Who Reads the Papers?

Once true, always true.

Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"

Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

Over 1500 Days Without a Visit

This Saturday is Gilad Shalit's 24th birthday, has been in captivity for four years and has been living without basic humanitarian rights.  The Red Cross, who are meant to ensure such rights, have yet to visit him.  Here is a letter that a cousin of mine who works for the Jewish Agency in Israel has written.  She suggests that it can be adjusted to your personal feelings and send it to one of the addresses at the bottom.

---

I cannot express too strongly my disappointment at the clearly feeble and half-hearted attempts made by the ICRC to visit Gilad Shalit.

To claim on your web-site that you are still “working just as hard” to visit Gilad when you first failed 4 years ago only means that you have not increased the pressure nor have you shown- for years- any creative initiative.  For one small soldier the effort is apparently not worthwhile.

You have clearly never countered Hamas’ refusals by trying to “upgrade” your own efforts but have just carried on as before, knowing that you will continue to fail. When asked “What exactly have you asked Hamas to do?” you simply ignore your own interviewer’s question and give no real detail whatsoever, just the same old generalisations and platitutdes.  The conclusion must be that there is no detail to give.

To admit on your website that “there is only so much that we can do for them” is a total abandonment of your creed.  You no longer have true belief in your mission, and your double duties as messenger to one Israeli soldier and as protector of the poor and hungry in Gaza have led you into the worst ways of expediency, well on the road that leads to total defeat.  You have lost your own self-esteem and, I am convinced of it, that of many thousands of others.

It took you four years of failure before you even realised that “working behind the scenes” is a pointless, hopeless way of dealing with Hamas.  FOUR YEARS!!  Against this background, you could never persuade any reasonable man that you have been really trying at all.

Please think of these things…

----

Suggested addresses:

For Near & Middle East:  dkrimitsas@icrc.org (Dorothea Krimitsas- Media Relations Officer)

Jerusalem: jerusalem.jer@icrc.org (Ms. Barbara Amstad)

International Office: Review@gva@icrc.org

Scary Thought

A soldier cannot absolve himself of an immoral act because he was only following orders. Equally, bystanders bear some responsibility if they know some evil is going on and yet do not protest. After all, “all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing”. Yet, would I be one such bystander? How can I even declare a mild confidence as to what I would do?

Most people would like to flatter themselves and think they would protest evil. They are horrified by accounts of atrocities, aim to do good in their own lives and will sincerely rattle off the same platitudes that I did in my first three sentences. “Of course I would do something”. Yet I feel this is just an example of the “above average effect”. If you ask someone to rate how good they are at driving, the vast majority of people will rate themselves as “above average”. Statistically improbable indeed! Equally, most people believe that they will stand above the crowd and act on principle, whilst I contend that most people are the crowd.

Of course, people won’t do something bad if told to do so out-of-the-blue but they can be influenced step-by-step in that direction. Consider the famous “Milgram Experiment”. Could anyone be induced, straight out, to administer a potentially lethal 450 volt shock to an unwilling participant for getting a question wrong? Of course not. How about a harmless 15 volt shock to a willing participant in a learning experiment? Yes. Starting from that point, Milgram wanted to see if, by raising the voltage in increments of 15, people could be induced through verbal pressure alone, to give the possibly lethal shock. A staggering 65% gave the full shock; a result confirmed in repeated examples of the test in different times and places. You don’t need to be below average in morality to be capable of unbelievable evil.

What is more scary is that I could see myself being influenced in some way by extremist literature. People will see Mein Kampf for the drivel it is, and will wonder how people could believe such things. Academics inter that, even from a literary point of view, it is dreadfully written. Whilst this is absolutely true, I, for one, found it incredibly compelling [something can be absolute drivel and compelling at the same time- cf. Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code]. Even I found myself hating Jews after reading it! My critical thinking kicks in quickly and any such thoughts are banished. However, how about in abnormal circumstances where it confirms a prejudice I have, emotional thinking is encouraged, it conforms to what everyone else thinks and I’m going through hard times? Even though I wouldn’t agree with the excesses, would I concede that “he has a point” [much the same reaction people often have on reading Dawkin’s “The G-d Delusion”]? What effect would that have on me?

Perhaps the very fact that I am a reflective person, as evinced by me having these thoughts, would prevent me from falling into this abyss. However, this is fallacious. Some of the most reflective people- scientists, philosophers, religious men- were prominent members of the NAZI party. Most members of the committee who proposed the ‘Final Solution’ were Doctors, and one even insisted on being called Dr. Dr. because of his two PhDs. On the other hand, one of the ‘righteous gentiles’ I learnt about in Yad Vashem was a common thief. How we act in normal times is not a good indicator of our behaviour in the abnormal times.

No doubt, my potential to be evil may seem to myself and others as counter-intuitive. Yet, what is my record like in contemporary times? There is constant and unacceptable de-legitimisation of the State of Israel, but how much do I speak up in defence? On the other hand, an Israeli soldier gloats about her Palestinian prisoners on Facebook, yet how much are these abuses non-apologetically acknowledged in our community? Moreover, what about situations like that in Darfur? I’ve signed a petition and attended a meeting or two. Yet, to be honest, I can’t even really remember anything about it- apart from the word “Janjaweed”. Nor could I say what happened in Rwanda or Bosnia/Serbia. I have read some things about them, but “living your own life” usually cancels out fighting evil. So, what would happen if evil was transferred to my doorstep? I don’t know.

Fact of the Day

There are certain facts that stick in your memory, and a trillion times that amount that do not. Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything is such a well-written book that I will practically forget everything he writes. If a book is too easy to read, then the content will be enjoyable but there is nothing to make it stick in your brain- “as is the effort, so is the reward”. There is definitely one fact that, thanks to Bill, will stay lodged in memory because he provided such a good analogy.

Basically, it’s all about the structure of atoms that had, at one point, thought to be a dense and solid object and shaped like a cube or a currant bun. In fact, an atom is now conceived to be mainly empty space. The neutrons which account for the majority of its mass, as well as the protons, are in a nucleus that constitute a millionth of a billionth of the atom, whilst the electrons spin round the outside. This fact, as stated so far, is one that I was probably taught when I was 15 at school and just like I forgot it then, I’d forget it now. I mean, what the hell does a ‘millionth of a billionth’ mean? However, a good image is all it takes…

Imagine that the atom was the size of a cathedral. If so, the nucleus would only be the size of a fly- but a fly that is many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral.

The Role of a Posek

The Torah Temimah, Rabbi Baruch haLevi Epstein, said the following:

"One does not need to be a great talmid chochom... to give a severe psak.... But it takes unusual talent, abundant wisdom and understanding, and a great spirit for someone to give a psak lekulah.”

Here he is outlining what a key characteristic of a halachic decisor is, according to his father- the author of the Aruch haShulchan. These words are not an unusual thing to hear in and of itself- in fact, I've heard religious people say it a lot as a general principle. However, I usually hear it in the context of forbidding something! "Yes, it is probably halachically permissible but it takes a great rabbi to be lenient- so you can't do it". Often we hear the false modesty that no rabbi in this generation is great enough to do so. In other words, it is used as an excuse not to toil in Torah to make a Jew's life easier, not an imperative to do so!

Nothing could be further from the way of the Aruch haShulchan! He was specifically diverted from producing chiddushim in Torah to being a posek by a talmid of the Vilna Gaon, in order to save Jewish people anguish and monetary loss. Here is the Torah Temimah's recollections of his father:

Words cannot describe the exhaustive, almost painful effort my father expended in order to find some heter for any she'ala that came before him. Unless it was specifically stated in the Talmud or poskim that one must be stringent, he would try to find a lenient psak for even the most serious question. Where a loss of money was involved.. or hospitality to guests was involved, he would increase his efforts tenfold, leaving no stone unturned to find some way to permit the she'ala.

While we are at it, who would give the answer R' Chaim Soloveitchik did as to the role of a rabbi?:

to address the grievances of those who are abandoned and alone, to protect the dignity of the poor, and to save the oppressed from the hands of his oppressor

Blood, Platelets & Begrudging Morality

Now I, as I’m sure a lot of people, do their best to do the right thing.  For some it comes easier than others.  Personally, I’m quite a begrudging sort of guy and it doesn’t ‘warm the cockles of my heart’ to help others.  The overriding emotion once I have ‘discharged my duty’ is probably relief.  Dissonance between what I should do and my natural resistance is a nuisance I am happy to be (temporarily) rid of.

One can understand how, for someone like me, it was the best of both worlds to get a letter from The National Blood Service saying that I couldn’t donate platelets.  Now I do give blood now and again and whilst it causes no great anguish, I am a bit squeamish.  It is not that it hurts but I don’t like the thought of a needle in me, am a bit scared in case I move, and finds the continual hand-pumping action a little uncomfortable.  However, it only takes 10 minutes and the second it is over, I feel no ill effect.  After my compulsory hot chocolate, I am on my way.

Last time I was in to give blood, the nurse asked whether I had considered giving platelets.  Is something I might like to do? Would I like to be tested for?  Of course, this isn’t something that I generally think about at great length.  Equally, it isn’t at the top of my ‘like’ list.  The key point here is that you cannot be a blood donor and a platelet donor at the same time.  As such, I would be (as I found out) swapping a 10 minute donation for 1 and a half hour donation, going in 8 - 10 times a year rather than 4, and have a machine strapped to me and not just a bag!

Not wanting to base my moral decision on what I feel like, I asked for information and also which would be the most useful thing to do.  After a few niceties about how both were incredibly valuable (which they are), I found out that it would probably be better to give platelets if I could.  Fewer people are able to donate them, not many people can commit that amount of time; and unlike blood, they cannot be stored as they only last a short time.  As such, I agreed to take test and if possible, become a platelet donor.

Recently, I got a letter from the National Blood Service with the results.  I was told that: “you have more than enough [platelets] for yourself, however not a sufficient amount extra to provide an adequate donation”.  I’d done the right thing- so to speak- and yet got out of having to take any further action.  Phew!  But is this the right way to feel?  This all depends on whether you subscribe to Aristotle’s view of ethics or Kant’s.

For Aristotle, ‘doing the right thing’ does not make you a moral person or the action a specifically moral one.  It is the role of the politicians to introduce legislation that encourage rational actions promoting the welfare of people and state, and early education to indoctrinate you into performing them.  However, the main role of education is to develop your character such that- like the rest of nature- you always follow the middle path.  You will, for example, develop compassion so that you will want to help people.  An action may be rational but it is only moral if it is a natural expression of a person’s virtuous character.

Kant, on the other hand, disagrees and thinks emotions (or ‘how you feel’ about an action) are not a good guide to morality.  They are transient and will mean different choices on different occasions.  Also, dependant as they are on external circumstances, they are heteronomous and so, not a good guide to character.  Instead, actions must be based on categorical reason, which is the only thing that is truly autonomous.  As such, if someone who doesn’t want to something with every fibre of his being, yet does it because it is rational, it is a truly moral action. This is because it is based on the moral will alone.

It would therefore be very convenient if I Kant was absolutely right, as it would vindicate me.  However, he is not!  I agree that our actions can only be rationally justified.  Equally, I’m very distrustful of those who do what they happen (due to historical accident) to consider the most ‘loving’ thing to do.  Nonetheless, we can only be a truly moral person if we develop our character so that we will naturally follow the dictates of reason.  A begrudging person cannot be truly virtuous!  Oh well.

My Magic-Box, or Phylacteries

After accusing my brother of being responsible for much ‘internecine’ conflict, we got on to discussing whether a word can be part of language if no-one (or nearly no-one) knows what it means.  Clearly, yes.

Whenever someone asks what ‘tefillin’ are, someone always helpfully responds that they are ‘phylacteries’.  Given that neither the person giving the explanation, nor the person receiving it, know what phylacteries mean, it is a bit of a conversation stopper.  The person who originally asked is too embarrassed to question any further.  There is the implicit assumption that as it is a translation, or explanation, they should now have a good idea what it is. 

It is quite clear that ‘phylacteries’ is part of the language- even if (now) only as a synonym for tefillin.  Presumably phylacteries did have some wider meaning in English such that, rather than being a translation, it compared it to a class of things that an English speaker would already be familiar with.  I assumed it would be something like “ritual clothing” or “strapped boxes” or some other category of which tefillin was one member.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up.  The first definition was just a description of tefillin.  The second however, was “amulet” which means: “an ornament often inscribed with a magic incantation or symbol to aid the wearer or protect against evil”.  This is a bastardization of the practice and is, unfortunately, indicative of the superstitions that have entered Jewish consciousness.  No doubt this is what Rav Hirsch complains about when he says:

institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances

Even today Chassidic groups will be put tefillin on people even when there is no kavannah (intention) or meaningful experience of any kind.  It is not done as a mitzvah, or done for the symbolism (e.g. to dedicate emotions and intellect to Hashem), or done as a prayer aid, or pride that you are now Barmitzvah, or as an expression of solidarity with your people.  For me, this is worthless.  Others will thing that sticking cow to your head will influence ‘upper worlds’.

Judaism doesn’t need magic, but then again, there is no need for internecine conflict.

---

Afterthought:

If you want spiritual improvement, do the mitzvot.  If you want to be “protected from evil”, stay away from the miracle workers.  You are need of much more sensible advice than wearing tefillin, such as that proffered by the ‘Brisker Rov’, Reb Hayym Soloveitchik (HT: here):

Two women, who came for advice, gave me their story the impression what this interesting man [Brisker Rov] stood for.  One of them had an epileptic child.  She had had a dream in which a miraculous cure was indicated and wished to know the rabbi’s advice.  He remained calm.  “You take him to Warsaw,” he said, “and consult a specialist, as I told you before.” 

The second woman had a more complicated case.  Her husband claimed a commission on a real estate transaction with a Polish noble.  The latter refused to pay, and as R. Hayyim afterwards explained to me, properly.  The claimant was one of the numerous “Luftmenschen” of the Pale, men without any definite occupation, who had heard of an estate that was for sale, talked about it to the count or to one of his employees and after the deal had been closed demanded a compensation.  The count in good old eighteenth century fashion told him, if he should bother him again, he would give him a sound drubbing.  R. Hayyim asked: “what do you want me to do?”  “The Rabbi shall give my husband a blessing so that he shall find grace in the eyes of the Poriz.”  “I can’t give you a blessing,” was the reply.  “The Aibishter alone cane give you a blessing, but I advise you to select a representative person who shall talk to the Poriz, perhaps he may obtain a concession”. 

Or as (possibly apocryphally) told of his grandson Rav J.B. Soloveitchik:

Talmid: Rebbe, can you bless me?

Soloveitchik:  What are you? An apple?