The Relativity of Time

Now I am no Einstein.  Lord knows I can’t explain the theory of relativity, let alone give the mathematical proof for the relativity of time.  Yet, today, I will prove that time is indeed relative, but with a caveat.  My proof is outside of Einstein’s world of physics, and into the world of human experience.

We experience two worlds.  One is the world of what is -- the material world where physics and mathematics reside.  The other is the world of action -- what we do and how we choose to behave in the material world.  This is the world where values reside.  Values animate and give impetus to our actions, and underlie the choices we make.  Unlike the material world, there are no mathematical formulations to predict human behavior.  Human behavior is not mechanical or logical.  There is always an emotional component (values) that sway our choices.   We do not look to science and mathematics for our values.  Values are formulated and transmitted through language, stories, and myths. 

It is in the action world, the world of values, where the perception of time gets interesting.  There is a fascinating study by a behavioral economist, Keith Chen, on the influence of language in financial planning. 

Unlike English, there are languages, such as Mandarin Chinese, which lack verb tenses to distinguish between the present and the future.  In Chinese it is not the verb but the context of the conversation, among other markers, which distinguishes time periods

.

Chen wondered if this linguistic difference influences people’s time perception sufficiently to influence retirement savings.  He hypothesized that people speaking languages that have no verbal distinction between the present and the future will experience the future as closer to the present, thereby creating impetus to save for the future.  On the flip side, languages which verbally distinguish between the present and the future make the future harder to relate to, and, hence, plan for.

That is exactly what Chen found when he compared the savings rate between people who spoke languages with or without a future tense.  People who speak languages with a separate future tense -- English, Arabic, Greek, the Romance languages – are far worse at saving money than people whose languages don’t distinguish between the present and the future – Chinese, German, Japanese, and Norwegian.

After factoring in people’s education levels, income levels, and religious preferences, Chen found that people speaking languages with present and future verbs were 30 percent less likely to save money in any given year.  

As crazy as this sounds, Chen replicated this finding in a clever real world experiment.  New hires at a company were required to fill out a form which included providing the percentage of their salary they would devote to a retirement plan.  One form had their current picture affixed to the top corner of the form, while another had the current picture affixed to one corner and a computer aged photo of themselves affixed to the opposite corner.  Yup, having a current and older picture to view increased the percentage of retirement savings significantly.

All of this discussion is prelude to the meat of what I want to discuss – how the underpinnings of secular and religious views influence time perception, world views, and policy prescriptions.

Until next time

School Shootings -- No Longer Ho Hum

The seminal moment establishing the enduring connection between God and the children of Israel was hearing their suffering as slaves in Egypt.  The children of Israel “were groaning under the bondage and cried out; and their cry for help from the bondage rose up to God.  God heard their moaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.  God looked upon the Israelites, and God took notice of them … and was mindful of their suffering.”

Now our children are crying out to us about their suffering, their need for help, their entrapment in unsafe schools. Having brought them into this world we must remember our sacred covenant with them to nurture, protect and make them feel safe and secure. 

For too long, as a nation, we have not acted to make our children safe and secure. With each school massacre, platitudes of blame along political fault lines trotted out.  Democrats blaming guns and advocating for increased gun control measures.  Republicans blaming the shooters and advocating for guns in the schools to stop the shooters.  Lost in the blame game, politicians’ lack of attention to what our children are saying.

Now, for the first time in the long history of school violence, our children’s cries are so loud, so forceful, and so eloquent they pierce through the platitudes and diatribes -- impossible to ignore.  A small sample of powerful remarks by students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School:

Senior student Delany Tarr

“This movement, created by students, led by students, is based on emotion. It is based on passion and it is based on pain … The only reason that we’ve gotten so far is that we are not afraid of losing money, we’re not afraid of getting reelected or not getting reelected, we have nothing to lose. The only thing we have to gain at this point is our safety.”

Senior Student Emma Gonzalez

“The students at this school have been having debates on guns for what feels like our entire lives. AP Government had about three debates this year.  Some discussions on the subject even occurred during the shooting while students were hiding in the closets.”

Junior Student Alfanso Calderon

“Everybody needs to remember, we are just children. A lot of people think that disqualifies us from even having an opinion on this sort of matter…This matters to me more than anything else in my entire life. And I want everybody to know, personally, I’m prepared to drop out of school. I’m prepared to not worry about anything besides this… so that kids don’t have to fear going back to school.”

Senior David Hogg

“My message to lawmakers and Congress is, “Please, take action.  What we really need is action. We can say, ‘We’re gonna do all these things. Thoughts and prayers.’ What we need more than that is action. Please. This is the 18th [school shooting].  We're children.  You guys are the adults."

Action requires going beyond the inevitable blame that happens when looking for the causes of gun violence.  The why did this happen questions shifts the focus from ourselves onto others.  Yet when bad things happen to good people our minds ask why in order to feel in control when tragedy strikes.  The why question is so ingrained, such a reflexive response to tragedy, that the famous book about bad things happening to good people is misremembered as:  Why Bad Things Happen To Good People.  The actual title is "When Bad Things Happen To Good People".

This “when mindset” allows for a call to action.  What do I do now that this happened?  The answers to “what do I do” flows through mindfulness.  Looking into ourselves to be aware of how we see ourselves and others involved in the tragedy.    Mindful of what we and others are capable and not capable of doing, and mindful of what we might do to lessen the likelihood this tragedy recurs.

Our President made a good start to mindfulness with his listening approach.  Gathering people directly involved in school massacres to hear their stories, their needs, their pain, their anger.  To listen to what others did to lessen the likelihood of another shooting at their school.  Just as important, televising the session so the whole nation could hear the multitude of voices crying out to be seen and listened to.

Hopefully many solutions are put in place, some at the national level. Many more at the state and local level crafted to the needs and desires of the communities where the schools exist.  It is a complex and multilayered issue with no single magical solution.

 

I want to give a shout out to one solution that started locally and is gaining national traction – Rachel’s Challenge.  The program started by the father of Rachel Scott, the first victim of the Columbine shooting.  After her death, Darrell Scott heard from so many classmates how his daughter had touched them deeply with her kindness and compassion.

 

Darrell developed a program to add kindness and compassion learning as an antidote to student alienation and school bullying and violence.  His insight, schools used to, but turned away from, including character development in the school curriculum.  The heart of the program, mindfulness.  Being aware of yourself and others in your daily interactions.

 

Similarly, Russell Simmons, the hip-hop mogul, started a program for reducing youth violence through the transformative power of meditation.  Practicing meditation changes the mind from busy to quiet. Only a quiet mind is an aware mind, capable of apprehending self and others.  Violence stops when you truly see the other, not as an “other” but as someone with feelings and needs just like you.

   

God, through his actions, teaches us the importance of mindfulness.  Now let’s teach it and practice it.   

Until next time.    

    

The Ansari Aziz Rape Allegation

A few years ago my son, raised Jewish, turned atheist, married a practicing Catholic.  For my deceased father, a devout Jew who passionately believed in maintaining the unbroken chain of Judaism, the marriage would have been an existential crisis.  In contrast, I am heartened by the marriage as I know that my grandson will benefit from exposure to the wisdom of the bible and to the Judaeo-Christian values contained within.

Sadly, religious values and wisdom as a basis for behavior in civil society is gone, with no consensus on how to fill the void.  As with all voids, chaos and confusion reigns.  Consider the accusation of rape against the famous comedian, Ansari Aziz.  A first date with a woman, known under the pseudonym of Grace, ended awkwardly and painfully for her at Mr. Aziz’s apartment.  Kissing between them progressed to nude physical intimacy, heading towards intercourse.  Already uncomfortable with the level of physical intimacy, Grace said no to intercourse.  Mr. Aziz immediately stopped and arranged an Uber ride home for her.

At various stages of the date Grace felt pressured into sexual encounters beyond her comfort zone, and believed her nonverbal stop signals were ignored by Mr. Aziz.  Grace felt she was raped and made that accusation in the online publication Bee.net   Mr. Aziz dumbfounded by the accusation believed he never coerced or forced her into unwanted intimacy.  He perceived Grace as a willing partner in pleasure and perceived himself as a respectful partner, immediately stopping when she said no to anything further.

Following publication of the accusation, an online debate ensued regarding the definitions of sexual coercion and consent, and the responsible way to handle perceived sexual misconduct.  Grace’s supporters placed responsibility on men to tune into their partner’s feelings during sex.  Mr. Aziz's supporters placed responsibility on women to clearly voice there discomfort.   Many expressed concern that attaching the rape label to an ambiguous sexual encounter undermined the #MeToo movement.   

Lost in the debate is this simple truth.   When two complete strangers engage in the emotionally and psychologically intense act of physical intimacy, hovering close by are feelings of vulnerability and violation created by misunderstandings and miscommunication.  Mr. Aziz was unfamiliar with Grace’s body language or style of communicating.  Grace knew nothing of Mr. Aziz’s sensitivity level or attitudes towards women.  Neither knew the other’s views on sexual intimacy.  Neither knew the other’s expectation for the date -- a building block towards a relationship, or a one night stand.  Each was certain their perception of the evening was shared by the other.

In the religious world fences are built around interactions between men and women precisely because such interactions are fraught with misunderstandings and unwanted behavior.  Hence Vice President Mike Pence’s rule to always include his wife when attending a private social event with another woman, or the practice of Orthodox Jews to refrain from touching anyone of the opposite sex who is not close family. 

In the secular world these behaviors are dismissed as remnants of a patriarchal society not suitable for the modern understanding of gender equality.  Overlooked is the wisdom of creating fences to avoid emotionally painful interactions.  Instead of antiquated ideas, create fences with modern sensibilities.  Create them because, even in this modern world, communication between people is imperfect, and because, contrary to modern beliefs, fundamental human nature and basic emotional reactions are unchanged

 

Until next time 

Trump and the Politics of Branding

I recently returned from a trip to Hong Kong and Singapore.  While there, the eyes of the prawns were upon me -- cooked alive and served with eyes intact as a sign of freshness for restaurant patrons.  Those bug eyes disturbed the sensibilities of my kosher upbringing, so I ate mostly rabbit food as a palliative to my churning stomach.  The good news, I returned home without the dreaded vacation belly.

The bad news, I returned home to deja vu all over again -- the country in an uproar over Trump stepping on his tongue.  The pattern oh so familiar, Democratic leaders expressing outrage, Republican leaders voicing lipstick on a pig rationales, and the legislative agenda drowned out by the political noise.

Lost in the hub hub a disturbing trend, the increasing commercialization of politics.  Parties no longer defined by their philosophy or principals but by their branding.  Democrats brand Republicans as deplorable and Republicans brand Democrats as out of touch elites.  Opportunities to brand the other trumps legislative agendas, even bi-partisan ones.

Senator Dick Durbin’s actions a case in point.   After hearing the shithole comments in a private, contentious meeting with the President, the Senator could not resist the gift that Trump’s mouth keeps on giving.  He immediately disclosed the remarks to the press, creating the predictable shockwave across the country.   A reflexive action for political advantage, absent any reflection on what is best for the country or the Dreamers.

There is an important distinction between a President’s private and public comments.  Unlike private comments, a President’s public pronouncement are official views guiding policy.  Take LBJ as an example, with large disconnects between his private and public speech and policy.  LBJ’s potty mouth, positively Trumpian in private, regularly used the "n" word during cabinet meetings.   Publicly he advocated for sweeping civil rights legislation and at the signing ceremony spoke these stirring words, “Let us close the close the springs of racial poison.  Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts.  Let us set aside irrelevant differences and make our Nation whole.”

Senator Durbin, as a public servant, never considered the public good before talking to the press.  Lost, because of his act of political advantage, was movement towards a permanent bi-partisan solution for the sword of deportation hanging over the Dreamers, and impetus towards an overhaul of our outdated immigration policy.

Republicans are equally eager to play the political advantage game, with Nancy Pelosi as one favorite target.  Recently jumping on her comments after corporations announced bonuses to employees following passage of the tax reform bill.  Characterizing the $1,000 bonuses as mere crumbs, Pelosi was excoriated as a liberal elite, out of touch with employees living pay check to pay check for whom $1,000 is highly meaningful.  

The politics of advantage is a corrosive outgrowth of the extreme polarization of our two parties and the radical elements that form the base of each.  Each party is loath to support any legislation emanating from the other side lest it anger their base and provide their opponents with an advantage at the polling booths.  This was the Republican strategy when Democrats were in power, and now the Democrats are returning the favor. 

Nothing gets done in a bi-partisan way which severely restricts what either party does while in power.  Legislation addresses issues catering to the base’s views, while most Americans are middle of the road in their views.  This sets the stage for ping-ponging of governance, particularly at the Presidential level, as the party in favor loses favor with independents, where elections are won or lost.  A trend I fear is our future.

Such a downer to think about, I’ll end on a positive note.  Headed up north to visit with my mini me, now 17 months.  Last I saw him he was Mr. Destructo, taking repeated, and I do mean repeated, delight in lifting his large plastic fire engine on its head and then pushing it see which way it fell and how loud it crashed.   Clapping each time he performed the trick did not suffice for long.  Soon he began clapping prior to the performance and required all of us to join in.  My mini me definitely inherited my “look at me” gene.

Until next time.

How Hanuka Saved the Soul

                                                           

Hello, it’s been a while  

I withdrew from the world on a walkabout for a period of time.  I am back, and feel like Woody Allen in “Sleeper” who awakens to a topsy-turvy world.  In Woody’s case, medical science finds that junk food is actually healthy for people.  In my case, the constitutional protections of due process and separation of powers turned on their head; a blog for another time. 

Not exactly a blog to rival Woody’s “Sleeper”.  Then again if I had his comedic talent I would not be wasting it on blogging.  And yet with me, unlike with Woody, you get my musings for free.  And, as importantly in these times, my writings are from a person who is not a known or suspected pervert or predator.

  

Turning from the profane is the heart of the Hanuka story, a holiday vastly underrated and mischaracterized.  Hanuka is considered by most, a minor holiday inflated to ease Jewish children’s jealousies over Christian gift giving during the Christmas season.  Nothing is further from the truth.

In reality, the possibility of western civilization hung in the balance while the events surrounding Hanuka played out.  The spiritual language and images used in music and art; the illumination of the interior soul by artists, writers, and poets, all absent from the world without Hanuka.   Shakespeare, Bach, Van Gough, Maya Angelou, to name a few, never to be.   Such is the import of Hanuka.

The de-emphasis of the historical truth of Hanuka occurred around 200 years after the events of Hanuka.  A Jewish uprising against the Roman Empire ended in a disastrous defeat.  The Romans avenged the insurrection by obliterating Israel as a nation and driving the surviving Jews out into the diaspora.

Traumatized by the consequences of armed insurrection, the Rabbis of the diaspora downplayed the militaristic role in Hanuka’s history and emphasized God’s role.  The Hanuka story transformed into an apocryphal tale where God performed miracles for the faithful.

By downplaying the armed insurrection, the reason for taking up arms was lost to the story.  In actuality Hanuka was all about war -- a civil war, a cultural war, a war to preserve ethical monotheism.

 

During the time of Hanuka, Hellenism prevailed throughout the known world thanks to the conquests of Alexander the Great.  Greek philosophy and culture focused on understanding and perfecting the physical world.  Whatever could not be measured or observed was rejected.  Greek gods reflected and explained observable phenomenon.  The sun arced across the sky.  Why?  A god drove it in a chariot.  The world always defined by and explained by physical objects or concrete gods.

 

Jews were not immune to the Hellenistic influence.  Many adopted the philosophy that physical perfection and physical beauty are the true goals of human existence.  Even Israel’s high priest was a Hellenist.  As such, he brought Zeus into the Holy Temple and sacrificed a pig on the Temple’s alter.

The materialism of Hellenism was anathema to traditional Judaism with its emphasis on materialism over spirituality, and belief in many gods rather than the one true universal God.  Tension between the Hellenists and traditionalists was palpable, and combustion inevitable.  War sparked when a soldier of the ruling Assyrian empire attempted to force conversion onto a charismatic local priest named Mattathias of the house of Maccabees.  Rather than converting, he and his sons, slew the soldier and the conflagration erupted. 

 

The Maccabees, prevailed, beating back the Assyrian military and slaying the Hellenistic infidels.  The first act after victory was to purify the Holy Temple and rededicate it to God.  A feast lasting eight days followed.  The menorah lit on each day of the holiday.  The only religion practicing ethical monotheism was saved, along with the related concepts of eternal soul; holiness; spirituality; the pure and the profane.

  

Ethical monotheism became the organizing principle for western culture.  Judeo-Christian values under-girded the legal system.  The biblical concept that all humanity is created equal, all with the spark of God within, profoundly impacted the arts and led to the democratization of society; the unshackling of slavery; and the freedom to follow whatever path one’s talents and inclinations lead.  

So on Hanuka, as the lights of the Menorah burn outward to illuminate the darkness, I remember what the small band of Maccabees accomplished and turn inward.  Turning to the light within that illuminates my humanity and serves as my bulwark against a soulless, material world.     

             

          

The Trump Travel Ban Is No Laughing Matter

The Laurel and Hardy rollout of Trump’s temporary travel ban of immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries left our country with a fine mess.  A hundred or so Muslims detained at U.S. airports, untold numbers of Muslims traveling abroad prevented from returning home, and tens of thousands of Muslims legally in our country believing they are second class citizens and residents.

All of this could have been easily avoided had the President followed some simple rules of leadership.  Prior to implementing the executive order, seek counsel and input from cabinet members and legislative leaders knowledgeable about the appropriateness and ramifications of the order.  At the time of implementation, explain to the public the rationale and purpose of the executive action.  

Had Trump taken those steps, the executive order would have included carve-outs for legal residents and visa holders.  The public announcement would have provided the rationale for the order -- a pause in immigration to allow the current administration to review the soundness of existing vetting procedures for immigrants coming from countries acknowledged by the previous administration as countries of concern.

To make matters worse, when the disastrous roll-out received justifiable criticism, the pompous Oliver Hardy-like Trump treated the critics as naïve, child-like, Stan Laurels.  Trump mocked the senate minority leader for his crocodile tears when discussing the impact of the ban on Muslim citizens and publically rebuked members of his own party as being weak on immigration when they criticized the executive order.  Then Trump morphed from Oliver Hardy to the autocratic Richard Nixon, and fired the acting Attorney General who questioned the legality of his order.

The President has yet to transition from Trump the campaigner to Trump the President.  His spontaneous and unfiltered over the top rhetoric and mocking humor entertained and engaged the faithful at his rallies.  Now, as President, Trump must fulfill two roles that are at odds with his campaign style.  As Head of State he represents, by manner and deed, the values and ideals of America.  As Chief Executive he sets the legislative agenda and faithfully implements the laws of the land.

Time is running out for him to right his ship of state.  Wary conservatives were heartened by his cabinet choices that by and large are seasoned, steady, thoughtful, and intelligent individuals.  His announced legislative agenda for the economy and the emphasis of choice and competition in replacing the current health care law represented mainstream conservative principles. 

Now, his slapdash, undisciplined performance during his first week in office has reignited fears that Trump as entertainer and autocrat in chief will define his presidency.  If so, the joke will be on you Mr. President, for as the Apprentice President you will hear your own words turned back on you … You're Fired.   

The Trump Inauguration: To Go Or Not To Go, That Is The Question

We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.  This is the bedrock value upon which our country was founded, and the basis for all of our constitutional rights and protections. 

The equality of humankind is a universal truth of all the great religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.   Created in the image of God, we are all God’s children no matter our race, gender, nationality or station in life. That does not mean that we are all equally likeable or that we all act in humane and decent ways.  Thus the conundrum facing decent people, how to respectfully treat those who do not respectfully treat others.

The bible lays out the aspirational goal -- love the other as thy self.  It is not a commandment to love the lovable other.  That is what decent people naturally do.  Rather, a commandment to treat the unlovable with the love/respect accorded to all of humanity.   It is a recognition that our inclination is to be wary of the other, to attribute negative characteristics to the stranger, and to disparage those who do not meet our expectations.

The requirement to love the other falls most heavily on religious leaders, the representatives of the religion.  Commandments are more than aspirational goals for religious leaders.  As the community role models, following the commandments is a necessary way of living.

Still, love the other does create dilemmas for religious leaders.  I recently heard of a most poignant one.  A rabbinic student came to a rabbi that I study with and asked for my Rabbi’s advice on whether to say the traditional prayer of mourning for her father.  The prayer is said in a public setting to honor the dead.  Her dilemma, her father had repeatedly raped her as a child.  My Rabbi was flummoxed and had no good answer.  Ultimately the rabbinic student came to her own resolution.  She did say the mourning prayer, not for the father she had but for the father she wished she had.

Our political leaders face a comparable dilemma.   A deplorable person is about to ascend to the highest office in the land.  Attending the inauguration implicitly honors a man not deserving of such respect.

Yet, the inauguration ceremony is not about any one person.  It represents the stirring ideals of the Gettysburg Address – “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.  Political power is transitory, given to our leaders by we the people, but only for a finite period of time. 

Attending the inauguration bears witness that the institutions of our country are stronger than any one man.  I want our leaders to attend, not only when it is easy to attend, but also when it is not easy to attend.  Especially when it is not easy to attend, for not attending disrespects our country’s ideals.

 

Hopefully those considering against attending will follow the lead of the rabbinate student who found the resolve to participate by considering the ideal rather than the actual.  I want our leaders to place the country’s ideals above their own feelings and judgements.

 

And bearing witness is why I will be watching the inaugural address on Friday.  Something I do not always do.  Will you join me? 

Israel -- Falling Support and Rising Anti-Semitism

Support for Israel has changed substantially over time.  From its birth in 1948 until “The Six Day War” support was unquestioned.  Two pillars undergirded the unconditional support -- the moral imperative derived from the Holocaust, and the existential threat posed by powerful Arab enemies surrounding the then weak and vulnerable Jewish state

The narrative began to change following the “Six Day War”.  Israel convincingly won the war and captured both the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  The David vs Goliath view reversed.  Israel became the Goliath, with its more powerful military.  The Palestinian Arabs, subjected to the humiliations of an occupying force, became the David.

With time and distance, the impact of the Holocaust faded.  Born decades later, a whole generation knew the Holocaust only from the cold pages of history.  The emotional connection replaced by an objective view. 

The generational split was most pronounced between the WW II generation and the millennials.  The WW II generation, the parents of the baby boomers, were either holocaust survivors, or had family members or friends murdered in the death camps of Nazi Germany.  Being Jewish, belonging to a synagogue, and seeing Israel’s survival as an essential safety hatch for Jewish survival was unquestioned.  To do otherwise denigrated the memory of the dead burned in the ovens.  Every Jew who assimilated or did not fully support the Jewish homeland was considered a symbolic victory for Adolph Hitler.

Religious doubts brought on by modernity hardly effected the World War II generation.  It was their children, the baby boomers that questioned the role of religion in a modern scientific world.  Many of the boomers became culturally Jewish, and this trend towards secularism accelerated with their children, the millennials.

With secularism came a shift in moral thinking.  The old moral divide of good vs evil was replaced by the new moral code -- strong vs weak and rich vs poor.  As such, the more powerful Israel was held by many on the secular left to a different standard of behavior than that of the weaker Palestinians. 

Witness the reactions to the Gaza war between Hamas and Israel.  Israel was criticized for the number of Palestinian casualties caused.  The body count defined the moral behavior of the two sides of the conflict.  With the lopsided Palestinian death count, Israel fared poorly in the court of public opinion.

 

Left out of this calculus was the moral view of good vs evil.  The disproportionate loss of life was an intentional Hamas strategy.  They placed their SCUD missiles in large population centers to ensure large loss of Palestinian lives, and daily launched the SCUD missiles from these population sites towards towns in Israel.

Faced with a “Sophie’s Choice” between saving the lives of Israelis or Palestinians, Israel tried to do both.  Deploying their anti-missile system to shoot down incoming SCUD missiles, and using their guided missiles to target the SCUDS without hitting Palestinian civilians.  Prior to launch, Israel warned the population to leave the area, only to be thwarted by the inhumanity of Hamas which prevented its citizens from evacuating. The missiles were not always accurate and there was loss of civilian life.  At the same time Israel deployed its anti-missile system to destroy incoming Hamas missiles.  Many, but not all, Hamas missiles were destroyed mid-air, preventing many Israeli deaths.  

The immorality of Hamas’ actions was summed up in one pithy sentence by the Prime Minister of Israel.  Israel used missiles to protect people, Hamas used people to protect missiles.  Nevertheless, through their evil strategy, Hamas had the “moral” victory it sought -- the optics of death and destruction by a powerful enemy against a weak and vulnerable people. 

The optics played well in the U.N. where Israel was condemned for its actions.  Indeed Israel has been condemned and sanctioned more often than any other member of the U.N.  The latest being the resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a flagrant violation of International Law based on the justification that the West Bank is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.   

The U.N. justification twists the history of the West Bank for its twisted purpose of condemning Israel.  The West Bank was never Palestinian Territory, but an occupied territory of Jordan.  The West Bank was acquired by Israel in the course of defending itself in the 1967 Six Day War. International Law provides that territory seized in a defensive war may be occupied for defensive purposes, and that security measures may be implemented within that territory to defend against any future attacks.

The U.N resolutions against Israel bear heavily on the politics within the U.N. – politics grounded neither in history nor law, but rather in anti-Semitism.  How else to explain a different legal and moral standard applied to Israel than to any other nation state. 

By the moral standard of body count, there are many nation states that are far more immoral than Israel.  The most recent being Syria, bolstered by its allies Russia and Iran.  Using chemical weapons, barrel bombs, guided missiles, regular bombs, and starvation sieges, over 400,000 civilians have been killed in Syria.  Compare that to the U.N. count of 1462 Palestinians killed by Israel in the Gaza war.

Yet Israel has been singled out for far more sanctions or criticism than Syria, Russia, and Iran combined!  Consider the U.N. resolutions adopted during 2015, the last year I could find such a count.  Israel was singled out 20 times for criticism, Syria once, Iran once, and Russia never.

2015 was not an anomaly but rather part of a larger pattern to discredit and delegitimize Israel, the only State in the region which protects human rights.  De-legitimization is a troubling trend that has greatly infected the secular youth of our country, often through the educational environment of our liberal colleges. 

Once again the Jews are the canary in the coal mine.  How Israel will continue to be viewed and treated will say a lot about the value of the world body and the values of our colleges and country. 

For those wishing to read a short impassioned historical justification of the legitimacy of Israel’s actions in the Middle-East, check out this web site: 

http://bigarticlesoftheweek.blogspot.co.il/2017/01/an-open-letter-to-theresa-may.html    

Hat tip to Judy Gedali for telling me of the website                  

Putin Smarter than Obama and Trump?

Trump’s recent tweet on Vladimir Putin, again raised legitimate concerns about the president-elect’s favorable bias towards Russia and the advisability of conducting foreign policy via tweets.  Setting aside these concerns, Trump’s assessment of Putin as being smart is very accurate.

Putin is much shrewder than Obama in international affairs.  Putin thinks strategically while our President thinks tactically.  Witness Putin’s versus Obama’s approach to the civil war in Syria.  Obama’s statement, “Assad must go”, was his initial foray into the Syrian civil war.  This tactical statement gave verbal support to the opposition.  

Unfortunately it was not followed up strategically.  Obama ignored the advice of his Secretary of State and his Secretary of Defense to arm the Syrian rebels.  The chance to overthrow Assad lost.  Later it was strategically impossible to arm the opposition who became contaminated with Islamic terrorists.

The President drew a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Without regard to strategic consequences, Obama cancelled promised military action to uphold the red line.  Obama’s feckless behavior projected unreliability to our Middle-East allies and weakness to our enemies.

Putin acted strategically.  He offered to broker the removal of Syrian chemical weapons.  Acceptance by the U.S. of Russia’s role resulted in several strategic advantages for Putin.  It ended the U.S. push for international isolation of Russia for its use of military force in Crimea and Ukraine.  It inserted Russia back into the middle-east after thirty-five years of absence.  What followed was closer ties to Syria and its ally Iran, and the establishment of a Russian military base in the heart of the Middle-East. 

The roles of the U.S. and Russia in the Middle-East flipped.  Russia was now the key player in the Middle-East.  The U.S. marginalized.  In the past, Middle-East negotiations often took place in the United States.  This time, the peace negotiations between Assad and the rebels was on Russian soil.  The United States was not even invited to participate.  

Putin’s and Obama’s actions over Russian interference in the Presidential election will hopefully be instructive to our next President.  Acting tactically, Obama publically rebuked Russia rather than just relying on retaliation through secret cyberattacks.  Hoping to hamstring Russian relations with the next administration, Obama kicked out Russian ambassadors.  

Acting strategically, Putin did not respond in kind.  He did not retaliate by removing U.S. ambassadors from Russia.  In the process Putin projected statesmanship and removed a potential black cloud hanging over relations between Russia and the next U.S. administration.

Trump then made his infamous tweet about how smart Putin is.  Going forward, the question is this.  Will Trump, with his inflated ego, realize that Putin is so much smarter than him?          

A Hanukkah and Christmas Hope for Our Country

Hanukkah is viewed as a trivial celebration, enlarged so Jewish children would not feel left out during the Christmas season.  In reality the story of Hanukkah marks a pivotal moment in mankind's history.   The belief in monotheism hung in the balance.  The story of Hanukkah unfolded at a time in history where only one nation out of the community of nations believed in one God.  

There were cracks in that belief.  The cracks created by a split between the Hellenists, assimilated into the then dominant Greek culture, and the Traditionalists, determined to maintain Jewish law.  Among the Hellenists was the top Jewish religious figure, the High Priest.  Comporting with his Hellenistic views, The High Priest introduced idols of Greek gods into the Holy Temple.  A civil war broke out.  The traditionalists prevailed.  The Temple was cleansed, the alter rebuilt, and the menorah above the alter lit.  Monotheism was saved, along with Christianity that followed two centuries later. 

Once again the clarion call of Judaism could be heard throughout the world -- "Hear, oh Israel, The lord Our God, the Lord is one.  Embedded within that clarion call is the message that the universe emanating from God is one.  We are all one.   All created in the image of God.

The message of unity is part of the biblical requirement to remember the stranger as we were once strangers in a strange land.  The message that we are all the same is part of The Declaration of Independence.  "We hold these truths to be sell evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."  These truths animated those in the Civil Rights movement to risk their lives for justice.

Our country has gone through a bitter and ugly presidential election with the aftermath continuing to divide our country.  It is my hope that in these dark days the lights of Christmas and the candle lights of the Menorah inspire us to remember that no matter what political views we hold, we are united in a profound way by our common humanity. We can disagree with others without being disagreeable.  We can believe that another's political beliefs are wrong without believing that the other's views mean that they are deplorable.

And with that, have a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah. 

Brexit Facts and Fancy

The Chicken Little reaction to Brexit was fast and furious.   The pound dropped to levels not seen since the waning years of Beatlemania, investors lost trillions of dollars in the global financial swoon, and credit agencies downgraded Britain's credit rating from the highest to a credit rating shared by the likes of Abu Dhabi and Kuwait.  The agencies indicated the credit rating could drop further.  One notch lower would put Britain in the company of Estonia, Taiwan and Chile.

The common Brexit narrative is that the European Union is a scapegoat for the effects of modernity facing Western societies.  Globalization offshores millions of jobs, societies are disaggregating by a growing income gulf between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and the erasure of borders between countries allows for undesirable immigrants.   The older, white, blue collar worker unable to adjust to modernity overwhelmingly votes to leave the European Union as a way back to the past of a middle class life style in a predominantly white culture.  The narrative is based on suppositions, unreliable statistics (there is no exit polling), and, most importantly, without considering the historical context of the relationship between Britain and Europe.

Historically, Britain considers itself of Europe but not in Europe.  Britain relishes its unique traditions and constancy born of a history that spans a thousand years.  Thus its road trip to the European Union, spanning fifty years, is filled with pot holes and detours.  Underlying the negotiations is the tension between the importance of maintaining sovereignty and the pragmatics of the economic benefits of being part of a European trading block.  Throughout the negotiations Britain insists on Sovereignty by retaining its own currency and by not signing portions of the European Union dealing with the internal affairs of Britain.  From this perspective the “remain” and “leave” vote represents different strategies in maintaining sovereignty.  The “remain” vote reflects working from within to maintain sovereignty while retaining economic benefits, and the “leave” vote represents the untenability of a sovereign Britain within a European Union and the priority of Sovereignty over short run economic benefits.

Personal identity is elemental to being human and is necessary for psychological health.  Psychologists consider individuals who lack boundaries as psychologically unstable.  Not only tyrants and cult leaders, but also leaders of good will have tried to erase personal identity without success.  The Israeli Kibbutzim, established as collectivist societies, disallowed private property ownership and raised children collectively rather than in family settings.  Family bonds and children’s attachment needs proved too strong and the practice of children in group settings was the first to go.  Eventually homes and the contents within were privatized, and the collectivist kibbutz died out.  

Private property rights is essential to liberty.  Democratic governments recognize this through unlawful search and seizure clauses within their legal systems.  So too is the freedom and identity of sovereign nations based on property rights. Secure boundaries establish sovereign identity and internal liberty.  This is the fundamental issue which animated the Brexit vote.  And like other modern ideas that go against the fundamentals of being human, the idea of a pan European organization will fade with time.    

ISIS Redefined

Leading Republicans criticize the President because he will not describe acts of terrorism committed by Muslims as “Radical Islamic Terrorism”.  The President insists that using the term “Radical Islam” does not actually affect how the war on terror is waged and in fact, impugns the religion of Islam and the vast majority of peace loving Muslims who practice their faith.

Ironically each side is both right and wrong.  The President's description of terrorists as violent extremists is broad and nonspecific.  The description is meaningless and creates a see no Islam evil mindset.  Witness the initial transcripts of the shooter’s calls to 911 released by the Justice Department.  The terrorist’s remarks on allegiance to ISIS were redacted and the transcript was scrubbed of Allah, substituting God in its place. 

Unwillingness to attribute terrorism to Islam does have consequences.  Designed to prevent prejudice against decent Muslims, dancing around an unpleasant reality creates the impression that criticizing Muslims is wrong.  Hence a witness does not report suspicious behavior of the San Bernardino shooters out of fear that she will be labelled an Islamaphobe.  This same mindset was behind the categorization of the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence instead of Islamic terrorism, thereby denying soldiers wounded in the attack of additional benefits.

The Republicans make a different mistake.  Their use of the phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism” misidentifies the religious ideology of the terrorist and that phrase does indeed impugn all of Islam.  The phrase implies that the terrorists practice an extreme form of modern day Islam.  As David Brooks states, “people don’t start out practicing Islam and then turn into terrorists because they become more faithful”.  Modern Islam is a vastly different version of the religion of ISIS.  The theological roots are the same, but the religious ideology and practices have little overlap.

ISIS adheres to medieval Islam practiced 1300 years ago by the first two Caliphs of Islam.   ISIS rejects all subsequent innovations and modernizations to the religion as a corruption of Islam.  Among numerous barbarities, medieval religious practices allow terrorizing infidels into submission using beheadings, crucifixions, rape and enslavement.   

The great attraction to ISIS flows from its perceived religious legitimacy, the establishment of the caliphate.  Unlike other terrorists groups where recruits pledge loyalty to a cause, ISIS recruits undergo conversion and pledge their lives to the Caliph, the representative of Allah on earth.

Religious conversion is powerful stuff.  It provides deep meaning and purpose and is rapturous to the disaffected, alienated, or marginalized.  It is not economic justice that drives these recruits to ISIS but the search for meaning, purpose, and positive identity. Similarly, religious conversion explains why recruits who show no history of violence are able to commit the most heinous acts.  They are acting for the glory of Allah to purify the world of subhumans in accordance with the Prophet Mohammad.

The phrase “Medieval Islam” clarifies for the average Joe how a religion of peace creates monsters.  Medieval Islam has parallels to Medieval Christianity where non-believers were tortured and burned at the stake during the Inquisition.  It is a small step from there to accept that modern Islam is as peace loving as modern Christianity.

Sharing the same terminology to describe and understand terrorists can promote meaningful policy dialogue between Republicans and Democrats.  Take the refugee issue as an example.  Muslim countries that practice medieval Sharia law reflect social and cultural values that are unamerican.  This recognition changes the dialogue on refugee immigration from issues of prejudice to issues of enculturation.  How do we (and can we) select refugees that will accommodate to and accept a very different culture and, if so, how to assist refugees in the assimilation process?  Here, American Muslims can play a pivotal role in guiding these policies.   

Words reflect perceived reality and influence actions.   Without a common perspective on reality, dialogue is fruitless. We end up talking at or past each other rather than to each other.  Goodness knows we've done enough of that already.   

   

Transgender Bathroom Battle: Causes and Cures

The North Carolina bathroom law requiring people to use public restrooms based on their gender at birth is part of the ongoing cultural clash between the secular left and the religious right.  Responding to the current North Carolina law, President Obama issued national guidelines requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms associated with their gender identity. 

The battle lines are drawn.  For President Obama and other transgender advocates, transgender bathroom choice is a civil rights issue comparable to the civil rights laws ending discrimination against racial minorities.  Conservative religious groups recoil from this topsy turvy new world of gender identity.  Gender is not a state of mind that can change on a whim.  It is a biological fact.  Bionically, men and women are created for companionship and to procreate and populate the world.  And from the fig leaf forward modesty between the sexes is a hallmark of the religious.  For them, separate bathrooms for the sexes makes obvious common sense and is in keeping with the natural order of the world.  

In reality, transgenderism is biologically based.  The biology of gender development involves chromosomes, hormones and brain structure.  Almost always, sex chromosomes and sex hormones work in concert so that our brain and our sexual characteristics match. For a small minority, significantly less than 1%, sex chromosomes and hormones interplay differently such that a male fetus develops with a female brain and a female fetus develops with a male brain.  Hence a transgender is born.

The use of gender language often confuses rather than clarifies the bathroom debate.  It can muddy the distinctions between biology, sexual preference, and sexual expression when talking about masculinity and femininity.  To the uninitiated, encountering gender language is a plunge down the rabbit hole.  You are not born male or female.  Instead you are assigned a gender at birth, as if your sexual designation is a choice comparable to how you are named.  Instead of the two sexes there are close to sixty genders and counting proclaimed by Facebook users.  They range from gender queer (someone who identifies with multiple genders), to gender fluid (someone who fluctuates between being male and female), to everything else in between.   These gender terms are completely subjective.  All it seems to take these days to establish an entirely new gender category is for someone to think one up.

Ironically, transgenderism suffers from being included in gender speak which implies that gender is a choice, sometimes a whimsical choice, rather than a biological imperative.  The intense and lifelong feeling of being trapped in the wrong body is a very real biological condition that often causes years of suffering.  Understandably there is pushback from the transgender community to the North Carolina law as they know that theirs is not a whimsical choice but a real condition.

It is tempting to consider disparate treatment of transgender citizens as a civil rights issue in the same way blacks were treated disparately by establishing separate bathrooms for whites and blacks.  But the transgender controversy is not about separate sets of bathrooms; rather it is about bathroom labelling.  The President’s effort to stretch civil rights discrimination around bathroom labelling leads to surprising consequences.

Discrimination occurs when decisions are based on a trait without a compelling or inherent justification.   For example, an employment decision not to hire based on gender identity absent another compelling basis is discriminatory.  The solution requires the employer to hire the individual.  Why then isn’t requiring bathroom choice based on gender identity a solution to gender discrimination?  Substitute the word race for gender identity in the last sentence – requiring bathroom choice based on race – and the gender identity solution now seems problematic.

Consider also the consequences of school bathroom choice based on gender identity.  Not only would boys who identify as girls rightfully use the girls’ restrooms but heterosexual boys would also have that right.  The only difference between these two anatomical boys is their gender identity and, according to transgender advocates, Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity which then logically encompasses heterosexual boys who self-identify as boys.  Ironically, the way to ensure that bathrooms do not discriminate against gender identity is to have two separate but equal bathrooms based on biological sex.

Still, male and female bathrooms remain problematic.  Transgender men and women often hesitate to enter bathrooms they identify with because of the very real threat of violence and or verbal abuse.  Without separate male and female bathrooms, traditionalists worry about their privacy being violated, and about the potential for sexual predators taking advantage of gender identity laws.  With documented cases of sexual deviants masquerading as transgender men entering bathrooms and locker rooms, this worry is not an excuse for discrimination but a concern based in fact.

Perhaps there is another way.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides a template for addressing these bathroom dilemmas, particularly the ADA concepts of major life functions, legitimate conditions, and reasonable accommodations.  Although established for the workplace, the conceptual framework of the ADA could be applied to any environment to address the needs of those with special requirements, along with a blueprint for addressing these special needs.  Under ADA guidelines, going to the bathroom is a major life function that qualifies for a reasonable accommodation to those with a legitimate condition effecting bathroom use. These accommodations are then created through discussion between the stakeholders.  Reasonable accommodations take into account the health and safety of everyone and the feasibility of making such accommodations, including any undue hardships such as available resources and organizational size.

Using the ADA approach legitimizes special needs and provides a dignified method to broach a delicate subject.  This measured, systematic, collaborative approach holds out hope for avoiding the divisive and contentious environment evident in imposing a one size fits all solution based on a questionable civil rights violation. 

In Defense of Religion

Like most of the world, Secularism is rising in America, while religious participation is sharply declining.  As more and more scientific principles explain what was once attributed to a creator, belief in God logically erodes.  It’s all too easy to see religion as merely quaint biblical myths and stories, comforting and palliative to believers, but dangerous when religious ideas are brought into the public square.  Or so the argument goes.  But there is another view.

For centuries, Judaeo Christian principles organized Western Civilization.  The old and new testaments served as blueprints for establishing social values and civic responsibilities, allowing for peaceful coexistence within stable, just societies.  The wisdom found in the bible served society well for two thousand years.

Clearly the idea of ethical monotheism was a great leap forward in mankind’s thinking—it replaced the self-centered animistic view of multiple totem gods with a universal God that required people to think beyond themselves.  The ideas of universality and of a non-corporeal being reflected abstract thinking that became essential for scientific reasoning.  Indeed, modern scientists, like Einstein, used God as a metaphorical guide when contemplating the principles of the universe.

Science and religion cover non overlapping spheres of human existence.  Science covers the physical sphere, and religion covers the social sphere, giving us rules for social conduct and ethics.  But science and religion intersect when explaining the creation of the universe.  The scientific view is that the universe was created from the inflation of a single infinitesimally small point containing all of the elements of the universe.  For our universe to coalesce and form, gravity and other forces needed to be so precise that it could not happen by chance … which sounds like the work of a creator. 

Scientists address the implication of a non-physical explanation for the creation of the universe with the multiverse theory.  In this theory universes are constantly being formed, indeed an infinite number of formations.  With an infinite number of formations our universe could happen by chance.  Importantly, however, there is no proof for the multiverse theory.  Like the religious view it remains an article of faith.

As America secularizes, the consequences to society are not favorable but predictable.  The concepts of sacred and profane are lost in a secular society as these concepts are embedded in religious beliefs.  Simply put, sacred thoughts and actions bring people closer to God; profane behavior does exactly the opposite.   

Without the restraint of the sacred, people can gravitate towards the profane of self-indulgence and self-gratification.   The trend towards the profane is evident – a coarsening of dialogue, immodesty, drug addiction and crime, alienation, and a breakdown of the nuclear family.  The profane has even entered the campaign for the highest office in the land in the form of Donald Trump. 

But what about the evil committed in the name of Christianity -- the medieval murders by Crusaders and the torture during the Inquisition?  This happened a long time ago, prior to the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  Obviously, Judaeo Christian leaders no longer advocate murder or torture.  True, some religious practitioners do not live up to religious teachings and act immorally or engage in cover-ups of evil deeds to protect religious institutions.   Yet there is an absolute standard to judge actions, and when evil is spotlighted and forced out of the shadows no religious figure is immune from religious condemnation.

For the non-religious, an absolute standard is replaced by an individual standard derived from reason and feeling.  The consequences of actions taken by countries and people un-moored from Judaeo Christian morality are devastating.   Many modern godless societies murdered and tortured millions upon millions of people – The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and North Korea to name some.  In this country, atheists used reason to advocate for eugenics and forced sterilization of undesirables.

Yet religion remains a question mark for many because of religiously conservative stances on a number of contentious social issues.  In my next blog I will explore some of these hot button issues.