The Epstein Files

So here it is, my official and public statement about the Epstein files.

I haven't read them. I know very little (in terms of proven fact) about the Epstein case. He either killed himself or he didn't (as I believe the options to be) and he had files. Lots of files that apparently every world leader has and is using to blackmail Pres. Trump. In his spare time he was a monster, and we suspect that anyone who spent any time with him is therefore a monster. I'm not taking a stand on any of this because it is well beyond my ken. But there is another angle to it I would like to discuss.

I spend time online discuss/arguing about Judaism and Israel. I'm found in the "pro" camp. One of the things I see quite often is that people decide to use examples like Epstein to prove something about Jews. Jews, they say, are monsters, because Epstein was a monster and he was Jewish. I see the same thing when it comes to discussing other people (on both sides of various issues) and it is getting annoying. Why must people inject religion into a discussion when it is conspicuously absent.

Let's assume that Epstein is guilty of crimes 1 through 12. Unless his actions when committing those crimes were driven by his religious belief, or he used his religious identity to defend them, then the fact that he happens to be Jewish is as irrelevant as Charles Whitman's interest in coin collecting.

And attribute is relevant when it helps identify or explains a motive. I don't care what Hitler's favorite flavor of ice cream was unless it was that choice of flavor which drove his Final Solution. So if it wasn't, don't give me a headline "Austrian Strawberry Eater commits genocide; the Strawberry Eaters are gonna getcha!"

It works in the other direction as well -- someone shouting down Israel or Judaism finds a supportive quote by someone. That someone happens to be Jewish so the anti- person will point out the Jewishness as if that makes an opinion WHICH IS UNRELATED TO RELIGION somehow more powerful and relevant. It doesn't. So Einstein was against certain aspects of Israel's politics. Why does his Jewishness have any relationship to that? Did he make his statements because of his religion? Does he use the texts and beliefs of his religion to explain his position?

One reason that people get called "anti-semite" isn't because they are posting things that are false, but because they are laying behavior unrelated to religion at the feet of the religious group. Can we try to keep our hatreds in focus, people?

I am not defending Epstein -- he has done the world a disservice on so many levels (not the least of which is that I can't enjoy Welcome Back, Kotter as much anymore) but let's not let the actions of individuals become a reason to hate a group, nor let the hatred of a group impact an approach to the law.

---------

Trying to fall asleep but another point appeared in my head. 

When you start to accuse someone and draw from that accusation an attack on an entire group, you can pick any aspect of that individual's identity and decide that that's the dimension of identity that you'd like to tar with this particular accusation. So if a some famous person commits a bad act you can look and say oh that's the exactly the kind of thing an Irish person would do, or, for the same person that's such a left-hander's attitude, or the Democrats all think like that. 

You can pick any aspect arbitrarily and that's the one you can decide is participant in the bad act. But mostly, monsters are not monsters as an expression of a singular affiliation but because they are monsters. 

Not a blog post

 This isn't meant as a formal post, but it was a thought I had after being accused o being a paid Zionist shill because I corrected someone's mistake on an online forum. The person asked if I was paid to post and if so, how much did I get per post. I ignored his accusation, but it set me to thinking about the business model there so I quickly jotted down some notes that I want to save somewhere.

Welcome to somewhere:

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

if I were to consider a policy of paying people to engage online (money per post) I would consider one primary goal to be the dissemination of information about my position (true or false -- normative), another primary goal would be to spread selected information to make the counter position look flawed or weaker. But I would also have a goal of getting the opposition to betray itself. If a post elicits a response, pay. If the post elicits a response which opens the opposition up to countering, more payment. If the post elicits a response which provides otherwise unknown information, more payment.

maybe more views/click thrus, more payment

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

thank you for not paying attention.

Some additional notes: based on what I have seen in multiple forums, I have developed a new conspiracy theory -- Israel is paying people to write the dumbest anti-Israel things ever so that people will correct them with facts, thus making the Israel side look reasonable. There is no way that so many people are so dumb and say such obviously wrong things. I think the Mossad creates these people to make the anti-Israel side look stupid.

A question of approach

 I will be laying out a set of facts and asking for the proper response based on Jewish law and ethics.

Imagine an organization that represents Jewish ideals and abides by Jewish law. It operates in a secular context in which there has been an erosion of ethics. Some organizations steal or cheat to get what they want from the government.

Should the organization in question:

A) "play the game" as well and manipulate the system as much as anyone else to ensure that the recipients of the organization are kept on par with everyone else

B) take a principled stand and operate normally, refusing to get ethically muddy even though this would put people served by this organization it a severe disadvantage

C) disavow the system as a whole, refusing its benefits if its challenges seem insurmountable. Walk away as an organization. Recipients of services would have no recourse but no one would be placed in ethically questionable position.

Or give me a thought out choice D.

The Lit Essay and the Dim Student

 As an English teacher, I spend way too much time grading writing. I have been assigning numbers (and/or letters) to student writing for over 30 years. And I still can't explain it well. Here is a transcript of a wholly fictional (yet accurate) conversation I have with a student after handing back papers (no line of student dialogue was never said):

Student (S) -- why did I get an 87 on my paper?

Me (M) -- because there were errors in it.

S -- was my answer wrong?

M -- in writing, it isn't about right or wrong -- it is about structure and proof.

S -- But I proved my point!

M -- Yes, you did, but there were stylistic and mechanical errors.

S -- But I got the answer right.

M -- in English class, we aren't looking for you to get the right answer, and then show your work. In English, the work IS the product. The proven argument is just a way for you to demonstrate mastery of writing as an independent skill.

S -- so what did I do wrong?

M -- did you look at the corrections that I made, or the comments that I wrote?

S -- Can't you just tell me?

M -- OK: you have no transition between your first and second body paragraphs.

S -- And that was worth 13 points?

M -- no, that isn't how it works. You had other errors as well. You didn't capitalize, your comma use was poor and you used first person which I had told you not to use.

S -- But how is that 13 points? My friend showed me his paper and it was basically the same but he got a 92!

M -- Every paper is different as is every student's background and tendencies. A student who has shown marked improvement and a student who makes no effort to fix previously corrected errors are not viewed identically.

S -- So another kid can make comma errors and get a 92, but I do it and I get an 87?

M -- Well, yes, and you did other things wrong as well.

S -- How much is each missing comma worth?

M -- That's not how holistic grading works.

S -- You why did I get an 87?

M -- You want an 88?

S -- I want an A.

M -- it wasn't an A paper.

S -- But my friend got an A and I think my paper is better.

M -- If you would like, I can regrade your friend's paper and take off more points.

S -- Why you got to be like that?

***Repeat for over 30 years***

Centrist

One of the really tough things for me to do (I shan't generalize to the entire species -- I'll just recognize this in myself and if you see a shadow of it in your life, maybe you will think about it as well) is to recognize my centrism.

I live, for now, in the USA. I sort of like it here. Things haven't been great recently and I fear for the future, but I owe a whole heckuva lot to America. But one thing that living in the greatest country, state, city etc is the sense that everything else is second tier. And it is true. I'm guilty of that, of seeing New York as the center of the universe and for seeing the US as the single bastion of human culture that all others have to follow.

I know that this isn't true but it is so engrained in my head. I see other country's music as an imitation. I consider a foreign film to be a Marvel superhero movie with subtitles. I don't understand why other languages are even necessary. I'm American-centrist. That's not a bad thing but it limits my understanding. I go into a store and immediately compare it to the Shop Rite in Englewood. I see a TV show and try to categorize it by associating it with "real" shows, meaning shows in the US.

This also has an interpersonal consequence: I expect all other people to have the same values and behaviors as an American. So when I get a book about the social practices of different cultures, instead of celebrating each one as a unique expression of a history, I see everything in comparison to the transcendent norm of "America." I think we do that as a nation, seeing other countries as pale photocopies of the US, so we impose on their actions our sensibility. We assume that because we would react in a particular way to a stimulus, anyone else would also. This is troubling. We look at the media in other countries and complain about infringements on the "right to free speech" as if that is a universal, and not American construct. We mistake our approach to international relations as the best if not only one, so local codes of hierarchy, dominance or such don't register and we walk into a fan blade without knowing that it is we who are the foreigners.

I was watching the weather report and the forecast for this week came up. Apparently, later this week, we will be having a "heat wave." The term "heat wave" refers to 3 successive days of 90+ temps. But it only means that to an American audience. Maybe elsewhere, anything over 80 is a heat wave. Maybe in some places, they don't think of heat waves, but successive days of anything below 90 is a cold snap. I don't know -- I have always taken it as gospel that 3 90+ days equals heat wave. I forgot to put the qualifier "here" into my consideration because I assume a default American-centrism.

Maybe that's normal. Maybe we have to be trained to look beyond our local biases and see other paths as valid and equal, not a echoes or childish attempts to copy. And maybe we should be familiar with other paths before we decide that ours is the only and best, and before we expect that everyone thinks and does as we do in all cases.

The US is great. Our movies are great. Our music, our food, our highway system, our air conditioning, all great. But looking down on any place else because they refuse to be America-wannabees is not so great.

---------------edit------------

so it is tough to see a different iteration of "professionalism" and "customer service" and be satisfied by it if my American-centric standards are "higher." I wonder if I should adjust to acept the local norm or impose my American expectations and hope that the entire system rises to meet me what i think of as reasonable expectations.

In Which I Catch a Ghost

I'd like to address this to my two shining stars -- my kids. Guys, I hope that this little bit of chizuk lasts you for a while because something like this is the exception, not the rule. But here's the truth of it -- you are some how, in some part and some way, psychic.

Here's how I figure it -- I figure with all the times that I feel like I heard or saw stuff, I must be somewhat psychic and so with all the genetics these days, odds are my children and I would be connected somehow.

I have felt my psychic-nessness (the second one is in Hebrew) for years but have never had the proof. Today, I caught it by the tail. I was watching the Mets game and the announcers, at the end of a clean first, noted that a certain pitcher was slated to pitch in the second. There is a practice called a "bullpen game" in which a team uses a long slate of short relievers to fill the game with fresh arms that need work, giving a starter spot a break.

A quick conversation with an AI or two revealed that according to popular thinking, this started in 2018. I recall having thought of this strategy before then. But hey, that's just my off-the-charts narcissism so what evs. So is this another in a ghost-cadre of vague recollections of my prescience? I did a quick check of Facebook and found this post:

In this post, dated May of 2017 I mention that I had an idea of running the bull-pen out there in an "earlier" plan. Even though I don't know where that earlier plan is, it shows that I had the idea well over a year before the league. And since soon after, the league started using it, I feel it is well within my rights to expect a piece of that, there action. So what profit has been generated by the implementation of this approach?

But seriously, this pretty much proves that I'm being monitored.

P.S. this is the stuff you should be pointing to when you are questioned by the authorities and you say something vague like "wellsir, he did seem to be getting a touch, y'know, funny in the head, thinking that everybody from here to Sunday was out to get him.

I Got Taken for a Ride

 No, this isn't about my shameful episode of "buying from a fake website and getting defrauded" so let's just move on, shall we?

Today, my friend and daughter* traveled over the river and through the Englewood** to meet me at the Bean. Our plan? To give blood. I am due to give, as is the kid so she came on out to NJ and we figured on a daddy-daughter breakfast and bleed. We left my car in its spot and she drove me to the blood-taking-place-building.

Well, the car drove me and she sat there and looked very nice.

Never have I ever, up to this point, been on a fully autonomous car ride out in nature. It was unnerving to say the least. But don't worry -- I'll say more:

At times, it was harrowing
and often confusing;
its logic of lane changes,
speed above cruising.

I'll start again.

I didn't really notice it much until the car, after completing an on-merge fairly well but overly-cautiously, moved out of the right lane (which is not a designated "slow lane") in to a middle lane directly behind an ambulance. It fell back a little and then moved into the left lane and drove 6-7 miles above the speed limit. In my rental, I get a red light on my Heads-down-display when I am driving over the locally posted limit. The Tesla has no such safeguard I guess, freeing the AI up to find its level of lawlessness.

It moved into the right lane when we were 1.1 miles away from our exit and there was yet another exit, plus a strip mall before our exit. I question that decision as well.

Then, out of nowhere, the car squirted windshield wiper fluid. Yes, the wipers were going, on the intermittent setting, but there was no cause for the fluid spray. Riddle me that one!

I watched it figure out traffic flow (meh to a meh-ploos) and avoid pedestrians (meh-meenoos and that's generous). I still got distracted by the huge color monitor which is constantly bombarding every thing around us with invisible rays that allow us to record their every move. Do they record that stuff for training purposes? Is every Tesla driver's driving like the textual source for a robot using real world experiences to populate its LLM-equivalent pool of potential? The Tesla would then approach any intersection and pick the movements most likely to appear next based on the database created by analyzing the actions of all other Teslas, everywhere and ever.

Anyway, we got to the blood place on West Ridgewood**** and I was told that my appointment had to be pushed off by an hour and the kid couldn't come in as a walk-in because they had 3 techs call out sick (which is a contraction of "call in to call out sick") and were therefore woefully understaffed. Mmmmm woefuls

So back into the Tesla for another trip as we return to the scene of the chrome. This time, the young person told the AI to take the route which was 2 minutes shorter. It did and this put us on a toll road. Therefore the going rate for time is $.45 per minute.

Overall review: not bad. Unnerving as I said -- the entire idea of being a passenger is anathema to me, but when there is no driver, I don't just feel like I am not in control -- I feel like NO ONE is in control. The claim that a computer can consider options and exercise judgment that will dovetail perfectly all the time and with every other driver on the road? I can't buy it. Learning to anticipate specific drivers based on recent observations isn't part of what I want computers to do. Acting counter-intuitively because of some human based reason is part of driving. Yes, I know one can instantly jump on and assume control and do all the stuff that has stayed in the human domain, but the human is separated from the driving experience and will always have to get "up to speed." The active driver is already at speed. I am floored by the technology and how well it does work but I'll always trust myself just a tiny bit more.

*that's one person...get it? I LIKE my kids and I am honored to have the audacity to consider them as cherished friends. So stop laughing) 

** In all my years, I don't think I have ever written the name "Englewood" correctly on the first go unless I stop and think about it for a few seconds -- this is because many years ago, I had a student named Justin Engel and the "spell" setting*** got stuck on Engel and now I can't get out of that pattern. Thanks Justin.

*** For some words, it seems that my brain simply assimilated them wrong so the default spelling is stuck in the wrong place. I cannot spell the word "friend" without pause. The wrong spelling was Eprommed on.

**** Sometimes I do stop when writing Ridgewood to reconsider if there is an E after the 'dg' or if that's just in England but mostly I remember.