Various Thoughts XVII

Are you familiar with the story of Paul Wittgenstein. Read it. I won't ruin it by telling you the specifics, but it's hard not to admire the man.

It's often said that you can't make something from nothing. It's a law of physics. But he did. I don't mean that literally. For him the “nothing” was determination and a love for what he knew; a love for the music he had performed before. And those “nothings” have turned into an inspirational story which gives me strength and hope for humanity at a time in my life when I need it.

The potential within people cannot be underestimated. But it is only potential and it is up to all of us to take the steps necessary to bring our abilities to fulfillment, notwithstanding the challenges.

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

I heard on the radio a few days ago that the government is returning some land that had been set aside as National Monuments. The monuments remained, but hundreds of thousands of acres that had been set aside are now available again. There was extensive protest by various involved groups about the loss of sacred ground by Native American tribes and there would likely be the destruction and loss of fossils. We would lose part of American history and we would never get it back. Naturally there was much sympathy for this noble cause. Our history is sacred and acts that compromise the record of our past are to be prohibited.

Not more than a few months ago there was mass destruction of statues, building names, and other claimed symbols of the Confederacy. The Civil War era may not have been our greatest moment but it is part of our history, and the destruction of the monuments and the history were “part of American history and we would never get it back. Naturally there was much sympathy for this noble cause. Our history is sacred and acts that compromise the record of our past,” acts that destroy our sacrosanct image, must not be allowed to sully it.

Thus there was much support for this desecration of our history, and it was supported by the media that claim a loyalty to our nation. Is there a double standard that prompts us to deny the history that embarrasses us, and embrace the politically correct and popular history that is in vogue?

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

Whatever is proposed, and no matter by whom, there are winners and losers. The main opposing arguments are usually made by the losers who contend that all change – except what they propose – is for the worse. And the degree of contention depends on the organization and the anger of the losers, usually about who wins and who loses. And their respect for the rule of law.

Take taxes, for example. When they went up in the past by a vote of Congress we took it for granted that our government was acting in our country's interests. Hence there was no major protest nor a demand that we address the interests of the losers rather than the overall needs of our country. Nowadays lobbying groups, large and small, are more focused on their own concerns than everyone else's. If they benefit from the cuts they are justified. If they lose it's unfair. The legislation is only equitable if they win.

As for the rule of law, a good model is illegal immigration (ignore the politics). When we decided to ignore legal status of the immigrants – the law – no one cared. It was virtuous to do so. Adversaries of the laws previously passed by Congress felt like winners. Now, when the government insists on following the law, there were many who protest the cruelty of the demand – who believe that virtue trumps law, and we are obligated to withdraw fealty to our Constitution and the laws, and the “right” thing for us is to do “good” rather than obey our own statutes. We have turned those who have violated the law into people we have oppressed. We have made them “losers,” no matter how they have violated our statutes, nor how often.

We have a binary system and a general disregard for our own people, while we are more concerned about people from elsewhere. Have we let emotion vanquish our system and our common sense?

December 8, 2017

The More Things Change

“All that the Lord has said, we will do and we will hear.” Na'aseh v'nishma. That was what the Jewish people said at Sinai when they received the law. They agreed to follow the law that G-d had set for them before they fully knew or understood what it entailed.

G-d was – and is – a populist. Perhaps we don't comprehend the meaning of all the laws He has ordained, but that's not important. It's more important that we abide by His teachings irrespective of our discernment of their meaning. We follow G-d and do whatever He prescribes for us. And that, pretty much, is a description of what a populist is. It is an “individual” whose words and commands are accepted unconditionally.

Populism isn't a new phenomenon, even if we tend to think of it as such. But there are different kinds of populists: G-d decrees laws which will improve us – His goal is for us to improve our lot by following Him – but the majority of populists have a different aim. A populist's purpose is to improve his own lot by attracting a following. So he caters to its wishes when formulating his own appeal. And he convinces them of his sincerity using the oratorical talents he has perfected; he convinces them that the ideas are his own – that he believes in them (as, indeed, he might) and that he will turn them into fact. As a result the word itself has taken on negative connotations because most populists have used their rhetorical skills primarily to excite the crowd for their own purposes.

The main goal of most of them is to acquire power, and the path is usually a challenge of existing authority. There are times when those who follow the new leader are the majority, and times when it is the aim of such a leader to inspire a minority – to mobilize them in order to overwhelm a less motivated, or even apathetic, majority. Most – but not all – are rabble-rousers although, as I said, their aims may differ. Huey Long was a populist. But so were Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who, along with their "indiscretions," introduced leftist reforms in Argentina. Marine Le Pen is quite the opposite – a right-wing populist in France who may some day serve as her country's president. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populists. (Actually all politicians – indeed, everybody else as well – are. They want to be popular. They want you to like them, to vote for them, and to do what they say.) Their techniques and styles may be different, but their aims are similar. Brexit and Occupy Wall Street, different as they may have been, had, in common, that they were populist movements. Goals and likely results may not have been clearly defined, but that was of no consequence to true believers. 
 

Populists are convinced they're right, and they convince others of the same thing. There are some who are intent on improving conditions for those they rule, and others whose only concern is the religious fervor that motivates them and which takes precedence over any human concerns. Nonetheless, however, a commandment not to kill is much more beneficial than an order to kill anyone who disagrees with the leader; protecting refugees is far preferable to using the problem of refugees stir up emotions, so the inspiration of the people may be for good or evil.

People are the same. They haven't changed. But tools have. We can now do things that we wanted to do before but couldn't, for a variety of reasons. While only a few could be reached in the past, and even fewer at one time, the availability of electronic media makes the mesmerization of the masses a reality now. And its use is expanding rapidly. It was first used as an important means of communication by Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose radio “Fireside” chats (he made them from his desk, to citizens wherever they were sitting) mimicked the words of a deity to those who wanted to believe, and inspired their fealty and cooperation. And even more recently, television, the internet, and social media make it possible to inform and rally larger numbers and more quickly.

The media (and everyone else) view Donald Trump as a populist. And he is. He'eshardly the first, however. And while others may see his actions as divisive and contrary to the virtue of diversity (actually “diversity” implies division and difference), he sees himself as representing a forgotten group of citizens whose needs have been ignored by “the establishment.” And he uses the media, including the electronic media, to spread his message. Where others see the term as a negative description, he considers his actions as far more positive.

But doing the old things costs a lot more nowadays. There was much criticism of Donald Trump: that he was rich and able to buy the election. But, in fact, he and the Republican Party spent far less than Secretary Clinton. And many hundreds of millions less than President Obama in the two prior campaigns.

And a third way in which the tools have changed while the goals have not. Now we have more psychologists, consultants, “spin doctors,” and public relations gurus to help people get their messages across, and accepted by others. (People can also be tools.)

G-d was an early populist, but the people chose to obey His commands because He had already produced for them. He had given them reason to trust Him. He had taken them out of Egypt and performed miracles on their behalf.  His actions inspired them to follow His words.

Since then, however, loyalty has been based on promises of improvement rather than accomplishments. But the people are looking for those accomplishments. They have great expectations of what their government will do for them. So if those expectations aren't met they become willing converts to the preaching of someone who promises change and better things. And that's what people want and have always wanted: better things. Methods may have changed but that has remained the same.

Mixed Grill XLV

Forgive me (if you choose). I can't help myself.

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

Kudo box – Container for the mentalist's positive reviews

First aid – First responder with a band-aid

The mouse ran up the clock – It's amazing what rats will do to get you pay them what they think they're worth

Sugar cane – Great for someone with PVD. But not for diabetics

Sauerkraut – German measles

My fair laddie – Boys just want to have fun

Optimistic – “Seer” who needs glasses

Gluten free – Lots of wheat but there's no charge for it. Of course you pay extra for everything else

Let him who is without fault – Loosen up

Serial killers – Hot or cold?

There's no such thing as a stupid question – Yes there is

Insight – Stonewall riot

By the sweat of your brow – Certainly not mine

70 shades of green – Money tempts me more than sex

People who live in grass houses – Must have thatched roofs

National debt – Give 'til it hurts. Your country needs your money more than you do

Apple and Oranges – Metropolitan area

Probiotic – I'm only an amateur but someday I'll make it

The Prairie Years – When Laura Ingalls Wilder made a fortune

Silent Cal – Empty, too

Oh dear, what can the matter be? – If Empedocles didn't know, how should I?

Tennessee Ernie – Used car in Bristol

Ducks in a row – Fight in Anaheim

One size fits all – If all are the same size

Come away with me Lucille – Or anyone else who will “go as far as [I'd] like with me”

The Fountainhead – For all knowledge try Google

Drone –         1.  An insect

2. A note or a chord continuously sounded throughout a piece of music
3. A model airplane designed to make its manufacturer rich
4. The description of one of the above in a boring, long-winded, and unenthusiastic way
   
   

Gun Club – Effective weapon even when you run out of bullets

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

Actually no one can help me.

November 5, 2017

Great Expectations

I have no beef. At least no legitimate beef.

When I was born in 1939, a white male (it's not a politically correct designation but I am what I am) had a life expectancy of a little less than 64 years. I'm almost 77 so I passed that a while back. Even today, in 2016, the life expectancy of a boy born now would be 76.3 – down a little from last year – so I'm ahead there too.

The progress we're making in treating disease successfully, and in increasing life span, is truly amazing. Much as we may insult the medical profession and blame doctors for the ills of society, we've all benefited. Some want more and want it faster but they, too, will live longer (and have more time to complain) than would have been the case in the past. The biblical mandate, to provide for his complete cure (Exodus 21:19, translation by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan), has been taken very seriously. (Hu)Man(ity), was made in the image of G-d, and, while many are working toward our moral improvement, medical scientists are learning more about our bodies, and how to improve the world around us, in quest of more complete cures.

There have been major improvements in the available diagnostic tools, making it easier to discover diseases earlier and to characterize them more fully and accurately. And, or course, there have been, over the years, vast improvements in all forms of therapy – medicinal, surgical, rehabilitative, and even alternative means.

The research continues. Every day there is new information learned not only about specific diseases, but also about aging in general. Perhaps some day we'll be able to increase life spans based on this kind of information, rather then piecemeal through the treatment of particular maladies. But that's for then – not now.

I'm the beneficiary of some of these medical advances. MRI, CT, and a variety of blood tests, including genetic screens, have contributed to the ability of my doctors to understand my illness. Modern surgical techniques and recent medical therapies have also been employed in my treatment. Will they help? Only G-d knows, but what is possible for mortals to do is being done. I'm lucky – but I think I've said that before.

Noting my good fortune, however, doesn't solve all of my problems. I'm slower, more tired, and less steady than I used to be. And while my gustatorial preferences haven't changed, I find that I fill up much faster than was the case before.

Several years ago I volunteered for a study at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The stated intent was to investigate both cognitive and physical abilities in people as they aged. From the perspective of cognitive skills, I recognize diminishment only in the ability to remember some words. The ideas are clear but sometimes I can't recall the word that goes with it. (It's interesting that the mind can visualize concepts without requiring the words that go with them. Cognitive content and the words that identify and describe it seem to be separate functions, and we don't require words to have ideas. It's hard not to wonder, though, the extent to which it was necessary to have vocabulary in order to formulate and imprint the ideas in the first place.) That, apparently, is a common problem associated with aging, and my wife and I have dealt with it by helping each other with words.

In any event, the study has focused my attention on aging as one of the contributors to my current physical difficulties, but I cannot ignore the disease itself and the psychological baggage that accompanies it. And, to a degree, I can't dismiss the thought that the placing of chairs, beds, tables, and other devices to make life easy for me isn't in fact making things harder by being in the way. Oh well, I'll probably never work it out.

But I've already outlived most of my cohort. That's what the numbers tell me. So I guess that I win. And I'm not tossing in the towel just yet. I still have goals. Mostly they're sort of deadlines. They're primarily family events that I want to attend, and I'm hopeful that I'll be fortunate enough to do so. My (and my wife's) sixtieth anniversary is June 26, 2020. I'd like to be able to celebrate it, although I won't hold my breath (or maybe I will). Bargaining won't help. The Judge of all the earth will do justly

There's another kind of goal, though, that I've long pursued. We – human souls – are children of G-d and made in His image. We are called upon to love and care for each other as He loves and cares for us. Helping each other and having responsibility for them – that seems to be one of the absolutes that cultural relativists say don't exist. But they do.

If I can have helped or guided one other, my life will have been worthwhile – at least to me.

December 31, 2016

Not Now

What I wrote yesterday is certain to cause antagonism (even among my friends if I have any left). If anyone reads it. My usual audience is about three people, but I sent it's contents, as a letter, to The Jewish Press. If they print it I'm sure to get the venom of most of its readers. Ah, well. Let me go a little further.

There are likely to be two main criticisms: that Judaism is a single unit and the “normative” Jews are not keeping up with the times, and whatever the accuracy of the assessment, now is the wrong time to raise it. I dealt with the former yesterday (though I have some additional comments on that perspective – see below) and I'll primarily tackle the latter today.

Halloween 1517 was certainly not the time for Luther to post his theses. The Church was in turmoil – the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were being rejected. Many believers had doubts about the primacy of church over state while others didn't. Church corruption was rife. It was a time to come together rather than publicize problems.

But for the same reasons it was the perfect time to correct faults. Now, in the twenty-first century, there is more openness in Christianity and a large menu of church services from which to choose. No one questions the divisions which have actually brought more nuance and clarity to the worship service. Adherents appreciate the differences, rather than resent them.

And the quarrels over doctrine in Judaism now dictate the same kind of solution. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of what is right. It is time we corrected our faults. There is no right time except when things are wrong. And with internecine contention, usually more political than theological, increasing, it's bound to happen at some time in the future. Painful as it may be now, the realignment will be recognized as a necessary step in the development of Judaism and of the Jewish people, for they are not the same. “Jewishness” reflects who you are; Judaism outlines what you believe.

But, many will ask “Why now?” They will argue, that there is so much conflict now and we need unity, not to be ripped apart. That assumes we have unity and aren't being ripped apart already – an idea that is laughable. The world may view all Jews as one, but we know better. Some would like to see “dedeification.” Others would not. Some promote BDS. Others don't. Many desire egalitarianism instead of tradition, but that desire is not universal. And there are many other issues that separate us.

Despite the differences however, most Jews would like to see the state of Israel survive although there are differences concerning both political and theological matters. And even though the world staunchly maintains that “anti-Zionism,” (by which they mean opposition to the State of Israel) is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, it is difficult to take that argument seriously after a couple of millennia. The internal struggles between Jews would seem to favor their argument, even though others only use the terminology to cover their bigotry, internal and international politics, and their thirst for Arab oil.

But notwithstanding the anti-Semitic code, all Zionists are not Jewish. Christian evangelicals in the United States, and the Makuya in Japan, are two groups that support Israel. Unfortunately most of the world's nations oppose all efforts to help that tiny country. The underlying anti-Semitism, which has been buried within the psyches of most people, along with the desire to have the support of the large Islamic and Arab communities, guarantee that this attitude will exist for a long time. Morality is not an issue among nations. As Lord Palmerston said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Politics and prejudice will continue to rule. Perhaps Palmerston was right. Perhaps the best way to defend itself in addition to military strength is for Israel to recognize, support, and encourage a variety of allies – an increasing number of Jewish religions – even among those who may erroneously believe their heritages to be other than Jewish. It is better that more than one group acts as a light to the nations. The lesson is heard more often. All those who are Jewish have that light within them, whether or not they practice normative Judaism. And if Israel must make concessions to new religious groups, so be it.

The leaders of the nations must, sooner or later, recognize that those lights include knowledge which, to this point, they lack. They must understand that in the long run their citizens will benefit more from association with the “start up” religions than with their opponents. Their future will be more secure when they ally themselves with Israel, since the need for oil will eventually disappear and new ideas, and the ferment of competition – theological, economic, political, and whatever – will take them further than servile allegiance to the ways of the past.

It may take centuries, but it has to start sooner or later.

Harebrained Schemes 6

You thought I'd already listed all my dumb ideas? Wrong. Here's more.

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

Science marches on. Kids no longer write with a pen (or pencil) on paper. They text instead. And for schoolwork they use a computer. And more and more schools no longer teach penmanship. The time will come when people forget how to write. They no longer have to write checks, paying their bills on line, and the need to sign any document has decreased significantly. Without practice, people will never learn how to form their own signature. That's the only handwriting they need. The notary, assuming he or she can write, will take care of the rest. And the computer will do for non-notarized transactions.

Biometric tools, like thumbprints, can get us computer access and are usable for most activities since they can be scanned by computers. But there will remain some occasions when it will be necessary to sign your name, and, in order to satisfy this requirement, I suggest that it be mandated that all elementary schools (or secondary schools if necessary) have signature classes. It's too much to expect that all students will learn to write when they have keyboards to do all the work, but, at least for the time being, it's important that they learn to sign their names.

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

They're the wave of the future, computers are. If we don't utilize them as often as we can we're missing the boat. Which brings to mind transportation. The most common form of transportation, and one of the most dangerous, is walking. The computer giveth … People have become so involved with their hand-held devices that they sometimes tune everything else out. And that includes the wall in front of them, those dangerous steps (actually they're not dangerous unless people make them so), and the street and its traffic into which they are about to walk. It's illegal to drive while distracted but it's unlikely that the same rules will be provided to pedestrians. After all, what would we do if we had to be bored by paying attention to the world around us.

The same computers that take us astray can also bring us back. Enough technology has been developed to help us locate ourselves, to map routes out, to demonstrate hazards around us, and to warn us of potential problems, and there's no reason why computers can't compensate for the fact that we have no idea what's around us. It does. And even with our heads down we can follow the fastest and safest route to where we're going no matter where that is. And if it's a store we can instruct our computer in advance as to what we want to buy and what our credit card number is (or if there's another payment device). We'd also give delivery instructions unless store employees can strap it to our backs. We'll need to keep our hands free for our computers.

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

Computers seem to be the thing, so I'll finish off this helpful guide with another invaluable device which is really an offshoot of what I've already written. If computers can keep us from going off the beaten path when we're distracted, a device can be assembled that “walks” a dog or a child or someone with dementia: the dog walker would go by all the spots that your dog likes to go (in this case it will be necessary to keep your eyes open); the child walker would go by all the store windows of interest; and the walker for adults who tend to wander, it would eventually drag them home. In all cases the same protective tools would guide the computer. And the computer would have a mobile “leading” unit to which the user is attached in a way that prevents escape. It would also contain a timing (and pace measuring) device to limit the length of forays while recording the activity performed. And it should have an automatic camera to record whom the user has interacted., especially molesters.

It's almost like a three-D computer game, but it requires some participation. Does that make it four-D?

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

Admit it. That's not dumb. It's the future.

Who is a Jew?

Who is a Jew?

It's an old question. But it's a silly and meaningless one. And the Rabbis answered it long ago: it is the child of a Jewish mother, or an individual who has undergone a valid conversion. We may disagree on what constitutes a “valid” conversion, but that's the definition.

Still, it's the wrong question. Far more significant is the uncertainty about “What is a Jew?”

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to his church door. He protested various dogmas and practices of Christianity, triggering the Protestant Reformation. He remained a Christian but his “spin,” and that of others, resulted in the establishment of the many denominations of Christianity. We would not debate whether a Mormon was Christian, but neither he nor a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America would have the chutzpah to demand the use of the Sistine Chapel for a service of their own, or to question the Pope's standing. Even within the Roman Catholic Church there are many who are more liberal or more conservative than the Pope, but his authority is recognized. Other views are not accepted as representing “authentic” Roman Catholicism. They are teachings that differ from those of Jesus. Whether they are right or wrong is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is enough to concede that they are different.

Yet both Anglicans and Christian Scientists have equal claim on the designation of “Christian,” even though they reject the teachings of the “mother” church and practice different religions. (Similarly Sunnis, Sufis, Shias, Alawites, and Druze – among other groups – consider themselves Muslims, though they may reject the religion as practiced by the others.)

There are a host of parallels in Jewish history. The protests of many Jews about the practices of their religion, and the establishment of “Reform Judaism,” marked the onset of the Jewish Reformation, resulting in the establishment of numerous denominations, sects, “chevrahs,” and other variations – Jewish protestants. Unlike Christianity, however, each considers its variation as the center, while other perspectives are, necessarily, the outliers. Although Christianity may, almost uniformly, recognize the authority of the Pope in many areas, and the sanctity of the Vatican which Roman Catholicism administers, as outside their realm, dissident Jewish groups, Jews who do not practice “normative Judaism,” whose practices vary from those of the “mother church,” demand a voice in the direction of the religion. And they demand equality in decisions about the use of Jewish holy places.

What is “normative Judaism?” Using Catholicism as a model (and many will object to this) it is the religion accepted as tradition now and through the millennia; it is the Judaism administered by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel – the Jews sacred land. That is Judaism, and the other denominations of Jews practice different religions. (I personally have some disagreements with the way normative Judaism is observed but, as the saying goes, if I deviate I know from what I am deviating.) Perhaps those other Jews should be given territory to practice their faiths, though I know of no precedent for this in Christianity.

The question then revolves around the practices of the Jews in question: what do they believe, to whom do they look for direction, and what is their religion? If they fulfill the criteria set by the Rabbis, they are Jews. But that, alone, does not entitle them to speak on behalf of Jews who practice another faith. They find nothing regarding Judaism outside their domain. But it's their heritage, not their religion. We also need to consider their spin and their choice of authorities. If they don't observe “normative Judaism,” they're Jewish protestants – even if they're holier than we and refuse to recognize a Jewish State until the time of the Messiah.

If they reject the multi-millennial traditions of their people they are protestants.

That's how the Christians started out.