Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disease, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are..

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

More to follow.  And Happy Flag Day!

May 15, 2017

The Big Tent

Our government is a circus. Three rings – all controlled by political ideology and the vying for media attention and for voter approval. Sadly, apart from the public relations aspect of the system, there is little concern by our government about the repercussions of what they do – the unintended consequences. If our leaders can convince voters that their efforts are in the public interest, meriting their votes next time around, it does not matter if their claims are true. They accomplish the purpose for which they are designed – just like the clowns they are.

Blaming the politicians, however, shifts attention away from those who are really corrupting the system – the protesters who demand benefits for all “oppressed” people. It sounds virtuous, but the loudest advocates have concern only for the impressionable folks they can stimulate – the Big Top's audience. They either understand and support the likely outcome of the proposals, or haven't considered them and really don't care what they are. The laws they introduce are among the greatest causes of unintended, and almost always detrimental, consequences that society faces. And so much of it is for show – the show they present under the big tent.

The Big Tent. It used to be a designation of the Republican Party – who could never make it work – but it is, perhaps, more appropriate to see it now as an instrument of the liberals. Designed to house all of those who have complaints, the only thing necessary is the assertion of oppression. Surely no one would lie about that. And no one would lie about misfortune. So if some complain about unemployment, illness, racism, police brutality, the one percent, or anything else, they must be telling the truth, and our society must be corrupt.

It only takes one complaint and it's national news. The loud complaint of one squeaky wheel ignites the media and the clowns. True or not, there will be many who are sympathetic of whoever claims to have been oppressed by society. It's a movement. And the politicians will express horror at the injustice that has been done. Proof is unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is a new program designed to correct such inequity. Damn the cost of such a program (or of all the necessary programs). It gets votes.

It's usually the same crowd of people who are protesting every time. And it's in part a matter of politics as well as “justice.” Each group that is vocally supported is directed into the big tent for direction on how to vote in the next election. The big tent winds up containing numerous interest groups which have little in common except for perceived (and their perceptions are sometimes valid) injustice, and a ringmaster who offers (but often can't, or won't provide) relief from all their miseries.

And the public buys in. We're all in favor of virtue in the form of justice for all our citizens. We all want the best for everyone – even those who are simply looking for a handout. And we're happy to pay for it all. Cost doesn't matter. (It's all in taxes anyway so we won't see it now. The theory is that the rich will pay for socialism, and it won't hurt me. So I can afford to be virtuous.) Equality. It's the American way.

Our magnanimity doesn't only involve those around us. It extends to our children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow them. And inspired by the protectors of our land, the enironmentalists, a goup devoted to protecting our “heritage,” we have come to favor the acquisition of more and more land to be incorporated into our National Park system. The land may be State property or under State jurisdiction, but we're ecstatic when the Federal government buys it, or acquires it otherwise, because it will give those who follow us the opportunity to visit the parks and see what a wonderful land we have. (That the vast majority of us haven't done so ourselves, and have no interest in doing so, is not relevent. And the reality that only the rich could afford to do so is also of no importance.) We owe it to our children to protect the land, not withstanding the costof doing so – to secure it for ourselves and to provide services and security for it now and in the future. It isn't just the virtue of protecting our sites and sights, a big tent should include environmentalists along with the other constiruencies.

And we also support those who protect endangered species – even at the cost of jobs and tax-paying industry. In the meantime – as we admire them from our seats, we'd do well to free the animals in the nation's circuses – we're profiting at their expense. (Of course the same logic would justify ridding our National Circus – our government – of the paying customers – taxpayers, because the management is profiting at their expense.)

But the idea that all interest groups should be gathered together to elect a government that will provide for them is contrary to our goals – if those elected actually do what they promise – an unlikely premise. As I write this (May 17, 2017) our national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Add to that the cost of new programs and new land acquisitions and the debt will be much higher. When we talk about leaving a heritage of land to our children we ignore the heritage of debt we leave to them (indeed we add to it) – debt that politicians are happy to incur in order to get votes from those in the big tent.

However a tent has a high top, and the government that rules us has a high tolerance for debt that will be someone else's problem. Those seeking office fill their campaign balloons with all the promises they need to attract the voting public into their tent. But the balloons are also filled with helium and hot air and rise above the reach of those present. They're as helpful and healthful as the junk food at a circus. We'll glow now and feel the deleterious effects later. But they're well worth the cost when you consider that we're looking at the greatest show on earth.

And those in the big tent have chosen the performers.

May 17, 2017

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.

What's In A Name?

 

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's a long monicker for a newborn baby, but that's the name that my daughter and son-in-law, who live in Jerusalem, chose to hang on their youngest son.

It happened just a few days ago at his bris — a ritual circumcision which is the first rite of passage of a Jewish boy. The ceremony, on the eighth day of his life, is one in which he is welcomed into the religion and the time when he is named.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's likely that he isn't the only child so designated, for it contains the given names of the three boys murdered a few days earlier by terrorists in Israel. It was the trigger for the fighting that followed, although in reality there had been much provocation earlier with rockets sent from Gaza to kill whatever Israelis they might find. Precise aim was not an issue. It was not a critical capability of the weapons of terror, and it wasn't all that important who got killed. The more important point was that those rockets were intended to attract return fire, fire that would kill and maim those in Gaza — both terrorists and the civilians they used as shields — in order to attract the world's attention. Those killed in Gaza would be "martyrs," and they should be grateful that they were accorded the "honor" of dying in the war against Israel.

All wars have soldiers, and many are volunteers. But there are also a large number who are drafted. The typical draftee is young, in his late teens or early twenties, and male. He is chosen because it is assumed that he will be a fit warrior, and he is trained for this task, as well as armed for it. In this instance there are numerous unnamed draftees, civilians neither trained nor armed for their duties.

And all wars have what is euphemistically called "collateral damage," those inadvertently killed while the battle is raging. Inadvertently. Their deaths may be inevitable but are unintended and undesired. In this war, however, the collateral damage is the goal. The fewer fighters among the terrorists who are killed and the more civilians the better. They, the unwilling draftees, are the martyrs who will show the world the justice of their cause. They may not choose such a role for themselves, but the choice is not theirs. And the presence of any protection, such as shelters, would be counterproductive — so none are available.

Accordingly, three teenaged Israeli boys were abducted and murdered. It was one of many provocations but the one that led to the current hostilities. And it was one that brought all of the citizens of Israel together. It united a country that had many internal disputes. Political disagreements and religious differences in Israel were of no consequence. Everyone prayed for them together when they were reported missing. And everyone mourned them when their fate was known. We do not know the names of their killers because that is irrelevant. We will name no streets or squares after the boys or after the terrorists who killed them. That may be the practice of those who would like to see us destroyed, but it is not our way. We will name babies after our sons, and we will do our best to ensure the safety of our other children. And we will punish those among us who adopt the inhuman practices of our enemies. They are not our heroes. They are our enemies — the adversaries of all we believe.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. My youngest grandson and, I hope, a representative of a future of peace in a region that has always known war. My children and grandchildren live each day in the midst of the war, as do millions of others. And they bear and rear children despite it. It's a fact of life. I only pray that those who place death before life will realize the folly of their acts and renounce them. I'm not hopeful of such an event, but prayer is all I can offer.

Blue Skies

Blue Skiesⁱ

I hate spring.

Actually it's beautiful. I know that. Crocuses are reaching for the sun and buds are starting to appear on the trees. Although winter is not completely gone, and some cold days remain, warm winds are starting to find their way by our faces, and the last vestiges of snow are disappearing. Gentle rains are starting to fall which aren't oppressive but rather welcome as relief from what we've been suffering. And in between the showers there are clear blue skies and, soon, the yellow-green leavesⁱⁱ that signal the rich green that is to follow.ⁱⁱⁱ

As the days lengthen the birds are returning and now they are singing. Some of them seem a little bulky, and it seems clear that a new generation will be appearing soon. That's the hallmark of the season. It's not just the prerogative of young men, nor their fancy – spring fever affects all of us, man and animal alike,^iv and we're all affected by the climate of rebirth.

But I hate spring.

I love winter. Not so much the weather, which I find to be more than I can bear.^v And certainly not the sentence of house arrest brought on by the short days. Cabin fever is a real ailment, and I suffer from it as much as others. The season is cold and dark, and even the house seems cold. Tempers are on edge because of the confinement. No one wants to go out, but no one wants to have to stay in either.

But I love winter for one important reason. It holds the promise of spring. The days are starting to get longer and there is hope and anticipation about. It will all end soon, but not a moment too soon.

And then it actually ends. Spring comes. And the moment is too soon. The time for which we've all been waiting – the promise we prayed would be kept – has come, and there is a letdown. Soon, with the coming of summer, the trees will be full and all we'll have ahead of us is the deterioration of nature heralding winter. Sure, there will be a bright and clear autumn, but however glorious it may be, it will carry with it the inevitability of the coming season. I love winter, but only because of the expectations it brings. Otherwise I hate the season and I hate anticipating it.

And so when spring comes, as warm and welcome as it may be, we have lost the chance to yearn; we can no longer wait for it, with all the excitement that comes with anticipation. It will be over soon, at least until next year – but who can think that far ahead.

Next episode: "The Need To Know" – Bull from the bears.

i     With apologies to Irving Berlin.

ii    I like the willows best.

iii    All my perceptions assume the Northern Hemisphere, but I also know that my melancholy would be just as severe – though offset by six months – if I lived in the Southern Hemisphere.

iv    Yes. I'm aware that we're animals. But the cliché expresses the idea so well.

v    When I was younger, and better able to tolerate the cold, it wasn't so bad; when shoveling snow wasn't the ordeal it is now, I gloried in the change of seasons and winter was a big part of it. And when playing, or, later, playing with my children and making snow angels, it was almost enjoyable.