Dina

 

It's counterintuitive to think that members of one religion might write the rules for another, but that's just what happens in Judaism. Not that Jews write laws for non-Jews,ⁱ but they obey those formulated by others – invariably non-Jews. And it's been going on for a long time. Some semblance of the law probably dates back to the time of Samuel,ⁱⁱ and it has become common practice to pray for the nation and government under which the the Jewish community lives, and to accept the law of the land.

The basic principle is dina d'malchuta dina, “the law of the land is the law.”ⁱⁱⁱ And whether the source is halakha^iv or minhag,^v we are bound by it. According to Nehemiah,^vi “Thou has set [foreign kings] over us because of our sins; … they have power over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure.” This is considered support for the view that, from a halakhic perspective, we must obey the laws of our rulers when we live under a foreign government, and we must support it. More to that point, however, are the words of Jeremiah,^vii “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”

The key word, for me, is “captive.” There is an assumption that we will continue in a subservient position – one in which others have power over us. It is certainly our assumption. We envy our captors and try to be like them. Our psychology is that of the Stockholm Syndrome, and we identify with the society in which we live, attempting to assimilate into it. But, as the German-Jews learned, that strategy doesn't always work. Nor is it effective where there is a theocracy and the conversions of Jews are either not permitted, or viewed with suspicion. The Conversos^viii found that out in fifteenth century Spain.

So we have adopted other coping strategies which, to one degree or another, are intended to help us survive. One of the more revealing – indicating our feelings of inferiority and vulnerability in the societies in which we live – has been the impulse to seek invisibility and silence when we are faced with situations about which we may actually have passionate feelings. We don't advertise them. After all, “What will the goyim think? It's not so much that we care what they think. We know what that is. Antisemitism has been around for two thousand years so the message isn't particularly secret. But our main goal is that they don't think about us at all. So we try not to be noticed.^ix

In fact, we have developed the principle of maris ayin, “the view of the eye,”^x and we avoid whatever someone else may consider a negative action. We have even indulged in self-censorship so that we will not leave evidence of some idea that might be used against us – statements, for example, of what we view as the superiority of Judaism over other religions. In centuries past, our literature was scrutinized for such statements by non-Jews^xi and we were forced to remove those statements. So we often prepared our texts for such investigation by “cleaning them up” ourselves.

When we do get adventuresome, when we raise our heads a little, it is to build alliances. We espouse the goals of others and fight on their behalf. We are liberals and we are ready to take up any cause that will help someone else.^xii We are all too often more concerned about others than ourselves.^xiii And to solidify our liberalism and, in the United States, to prove our dedication to preserving the rights of all who may be the victims of prejudice, we lead the fight for social justice, for the ACLU, and for a high wall of separation between church and state, while fighting any attacks on our rights^xiv and principles such as those in the Patriot Act, tax breaks for the rich and, unfortunately, Israel. The last of these efforts – our refutation of Israel – not only disproves the idea of dual loyalty, but demonstrates our dedication to the underprivileged – in this case the oppressed Palestinians.^xv The Jews of Germany were more German than their countrymen, and we are more liberal and understanding than anyone else. So we wind up too often the leaders of efforts which result in the strengthening of terrorists, and of actions to ban attempts to provide improved security – all in the name of liberalism and justice.^xvi

The zeal to end particularism and promote “equality” and “universality,” however, is, in effect, a zeal to put an end to Judaism. What might have been one of the world's largest religions is among the smallest. Indeed, we view ourselves – and are viewed by others – as a small minority.^xvii That paradox is one of the factors that has kept Judaism alive for millennia. (Some see theological explanations as specious, so they will be omitted at this time.) The remnant who remained were passionate about maintaining the faith or their ancestors – if only to spite the non-Jews. They had been promised they would be as unmerous as the stars in the heavens, but like the stars in the heavens, the vast majority could not be seen – especially in the light of day. 

But that is not the end of the story, and it is we cannot let our successes blind us to the dangers around us. After Haman was hanged his edict remained. There was a possibility that he would achieve his end even after death. Similarly Hitler may triumph posthumously if assimilation completes the Holocaust's work. So despite internal forces aimed at keeping Judaism alive, there are extensive pressures to eliminate Israel and to take the religion out of Jewishness. Jews are tolerable only as a nation, no better than anyone else. For as a nation they can be eliminated without any taint of religious persecution.

Hillel said, “If I am only for myself, what am I?” And that is the Judaism of most Jews, as well as the byword of most non-Jews. It's fine if the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob devote themselves to concern for others as long as they are not deluded into thinking that Judaism and Israel have any inherent value. So the thinking goes.

But before that, Hillel said “If I am not for myself, who will be?” And after that, “If not now, when?” It is incumbent on us to make sure that the assimilationists and the universalists don't triumph. According to the Bible, Judaism is to be “a light to the nations.” We must not let the nations extinguish that light.

Never again. We can write our own rules.

Next episode: “The Council Of Wise Folks” – No. I didn't say wise guys.

i     Although Jews talk about the Noachide laws – laws which we maintain non-Jews are obligated to follow – it is our belief that these were instituted by Hashem (G-D), not by the Jews themselves.

ii     About 3500 years ago.

iii    There are exceptions, however, for situations in which secular law is in direct conflict with religious law and in some other instances, but since most secular laws like the payment of taxes, or injunctions against jaywalking and speeding for example, don't involve such issues, we are obliged to follow them. Not that everyone does.

iv     Jewish religious law.

v     Custom.

vi     Translation in Soncino Press edition. Nehemiah 9:37.

vii    Also Soncino translation. Jeremiah, 29:7.

viii    “Conversos” (“the converted”) is preferable to “Marranos,” but the latter is more more frequently seen. It means “swine.” Anusim, “the coerced,” is also sometimes used.

ix     Interestingly, the view that “silence is golden” is sometimes carried to extremes. And very well. The two most famous mimes of the twentieth century, Marcel Marceau and Harpo Marx, were both Jewish.

x     That's what it means literally, but it refers to what is seen – even if it is completely permissible in Jewish or secular law – that might be misinterpreted by someone else (even someone Jewish) to our detriment. Consequently we are to avoid any action that may be misunderstood.

xi      Often former Jews seeking to justify their own apostasy.

xii     It cannot be denied, of course, that when we stand up for someone else we are also standing up for ourselves. Our defense of the rights of other minorities can be translated into a defense of our own people. As can our concern for a separation of church and state. It may be expressed as advocacy of Seventh Day Adventists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, but it is also self-justification and protection. Sadly, many will not do for their fellow Jews what they do for others. Their view is that if there were a G-D, He would help those who help others.

xiii    The basic assumption is that they're right and we're wrong.

xiv    “Profiling,” which is such a powerful and useful tool for self-protection, especially in Israel, is viewed as discriminatory and rejected. It's better to be sorry than safe.

xv      We ignore the oppression of the Palestinians by their own people and blame all their problems on the Israelis.

xvi     Sadly, some of the most vicious antisemites are Jewish. Their determination to help others is accompanied by a similar determination to denigrate their fellow Jews.

xvii   The Jewish concepts of definition of “Jewishness” by the religion of the mother, and of the permanence of that Jewishness, irrespective of the practices of the mother, mean that since Abraham's time the number of Jews has increased geometrically. Most converted either voluntarily or involuntarily and very few, today, identify themselves as Jews even though there must be a very large number of people who fulfill the definition set by religious law.

Write If You Get Work

 

There's a not very old saying: “To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.”ⁱ As a human I'm proud to say that we've progressed. We don'tⁱⁱ need machines to do things very badly. There's a movement around the world to achieve justice, and that's our current plan to solve the world's problems. It began with the “Arab Spring” and a drive to gain political justice. From there it progressed to social justice and equality. With the economic downturn around the world this was inevitable. The movement is unfocused and a way of blowing off steam. It's full of sound and fury. But what is the aim? “Tax the rich!” That'll do it. There is no recognition that even if the “rich” have benefited from the current economic meltdown, they didn't cause it, and taxing them won't solve it.

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”^iii,iv As I pointed out last week, the top tenth of the American population pay more than two thirds of all income taxes collected, while nearly half of our population doesn't pay any. And the hole most people are in has nothing to do with the “rich.” People are greedy – even the average citizen – and consume things they don't need, believing that they can deal with the costs later. That's what happened with credit card debt, mortgages, education, etc. They believed the day of reckoning would never come. And they believed that they were entitled to what everyone else had. They were keeping up with the Joneses, in a big way.

There were expectations^v which, if not met, demonstrated the greed of others. Nothing was their own fault. The “one percent” were responsible for the plight of the ninety-nine. So now they're venting. Not that it will help, but they want justice and retribution against those not as badly off as they consider themselves.^vi These are presumably the people who caused natural disasters like Katrina, the economic failures in our country and in Europe, hunger in Africa, and like that. The “rich” did it.^vii The solution is a simplistic one and one that won't work – both because of its nature and because of the severity of the problem. It may feel good but it isn't practical. Let me offer some solutions for the US. Perhaps the world will follow them, too.

Our real problem – the one requiring protesters to take to the barricades – is that there is no social justice. There are rich and poor, and since we're not rich we must be poor – at least by that standard. There aren't enough jobs and there are needy and hungry all around. There is no question that the distribution of resources is not equal^viii and equality doesn't exist. Not here and certainly not around the world. But “life is unfair”^ix and we have to “play the hand [we're] dealt.”^x Even socialism has its winners and losers. So here are some sample guidelines as to how to improve the situation of those protesting. (Problems will be presented afterwards.)

1. Require those receiving supplementation from the government to be gainfully employed. That's hardly an original suggestion, and it's been tried before, but there were always objections to it. Admittedly it's not a perfect solution to the problem of entitlements,^xi however it's a good starting point. In the past there have been many who complained that the jobs were menial^xii and the salaries too low, but, from a public policy perspective, as well as one of self-image, it is better to work for a meager salary than to receive charity. It's better because it changes the perspective of those who are now working from that of dependence, to independence. Perhaps some would prefer to live off the dole, but this should not be an option.
2. Salaries should be higher than welfare payments, even after taxes and health insurance are removed. That should encourage people to take jobs. And despite the apparent lack of positions, “make-work” projects, like those under the Roosevelt administration, can be established.  

3. Since there are many who are homeless, one of the projects might be the establishment of new towns on government land with the building of homes and other needed structures. Perhaps if an individual has a stake in a property,^xiii he (or she) will maintain it. Individuals might also be taught (subsistence) farming which would lower their food costs. Such towns should have health care facilities, as well as stores and local government buildings. Training in the construction trades would be needed by many, but the skills would be useful later on. Child care facilities should be part of the town and could serve the dual purpose of allowing parents to work, and providing jobs for them.

4. The “military” should be enlarged rather than curtailed. The Army Corps of Engineers could provide training for many and jobs for others while rebuilding infrastructure. In addition, the training for which the military is justly praised can be used to teach trades to other of our citizens. Indeed, the services could take over the manufacture and provision of many of the materials which we now obtain from private vendors. It could also offer ministrations and facilities for which the taxpayer now contracts out.

5. The “military” could also provide centrally some of the services now provided by the states and local municipalities. These include, among many others, policing, jails and penitentiaries, printing, judicial services (to a point), and health care services. The multiple administrations around the country now required are costly and inefficient.

6. It will still be necessary to provide some supplements and food stamps, as well as universal health care, but the cost for these programs should be reduced by the taxes collected and the fact that those earning a living will have lesser needs.

7. Those who are unable to work because of health or psychological issues should be given whatever care is necessary to return to work. They should be offered group housing rather than forced to live on the streets.

8. Those refusing jobs and the services offered should have to seek whatever charitable assistance was available privately. It should not come at taxpayer expense.                        
9. Institute a national lottery. The states are making out like bandits.
10. Link corporate taxes to job and salary production. The more new jobs a firm creates in the United States, and the higher their salaries, the better their tax benefits. The new employees will both increase income taxes and purchases. And they'll lower the unemployment rate.
11. Link tax brackets to the value of the dollar. If people's taxes aren't going up their spending will.

It is anticipated that many problems would arise, both involving the participants and those whose jobs might be affected by the work performed by those now receiving welfare. Those who are working will resent others if they are making as much money (a situation that will have to be avoided), or, as is inevitable, if they displace them, and those whose private firms are no longer needed to supply the government will lose their business. It would be up to the rest of us to help out. If we truly believe that equality is appropriate,^xiv we should be prepared to pay for it in the form of increased taxes. There is no way that increases limited to the few are going to solve the problem. So the rest of us should be ready and eager to share our resources. Those resources will both support those who need help in the form of employment and the projects that are undertaken. It may make our lives a little more difficult, but there will be a fairer sharing of the burden as we all help to carry it.

For without considering the many, taxing the few is futile. It is an act of envy and vengeance. It may yield some increase in receipts, but that will be small in comparison to the needs. Until we're ready to tax the many – to tax ourselves – we're not likely to make much progress; until we're ready to cut down our spending we won't make a dent in our debt. In fact, it will increase as we increase social programs. And there will be people other than the poor who will benefit from those increases because they find legal ways to do so. They may provide the services that are mandated by the increased entitlements. They may find ways of exporting the provision of necessary services abroad^xv to achieve higher profits at the cost of jobs in the United States. That's contrary to our current problem of job shortages, but providing jobs is not their priority.

Will the system I am proposing work? Of course not. Mencken would tell us that immediately. But it will keep us busy for a while, and out of the way of those who are really solving whatever economic problems don't correct themselves.

[Please note:  There are some formatting errors which I was unable to eliminate.  Sorry about that.]

Next episode: “Dina” – Not the one in the kitchen.

i     The Farmer's Almanac, 1978

ii    Actually, we never did.

iii    H. L. Mencken, “The Divine Afflatus,” in the New York Evening Mail, November 16, 1917

iv    In order to get something right, you need several thousand pages of regulations. They're certainly not neat and plausible. Or understandable. They must be right.

v     Nothing is worse than raising expectations. If you don't expect much you'll settle for less. Once your expectations are high, what is needed to meet those expectations increases.

vi    It would be interesting to know how much the average “poor” protester spends a month for his/her hand-held electronic devices, the monthly communication charges for telephones, texting, Tweeting, and the like, “apps,” newspaper and magazine subscriptions, cable or satellite service, health clubs (including those that promote zumba and Pilates), running shoes, exercise gear, high-end coffee, yoga, lottery tickets and casino gambling, meals out and the expensive diets to deal with their results, useless dietary supplements, overpriced movie tickets, travel, and other similar bare necessities.

vii    In reality, it was the congressmen who did it. They should be watched carefully and be taxed for the extra perks they receive from the government and for the benefits they get from lobbyists, and punished for putting in special legislation to aid the lobbyists' clients. And they should have to live by the same laws as the rest of us. One of our goals should be to take the perk out of pork.

viii    Globally there is also a maldistribution of resources but no major protests exist that suggest that we should send ours around the world. Would the world reciprocate? I doubt it, so we'll just redistribute among our own citizens. (This brings up the issue of illegal aliens, but it's better not to raise that issue at this time.)

ix    President John F. Kennedy, news conference, March 21, 1962. There are many variations of this view, but the real issue relates to why that is the case. Who makes the decisions that are unfair for others? Do they relate to national policies, natural disasters, a nation's lack of resources and industry? All play a part – greater or lesser – depending on the particular example of “unfairness.”

x     Jawaharlal Nehru.

xi    There is no perfect solution or complete solution. But if we wait for one we'll never do anything.

xii    Many of those who are sensitive to the menial nature of the jobs offered are socially conscious individuals who, despite their own virtue, would probably bristle if the unskilled and poor were offered positions paying more than their salaries. Or if the people for whom they were protesting became their supervisors. That wouldn't be menial for the others, but it might make their own activities menial.

xiii    And maybe forty acres and a mule.

xiv    Some might call that socialism, but such a label would be rejected even by some of the more liberal of the protesters.

xv    Eg medical jobs like teleradiology, the production and manufacture of food products, other manufacturing positions, telephone jobs, etc. Even if we encourage job creation in the United States, there will still be money to be made by exporting some jobs. We have to find a way to tax that.

I've Got It Coming

 

There are many different ways to compare conservatives and liberals. I used to believe that liberals were the ones with faith in human nature and a generally optimistic outlook. I used to believe that liberals were more idealistic than conservatives, but now I know that's not true. They're far more realistic.

I used to think that conservatives were rich thieves who viewed everyone else cynically. They were practical, not idealistic, and not contributing their fair share to an America that cared for its citizens. But now I know that, too, isn't true. Youth is optimistic and youth is liberal, and youth sees the two as being related. So I used to think what almost all youth, and many who were a lot older, thoughtⁱ – that America was a land of equality, and all that was necessary to obtain that equality was for the conservatives to get out of the way.

The idea wasn't new. The Founding Fathers had written, and the new nation had adopted, a Constitution that deemed promotion of “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” as important reasons for its existence.ⁱⁱ The expectation of national support for those incapable of caring for their own needs was justified, and was there from the beginning. It was not unreasonable that those lacking them should feel entitled to assistance for food, housing, health care, child care, education, and any other form of assistance they might require. There was even a clause in the Constitution that authorized taxation to “provide for the ... general Welfare.”ⁱⁱⁱ What could be clearer and more fundamental than a national responsibility to provide welfare, and the blessings necessary for all its inhabitants.

The idea wasn't new. The Bible had made it clear that we all had an obligation to help the widow, and the orphan, for they were in need. Perhaps that obligation was a voluntary one, and it was up to all of us to give charity, but the responsibility to do so was not something lightly dismissed. Certainly the widow and the orphan needed our help. It was understandable for them to seek it.

But times have changed since the days of the Bible. What was once the widow and orphan is now anyone who claims to be in need – whether because of student loans, hunger, foreclosure, sickness, lack of a job, lack of a spouse, too many children, and other similar hardships. The needs of those afflicted by these ills of society have resulted not only in quiet suffering but in noisy demonstrations around the country,^iv demonstrations that now also include those suffering from ennui and envy of those who are better off than they. It is, according to them, the rich – the one percent – who are benefiting from American prosperity and denying the remaining ninety-nine percent what the Constitution guarantees. Conservatives may consider charity to be laudable and the proper way to care for those in need, but those who protest don't want charity – they want what is properly theirs and what has been stolen by the rich.

The American system supports that claim. Taxes are collected and used to pay for entitlement programs that finance almost all the needs that people claim. It was probably the government that was the source of the education loan, and it may have been the source of funds for the mortgage of the house that is now in default. There are certainly programs that provide food or food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, education, and general fiscal assistance. The Constitution guarantees it, and the taxpayers provide it. At least that's the contention.

But that's not the case. I used to believe that in violation of our laws, the conservatives and the rich stole from the poor and they should be made to pay for it. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm now convinced that we've been following the lead of Robin Hood – we are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, not that that's necessarily bad. I can only conclude that the liberals, who favor such policies, have lost faith in their fellows and no longer trust those who are able to do so, to give charity. So they make it a matter of government policy. It's a practical solution to a problem they perceive. And, in a certain way, it makes sense. But the sense it makes is one of perception and revenge only. Attention is focused on one solution – tax the rich – without looking at other possible solutions. It isn't even likely increasing the taxes on the “one percent” will have a significant impact on their desire to aid the rest. After all, the “rich” are already paying most of the income taxes^v and the others may not pay at all. ^vi That, however, doesn't matter. Their hearts are in the right place, and they're determined to deliver what the Founding Fathers promised.

Except they didn't. The references to “the general Welfare” in the Constitution are both directly linked to “the common Defense.”^vii The “Blessings of Liberty” were probably political rights rather than financial blessings. And taxes were to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare. They were not intended for feeding the hungry and supporting the poor. That wasn't the Founding Fathers' objective. Congress, on the other hand, has expanded both the concept of taxation and “welfare.” After all, it gets votes. And during the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration it served, to a degree,^viii to limit the damage caused by the Depression. But that was certainly an expansion of the initial mandate.

And by the time the government finished propping up the poor,^ix they had come to depend on the entitlements. If the Constitution didn't guarantee them, we did. The problem, of course, is that we can't afford it. The entitlements are considered too important to end. Poverty should be eliminated and the poor should be no different from anyone else. They've got it coming. We have an obligation to all of those who claim it, and if that means higher taxes, so be it. As long as they're taxes on someone else,^x especially the rich. It looks like the taxes will be on someone else, but that will be future generations. There have to be other solutions, and I'll discuss some of them next week.

Next episode: “Write If You Get Work” -- And hang by your thumbs.^xi

i     And still think.

ii    United States Constitution. Preamble.

iii    Ibid. Article I, section 8.

iv   Indeed, around the world. But those abroad are not covered by the United States Constitution, unless they're American citizens.

v     According to The American, in 2007, the top 10% of earners paid 68% of all income taxes collected. The National Taxpayers Union tells us that it was 69.94% in 2008.

vi   The Associated Press (April 7, 2010) notes that “About 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009, either because their incomes were too low or because they qualified for enough credits and deductions to eliminate their tax liability, according to projections by a private research group.” Indeed, because of those credits, many households will get more money back than they paid in taxes. Meanwhile, for the same year, “the top 10 percent of earners … paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

vii    In the first instance the word “defense” is not capitalized.

viii    World War II was the real solution to the social ills caused by the Depression.

ix    Very appropriately, the government has spent enormous amounts of tax money on bailing out those who are in need.

x     Not me! Tax someone else. I can't afford it.

xi     Bob and Ray.

Perception

 

I read in the New York Times today that the top one percent of earners in the United States increased their earnings in the thirty years beginning 1979 by 275 percent. And this increase exceeded that of the remaining ninety-nine percent.

I heard the same story on the radio, although in that version the income of the favored group had tripled. I won't focus on the difference since it isn't that great. But I'm uncertain of the significance of the information, and that's the case with incomplete statistics in general.ⁱ They sometimes lack the meaning which they seem to convey. In this instance the numbers are believed to prove the case presented by those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are touted as demonstrating that the Wall Street “fat cats” are stealing from the rest of us – that they're living high while the rest of us suffer.ⁱⁱ It's a typical bad guys versus good guys scenario.

But perception plays a large part in the Occupy Wall Street movement and in the concern over the 275 percent increased income of the top one percent since 1979. First of all, that group is different now from then, and includes sports, movie and TV stars like Oprah Winfrey, and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates. We've made them wealthy, though we focus on stock brokers when we wring our hands over their salaries. The comparison of groups that are different lacks the validity attributed to it. Perhaps the Wall Streeters haven't done so well while the nouveau riche have made out like bandits. If, for example, Oprah Winfrey has become a billionaire, we're still inclined to watch her with awe. No one begrudges his idols as much as they can wheedle out of the public. A well-paid baseball player is admired, even if his salary causes admission prices to go up. It's only the nameless bankers we hate.

And we shouldn't forget that a first class stamp then was 15 cents and the average rent $280. Nor that in 1979 undergraduate tuition at a typical private college, the University of Pennsylvania,ⁱⁱⁱ was $5,195. Times have changed. Many consumer items have more than tripled in the past three decades so that, in regard to some things, we are all falling behind. Does this mean that we should lower the salaries of our teachers? Of course not. We should, however, try to decide what the statistics mean rather than simply accept them as proof of an evil system. They provide some information, not condemnation.

Included in the article was other information. One point made was that “for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income^iv rose 18 percent.” Stated differently, their real income has increased by nearly a fifth during this period. The problem is not that they aren't doing better, it's that they're not doing as much better as others.

If everyone is doing better, yet it feels worse, and we're incurring greater debt,^v it would be worthwhile to consider why this is happening. Perhaps it is, in part, because our expectations have been raised and we have been indoctrinated into the idea that we are entitled to whatever we want. If we can't force the rich to give us what they have voluntarily, we may be able to convince the government to redistribute resources. In the meantime we can get most of what we want through credit card debt, balloon mortgages, college loans, and similar tactics. Unfortunately our runaway spending cannot go on forever – notwithstanding all the radio advertisements for companies that will help you avoid foreclosures, bankruptcy, high credit card costs and the like. Sooner or later someone has to pay for it, even if it's our children and grandchildren. There's no “app” that will pay all our debts and give us a spotless credit rating.^vi

My intent is not to defend or accuse. Class warfare is not the solution to our problem. Our incomes may have increased but so have our perceptions, expectations, and prejudices. We envy those better off than ourselves. Statistics mandates that there will always be a top one percent. We created them and we support them. Absent socialism, it's up to us to change our idea of "necessities" if we're going to affect the distribution of wealth.

i     There's a fascinating book entitled How To Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff, that discusses some of the conscious and unconscious errors of those presenting statistical information. They're not always lying. Sometimes they are simply making silly mistakes which look factual when they're all gussied up.

ii    I suspect that the percentage of crooks among the top one percent is no greater than for the rest of the population. In fact, it's probably lower, since they can afford lawyers to advise them as to how they can get what they want legally.

iii    I used U of P because its numbers were easily available, but all tuitions were a lot lower then.

iv    All the numbers are adjusted for inflation. They do not represent absolute incomes. The absolute numbers are considerably higher because the dollar has lost value since 1979.

v     Which we attribute to the thieves on Wall Street.

vi    Some of that debt results from the purchase of electronics, communications plans, and “apps,” and from the fact that many of the items we buy are greatly increased in price because of actual, but costly, improvements and with additional governmental regulations. In 1979, for example, according to WikiAnswers, “The average price of a car in 1979 was around $4,000 to $6,000, with some being a little over $3,000 and the high-end models being $10,000 or more.” With on-board computers, improved braking systems, changed fuel usage requirements, air bags, and the like, we're more comfortable and safer, but at a cost.

Plausible Deniability

 

My time of day is the dark time
A couple of deals before dawn
When the street belongs to the cop
And the janitor with the mop
And the grocery clerks are all goneⁱ

That's my time, too. It varies though, since dawn comes up at different times at different times of the year. And in my neighborhood the streets are mostly empty. No cops and no janitors. There's an occasional car which is usually driven by someone delivering newspapers to the houses nearby, or other things to the one store open at that ridiculous hour for the convenience of people on their way to work. They value a hot cup of joe to keep their eyes open as they drive.

I value the solitude; the quiet, and the time to think, provided by a walk through the empty streets, and the cool, or even cold, air of the morning. It's peaceful and it's private. I am unobserved and I am unsupervised.

Sky Masterson wanted to share his “time” with Miss Sarah Brown, and no one else. And that was possible at the time the story was written because it was before the time of video surveillance at every corner and at every store. But there is no privacy now in many areas, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision that it is a Constitutional right. Fortunately there are no camerasⁱⁱ along my early morning route so I can relax.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg also wanted privacy. In their case it was from the listening ears of Nazi intelligence officers. So they went for a hike in the Danish countryside. What they discussed wasn't recorded and they described their conversation differently, but there is no actual record documenting what they said. They wanted privacy and secrecy and they got both. As did “Andrey Botvinnik” and “John Honeyman,” who took walks in the woods near Geneva. Their conversations, in Lee Blessing's play,ⁱⁱⁱ conversations believed to be based on those of Soviet and American diplomats, involved nuclear policy and were unofficial discussions between two men who came to be friends. The conversations were off the record and the men could change their minds without international repercussions. Whatever they said could be denied. Plausible deniability is a valued and proper tool in government – even if it may seem to be unethical. But if something like WikiLeaks comes along it is hard to deny what was not intended for publication in the first place. Privacy in conversation, and the discipline not to reduce all our thoughts to the permanent record, are our best protections against nosiness and the urge to “let it all hang out.” There's no hiding from a working paper which may later be changed because it is recognized to be ill-considered, but which, in the meanwhile, found its way into the hands of someone more interested in “transparency” than laudable motives and results.

Those days, sadly, are over – the days of privacy and secrecy. You have to be suspicious of those you're with – even those you consider friends. With the miniaturization of transmitters, unsuspected everyday objects, like buttons or pens, can betray your words to others. And there are long-distance listening devices as well. The woods are no longer safe, even if you're talking to yourself.

But it does not require hidden cameras or transmitters. Surveillance cameras are everywhere and we have stopped noticing them. But more frightening to me is the fact that almost everyone carries around some sort of recording device. It may be a video camera or even a camera telephone. In some ways, I suppose, that's a good thing. But for the most part I think it intrusive. In fact, the portable telephone itself is not for me. I don't need to “touch” someone at all times. And I don't want to be called when I'm looking for privacy. Nor do I want to hear the conversations of others, which often shatter the peace I seek.^iv I don't need to hear someone screaming into the telephone what ought to be private information. I don't want to know. And I don't need to have my life placed at risk by another driver who may be more interested in gossip than in the road. There may be laws against such behavior, but they're violated so frequently that they might as well not exist. We certainly don't have the means to enforce them.^v

The unseen threats to our privacy are even worse. They're worse, in large part, because even if we know they're there, we don't think about them or recognize what they can do. We may even view them favorably if we are aware of their presence. Having a GPS chip which can connect to a distant site may be of help in locating us if there's an emergency. But most of the time there's no emergency. Even so, our telephones, GPS navigation system, hand-held computers and similar devices know where we are at all times. We're never alone, even when we want to be.

I admit it. I'm a hermit. So I may be oversensitive to intrusions. And I know there is no stopping what we view as progress, whether I like it or not. But, perhaps, technology, and its detritus, are coming at us too fast. Perhaps what we want is overwhelming what we need. I'm convinced that it is. I suspect that too many people are so seduced by the wizardry, the newly discovered abilities, the speed, and the convenience, that they are blinded to the implications. What looks as if it is freeing them is actually doing the opposite. Mae West thought “too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” But it can also be destructive.

Bohr and Heisenberg once hiked to Elsinore – the site of Hamlet's castle. Hamlet had his demons, in the form of ghosts. I have mine too. But they're in the form of Big Brother, and all my little brothers and sisters all around who may be watching me. Leave me alone. I just want peace and quiet. I don't want Sarah Brown, or anyone else, not even Mae West, sharing my private time.  I want to be alone.

Next episode: “I've Got It Coming” – Don't I?

i     Sky Masterson, from Guys and Dolls, by Frank Loesser.

ii     As far as I know.

iii    A Walk in the Woods, 1986.

iv    Nor do I need or want to hear the loud racket of ring tones which are presented to me from the pockets of others wherever I go, and most annoyingly during a concert or religious service.

v    At least not at present. The time will come, however, when automobile manufacturers will not only remove the devices they've already installed – telephones, computer screens, and the like – but will find a way, when the engine is running, to deactivate those brought into their vehicles from outside. Or at least those in the front seat. Taxi and bus drivers may get edgy without their telephones and intercoms, but we'll all be safer. Even GPS's are distracting.

Mistake

 

When I was in high school, one of my English teachers criticized an essay I wrote. I had tipped my hand. I had started with my judgment. It would have been stronger, he offered, if I had marshaled my arguments in such a way that the reader would have reached my conclusion before I did. Based on what I had written, the decision would have been inevitable. My teacher had offered excellent advice and I've tried to follow it. But not in this case.

I am convinced that the agreement by Israel to release more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners in order to gain the freedom of Gilad Shalit is a mistake. It is not a conclusion that I have reached easily, but I cannot see how any other determination can be sustained.

While it is one of our most important obligations to ransom those imprisoned, halakhah places limits on the price to be paid for a prisoner – a price which is somehow proportional to his value. Clearly that is hard to calculate, but there is no doubt that the price being paid in this instance exceeds any limits that might be imagined. It is far too high both in its actuality and in its potential.

I am not unmindful of Shalit's suffering nor of the pain and anguish of his family and friends. I am not unsympathetic. But I also sympathize with the families of those murdered by some of the prisoners about to be let go. And it is hard to avoid the likelihood that they will kill again. That is what has happened in the past with such trades, and it is reasonable to assume it will happen again. We must learn from history.

Neither am I unmindful of the arguments favoring release – which, among others, deal with humanity and national responsibility, military morale, and the feelings of families whose children are now, or in the future will be, in the military. It is a matter of national pride that Israel was able to negotiate for the return of a soldier who was stolen by the Palestinians and denied contact with his family or even with the Red Cross. Gilad Shalit will be returned to his family, and Israel will feel some relief. That family, and those in the military and their families, will be reassured that they won't be forgotten. It will be clear to them that no effort will be spared to gain their release if they are captured. It is argued that this knowledge will make them better and more courageous fighters. And it is a fair argument. That confidence will surely embolden them. Gilad Shalit will be home, ransomed by his country.

But the damage has already been done. Gilad Shalit cannot have spent five years in the hands of terrorists without suffering severe psychological damage. That, of course, is not a reason to abandon him, but the length of his imprisonment, its likely effects, and the fact that the government only took the decision when they decided they couldn't do better, weaken any argument that this represents a big gain for military morale. And if that argument has any merit, it is a thousand times more powerful as a boost for Palestinian fighters and their families. It must be very reassuring to them to know that they can kill and, if they do not die in the process, they stand a strong chance of being released. An Israeli prisoner may be reunited with his family, but a thousand Palestinians may be given the opportunity to kill again.

And its hard not to feel the resentment of those who have lost family members to terrorists, having only the imprisonment of the murderers as “compensation.” With the release of those responsible, they have nothing. It is understandable if they don't share the national pride. And, if those released do kill again, the anger of the families of their victims will also be understandable. The argument that present situations must be dealt with at present while future problems can be addressed when they occur has some merit, but it is hard to make that argument five years after the fact. All that is achieved now, apart from Shalit's release, is the “victory” of the Palestinians and the disappearance of an annoyance to those who support the Palestinians. Now all virtue will again be theirs, and all evil will be attributable to the government of Israel.

I'm glad Gilad Shalit will be free. But I think the price was too high. We have not learned from history. I can only pray that we will not repeat it.

Common Sense

“History is written by the victors.”ⁱ So said Winston Churchill – or at least the aphorism is attributed to him. The latter caveat is added because, as one individualⁱⁱ put it, “this 'proverb' is so manifestly true, that I believe almost every nation throughout history … [had thinkers who] … would easily observe this.” In fact, it is often quoted by historians who would caution their readers against believing everything they read – especially the work of other historians. Unfortunately, it seems that everyone seems to focus on the history itself.

From my perspective, however, the most interesting lesson which is taught by this maxim is embodied in the first three words – “History is written.” Our memories don't constitute adequate repositories of information for more than a limited period. What we know has to be recorded in some way. “Recorded history” relates to the time since writing was first used and, consequently, prehistoric times were those before people started writing.ⁱⁱⁱ Things happened then, and people presumably related them in some way to each other, but there is no written record of it – either what actually happened or what the victors chose to remember.

Thus the key to the past, and to the present, is writing.^iv Writing started, according to historians – whose word we take at face value – at least as early as the sixth millenium BCE.^v So it's been around a long time. Until the time of Gutenberg almost every written document was unique. There was occasional printing using wood blocks, but the vast majority of documents were written and not printed. However following the development of printing using movable type, attitudes changed. It was inevitable. Printing companies were soon established in order to allow the printing of multiple identical representations of what before had been limited to a single copy that had been, often laboriously, crafted by the document's author or a copyist.^vi

The printers allowed people to produce enough copies to sell or distribute otherwise – a process we now call “self-publication.” More recently, in the past few centuries, publishing companies have been established because, as with all commercial efforts, there was money to be made. So they weren't always viewed favorably. As recently as 1911, Encyclopedia Britannica described such ventures with disdain as "purely commercial affair[s]," emphasizing the profit motive rather than any effort to encourage literary excellence. Occasionally another motive played a part in the publish/don't publish decision,^vii but the decision was usually based on anticipated profits.

That, of course, meant that many authors with valuable messages, or superb writing ability, have not been able to find publishers. All-knowing publishers didn't believe that they could make a buck^viii on the work. So “self-publication” has become common. Some of our greatest documents were published by their authors. They include Tom Paine's Common Sense, as well as works by (among numerous others) L. Frank Baum, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, e. e. cummings, Benjamin Franklin, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, Rod McKuen, Edgar Allen Poe, Beatrix Potter, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Gertrude Stein and Walt Whitman.

So during the period of recorded history, publication by commercial publishers has been the exception rather than the rule. Many great works remained, for a long period, in manuscript form, either because printing was not available or because their value wasn't recognized.^ix Still we judge an individual author not by what he has written but by what he has published commercially. That means that we are willing to accept the judgment of those who are more concerned about profits than quality. And since (commercially) published books and periodicals get the most publicity,^x they get the most sales. So a “best-seller” list is usually comprised of commercially published books, and, while a self-published volume may be superior to those in the store, it is unusual for one to have many readers.

But printing companies still exist, and it isn't difficult^xi to have a work published this way. And publication on the internet of an “e-book” is becoming increasingly common. Unfortunately those who self-publish are too often viewed as egocentric and talentless writers by a public taught to believe that commercial firms are the best evaluators of what is good and bad. What is even sadder is that too many authors accept this point of view. If they write for a living they are compelled to write for whatever audience they can find, although many will not compromise with commercial interests. They value what they have to say more than what they, or someone else, can earn from their thoughts. So self-publication is the only option if they wish to circulate those thoughts.^xii And many of our most famous writers have chosen that route for some or all of their works.

That's what writing is. Its purpose is to record our thoughts. That's why it was developed, even if it has become something else – a way for commercial publishers to make a living. That can only be counted a necessary evil. Self-publication makes a work a “survivor”even if it is not a “victor.” It is a way that writing is remembered. Writing took a long time to come about and it would be a shame if we saw its only purpose as a way for someone to make a living. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Next episode: “Plausible Deniability” – That's not what I said. Nor is anything else.

i     Or, at least, by the survivors. They're the ones who are around to tell the (a) story, and it's usually one that favors their point of view – even if they weren't always the victors.

ii     Chris Mangum on The Puritan Board – April 16, 2008.

iii    Even if there is a recording in another form – the paintings on cave walls, for example – without writing the material is considered prehistoric.

iv    Nowadays there are extensions of the written word such as sound recording, but the vast majority of information is in written form, even if it is on line or tweeted. And, as you'll see, the written word is the one of greatest interest to me.

v     The Dispilio Tablet, a wooden tablet with some form of written markings on it, is carbon-14 dated at about 5,260 BCE.

vi    Actually, printing companies were established to make money. With new technology come new opportunities to do so.

vii   Howard Fast's Spartacus was rejected by several publishers during the McCarthy era because, as a former member of the Communist Party, he had been blacklisted. In fact, he was jailed for contempt of Congress because he refused to name donors to a home for Spanish Civil War orphans. He eventually published Spartacus himself, and later established the Blue Heron Press to publish his other writings.

viii    Or a pound, or whatever.

ix    Every now and then a story appears in the newspaper about an unpublished literary or musical work that was discovered in a library, or in a closet or drawer or box somewhere. It's usually the work of someone already famous. (Who would be interested in reading the unpublished work of a “nobody?” So when those are found they're usually discarded.)

x     One of the functions of a publisher is to hawk his wares. After all, they make money by selling what they've published, so they do whatever they can to increase those sales.

xi    It isn't inordinately expensive either.

xii    Unfortunately not all thoughts are circulated, and this means that many great works have been lost and many more will be in the future. Self-publication at least gives a “commercially not viable” work the possibility of being seen and, perhaps, “discovered.”