Deferential, Not Preferential

The ongoing FBI investigations spawned from the convictions and subsequent pre-sentencing cooperation plea-bargains of Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham are leading federal investigators into the offices and homes of many former and current public officials. Now, the leadership of this nation, with bipartisan support, thinks that the FBI should not be allowed to raid the Congressional offices in search of evidence, even with the proper warrants and court orders. High ranking officials in some departments are even threatening to resign should they not get their way.

(I will mention Rep. Jefferson here as well, since it is his case that brought about the wider debate on FBI searches. I’m not picking on just Republicans either. Mr. Jefferson needs to do some hard time for his crimes; least of all for being so incredibly stupid as to keep the cash in his freezer. I think he’s been watching too many drug movies on BET.)

We are witnessing the growth of a police state that insists upon monitoring the day to day communications of its citizens without legal precedent in direct violation of both the 4^th and 9^th amendments of the Constitution, now turn and demand that they be immune from the very same ‘justice’ they have been so eagerly willing to impose upon the American people. Should you or I become suspects in a criminal enterprise, there would be no stopping the local sheriff, the CIA, the FBI, or even the local building inspector from kicking in the front door and entering our homes and offices at will.

Why are the politicians demanding an exemption, due to their chosen profession, from the rules we must follow, and why is the President, one who campaigned on being a ‘straight shooter’, now backing away from enforcement of the law and calling for a ‘cooling off period’? (He never gave Saddam Hussein that option.) We already know the answers to these questions, but do we really know the core problem, or what to do about it? Without the force of law, how can government ever be held accountable?

The core principle of American jurisprudence is “Equality under the Law”; a credo that extends the rights, freedoms, liberties, protections, and responsibilities equally to each and every American, and even non-citizens within American borders. It is how we, as a nation, express our desire to treat each and every human being with dignity and courteous respect. Being ‘under’ this rule of law implies a bond between all those under its jurisdiction; a connection making each person as accountable as the next to ensure that the balance required for an orderly civilization and a free society are maintained. Those who deem themselves ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ the law destroy that national unity this principle was intended to preserve.

Now I know and you know that this principle has been corrupted long ago. Men of riches are tried under different circumstances than men of limited means. We have seen pretty women escape the harsh penalties applied to ugly men for the same crimes, as they invoke the sympathy of judges and prosecutors. A black man can hardly enter an American courtroom and ever expect to win an acquittal. That principle, no matter how perverted, is still worth reverently working to achieve. Yet, this administration, along with many influential members of Congress, now decides to debauch this core principle even further.

I cannot begin to express the shame I feel for being an American right now. While we are asked to forego the liberties and protections for ‘special circumstances’, those who impose those restrictions continue to find new ways to exempt themselves from compliance. The American system is meant to be one of deferential treatment of all, and not preferential exemptions for the few wishing to escape accountability.

“Civilization is built on a number of ultimate principles...respect for human life, the punishment of crimes against property and persons, the equality of all good citizens before the law...or, in a word justice.” (Max Nordau, 1849 - 1923)

An Identity You Shouldn't Steal

While at the gym last Friday night, an attractive middle-aged woman climbed up onto the treadmill to me and as she began her workout she stared rather intently in my direction. It’s routine for gym members and staff to ‘check each other out’ so I thought nothing of it until she made serious, lasting eye-contact with me. Not one to imagine myself the object of any woman’s deepest sexual desires, I was forced at that point to ask “Excuse me, but is something wrong?”

She answered “No. Not at all! I was just wondering. Is your name, by chance, Gary?”

“Well, if you have money for Gary or something else pleasurable in mind, then yes, my name could be Gary.” I replied jokingly.

She understood right away that I wasn’t Gary and she smiled, laughed a little and then said “No. No. Nothing like that. Gary was an old friend of our family and we haven’t seen him for ages. You look just like him.”

“Really?” I asked. “Is this Gary a nice fellow?”

“Yes. Why yes he is! Nicest guy in the world.”

“Then I am honored to be mistaken for him! But let’s hope and pray he is never confused for me! That wouldn’t be fair to poor Gary!” I certainly wouldn’t wish my sullied and noxious reputation bestowed upon such a fine and beloved soul.

If this woman was handing me a pick-up line, I missed it completely. If she wasn’t, it is likely that I posed the sort of self-deprecating witticism she could not grasp having not grown up in environs where false humility is a roundabout way of showing conceit.. That would easily explain the ensuing twenty minutes of perfect silence between us for the course of our exercising. Either way, I can only hope that people will utter similar praises regarding my character, when I remain away, that they do about the adored and very much sought after Gary in his own absence.

It’s doubtful though.

Kol Tuv

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Reluctant Curiosity : 9-11 Questions (Part 1)

Since few read this blog anyhow, I thought it would be good place to post my thoughts on the very, very controversial and provocative dialogue surrounding the WTC attack on Sept. 11^th, 2001. Over the last four and half years I have racked my brain and searched my conscience over details of the event, aftermath, and consequence of the attack, both in terms of the effects our nation and around the world. It is not a pretty picture.

To say that I was ‘searching my conscience’ implies two important things. First, would I blindly accept the government’s rendition of the events and, if I were to question my government, would I ever be courageous enough to publicize my skepticism, especially in a political atmosphere dominated by fervent nationalism? It may be honorable and a free-thinking man’s right to question the government, but it can be equally dangerous as well. I have walked away from a least few heated debates on the issue, and I advise most people to do the same. It’s not worth getting beat up over. (If you’ve been reading this blog, you would already know how outspoken I am on most subjects. So my reluctance here, in this case, should tell you just what level of apprehension I feel.)

It is not as if I thought the Bush administration was lying about the attack immediately after it happened. Like most Americans, I went along with what seemed to be a plausible and reasonable series of events and the identities of the alleged players in this disaster. I am an American, born and bred, and though I believe that all governments tend toward some level of deceit and corruption, I also believed there was some limit to what they would be willing to do. Banking scams, favors for international corporations, supporting dictators, etc. were old news in D.C., but there wasn’t any reason to assume our government would have the audacity to participate in the killing of innocent American citizens on such a large and public scale, no matter what the political ends may be. I may have been wrong about that and I wish, oh how I wish, that I was not.

If you bring up questions about the government’s account you can be pretty sure that eyes will roll and you will be lumped in with the “Grassy Knoll” Kennedy assassination theorists, the Roswell Area 51 cover-up bunch, Moon Landing deniers, and the latest reports of the ‘Bigfoot.’ All this, even before the real discussion begins. I agree that there are some wacky theories out there for just about everything one can imagine, so I’ll set the record straight on my position here. I do not subscribe to the other ‘conspiracy theories’ or crypto-zoological nonsense. I approach the event as any detective would try to analyze a suspect’s testimony to ascertain its truthfulness. I do not have to know what the truth is to know that the suspect in question might be lying to me and, once I discover that his credibility is lacking, I have reason to probe further into the mystery.

Already having a suspicious nature when it comes to government makes it both easier and harder to ask questions. I have to make sure that I am not ‘wishing’ the questions into reality based upon my preconceived, although justified, mistrust of government. It is that very justification for such skepticism, well supported by history, that I base my initial assumption; this even before I begin to consider the facts of 9-11.

History, however, doesn’t tell me that governments always tell lies, but that they are willing to do so for specific purposes. The sinking of the Maine in 1898, along with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, provided the United States with the opportunity to escalate military involvement in certain regions of the world, even though the evidence was scanty and the reasoning specious. The governments of the day, with the help of willing journalists, knew they could ‘sell’ the war by appealing to the people’s justifiable outrage and sense of patriotism. It has happened more than once.

Conspiracy
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.

The reason I posted the various definitions of ‘conspiracy’ is so there would be no doubt as to what I am referring when I use the word. Generally, those who question the official story are labeled ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ and dismissed out of hand. Truth is, that whether you favor the government’s account or the other possible scenarios, you will end up supporting one conspiracy theory or the other, depending which you prefer. The question remains as to who the conspirators are, how they conspired, and why they conspired to commit those acts. The 9-11 Commission Report tells us that nineteen Moslem men, from various Moslem nations, without any formal military or aviation training, armed only with box-cutters, coordinated and executed, with almost military precision, the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. This was done under the direction and leadership of a dissident Saudi and Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.

The government’s account is actually quite tidy, but it smacks to me of “rounding up the usual suspects”, and then pasting placards all over town stating what everyone would think is the obvious anyhow. It reminds me of other famous cases wherein the suspects were naturally assumed to be African-American or Hispanic and then, once evidence came to light, the actual criminals were not only Caucasians, but the accusers themselves! (Susan Smith blamed a ‘black guy’ for abducting and drowning her children, and the ‘Runaway Bride’ claimed to have been kidnapped by Mexicans.)

In this day and age there is no better scapegoat than the Moslem. Fact is, you have Moslem groups all over the world committing horrible acts of terror on non-military civilians and each other. Suicide bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, roadside bomb attacks on US personnel, and international drug trafficking are just a few of the violently criminal acts perpetrated by radical Islamic groups who, by the way, aren’t shy about taking credit for their handiwork. So, if my government is going to tell me that Islamist hijackers committed horrific acts of terrorism anywhere at anytime, I would be apt to believe their story without question. Wouldn’t you? If you were to hear on the news about a mugging in an inner city neighborhood, would you not think to yourself “The black guy did it”?

This ‘scapegoating’ of Moslems gets even easier when you consider all the cultural, religious, genetic, and nationalistic differences between them and the average American. If you need a good scapegoat, find a guy who doesn’t look like you, comes from a place you’ve never heard of, speaks a language you can’t understand, worships a deity not of your liking, and who has co-religionists who already display a propensity for terror. The truth is, the government could have easily pulled nineteen random photographs from the Tunisia High School Class of 1988 yearbook, posted them up on the evening news, and we would be none the wiser as to their real identities. It’s just that easy. After all, if your own government tells you that the third picture from the left is Mohammed Atta, how are you going to argue with them? You’d never think to question, and no one could blame you for not asking.

So what makes me ask? “Curiosity!” said the cat. Ultimately, we have to accept one conspiracy theory or the other. My curiosity as to the other possibilities is sparked by questions surrounding the chronology of events, the unusual deviation of government agencies from normal operation procedures, lack of transparency, and a careful analysis of the science behind the collapse (or demolition) of the WTC and Building 7. I am driven to question, and in that inquiry, I have already learned a great deal, even if the ultimate question goes unanswered.

More to come! When? I don’t know.

“A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions--as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844 – 1900)

Kol Tuv

Familiarity Breeds Contempt (Avos 1:5)

1:5 “Yose ben Yochanan, man of Jerusalem, says: Allow your home to be wide open, treat the poor as you would your own children, and don’t talk too much to the wife. (This ends the words of YbY and the compiler adds a few notes of his own.) They said this even regarding one’s own wife. How much more it applies when referring to someone else’s! From here the Sages conclude that anyone who engages in conversation with the wife causes evil to himself, neglects the Torah, and his end will be in Hell.”

We covered the first part of Yose ben Yochanan’s dictum (charity with dignity) and now we move to the second (or third) portion in which he warns us not to engage in too much conversation with women. The connection of the first and second part of the mishnah should be obvious. Yose ben Yochanan is telling us that when offering lodging and food, something which is primarily the responsibility of the household matron; the man should only engage in conversation pertaining to the mitzvah at hand and not beleaguer her or the guests with idle conversation. At least this is how it is usually explained.

I have more practical explanation along the same logic. When Janice and I entertain, which is rare, I do my best to help her out with whatever needs to be done in the kitchen, and the more I talk to her, the angrier she gets and eventually , when her patience is worn down, she tells me to disappear until summoned by her at some later time. Maybe it’s just not a good idea for the man to be hanging around the kitchen trying to offer suggestions. She knows what she’s doing, so I shut up. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is what Yose ben Yochanan and the later rabbis are suggesting.

The ancient Jewish attitude toward women has always been highly misogynistic. Judaism was a patriarchal, polygamous society even up into the rabbinic era. Men had total control of the religion, the home, and the nation. The Torah tells us of the Sotah (Numbers 5:11-31), a woman suspected without proof of being unfaithful to her husband. She is publicly humiliated in various ways, as if she is already guilty, and never permitted to offer one word in her own defense. The apparent disdain for wives began even before Moshe decided what to do on behalf of insecure husbands. Among the laws concerning assault and battery of individuals (Exodus 21), be they slaves or fellow free Israelites, never once does it forbid a husband, or set specific damages, for spousal abuse. Slaves, in ancient Israel had more rights and protections than did married women. This misogynistic trend found its way into the daily prayer books as well. Each morning, men recite the blessing “Blessed are…….for not making me a woman.” (The opening lyrics to the country classic “Stand By Your Man” come to mind.)

Even in the language of our Mishnah we see a marked disrespect of women in general. Yose ben Yochanan does not refer to the woman as “his wife” (ishto), but as “the woman”, not even wanting to attach himself in a personal way to the bearer of his children and keeper of his household. It seems as if “the woman” is to be treated as an inanimate object or, at best, as an employee or servant.

Nevertheless, I do find some logic in Yose ben Yochanan’s words. If we take into consideration the time and place of the statement is makes more sense. There is no doubt that the man is, legally and socially, the ‘king of his castle’ in ancient Israel. Wives are the property of their husbands and culturally bound to fulfill his needs and desires (within certain limits). In order for the man to maintain his position of authority, he must not become too familiar with those he has to govern and manage. It works the same way in business and the military. It is quite rare to find a manager or officer who can be completely friendly and open with subordinates and continue to maintain his authority over them. As they say “Familiarity breeds contempt”, and Yose ben Yochanan wants the man to know that if, in the midst of all the pressure involved, he cracks and looses his composure or tells his wife about the stress he currently undergoes, she would lose respect for him as an authority figure. Yose ben Yochanan assumes that if a wife were to ever know her husband’s vulnerabilities that she would lose respect for him and possibly manipulate those weaknesses to her own advantage.

In his defense, there are, in fact, many wives who would do just that given the opportunity. The irony is that many women who manipulate vulnerabilities come from authoritarian households to begin with, and learn early on, albeit subconsciously, that power figures cannot be directly challenged yet can be defied through more passive aggressive tactics. This means that her behavior away from him would become vastly different from her behavior in his presence. An efficient authority figure can manage from a distance, as long as he shows no sign of weakness. Too much intimacy and conversation with a wife becomes, according to Yose ben Yochanan, an indicator of a flimsy family structure. (It is also apparent that Yose ben Yochanan had some vulnerabilities of his own.)

In light of the contextual, situational, and cultural factors, it seems that this explanation aptly suits the words of Yose ben Yochanan.

Kol Tuv

Service With A Smile (Avos 1:5)

Many Orthodox Jewish congregations have a custom, during the six weeks between Passover and the Pentecost, to read a chapter from the Ethics of the Fathers, known in Hebrew as Pirkei Avos. This part of the Mishnah is a short collection of moral, ethical, and philosophical adages and saying of the Sages.

Pirkei Avos provides an excellent overview of rabbinic Jewish ethics and ideals. Its teachings are often taken not only as very sound advice for specific situations, but as eternal truths stemming from the influence of Divine wisdom gathered through rigorous study and devotion to Torah. The Bartenura, a commentary on Pirkei Avos, cites this in his first comments of Chapter One, and concludes that even if other philosophical or ethical works say exactly the same things; those philosophers were speaking from self-serving motives and not from a divinely inspired source. This is why, according to the Bartenura, that gentile systems of ethics are inadequate.

The Talmud (Bava Kama 30a) says that in order to become a truly pious Jew one must adhere to the teachings of Pirkei Avos. It is for this reason that Pirkei Avos is so widely read and followed. It is also, at first glance, very easy to read and comprehend. There are no obscure references to ritual, no intricate debates over minutiae, and the entire text is in Mishnaic Hebrew and easily translated. Newcomers to Jewish learning are often steered to these teachings in order to familiarize themselves with the ethical attitude which provides the grounding for the fulfillment of the Torah.

I considered writing a full commentary on the entire tract, but once I realized the scope of the undertaking that idea quickly vanished. I am sure that many of you will take issue with my take on the Sages advice and wisdom. I am also certain I will be bombarded with ‘legitimate’ alternative sources and arguments, meaning that only interpretations and explanations that fit into the sources already accepted by the Orthodox community are valued; all others, mine included, be damned.

Here goes!

1:5 “Yose ben Yochanan, man of Jerusalem, says: Allow your home to be wide open, treat the poor as you would your own children, and don’t talk too much to the wife. (This ends the words of YbY and the compiler adds a few notes of his own.) They said this even regarding one’s own wife. How much more it applies when referring to someone else’s! From here the Sages conclude that anyone who engages in conversation with the wife (or any other woman) causes evil to himself, neglects the Torah, and his end will be in Hell.”

Parts one and two tell us to open our homes to those in need and to treat them with the same deference, respect, and care that we would show to any of our beloved family members. The meaning here is to remind us not to condescend to those less fortunate when they arrive at our home in their hour of desperation. One should never say “If the pauper comes to me for help then I can treat him anyway I like. If he doesn’t like it he can find food elsewhere!” As a host, one is not only bound to supply biological needs, but also instill a sense of honor and dignity for those he assists, since they, too, have emotional needs. Their desperate state does not grant anyone the right to denigrate their person. Parts one and two ask us to combine open giving with dignity. It seems straight forward enough.

Part two (dignity), however, appears redundant. One might ask “How could charity be without dignity? Isn’t it a commandment?” One would think that all commands are filled in a spirit of dignity. Fact is that without poorer people the rich among us might not ever have the opportunity to perform a kindness! Their situation, bad as it seems, offers an opportunity. So we have to wonder if YbY is speaking of all times or just for one specific time where it might be much more difficult to keep up a patient front and an open door. It is for this reason that YbY is described as a ‘man of Jerusalem’, which denotes someone of high stature and wealth in a very specific geographical locale.

The Torah commands (Exodus 23:17) “Three times a year all of your males must appear before the face of the Master, Yhvh.” It was mandatory for each Jewish male to make the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem on the festivals of Passover, Tabernacles, and Pentecost. It is also likely that men brought their entire family into Jerusalem for the event, even if they could not enter the Temple grounds. Imagine for a moment if every man, woman, and child in the entire state of Israel were to simultaneously pack up and seek food and lodging within the walls of Jerusalem. Consider how crowded and noisy the streets would become; overloaded with the various dialects and attitudes that make up the 12 Tribes of Israel. Such an event, even in ancient times, would make rush hour in Manhattan feel like the open plains of North Dakota.

It is in this particular situation that Yose ben Yochanan has to remind us to continue to deliver charity with dignity. The stress one might endure from having of thousands of people thronging to the city, filling the streets, knocking on doors seeking lodging or food, the long lines at stores, the animals brought for sacrifice, the smell of sweat and urine, and the vendors of all kinds coming to take advantage of the heavily packed venue. Imagine refugees flooding your home town seeking shelter. That comes with some real pressures. Too many guests for too long a time would throw off the equilibrium of any community, and would lead to a disintegration of manners and hospitality. Have some friends stay over at your home for a couple weeks and you’ll know exactly what I mean.

Therefore, Yose ben Yochanan has to remind us that this dignity is not only based on our sense of fulfilling a Torah precept with proper respect, but also to show a respect due to those who have come from distant regions to fulfill a command of Yhvh. Our hospitality and charity is a two-part benevolence, offering necessities as a means to help others who have come to fulfill a commandment. Just as one would help his own children to fulfill the Torah, so too should we be willing to happily help others do the same.

As he was also called a ‘man of Jerusalem’, his house was likely a well-known destination on this pilgrimage and likely of some renown for some distance outside the walls of the city. Every knowledgeable traveler knows where the good soup kitchens are found and which of the rich neighborhoods would accept a lodger if need be. I suspect that Yosi ben Yochanan’s patience was tested more than once in that harrowing situation, and therefore he comes now to offer advice about keeping one’s cool under the enormous pressure.

(Note: Some suggest that Yose ben Yochanan was the Chief Judge of the Jerusalem court. One has to wonder why the Mishnah didn’t explicitly say so.)

Commentary on part 3 (the wife part) is under way.

Kol Tuv

Depression & Perspective

Depression is commonly associated with sadness or melancholy by a society that demands full-time satisfaction and happiness. It’s almost as if experiencing emotional trauma without an obvious and shared reasoning is somehow an act of treasonous ingratitude toward a world that provides so much for so many, especially when compared with other societies where the diagnosis of clinical depression doesn’t ever occur to them because they are too busy searching for food, shelter, and avoiding genocide. I am made to feel that I am sub-normal because my ‘condition’ is not assuaged by the prosperity and relative quietude of my circumstance. We have all heard the classic parental admonition over a child’s refusal to submit to mealtime tyranny which goes “Eat your dinner! There are children in Africa that are starving! You should be grateful!” If only all remediation were that simple.

It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway (it’s my blog after all), that placing one's circumstances in perspective can be very healing. I am pleased to no end that I was sufficiently fortunate to have been sired in a modern era, within the borders of a free nation, and although we were never more than working-class drones, we still enjoyed the benefits of a relatively prosperous society. (I’m also happy that I was never asked to provide postage for all the food I would have had to send to hungry nations. Just how much is postage to Sri Lanka? How long does macaroni and cheese keep if shipped cargo?) Yet, that realization doesn’t prevent personal pain or suffering. My biochemistry is the same as the starving Salvadoran. The vast difference in situation does not change the natural process of how pain, pleasure, or emotional stability come to be. Does sadness hurt any more or less to a Bedouin? Should my pain simply disappear because I live in a land of plenty?

In part, the answer is yes. Prosperity offers some leisure and the luxury of not having to spend all your waking hours searching for those items required for biological survival. In addition, living in a freer society without the rigid controls of the state, church, or king allows me enough liberty to pursue ideas and coping mechanisms. The services required are available and the wherewithal to take full advantage of them is at hand (for most). So, they’re right. I’ll concede this point. If one is being told to be happy that he or she is not lingering in a destitute refugee camp somewhere in Rwanda, such a reminder seems like a perfectly reasonable and realistic way to put our own emotional suffering into better perspective.

Yet, there is another side to the story. Consider this. If now, where I have my basic needs met, I am still feeling depressed, then how can those, living under horrible conditions not be depressed even more so? Projecting ones own thinking pattern onto me is misguided enough, but then to project the thinking of people one has never encountered while appraising a circumstance not yet endured seems patently absurd. That’s a third party projection once removed (in my book) and not a valid argument for anything, especially when I don’t have the leeway to point that logic back at my accuser! How can someone tell me just how the Rwandan refugee actually feels without asking him? Not to mention that informing children that there are hungry children all over the world might leave them feeling even more depressed! (All this added to the fact that now we must bear the guilt of somehow invalidating someone else’s suffering by our refusal to obediently take part in pleasure.)

Perspective, however, only works on a clear-thinking person. It takes a calmer psyche to digest the full import of situational comparisons. Depression is not a rational animal. Though bouts of depression can be induced by traumas such as grief, bankruptcy, or illness, generally clinical long-term depression is not directly due to any external factors. Many live through such horrific circumstances and either become strengthened by them or show no effects at all. A family history of depression is a distinct possibility. I know that depression runs (or usually just lies around on the couch watching movies) in my family. There is a vicious cycle of genetics, socialization, and denial that feeds and fosters this predisposition to depression, and it doesn’t matter if one is immensely wealthy or terribly impoverished. Depression is an equal opportunity disease, but one won’t contract it unless there is already a susceptibility to it.

This perspective is a reminder to remain rational as possible, even in the midst of a gnawing depression. It won’t remedy that depression any more than the child in Boston who dutifully masticates his or her spinach (is spinach even food?) rescues an African child from starvation, but it will, with steady application, remind us of our place and time. We are not living in vacuums or in a universe specifically designed to meet our emotional requirements. There are other things going on the we must take part in and, if perspective provides anything useful, we become a teeny-tiny bit more rational, and thus emotionally competent (albeit for the moment), enough to ‘go through the motions’ and do what we need to not make the situation even worse.

One Day at a Time.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” (Marcus Aurelius)

Kol Tuv

Mother's Daze?

My father used to joke that the reason Yiddish was called the “Mama Loshen” (mother tongue) was due to the fact that she, the Jewish mother, did most, if not all, the talking. I can’t speak for other matriarchs, but in my family that witticism revealed a very stark reality, and one reason I dread calling or visiting my mother. It’s not that I don’t love her or care about her. In my own detached and arrogant way I care about her needs and feelings. I just prefer not to sit through half an hour of listening to her babble on and on before she finally says what she planned on saying when she first picked up the phone. Without exaggeration, I can set down the phone, prepare a couple of sandwiches, open a beer, boot up my computer, and then return to the phone without my mother ever knowing I was gone. Mother and I also have some history between us that skews our relationship in a bad way.

Among my worst character flaws, and there are certainly enough of those to be thoroughly ashamed, is having little patience for things that don’t interest me and, as poetic justice seems to curse one closest to home, the range of my very own mother’s coherent conversational capabilities are severely limited to the mundanely pedestrian. It’s not that she doesn’t try to pontificate on every subject under the sun. Need legal or medical advice? My mother will eagerly offer you a consultation free of charge. Her generosity with counsel, however, does not offset her cerebral ineptitude. Mother isn’t all that bright and tends to follow the path of least intellectual resistance when assessing an event or idea. Her linear thinking doesn’t leave much room for imagination, and coupled with lack of formal education and a healthy dose of over-worrying anxiousness, it turns out that even if she miraculously diagnoses the problem correctly her solution for said problem remains wholly inadequate. That she has managed to do as well as she has is a testament to some internal quality or good fortune that remains yet undiscovered.

Since she was widowed last year, she has changed, and perhaps for the better. She began confiding more of her concerns to me, her eldest child, to a much greater extent than I’m comfortable with and much more so than she does with my brother or either of my sisters, with whom she has daily, if not hourly, contact. Mother is starting to worry more about her health now and she has been having panic attacks over finances. Her physical symptoms are being treated by a very competent physician. For the psychology, however, she’s now taken to calling me at odd hours. All this is bringing out an existential side to my mother that I’ve never seen before, and if you think listening to her blather on about carpeting was irritating, just imagine what happens to my blood pressure when the conversation becomes a mutated parody of “Tuesdays with Morrie”, wherein mother plays the grand and wise matriarch of all that exists on heaven and earth right after admitting she has no idea what is going on around her.

I realize that her health isn’t what it used to be. In five years, Mother has lost the business, her mother, and her husband. Mortality doesn’t require great genius to find acknowledgement. I sense that part of her wants to apologize for something she imagines that she did or didn’t do sometime ago before it’s too late to make amends. She believes I am mad at her and she is correct. I am. She knows the reason, but true to form, she deflects the responsibility onto her late husband and then offers me advice on how to cope with my disappointment. Let me just say that I am ‘coping’ fine, and to guarantee my sanity I choose to maintain a safe geographical and emotional distance from her. If she is counting on me provide for her some emotional ‘anchor’, she is in for a rude awakening. I leave that task to my siblings. They are stronger people than I.

That she allowed my father to raise me on his own was a great blessing. My father had his faults but, by comparison, my father’s silence and psychic distance were infinitely more tolerable than her ranting mother-hen impressions. I bear her no ill will on account of my childhood. Even the religious differences that came about later on created no particular issue. With my mother it was about business, always about the business, and like the Mafioso who kisses your cheek and then shoots you in the back saying “Hey. Nuthin personal. It’s juzz bizness ya know”, my mother, too, could turn from loving and trusting parent to mob goon when it came to her business. That she expects her son to suddenly forget how he was screwed over is a little unrealistic. Mother is good at having high expectations of other’s sense of forgiveness.

So before I called my mother this Mother’s Day, I took a deep breath, put everything in proper perspective and dialed her cell number. After the ritual introduction phase of the conversation wherein mother divulged each and every detail of my sibling’s lives, she asked me “Are you mad at me for something?” I answered “Yes.” There was an eerie silence on her end of the line and before she could speak I said “But that doesn’t mean I don’t care about you or that I am doing anything that I normally would or wouldn’t do. I am who I am and I have my own feelings to sort out. It may have been a long time ago, but it was very hurtful for me.” With that she did seem a little comforted. For her, as long as I act the dutiful and loving son, and even if only for a short phone call now and then, it really doesn’t matter to her how I really feel. The reassurance is all she wants. Beyond that, she can use her imagination to conjure any variant inner reality of her choosing.

There were no tears of either joy or sorrow this Mother’s Day. There never are. She asked me if I had heard from any of my own children and, sadly, the answer was still ‘no’. I wished her a “Happy Mother’s Day”, asked her to send regards to my siblings, nieces and nephews, and she reminded me to call more often and maybe even come up for a visit. As always I said that I would and that maybe, if I have some vacation time, I would pay them a visit. For my mother’s part, she stoically endured the usual passive-aggressive sign off that she receives each time she parts company from her eldest child, choosing once again not to call me on my bluff.

I can’t be closer to her than what I can be for the moment. The storybook family sing-a-longs, holiday dinners, and walks along the beach are not my forte, nor are they hers, but she dreams of me gracefully performing the very thing that she herself cannot manage. I am reconciled to this reality. She continues searching for something she will not get in return. I would tell her to leave off her regrets, but she is as apt to take my advice now as I was to ever take hers. More futile effort is not needed.

I love you, Ma. Please accept that this love has to be from a safe distance. For both of us.

"Woolly"

Woolly has been hanging out around the house for a few months now. I managed to brush him well and give him a flea treatment. He is friendly enough and not aggressive toward the other cats. He is probably around 10 years old. He is named for his thick matted coat and slow, ponderous walk.

Lilacs

French lilacs in bloom (May '06)

"I am thinking of the lilac-trees, that shook their purple plumes, and when the sash was open, shed fragrance through the room." (Anna S. Stephens, from The Old Apple Tree)

"When lilacs last in the door-year bloom'd,
And the great star early droop'd in the western sky in the night,
I mourn'd--and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring."
(Walt Whitman, from Leaves of Grass)

The Prodigal Son Returns!

Silo

After at least a week of panic and subsequent dealing with the possibilities, Silo the Cat completed his return home at 4:30 am. I leave the window open in the bedroom and the cats come and go from a ladder that runs from the roof of my shed up to the bedroom. I awoke to a jolt from his jump from window to bed and the trilling of his happy noise. Cats have a very intricate language, at least for those who are talkers.

I’m so happy he’s back and I’m trilling in my own way. He seems very happy, too, and though he has always been super sweet and affectionate, he seems especially so now. So far, in spite of the rigorous implementing of severe interrogation techniques i.e. hugging, catnip, back scratches, and cuddling, Silo stubbornly refuses to divulge any information as to where he was or what he was doing while away from home. We may have to accept his silence as implying that we humans are on a ‘need to know’ basis only.

I want to thank my neighbors for helping in the search for Silo. There are still reported sightings of him in other parts of the neighborhood even though he is already back at home. Perhaps I underestimated his powers. In any event, he has become the most popular animal in the area by virtue of the flyers and door to door searches that were conducted.

Silo wasn’t hurt or injured in any way. We suspect that someone who didn’t know him wrongly, though kindly, assumed he was a stray and took him in and it was after the publicity they realized they should let him back out to go home. He has a collar, that should have indicated a home, but it’s certainly no guarantee. Silo does have a microchip implanted somewhere on his anatomy, but I am looking into buying a GPS locator for animals. They are very expensive.

Her High-Esteemed-Lordship-Princess-of-the-Realm is not too excited about Silo’s return. I think she liked having the house to herself. She remains aloof and unavailable for comment.

Thanks for all your best wishes!

Kol Tuv

"Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function." (Garrison Keillor)

Births of Desperation

In the world most of us bloggers come from, the societal problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and poverty are merely academic. We catch bits and pieces of the most recent reports and statistical data on a news talk show or a blurb on one of various radio news outlets or websites. Many of us have heard about reproductive issues so much and so often that these reports become white noise. The numbers are up, the numbers go down, the Republicans take credit, and the Democrats think we can do better. In the meantime, we flip channels looking for more titillating subject matter.

This doesn’t mean to imply that those of us operating the remote controls are uncompassionate or uncaring. Our apathy is caused by the safe distance of our circumstance in not being part of those experiences ourselves. We may imagine that unwanted pregnancy is something tragic that happens to someone very much unlike ourselves, perhaps through neglect or ignorance, and we are probably right about feeling so. Let’s face it. Educated, economically stable women have fewer instances of unwanted pregnancies and abortions that their less well-off counterparts. Every study that matches demographics to educational or economic status says so. Who am I to argue?

Now to our logic, common sense would demand that poorer people consider their economic standing to a much greater degree than would middle or upper class persons who are planning to have children. If you can’t afford it then don’t do it, right? Makes perfect sense to you and I, but somehow, in the ‘logic’ of the lower economic strata, it doesn’t work that way. I think I know why, and the reason isn’t mentioned at all in the studies or surveys popularized by the media. If they are thinking it, they aren’t saying it out of political correctness.

I don’t just read the studies or hear about them. I work with and live among those who are living in the turmoil and with the causes and results that these studies often overlook. From this vantage point, other perspectives become clear and the unspoken or unseen factors that bring about this ‘ghetto’ logic become apparent. Surveys and statistics might not calculate these variables into their results, but they are at direct cause of higher incidences of many social problems in urban areas. I see it every day.

The key word to remember is ‘desperation’. Desperate situations, perceived or real, breed two accompanying negative emotions, fear and hope. Fear drives people to take ‘desperate’ measures and hope, a by-product of fear, is the ‘logic’ they apply in the expectation that somehow the desperate measures employed will not have better than the normally expected results. This is much like the popular definition of insanity. Insane people are generally ‘desperate’ about something going on around them. Desperation also causes people to lash out against those they consider responsible for their problems. Whether based upon true or false assumptions, the effects are catastrophic to the community and hinder its ability to help itself.

So what is it that women on the lower economic levels are so desperate about that it leads to unwanted pregnancy and how does desperation cause women to unexpectedly get pregnant? For the answer we look to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. At the bottom of that list are what Maslow considers the basics for survival; food, shelter, clothing, and security. The next step up on the ladder of ‘basic’ needs are the emotional sort; love, self-esteem, and social interactions. Maslow, and rightly so, does not treat love and self–esteem as luxuries. They are as necessary to human function as are the other basics, and lack of emotional stability or satisfaction, in spite of the protestations of those who don’t experience these problems, leads directly into a cycle of desperate attempts to get out of the cycle created by the very desperation inherent in the lack of fulfillment of basic needs.

Let’s put this in simpler terms. Imagine growing up and living in an area where crime, unemployment, substance abuse, and poverty are a day to day matter. No matter where you travel during the course of your day, be it to work or school, you will be coming home and reentering that world in the evening. You have a father, uncle, or brother who is in prison or drinks all day. You seem to manage every month to get the bills paid, but you have no rest and no extra money to enjoy anything more than a night out with friends once in a while or a new piece of clothing. You see basic necessities such as housing, food, transportation, and heating rise in cost beyond what you expected. You worry about your job and your kids. Maybe you’re not getting the child support you should. Maybe you are also lonely.

Poor women, black or white, aren’t whores who sleep around or try to hold onto a man to have their bills paid, but one would be operating out of ignorance to think that the attainment of those basic necessities and how they are paid for are not taken into consideration. A man’s earning potential and his ability to contribute to the maintenance of the household is pretty much a universal calculation that all women make. The problem for poorer women is that the pool of men they have to choose from is often from the same depressed economic stratus and living in the same desperate situation. So someone who is insecure, and thus vulnerable, meets a person who is no less insecure and vulnerable, and somehow this scenario is supposed to have a happy ending?

Now there is some blame to be laid at the feet of the participants. They should know better and probably do know better but, for some reason, choose not to do better, and this is where the desperation plays out on an intimate level.

Women who don’t have a lot of choices end up sometimes making bad ones. Men find it easy to control the situation when they encounter a woman who needs him more than he needs her, or that she has more in mind for the relationship than he does. Men don’t like to wear condoms, and I can tell you that at 45 years old, if I have to wear a condom for sex, I don’t even bother having sex because I won’t feel anything anyhow. A woman, desperate for love and attention, not to mention insecure about her basic needs, when confronted with a man she likes a lot and his wish not to wear a condom, might just choose to not require him to wear it so as not to lose his affection. Now you and I both know that concession could lead to disastrous consequences, but when you factor in the desperation on her part to have physical and emotional security, you begin to see why she allows him to get away without taking precautions.

If we travel one more step up Maslow’s Hierarchy, we come to the intellectual and mental health needs. There is no way that we can expect any person living without the primary basics to fulfill, to our satisfaction or standard, those levels lying above and beyond the necessities. If one has to spend their days stressed over food, rent, and love, the desperation that ensues clouds any ability make rational choices. It’s easy to stand on principle when you don’t have much to worry about.

Sociologists and public policy analysts who suggest strengthening social programs and increase funding for public assistance are often ridiculed for ‘throwing money’ at the problem. Yet, money is what is needed to provide the basics and alleviate the desperation that fosters a new cycle of problems and more desperation. Granted, the money has to be spent wisely, and for us to allocate funds that tinker around the edges of the problem is misguided. We are still treating symptoms we often misdiagnose and not getting to the disease at all. To end the cycle of desperation and bad decision making that comes from it, we must first alleviate the source of that desperation by ensuring their rights, as human beings and fellow Americans, to physical security in terms of housing, health care, education, and economic opportunity.

“The neurosis in which the search for safety takes its clearest form is in the compulsive-obsessive neurosis. Compulsive-obsessive to frantically order and stabilize the world so that no unmanageable, unexpected or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear. (Abraham Maslow, 1908-1970)

Sameness, Difference, & Whatever

Last week, while at work, I encountered a delightful woman who spoke in a thick Irish brogue. Funny enough, she was, in fact, Irish. It’s not something one hears every day around here and it was refreshing to hear a little more than then bland Michigan English being spoken. I thought to myself “Hey! Here is someone else who probably also is mimicked for how she pronounces the word coffee.” In any case, work is work and work takes priority so I avoid getting into any dialogue with clients that might be considered controversial. These days, that could be just about any subject imaginable.

The woman, a manager in an established legal office, gave me some instructions as to how, where, and when to move certain items, signed a release form for said items, and went on about her business, indifferent to me, my crew, and the task at hand. For me, that was the end of my thoughts of her as well. My crew, on the other hand, could not stop themselves from fawning over her accent and how ‘hot’ it made her sound. Needless to say, many men get turned on by anything in skirts, so for them to become instantly enamored with this particular female was no real shock. One would think these guys just got out of prison. Crass pronouncements of “I’d sure like to bang a bitch who talks like that!” belie the Neanderthal’s ignorance to the harsh reality that a woman’s peculiar manner of speech does not in any way alter her anatomy, does not ensure that she isn’t a complete psychotic, nor increases his chances of bagging the heavily accented prize.

As much as men are intrigued by foreign women and their accents, I think women are even more so caught up in an attraction or even fixation with accents, dialects, culture, and skin tone. Men are always horny no matter what the woman sounds like, but women tend to have fixated tastes and a powerful curiosity for the ‘different’. My own love life is an example of that. After moving to the Midwest and still having a vigorous Brooklyn accent, I became an instant novelty among Michigan women who had never dated a man from New York. When coupled with the ‘mystery’ of my Orthodox Jewish background and recent apostasy, garnering female attentions became quite easy. Having an accent and a parochial upbringing may have made me different enough to be an interesting topic of opening conversation in some circles, but it never made me a better man or lover.

If you ever wondered why so many American daytime soap operas have English or Australian characters, there is your answer. Foreign characters with ‘sexy’ accents make the story more exotic and therefore more romantic and attractive to the mid-western ladies sitting at home watching that nonsense. Similarly, if you own a sales company in the north that markets products to male clientele, make sure to hire a female sales representative from the south or other regions of the Earth nowhere near your own. It’s a no-brainer. Her drawl will do the selling for her. The foreigner, through no conscious effort of his or her own and by virtue simply by being born and raised in another geographical locale becomes transformed into a romantic, lustful ‘love-god’, better than anything the current crop of locals can offer and vastly more interesting.

Now, even though I admit to using this to my own advantage, I still dislike when it is being used on me or when others fall prey to it so easily. It is likely that wherever these sexy foreigners come from, over there they aren’t considered ‘all that’, accent or not, and there exists no appreciable novelty except to anyone who hasn’t been exposed to that sort of voice for the last ten years. I dated a German woman for a year or so, and though she was smart and quite beautiful, after a while questions like “Why are you so stupid sometimes?” or “Why do you talk so much?” became really irritating even when uttered in that same luscious accent that first captured my cynical heart. That experience taught me that familiarity might not always the breeder of contempt; it was probably my asking stupid questions and talking too much that caused the enmity.

It’s not as if I am above such curiosity or that I have become completely immune to its effect through my travels and experience. I still enjoy something different once in while, but I don’t find myself falling madly in love with a thing or person just because it smells, sounds, or behaves in a manner that bears a stark contrast to my normal surroundings. I have also noticed that the longer I spend in one place the more I lose that foreign ‘edge’ that made me stand out just a little bit not too long ago. Far be it from me to claim an intellectual or moral superiority that enable me to pass judgments from some high-placed sanctimonious perch. The revelation that I am so perfectly human in my shortcomings and prejudices is really starting to hurt.

Maybe I’m envious of the Englishman’s linguistic ‘mojo’ or the Latino man’s skin tone that all the ladies, young and old, seem to rave about. Perhaps the ‘New Yorker’ in me, both in terms of speech and attitude has become dulled by living in the Midwest. Maybe I’ve become ‘same old same old’ to the world around me and need to finally accept it and stop complaining. Part of me obviously resents the natural processes that lead a man into becoming part of his own surroundings and blending in so well that his existence is casually ignored by those living around him in that same monotonous venue, where he now fears we will catch himself overlooking them in the same manner for possessing the very same situational defect.

Once we realize that people are just being people, this whole issue would vanish, providing it’s really an issue in the first place anywhere other than inside my overactive imagination, which I’m not sure of at all anymore.

Maybe this rant was for nothing. Ach!

“No matter what you choose to keep, please keep it in perspective.”

Readership Down

This blog is becoming less popular than President GW Bush at a Lesbian Pride Peace Rally. I won't stop speaking my mind, but I wonder if it's just burn-out on the part of readers or does the subject matter simply bore the living crap out of everyone in the blogosphere.

I realize the religious Jews, for the most part, will only talk or read about relevant religious Jewish subjects. Since my apostacy is no longer a novelty event either, any mention of who I was then or what I subsequently morphed into and events in between have no attraction to those readers. Christians love to argue with Atheists, and the fire-breathing Atheists (you know who you are) speak enough on the pertinent issues that I really have nothing at all to add aside from perhaps a scientific explanation here and there. Frankly, I'm tired of arguing about it.

I do love politics and history and how it plays out in societal trends. Politics is, in part, how people project their personal philosophy out into the world. Politics is not, at least to me, only about winners and losers. The four "P's" (as I call them) always operate in tandem and every idea should be expressed in relation to all of them as a whole. They are physics, philosophy, psychology, and politics. Physics is the natural reality. Philosophy translates that reality into a thought about life. Psychology shapes our relationship with that reality. Politics is how we project that understanding and passion out into society and the world. There is a progression from one level to another, though I feel at times many people work this system backwards.

I write about politics only to get at the core of who we really are as people and what we value most. I talk a little about economics because money is like love in many ways. Like love, no one is admired in the real world for shunning wealth. Money talk is always controversial. Ask a person about love and they have lots of advice for you. Ask them about money and you will never hear the end of it. It is no small coincidence that psychics, tarot readers, etc., are asked more questions about love and money than anything else. If you want to anger a man into a fight, criticize his wife or his profession.

Maybe what I write has too much fire. Maybe I try to cover too much and end up saying too little. I don't know. Some subjects are surely beaten to death. Maybe the blogosphere is going the way of the personal website or the homepage. Maybe I am redundant.

Input is appreciated. I cannot promise, however, that any advice will be taken.

Kol Tuv

A Thought On Laissez Faire

An interesting analysis of 'laissez faire' economics from Sunstein:

"Economic value does not predate law, it is created by law."

"Of course many people work hard and many others do not. But the distribution of wealth is not simply a product of hard work; it depends on a coercive network of legal rights and obligations. ...[T]he laws of property, contract, and tort are social creations that allocate certain rights to some people and deny them to others. These forms of law represent large-scale government 'interventions' into the economy. They are coercive to the extend that they prohibit people from engaging in desired activities. If homeless people lack a place to live, it is not because of God's will or nature. It is because the rules of property are invoked and enforced to evict them, if necessary by force. If employees have to work long hours and make little money, it is because of the prevailing rules of property and contract. ... Sometimes those rules disserve liberty."

This reveals the "myth" of Laissez-faire. Those who most demand "no" government intervention in the marketplace because of their wealth and power owe the vast majority of their wealth and power to the specific intervention of the government in the marketplace by enforcing one particular set of rules and laws of property and contract. What these "free market" advocates are really saying is that they want the rules to continue to be set and stacked in their favor, rather in ways that may better serve both society and liberty for all.

It is important to note that values and behaviors regarding economic success or failure do not occur in a vacuum. It is the governance, or the lack thereof, that sets the tone for how business is done and what opportunities become accessible. In my experience, it seems always be those with criminal or abusive intent that want the least amount of oversight or limitation on their actions. Progressive and pragmatic governments work, through the law, to arbitrate between the various classes and interests in a sense of fairness and evenhanded jurisprudence,irrespective of economic theory or prevailing political preference.

Kol Tuv

Catharsis & Deed

in the midst of all
that is what day to day conspires
a peace is found or lost
at the end of one's desires

shall it become the deed
that brings regrets
or merely that parlance of thought
one soon forgets

set now to abandon
fleeing from tomorrow's craving urges
out from a past that dares not divest itself
of the future's coming purges