Mixed Messengers

    
                                                                                 

“... the law is a [sic] ass ...”ⁱ That was Mr. Bumble's assessmentⁱⁱ in a particular case involving marital law, but, according to many observers, it is an accepted principle with far wider application. Nonetheless, it's binding on us, even if we are ignorant of it. Even the legal text we laymen see is usually in small print or too long and complex (by design) for us to understand.

Far be it from me to cast the first stone.ⁱⁱⁱ I won't judge, lest I be judged.^iv But the observance of the law can be very difficult for a number of reasons. Most important is that there are so many types of laws^v that we have to observe. We have local, state, and national laws of course, and even international laws.^vi And in addition there are religious laws (which I'll discuss shortly) and “Natural Law,” which was cited in the Declaration of Independence as one of the bases on which our society was founded,^vii since it was required for our “separate and equal station,” and had been denied us.

But I'd like to discuss religious law today. Specifically Jewish law, with which I'm most familiar.^viii First of all, it's important to establish its nature. According to the Christian Bible, “In the Beginning was the Word.”^ix Conceptually that may be similar to Jewish teaching in the meaning familiar to the Christian reader,^x but it is very different in terms of the meaning of the text itself. According to the Jewish understanding, the first being in human form (Adam) wasn't created until long after the first word, or more accurately words, existed. That was the Torah, which preceded the formation of the earth. The Torah, and some additional teachings (the “Oral Law”), were given to Moses and the Jewish People at Mount Sinai, and together what was given then are Hashem's^xi words and the basis of Jewish law.

Every time we read the Torah we say: “Not in any man do I trust.  Not on any angel do I rely,  only on the G-d of heaven Who is the G-d of truth, Whose Torah is truth and Whose prophets are true, in Him do I trust.” Clearly our obligation is to follow G-d's words and His Law.

That's straightforward enough, but there are many layers of the law that complicate the issue. One layer is based on the fact that following the Torah and related teachings wasn't always possible because some of the words needed definition, and some of the ideas required explanation.^xii For centuries there was an oral tradition that was used to clarify these points, but eventually it was reduced to writing – the Mishna – which was an interpretation^xiii of the original teachings. The Mishna itself, however, was opaque to many of the people and there developed an interpretation (the Gemora, and together they constitute the Talmud, which is usually printed with additional commentaries) for which a given was that all of it was the word of G-d. Thus the Rabbis whose thoughts appear in the Gemora focused on providing scenarios and explanations that justified all that had come before. And since the Talmud contained many apparent contradictions, some of the “explanations,” including the ideas that many of the words were missing or miscopied or inadvertently misattributed, were recorded along with the description^xiv of imaginative scenarios and distinctions that justified^xv what had been written before. Indeed, new interpretations continue to this day, all the while meant to be understood as clarifications of G-d's words.

Unfortunately, there are problems with this approach. The interpretations weren't always uniform. Some of the text and its application can be understood in different ways. For example, there is a story in the Talmud that illustrates this situation: A voice from Heaven declares, in response to an argument between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, “These and these are the words of the living God, and the law is according to the House of Hillel.”^xvi But having read that the House of Hillel was “right” and the House of Shammai “wrong,” we learn that that decision had nothing to do with their arguments but only their personal attributes.^xvii Thus, we learn, that the words of both sides were equally true and Hashem's words, themselves, can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, and different understandings may be acceptable even now, with varying opinions and rulings about the law issued by different authorities.^xviii

Even more confusing, with dispersion of the Jews all over the world, the different interpretations and approaches have led to the development of different traditions, customs, and practices – even different prayers and prayer books. This may be the case on a “macro” level,^xix or in a small community or synagogue, or somewhere in between. They may all be different, but that doesn't mean that they aren't all valid.

But there are more problems – some which might be more confusing than the ones raised already. For example, a rabbi can teach the law without saying a word. If he does, though, Man's word may take precedence over G-d's. But although G-d's laws are eternal, a ruling made by a man can be withdrawn or changed. And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes supersede what the Rabbis have taught – be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem. Fundamentalism and literalism are easy, but they don't represent the views of a majority of those who consider themselves Jews.

But I'll deal with those issues, and maybe some others, next week.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i     There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii     In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii    John 8.7

iv    Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v    I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x     Since most Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii   It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv   Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.  In fact, we're not even told what the dispute was about.  It seems the views of the two sides were irrelevant.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix    For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i       There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii       In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii     John 8.7

iv     Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v      I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x      Since Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii    It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv    Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix     For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.

Fairness

                                                                                  

The past week has provided two reasons for introspection: the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, and the Jewish New Year. Both deal with the weakness of the individual, and the power to which he is answerable and upon whom he depends. But they couldn't be more different.

The New Year is actually part of a longer period of repentance in which we acknowledge our many failures and seek forgiveness for them. We also express our dismay at the success of foreign nations that oppress us and mock us. We're demoralized by their success and by our own weakness and subjugation by them. That failure to comprehend the victory of the attackers is universal. It's the theodicy yielding so much religious philosophy, and it's the basis for many longer essays and books, of which “When Bad Things Happen To Good People” is probably the most famous. That's not to say that we consider ourselves “good.” Quite the opposite. We lament our own faults, which we consider the cause of our condition, and the justification for our punishment. But we ask that similar retribution be visited on those who are G-d's agents in delivering the penalty we deserve. We resent their triumphalism and mocking when we know that they, too, are far from perfect. Indeed, we consider them worse than ourselves.

But primarily it's a time of self-examination. It's a period when we think about the mistakes we've made and how we can better ourselves. We ask for G-d's forgiveness and His help in our efforts to change. And we seek condign punishment for the outside nations that would destroy us. We pray we'll be successful in achieving these goals, but we focus on seeking forgiveness for our errors and help in the difficult, but necessary, effort to improve ourselves. As Pogo Possum said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

The goals of OWS are less clear, so assessment of their success is more difficult. Along with additional protests about how participants were treated by the authorities, there have been increased costs to the public for police and sanitation workers, as well as disruption of the lives of those who live near demonstration sites. And as the protests spread, so did the costs and disruptions. I don't think that any meaningful legislation resulted from the complaints, despite the loud demands. But there was one major outcome – the popularization of the word “fairness.” That word seems to be shorthand for whatever will improve the condition of the middle class and the poor, with the costs borne by the rich. After all, as everyone knows, the rich (those parasites who make more than I) don't pay their fair share of taxes. And we're too rich a nation to let the poor suffer.

What's fair? According to the IRS, in 2009 – the last year for which I could locate data – the top 1% of taxpayers, with an adjusted gross income of $393,927 or higher (by the way, I don't qualify), paid 36.73% of all Federal personal income taxes, and the top 10% (income over $112,124) paid 70.47%. The lowest 50% (income less than $32,396) paid 2.25%. That doesn't include state and local taxes and payroll taxes, nor are inheritance, corporation, and capital gains taxes included, so it's difficult to determine how much of the total tax is paid by each group. It's clear, though, that those who earn more pay considerably more than those who earn less, and if the 70% paid by the top 10% in any way reflects government tax income and what it purchases, then those with incomes in excess of $112,124 (and that, of course, includes Oprah Winfrey, Derek Jeter, George Clooney, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and all your favorite television, sports, movie, and political heroes – and maybe you) paid more than 70% of the cost of entitlements. And they also pay most of the tax costs for defense against nations which would attack us. What would be a fairer tax burden?

And there are other criteria of fairness. However much we may resent the rich, we long to be among them. So we buy lottery tickets or gamble in other ways. And we sometimes forget to report all our earnings to the IRS. And of course fairness depends on whom it hits. When the Alternative Minimum Tax was originated, it was aimed at the “rich,” and established a minimum for them although there was no similar minimum tax for those who earned less. It was fair. At least until the rising salaries of those who had earned less now put them in the affected bracket. When they were taxed it was unfair.

Like the period of repentance, OWS also inspires self-examination. The conclusion, however, is the opposite – it's that any mistakes are those of the “rich,” who don't pay their fair share of support for everyone else. It's not my fault. I don't have to change, I don't have to improve myself – they do. I have no responsibility. When bad things happen to good people – to us – it's THEIR fault.

You Don't Say

                                                    

Language changes. There's nothing original in that thought. It's hardly a unique insight. Anyone who's tried to read an original version of “Canterbury Tales” will attest to it. Even Shakespeare's works are not fully understandable without explanatory notes. Many of the words and idioms have changed in meaning or have disappeared since he set them down.

But it's not only a process from the past, it is one continuing today. Slang has always been an important component of change. Perhaps it's a tool of rebelling youth – a way of linguistically setting themselves apart from their parents and from previous generations. And their punishment for it is that their slang will be laughed at by their own children, who will use newer slang as a secret language which is opaque to them. What goes around, etc.

Language is also changed by technology.ⁱ Everything is. It's happening more rapidly now, though, than it did in the past because modern technological change is raging, while before it was more likely to have been sauntering. New words are needed daily to describe the new technology and the ideas of a changing society. In addition, the tools, themselves, may demand language changes. Instead of writing we text; instead of sending a long hand-written letter to a friend, we limit our characters and send it 2 him (or her) via “the cloud.” When we reach out to touch someone we only have to go as far as our belt or fanny pack or purse. So we can connect more quickly and with fewer strokes. 2, 4, and 8 are no longer numbers, but words. And, as Cambridge University has been reportedⁱⁱ to have shown,ⁱⁱⁱ if words are used, they need neither be complete nor correctly spelled. As long as the first and last letters are properly positioned, the word will be understood. Orthography be damned.

School marms don't change, however. Deviations from what they learned in school are apt to be circled in red and criticized. They tend to be prescriptionists^iv when it comes to evaluating words. Not that such a perspective is so bad – especially when it comes to early learning. There's no question that kids will learn bad usages, expletives, slang, and dialect on the street. That's where they learn most of what we try to keep from them. And most of the basic language is learned – for better or worse – away from the classroom. So it shouldn't be a surprise, nor is it undesirable, that the subtleties of “standard” language, should be learned at school. Though they may turn in different directions, it seems reasonable that our children should all start on the same page. Whether they follow at all, we have to try to lead.

It's also important to teach the etiquette of speech. It's a large topic ranging from practices like bragging, disparaging, insulting, lying, gossiping, and interrupting, through such activities as speaking when silence would be preferable – like during a funeral or when attending a public performance. Speaking should also be avoided (especially loud speech) on a cell phone in a public place. Additionally, many would prefer not to hear your conversation at all, and would even take offense at your rudeness. It's almost as bad as putting someone on hold or call waiting.^v And when your talking distracts you from more something more significant, it should be avoided.^vi (Some adults should be seen and not heard.)

But those considerations simply reflect lack of concern for danger or for other people. Care and courtesy should accompany all our activities, whether we're descriptionists or prescriptionists.^vii There are many who believe that what makes us human, what distinguishes us from the “lower” animals, is the ability to speak and communicate. We're certainly not alone in possessing those skills, but we may be the only ones to find a way – actually many ways – to misuse that ability.^viii

So we try to use it carefully, and sometimes we monitor others too closely – not just as prescriptionists, but as guardians of all those who may take offense – or who we think should take offense – at the use of what really are accurate statements. The substitution of euphemisms and politically correct speech has been harnessed to protect the sensitive, and those who hear “hate speech” and abuse when it (often) does not exist; an act undermining basic freedom of speech, even if it doesn't actually discard it. But that's one of the ways that change takes place.^ix A genuine prescriptionist would probably have mixed feelings about such usages since while they do represent protective practices utilizing correct, though often misleading constructions, they were taught better and more accurate ways of saying the same thing with a more authentic historical basis. A descriptionist would nod and smile. (“Freudian slips,” spoonerisms, and other such slips twixt the tongue and the lip, on the other hand, reflect errors rather than alterations in language, but we must accept them for what they are.^x)

In any event, we're not going to slow change down. As a matter of fact it's likely to accelerate as modern devices spread new usages and new words at an ever-increasing rate. No matter what we do, that will happen. Prescriptionists may delay things but they won't stop them. And the descriptionists will keep the rest of us up on the results.

According to Voltaire,^xi “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But you don't have to do that, and it won't help anyway. The changes will occur whether you like them or not.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers” – Sez who”

 

 

i       Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message.” That's not really what I mean. The message is the message – although how we express it may be governed by the way we say it, in terms of both the medium on (or in) which it's being expressed, and who or what [organization] is saying it.

ii    The claim has been made in many publications and widely circulated on the internet, but no original publication has been located.

iii    The idea is appealing, but it isn't at all clear that it is true.

See: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

iv   Prescriptionists tell us the RIGHT way to define and use words. They're the ones who are forever correcting you.

v    The same is true, of course, when you speak on the telephone while someone is standing next to you trying to get your attention (your child, perhaps), or when your call distracts you from someone – or something – nearby.

vi    The range of such activities is wide here as well. Most people would think of gabbing on a cell phone while driving, but people may also be distracted while walking. And in addition, people may waste valuable work time while standing around the water cooler when other tasks need to be done.

vii   Descriptionists tell us how words are actually defined and used. They don't pass judgment. They allow some of the greatest perversions of the language without making a peep.

viii    Our prosencephalons (look it up) let us do both.
ix    See the essay “Watch Your Language” that appeared August 5, 2012.

x      Don't give up the slip.

xi    “According to Voltaire” because he probably never said it. At least there is no written record of such a statement. Wikipedia contains the following citation: In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche: “Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

Make War, Not Love

                                                                                  

It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”ⁱ Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ⁱⁱ

War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.

War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,ⁱⁱⁱ sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.

An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,^iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.

People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”^v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.^vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?

People didn't invent war but they did invent

1. Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
2. Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.

Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.

There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.

On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.

And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?

Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.^vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.

It's better to win than to lose.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.

Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.

i      Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.

ii     Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”

iii    Nowadays that's oil.

iv     Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.

v     As noble as that sounds.

vi    However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.

vii  Actually, that's redundant. All “Utopias” are non-existent. That's the definition.

Remembrance Of Things Yet To Come

 

                                                                                        
The older you get, the more funerals you attend. I've been to two in the past week, and though I was told of another death, I didn't attend the service. There have been many others in recent years and I'm impressed with how wonderful all the deceased were. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anything negative about the center of attraction. Even when there is a less than completely desirable featured mentioned by one of those giving a eulogy, it's mentioned using a euphemismⁱ or noted with a positive spin.ⁱⁱ Some in attendance – those who knew the individual being described – may giggle, but no one will contradict the speaker.

Some of those being eulogized are unfamiliar to me; I'm there because of a friendship with one of the mourners. And in some instances, the deceased wasn't even known to the clergyman (or clergywoman or someone else) conducting the service.ⁱⁱⁱ His loving description during this obligatory ritual is a hodge-podge of (some of) the recollections of those grieving.^iv But, he's paid to be nice. Sometimes the service is for someone loved and respected by all, and the clergyman, friends, and family deliver honest and loving tributes. They may last longer, but there's less impatience, squirming, and resentment. Funerals are for the living, not the dead. They're to show respect for those who have died – whether because we knew and respected them personally, or as a way of demonstrating our concern for the mourners.

For better or worse, my mind wanders during funerals. I wonder about my own. Who will be there? Who will speak? What will be said? And please G-d, don't let there be too many giggles. That, of course, is up to me. I have to live in a way that (rightly or wrongly) people will agree with what will be, by convention, laudatory rhetoric.

But then I ask myself, “Who cares?” I can't tell you anything about my great-grandmothers on my mother's side. I don't remember them? In fact I never knew them. And I'm not sure if my mother knew them either. Although my children will remember their grandmothers, when they themselves die the memories will be lost. And my time will come too. As the saying goes, who will remember me (or care about me) a hundred years from now? And that raises other questions. Theological questions. Questions we've all thought about but none of us can answer because they're matters of belief rather than knowledge.^v

So I wonder. And so do you. Is death the end?

I can think of several different scenarios that might pertain: one, the sentiment likely to be expressed in a Hallmark card or a comic strip, is that death is a continuation of life – you're reunited with those who have passed before, and together you look “down” on those who are living. You'll have the opportunity to see how the lives of your descendants play out. Nice. But hard to imagine as anything other than an idyllic hope.

At the other end of the spectrum is the view – nothing^vi follows death. You'll have no consciousness of anything, including the fact that you are no more. It's kind of a “Whiffenpoof Song” conception: “you'll pass and be forgotten with the rest.” Poof. Or, if you prefer, it's akin to Ethel Barrymore's famous “That's all there is, there isn't any more.” However you package it though, it's final. That's cold and scientific. If you can't prove it experimentally, it's not true. Many view scientists and their knowledge, or lack of it, with belief and a kind of god-like reverence, even if they disavow any belief in G-d or in belief itself.

Dante had a different formulation, but besides his there are many views that after our physical lives are over there is the time of reward or punishment, with possibly a period of cleansing of our sins interposed somewhere along the line. In western religion, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and the Garden of Eden are some of the terms used to portray the “locations” to which we will be transported in the “Afterlife.” A “Messianic Age” and resurrection of the dead are also believed by some to be part of this formulation. Some consider reincarnation to be our fate.

But apart from the “Hallmark Scenario” which I mentioned above, our relationship to our life on earth, and our recognition of those we knew and loved here, are unlikely to play a part. Whatever our fate in the Afterlife, it will be based on our^vii own deeds and not those of our predecessors or descendants. We probably will be unaware of others and their deeds. Being reunited with those we love, however much we may wish it, does not seem to be in the cards. The ideas of Reward and Punishment are difficult to integrate into our thinking.^viii

So if there's a future at all, we can't prepare for it. We can only work in the present and for me this means trying to help others, and to observe G-d's commandments. I may not be rewarded in the future for it, but it's rewarding to me now. I don't know what's to come so all I can do is what I find satisfying today.

Actually I can prepare for the future. I'll write a speech overflowing with praise for me. It's important that everyone knows how wonderful I was. All I have to do is find someone who will read it. With a straight face. No giggling.

Next episode: “You Don't Say” -- But it's ok f u do.

i      For example, someone who was obstinate and pigheaded is described as “single-minded” and “focused.”

ii     It won't surprise you to learn that the same person “held dear some principles with which we might not all fully agree.”

iii    He may not even know the mourners and read their names from a piece of paper (mispronouncing some of them) during his boilerplate oratory.

iv    The favorable ones. The ones they're willing to disclose. There's nothing to be gained by washing their dirty linen in public.

v     I'm aware that some “know” what others only believe or hope, but I'm not fortunate – or unfortunate – enough to be one of them.

vi    Literally.

vii    Hallmark, Norcross, or otherwise.

viii   Jewish philosophy – the corpus with which I'm most familiar – contains a variety of concepts on the subject. Perhaps the most familiar is the eleventh of Maimonides's Thirteen Articles of Faith, which declares that we'll be rewarded or punished based on the level of our adherence to G-d's commandments, but there is also the advice of Antigonus ,(Avot 1:3) that cautions against accepting G-d's commandments for the sake of any reward. And numerous others, from the Bible forward, have weighed in on the subject. The bottom line is that while Reward and Punishment will eventually take place, what we do should be independent of the promises and based on our desire to obey Halakhah – Jewish law.

It's Official!!

Extra! Extra!

There is a G-d!

I know because the Democrats said so yesterday. And they decided by democratic vote.  And, of course, no politician would lie to us or say something he didn't truly believe.

Well. I'm not really sure of the last few points. There was a voice vote on the subject and there are many who think that the motion to put that revelation in the platform was defeated, but those who favored it were in charge, and they declared that the motion had passed. Anyway, the President wanted it. There was a loud outcry from the Republicans and from voters when the party's platform, which presumably he had dictated and which had been accepted, was seen to have failed to affirm it. Rather than risk the negative reaction of voters offended by the omission, a vote was held to add the declaration to the platform. There apparently was fear that the Republicans would get the G-d vote, which was fine with many Democrats, but that was unacceptable to party leaders. As hard as it is to admit, belief was irrelevant – it was purely a matter of politics.

Oh. And Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Although this fact (just ask the Israeli government) has been previously acknowledged in the party's platforms (though never acted upon) it was left out this year, until the reaction to its omission (and the need for funds and votes) became apparent to the President. In line with that political reality, the party quickly and “democratically” corrected that oversight. Of course Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We knew that.  Of course some negotiations are necessary, but they're for another time.

Will this statement change policy? Of course not. A platform is a political document and in no way an indicator of future policies but, rather, past performance is the most reliable basis for any conclusion about likely actions in the future. Not the platform declarations – even if they had been reached democratically. In this instance what comes to mind is the hostility the President and his staff have shown to Israel as they talk interminably with Iran about our misgivings regarding the nuclear bomb it is building. While they take no real action in relation to the latter, they give loud and public warnings to the former, and put great pressure on Israel, whose existence, unlike our own, is threatened by the bomb that the United States, by its inaction, will permit to be built despite contrary protestations. It's hard to believe that there will be any real change in these views or actions whatever the platform says.

So if the President is reelected we can anticipate that Iran will build its bombs and bury them deep underground, and that it will force a democratic Israel to take actions that it would prefer not to take. And Iran will take control of the entire non-democratic Arab world, including countries that we view (with our usual unwarranted optimism) as allies.

But, as the Democrats have now told us, “G-d's in His Heaven and all's right with the world.”

Politics, Leadership, Polls And Language

              

 

According to Merriam-Webster, “cliché” originated from the French word “clicher” (its past participle) meaning “stereotype,” and we know it as a word indicating some overused expression.ⁱ The term is expansive and may relate to a proverb or other “truism” as well as to a short phrase or description. Clichés are reliable. They're “tried and true.” People use them all the time. After all, “it's better to be safe than sorry.”

But more than that, clichés (and I'm most interested in the expressions and proverbs) are so obviously true that they sum up all that we need to know about something. They're the received wisdom – “words to the wise.” They encapsulate someone's thoughts. They're argument-enders. It's difficult to respond to some banal statement, whether true or false, when you know that the one who said it is smug and impressed with his own brilliance, and has no interest in a rebuttal. He'll simply smirk and turn away.

That's not to say that all proverbs deserve disposal. Their history and popularity attest to the fact that they “strike a chord” in speakers and listeners, and at one time they were fresh and original. Now, though, they seem more useful as substitutes for thought. They're comfortable and familiar. And, to a significant degree, they're political. Perhaps not intentionally so, but that's the way many may be understood. When someone advises you to “look before you leap,”ⁱⁱ to “think it through” and remember that “what can go wrong will go wrong,”ⁱⁱⁱ so you must be cautions in order to avoid “unintended consequences,” and “never [to] burn your bridges before you cross them,”^iv he is expressing a very conservative position, and many proverbs are little more than cautionary tales reduced to a few words. And they're likely to be wrong.

But those of a more liberal bent have their own bromides. They're quick to remind anyone who will listen that “the early bird gets the worm”^v and “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”^vi And if they perceive a problem they can't “just stand there,”^vii they have to “do something.” And quickly. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” and “a stitch in time saves nine.”^viii And their quick thinking and bias toward rapid action often leads them to “think outside the box” and to “push the envelope.” But they're wrong, too.

Still, there are “cooler heads.” Following Aristotle, they favor a middle path – compromise. After all, “there are two sides to every story.” What they never consider is that at least one of those sides is wrong. Whatever their private thoughts, they never concede that a compromise between right and wrong is wrong, and “the lesser of two evils” is evil.^ix And such an attitude gives credence and a platform to that “lesser,” as well as to the two evils between which it is a compromise. As I'm sure you've guessed, “half a loaf is [not always] better than none,” and because of their lack of sincerity, the compromisers are even more wrong than the “extremists” who actually believe the clichés they repeat.

But their words sound fair. And in modern-day politics, that's what counts. It's better to sound moderate – to be willing to compromise. And since the voters aren't always sophisticated, for many of them a middle ground seems like the best solution, one between the “extremes” rather than on one side.

And that's “where the money is.” Those are the voters who will decide most of the elections. “Dyed-in-the-wool” conservatives and liberals will vote for their own candidates irrespective of issues and positions, leaving the real decisions to those in “the middle of the road” in “swing states.” So our leaders conduct extensive polls to find out what those “independent” voters want and move toward those positions. It's much easier to lead when you know what the followers want. People are not interested in what is right but in what sounds right. So our representatives find out what sounds right to the voters and then courageously proclaim that position. A politician who actually says and defends what he believes is sure to be punished for it.^x (He who lives by the word, dies by it.) The one who repeats the truisms on which we have all been raised will fare much better. He^xi will be received by the voters with a much higher degree of comfort, irrespective of true beliefs or ability.

So the best thing a politician can do is to soothe the voters with words of comfort and wisdom – “the wisdom of the ages.” Clichés may be wrong or, at best, insipid, but we respond to them.  As William Claude Dukenfield said, “Never give a sucker an even break.” That's a turn of phrase dear to every “leader's” heart.

Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Yet To Come” -- Death and the mad man.

 

i     We also use it to refer to anything else that is hackneyed and almost meaningless, like clothing styles, an idea, someone's reaction or life, etc.

ii    Perhaps we should sometimes be cautioned not to leap.

iii    Some believe that Murphy was an optimist.

iv    Of course some of those bridges shouldn't be crossed in the first place.

v    Chestnut: “Early to bed and early to rise, and your girl goes out with other guys.” But chestnuts are tastier than worms.

vi    Nor lost. Actually something may be lost. Especially if you expect prices to go down and you sell everything only to see them rise.

vii    We'd often be better off if our politicians did nothing and just stood there.

viii   If it's the right stitch. Otherwise it may require adding future stitches rather than saving some.

ix    Compromise is too often viewed as the first step in getting your way. It is the starting point for the next debate – one you expect to carry you further toward your goal. But, of course, that's exactly what your opponent thinks.

x     In 1964, Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency, proclaimed “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With a war going on in Viet Nam, and many voters doubting their country's position, such a statement was viewed with suspicion, as the view of a dangerous superpatriot. Senator Goldwater only received 52 electoral votes to President Johnson's 486.

xi    Or she.