is obligated to support artistic endeavors, and that the same taxpayer is not competent to decide what he is paying for. Neither are his representatives, Congress. It is the prerogative of “experts,” and the NEA should have unquestioned discretion when it comes to the distribution of funds.

The first assumption, that support of art is a proper government function, is straightforward, though worthy of discussion (I think it is, but there are opposing views), but the second is far more complex. To what degree should unelected “experts” have veto power over the will of the people?

As I said, it's a complex issue. And it really has nothing to do with art, which is simply a single manifestation of the problem. We have, in a little over a century, developed a “progressive” form of government in which experts have the responsibility for making decisions in a wide variety of areas. And those experts control many spheres of our lives and of national policy. We neither choose them nor know who they are. Some are political appointees, sympathetic to the ideas of those who select them and who will last as long as their sponsors. Many are bureaucrats – tenured civil servants who make the rules that are the points of reference by which we live. Congress lays out basic policies, and the experts fill in the blanks. In essence they make the laws, even though from a constitutional standpoint it is the responsibility of the legislators. They also prosecute and judge those they consider violators of their prescriptions.

They're the “experts.” Most of them are people just like us, but they make the rules we have to follow. That's so because either they're smart enough to pass the civil service exam (giving them all but lifetime tenure), or they have been chosen for their loyalty by the politicians in office (to the winner belong the spoils) and are subject to dismissal without notice, by whoever made the appointment, or by a subsequent administration. Political allegiance is more important than expertise. However there's a third group – the real experts. Even they, though, are sometimes chosen only in part because of their knowledge, but also because of their political philosophy. Their scientific judgments are sometimes swayed by dogma.

Perhaps the most prominent group of experts are the Justices of the Supreme Court. They've been acting as experts for nearly the entire duration of our existence as a country. They have arrogated to themselves the role of determiners of the law, and we have not objected. There may even be Constitutional support for that position. In any event it is what has developed and we've become accustomed to live by their decisions, whether or not we agree with them.

But there are numerous such areas, and education is just one. (Others include the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC, the FDA and many more.) People we don't know, and who don't know us, can decide that we need to abide by a common core curriculum, and they can devise its contents. A school board can determine what schools to fund, and who our children's teachers will be (and the teachers can inject their own political philosophies). Perhaps we can choose our own school board and perhaps we can decide whether or not we accept the common core, but those in authority can choose to withhold funds from our community if they don't like our decision, or, like the courts, they can simply declare that decision null. We, however, cannot withhold tax money if we disagree with theirs. Indeed, we're required to pay income and property taxes even if we don't agree with, or require all the services offered. And we have to pay school taxes even if we don't have children, or have removed ours from the public schools – often because we don't agree with the decisions of the experts. But we can't alter their decisions. Our best option is to try to defeat them in the next election. Or to defeat the politicians who appointed them. Meanwhile they're in charge.

Of course we all select experts to advise us of preferred actions. We choose our doctors, lawyers, tax advisors, clothing designers, and a host of others who are better equipped to make technical decisions than we. But we choose them, and we can fire them on the spot if we're not satisfied with their recommendations or outcomes – or even if we are. And their judgments take our wishes into consideration. In addition, whether they're personal trainers, “experts” in parenting, or marriage counselors, we're free to ignore their advice and find other opinions more to our liking. Sadly, the same option is not available when government experts direct us.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of our government to formulate a solution to the problem. We ceased to follow the Constitution a long time ago and have accepted a system that is often not responsive to our wishes. Perhaps there's no going back – perhaps the experts cannot be dislodged from their positions of power – but that's not for me to say. I'd prefer to believe there are those familiar with the system and how to change it who can return choice and input to the taxpayers. They, too, are experts, however, and somehow or other we'll have to keep a tight rein on them.

An Offer You Can't Refuse

“Sorry about your folks. That was a nasty little accident they were in. It's a shame they couldn't avoid it.”

“Yeah. Right. But somehow I don't think you're really sorry.”

“You got it. I don't really give a damn. Just trying to be polite. It won't happen again. By the way. This means a big inheritance for you. The business and their entire estate. A nice piece of change. Of course you'll want to give a quarter of it to us.”

“No I won't! Why should I?”

“Because I said so.ⁱ Call it a 'death tax.' And we want twenty-five percent of the business's gross receipts after that. We have ongoing expenses and it's in your best interests to help us pay our bills.”

“No it's not. This is extortion.”

“You really should watch what you say. People who shoot off their mouths sometimes regret it afterward. We got expenses and they don't come cheap. Don't think of it as your money – think of it as your life. After all, we provide you with protection and security, and a lot of other services.”

“Well I don't want all of them. I can take care of myself. And I don't want a silent partner.”

“Look, buddy. This ain't no democracy. Agree with our top man or you're out – and you know what that means. We make the rules. And if you want to take care of yourself, we'll take care of you. Understand?”

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

Mafia shakedown?

No. An IRS assessment. Your government in action. There's no such thing as a free lunch; someone has to pay. And you're someone.

When the Constitution was written,ⁱⁱ both the power of taxation and the kinds of programs for which the government had to pay were quite limited. Congress was permitted only certain delimited activities, in line with the thinking of the majority of delegates to the constitutional convention. There was no income tax and the primary specified responsibility of the Federal government was the provision of defense. There was also provision for the “general welfare,” but the meaning of the term was not spelled out and both times it was usedⁱⁱⁱ it was associated with the national defense, suggesting that the “welfare” that was intended was the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Times, however, have changed. I don't know the numbers and the percentages – I made them up – but the principle holds. The government can decide to fund whatever it wants and you, the taxpayer, will pick up the tab. You can complain all you want,^iv and protest the use being made of taxpayer money, but it won't do you any good. Talk is cheap, but programs are expensive.^v

Indeed. Times have changed. And perhaps we've changed with them. All three branches of government are more “liberal” than they were when America was founded. In that respect they reflect American society. We feel responsible for each other, and approve of governmental efforts to help everyone who asks. We have the luxury of speaking out and promoting virtue without it costing us anything. We're the good guys. Whether it's medical care for the uninsured, conventions and travel for our representatives and for the bureaucrats, food stamps for the poor, funding for (what the government considers) the arts, old-age pensions, transportation subsidies, provision of jobs for the unemployed, or whatever, we're all for it. That's why we have government. It will fund it.

The government is a lot like the Mafia, though. Whatever they do, it's with your money. The government isn't funding all these programs. You are. You're not getting a free ride. And they're doing it without your knowledge and consent. Sure you have representatives, but they're very much like the mob's soldiers – lots of bluster but little influence or independent authority. All you do is give them your tax money^vi and their bosses do whatever will get them votes and whatever they^vii see fit. Not that you have any choice.

After all, this ain't no democracy.

Next episode: “L'chaim” – To life.

I       Not a very good answer, but when some people say it you have to take it seriously.

ii       1789.

iii      Preamble and Article I, section 8.

iv      It's a free country, isn't it?

v       If Congress and the President approve of the program, you pay. Even if your representative voted against it, you pay. But if you voted against the representative, you pay. And if you boycotted the election and didn't vote at all, you pay. Are you beginning to see a pattern?

vi       Although you may find ways to minimize the bite – legally and otherwise. That's what accountants are for.

vii      And the lobbyists who court and support them.