Phone Homme

We are doing a disservice to our children. It is incumbent upon us to let them play, but have the play prepare them for what they will encouner in the real world as they grow. And, incidentally, don't go over to an 8 year old whom you haven't seen since he was 2 and say "look at you -- you're all grown up now" because he's NOT all grown up. He's 8. He still has a lot of growing to do. Stop lying to the kid.

So when we give our kids toys, those toys should reflect what they will see in their future. Well, I found this sitting in a drawer at work. I don't know why, but it has been in a drawer at my desk for approximately 10 years (at least). I looked at its underside (respectfully) and saw that it was tagged 2015. Two thousand and fifteen. Do you think that kids who played with baby toys in 2015 needed to practice their phone skills on something like this?

First of all, it is corded. Kids don't need a corded phone. Second, most real world phones don't have eyes and a face, at least not on the base models. And when was the last time you saw a phone with wheels. No, not you. The blind guy behind you. I have made my point.

At least they will understand how to use rotary dial on their cell phones.

Lit Crit Dramblings

The postmodern, post structuralist, deconstructive approach is wrong.

There is absolute truth and meaning in the created work. Any piece of creativity does have inherent and infused meaning and it is unfair to the creator to decide that there is no meaning or that every meaning is equally valid. The creator organically developed the creation starting from beneath the surface within a fertile context.  It then grew out, based on those roots, organically developing from its situation.

If that is then taken by someone else and grafted onto a different life experience, while it might be perfectly valid and reasonable to say that the resultant product is valid or that what came out of the situation and the meaning that developed from that is just as good as anything else, and while it's nice to say that, you can't say that it is better or that it is preferred or even that it is equally as valid as the one that the author had in mind, because the author has to be primary; give him 50.1% and if you want the other whatever the math, is that's fine. But he has to have the primary meaning creation privilege.

That transactional thing that is made by the reader has its own life and that's very nice but it has its own life as the creation of the field of experience of the reader so it cannot replace, it cannot overwhelm the one that was born with the writing of the original creation. It's perfectly fair to say that regarding an author who's not accessible, we cannot know the author's intent with certainty, but we can use detective like skills to figure his context out and maybe get establish some foundation for meaning in an almost historicist sense, bits that might have contributed in his consciousness, the way he used words (maybe because of the vocabulary of the time) and other things like the cultural references. We can assume that he must mean certain things or at least could not mean other things that are anachronistic or culturally inappropriate. Use extant decipherable variables and try to intuit what the author might have meant while also being aware of what the text means to you as reader.

Access is the new Ownership

I used to collect stuff. I used to have a book collection and a music collection and a typewriter collection and a reel-to-reel player collection. I had stuff. I sought out missing pieces and paid for the privilege of adding to my store and stash.

But then the internet happened.

Value is about scarcity, and utility. Sometimes it is also (or only) about personal importance; I enjoyed the conceptual comfort of knowing that I had certain things with arms reach even if I never reached. I scoured magazines and catalogues and want ads to find the exact something that I needed.

Then the internet happened.

Supply bloomed because not only was the marketplace the entire world, but the ads could reach all sorts of people who weren't even making an effort to look. An album I searched high and lois for and paid $125 to buy suddenly was in surplus on various online sellers and the price dropped precipitously. No one needed to snap it up because there would always be more available. Scarcity was gone (at least relatively so) and there was no more fear that "once it's gone, it's gone."

The internet continued to mess with our minds and eventually, the mass consciousness slowly drifted from an socio-economy based on owning to one based on having access. In the same way, we put less value on our ability to do certain things because we had access to the end result without the effort (think calculators and navigation systems).

In the olden days, we had to trade software. Now we can download it from a central server or just use the on line version of it. We used to buy music. Now we can listen to most any song at any time. The value of ownership has sunk but we invest in access, through our hardware and our subscriptions.

So no one values books. "I can read it online" they say.

So no one values vinyl. "I can listen online" they say.

Unless one still has that unique ownership fetish, or one is afraid of the global blackout which will throw us all back to the stone age, the age of the collectible is dead. Yes, a small group will still pay top dollar for that mint Pokemon card, certified and encased in Carbonite, but the casual collector who was more interested in the product than the label of "owner" will not see the value of getting. He or she can "get" the end result whenever the mood strikes.

This is, by the way, why, when I travel, I only go to certain places. If I want to see history, I can look at images online, or even walk in a virtual environment and interact. But I don't have to go anywhere unless it has the promise of lots of food. Because the internet can't feed me. I can order food but I still have to eat it.

Now we are firmly entrenched in an access-based culture, valuing what we can get to, not worrying about the possibility of not getting to. We can be minimalists in our homes (our photo albums are online, we watch TV through our phones, we write note by texting etc).

I still collect coins, though. So there.

A moral of a story

I live in a lovely first floor apartment and right outside my window, there is a courtyard with trees, chairs and grills so residents can go out there, grill up a dinner and relax outside. It is very nice. I even go out there sometimes and just read in the quiet of the courtyard since it is under utilized.

A couple of days ago, the weather was wonderful so I opened up the shades and windows and took it all in. At about 4PM, I noticed people outside getting ready to grill. Fine by me. Then more people and more and eventually the courtyard was full of people having a grand ol’ time. Yes, they were (and probably still are) black but I didn’t really care about that. Some surreptitiously looked in to my apartment and saw me watching television. No one shouted in, but I heard the comments about how weird it is that I was just sitting there watching TV. Fact is, I was watching a football game and folding laundry. It’s what I do. Then I put on Olympic Trials for swimming. But I ignored them and they ignored me for the most part.

Had I closed my windows, I feared that would be offensive. Had I engaged, it would have been intrusive. They were whooping it up (plenty loud, with profanity and children yelling – the sounds of life) and I just ignored it and went on with my life. At one point I did hear them wondering about whether there were cameras out there. I don’t know what they were doing wrong but I didn’t butt in to talk about cameras or anything. This is their event and I’m not involved.

Then I saw a message on the building chat that said that a large contingent of police officers had just pulled up. Now, I didn’t see the people outside my living room window do anything wrong, but while they were partying, a visibly Jewish couple came out to use the kosher grill, sat around for five minutes and then disappeared while I was answering an email. I looked up and they were gone. I didn’t see any friction or confrontation so maybe they had a fine reason to leave. Or maybe they felt out of place, or like they were intruding, or maybe they felt (unfounded) fear or intimidation. I just know that I wouldn’t put it past anyone to call the cops. Clearly, not everyone there was a resident (I don’t know if ANYONE was actually a resident but I assume someone in the group was) and, yes, they were spread out over the entire of the courtyard so there would have been little space had the Jews wanted to eat out there, and it certainly wouldn’t be a quiet meal. So if the cops were there for them and I didn’t know of anything they did wrong, I wondered whether I should let them know that the cops had arrived.

Had I said something to them, I would have been doing them a service by warning them, but I would have done that because I was being a racist and assuming that they were doing something wrong. Or maybe I was assuming that the cops and residents who called were racist and I wanted to keep them from being victimized by the Man. But if I didn’t say anything was I being a non-racist, not assuming they did anything wrong or was I being racist letting them be victimized or letting them get what they “deserve”? Would tipping them off be a favor or a condescension? Would it be traitorous to either the individuals who called the cops and wanted accountability that officialdom and authority would bring, or to the entire of the building, as I would be undermining the power of the police in general by tipping off the party-goers.

My indecision froze me and ate away at my insides. I didn’t know if I was a bigger heel if I did or did not say anything, a real life Buridan’s Ass.  I said nothing but not because I had resolved the moral dilemma; I said nothing because I was still torturing myself with indecision and while I was still in the midst of said wonderment, I saw a message on the chat which indicated that the police were going to a different courtyard for a different party. So I still don’t know what I should have done and don't know how what I did or did not do speaks about me as a reflection of my attitudes towards others. My morals remain intact only because I couldn’t find them at all.

More A than I

I am not afraid of artificial intelligence. It is artificial. It is not real even though it gives the appearance of being real. As long as we don't fall for the facade and are not fooled by the superficial we should be ok. In fact, the best thing fro us to do is to quantify what a computer CAN'T do and we will be able to spot the usurper.

Fact -- if I populate the internet with writing that is intentionally incorrect, and use a specific word repeatedly, a scraping, generative AI system will, not knowing or caring that what I wrote is factually (or even logically) wrong. It won't even really care if what I post is syntactically incorrect. The fact that my writing exists will impact (even if only slightly) the statistics which  a system uses to determine what a potential "next word" might be. If I do it enough, or pick an esoteric enough word, I can make a more substantial impact on the statistics and someone, somewhere, relying on a generative engine, will end up with something ridiculous. And the computer won't understand what the problem is.

There are things that make us human. Body language, tone of voice, context, personal vocabulary, personal preference and affectations. These are things that can not be replicated by computers because, while they can build a database of foundational information, they can't choose to ignore it for no apparent reason.

Computers can't be illogical or alogical (arational vs. irrational). They don't have gut feelings and can't be swayed by emotion. This may seem like a good thing, but it isn't. There is no appeal that might sway a computer. They can't decide based on intuition or be intentionally wrong. They cannot act on a whim. If one understands their programming, one can anticipate their behavior. Even their "randomness" is not random. They cannot capriciously choose; they can only create the appearance of randomness.

Could artificial intelligence actually exist? Yes, but under our rules of understanding, it wouldn't be intelligence. Knowledge is easy. But intelligence is about the human insight into when to be smart and when not to be. All of the AI versions I have seen in movies are something fantastical because they transcend programming and require a leap that endows on technology things like uncertainty, emotional investment or other intangibles which are what make humans human.

So a computer can imitate a human. A computer can do all the things that one would think of as being endemic only to humanity but it is all just cosplay. In the same way that we can copy the technique of Jackson Pollock, but we can't innovate his approach because we are just copying what is already there. A computer can pretend or copy but it can't create. A computer might even be able to consider the variables which would help it come to a solution to a problem but it cannot understand why it might not want to weigh a specific variable the same as others in an exceptional case. It cannot intuit and go against the statistical evidence/precedent.

So I'm not afraid of AI. I'm afraid of the non-intelligence that people will (and do) mistake for intelligence. I'm afraid that the level of actual intelligence is so low out there that people are willing to accept computing engines following programming as intelligence.

Lucky sevens

I took a class on Shakespeare in the mid 90's. It was, clearly, a heady time, with kids experimenting with Shakespeare and getting their fix on the streets. I needed to be a hip and cool teacher who could bring them Shakespeare in the classroom, exploiting their interests and taking advantage of their natural curiosity. 

Anyway, one thing that the prof said was that in the good olde days, five was an important unit. Bill's plays relied on a classical notion of the five act structure. Words like fist indicated a complete unit (one hand has five fingers -- look it up!). Even the slang for a five dollar bill is "fin" and that must mean something!

But I also have recently realized that Judaism, though it recognizes the value of all numbers (HA!) and does have some use for 5, its real stress is on seven. It is, as one could say, 2 more louder.

In Hebrew, seven is sheva (shin, vet, ayin). Whether there is any etymological connection between the words "seven" and "sheva" is beyond the scope of this piece, mostly because the books in which I would look it up are in the other room and I'm feeling lazy. Seven is significant as a unit of completion -- seven days in a week, the seventh year is a sabbatical year, we count 7 weeks between Passover and Shavu'ot. A baby boy's circumcision takes place after he has lived a complete week (and an animal can be sacrificed after 7 days).

I also noticed that the consonants involved are the same 3 used for "oath" (sh'vu'ah) and satiety (sova). In fact, Klein has, as part of the etymology of sh'vu'ah (oath) 'to be bound by seven things or seven oaths.' So the connection between seven and swear is right there. To my ears, this then means that being bound by 7 things means a sense of the maximum amount -- the right amount for an absolute oath. Then the leap from "7 which is the full amount" to "satisfied and satiated, full" seems straightforward. What is the ultimate statement of a full meal? A seven course dinner. And if you look at wikipedia, you will see that 2 other fancy meals are the 14 course and the 21 course. Sevens for the gustatory win.

It seems to me clear that there has to be a connection between all three of the words which work with the same 3 letter root (shin-vet-ayin) and maybe aspects of each wort can give us insight into the parameters of the others.

Seven, in Judaism, is a central unit and a concept of "complete". That makes five look like just an odd number.

Choose Awe

The only exercise I get is playing fast and loose with language and I'm in need of some exercise, so come on along. If you dare to.

I meant, "if you care to." Sorry. Didn't mean to sound all ominous and such.

There are words (and I have a list) that sound very similar in English and Hebrew but don't share any obvious historical connection. Yes, I know about the book "The Word" which tries to argue a proto-language that is the source of all (not the argument for Atlantean as the mother tongue, but effectively, Hebrew) but I didn't find this one in there so I'm staking my claim. Mmmmmm...stake.

The Hebrew language is based on a 22(+) letter alphabet. The first letter is aleph. But the Torah begins with the second letter, Bet, which leads the word "B'reisheet" in the beginning. Reams of paper and rolls of scrolls have discussed why this is. I don't know if what I'm going to suggest has been brought up but who cares. It's my party and I'll write if I want to.

I was reading about a skier who went to St. Moritz which is, according to the really bad book I read, in the Alps. I thought to myself, "I wonder if it is called the Alps because it is thousands of feed high as that, thousands, would be Alafim in Hebrew." I don't seriously think that the words are connected but it was a cute piece of word play that kept me busy thinking on a quiet morning. But I recalled that eleph (thousand) and aleph used the same letters and the only difference was in the vocalization. So I thought more about the word and realized that the same letters also spell aluph meaning "chief" or "head." That made sense. As numbers go, Hebrew has a (biblical) word for ones, tens and hundreds, and then thousands. That is the largest biblical numerical marker (AFAIK), so it is the head of all the numbers. (post biblical Hebrew imported words like "milyon" for million but I'm being all biblical this AM). And the first letter of the alphabet, the chief of all the letters, is the aleph. So I felt pretty good tying them all, conceptually, together and let the actual (that is, Klein's and Clark's) scholarship be darned.

So I can tie together the letter and the idea of being in charge or the greatest. So what? My first realization was that the first word of the Torah doesn't start with the lead letter. Well, that's not actually my realization, nor was it my first thought, but it was shabbos so I couldn't write down the actual order of my thinking. Cut a man some slack.

There is a verse in Psalms (111:10 I think) which says ראשית חכמה יראת ה׳ (reisheet chochma yir'at Hashem), the beginning of wisdom is being in awe of Hashem. Being in awe of Hashem is the sine qua non of learning and properly approaching yahadut. In the gemara (Brachot 33b) we read  

“ואמר רבי חנינא: הכול בידי שמים, חוץ מיראת שמים; שנאמר (דברים י, יב), ‘ועתה ישראל מה ה’ אלוקיך שואל מעמך, כי אם ליראה’…”

Rabbi Chanina says "everything is in the hands of heaven, except for the awe of heaven..."

His argument is that choosing to be in awe of Hashem is the one thing that man does independently*. That makes it an incredibly important life choice, foundational to everything else, which is why it is essential before trying to learn that we accept our relationship to Hashem. We must begin by acknowledging that Hashem rules over us and only then we can begin our learning in earnest. Maybe this is why each tractate of the Talmud begins on page 2. The metaphorical page 1 has to be reserved for our decision to trust in Hashem and be in awe of Him. Only after that can we start with the text. But what does that have to do with the letters of the alphabet in the Torah?

I figure that if aleph is connected to "first" or "chief" or "largest" or "over" (like the chiefs who are over the people) then that would explain the first verse of the Torah. In the same way that we begin the Talmud with the Bet we begin the Torah with a Bet (B'reisheet). Even the very beginning is still a second step. 

So what is the first step?

Remove the Bet from the word B'reisheet and you have Reisheet as in Reisheet chochma as quoted above! Before we can have the second reisheet (beginning), the Bet-reisheet, we have to have the first Reisheet which is being in awe of Hashem. Even the universe has to first acknowledge that Hashem is the eternal and chief, separate from us in our physical world ("aloof" you might say. I wouldn't, but you do you). Hashem is the ultimate Aleph/Eleph/Alupf and awe of Him is the foundation for everything from the universe to our daily approach to living and learning.

Yes, I know that part of my exercise routine included substantial logical leaps but I need to do something to keep my churlish figure.

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

*Clark says that aleph means "not independent" and "learning from others" so you can shoehorn that in any way you want. Or don't. I'll never know.

Not A Pitch

 So here's the thing -- I'm not trying to pitch an idea. That's not my style. All I want to do is hand you an idea. It might be a bad one and you are welcome to trash it. It is stuck in my head (as ideas often are, as I get them mostly on Shabbos) and I have to get it out. I just figured that it might interest you and I trust your professional judgment on these things because you are a professional and I'm a high school English teacher. Were the roles reversed, and you had a question about a dangling modifier (or, heaven forbid, a split infinitive) I would hope you would trust me with the delicate situation.

Anyway, I have an idea and I'd like to give it to you. That's it. I hand it off, getting it out of my system and letting you decide if it has value. If it does, and if it makes you a bajillion moneys, I will place a single request at your feet in return: I want to be thanked by name during a speech delivered by an award winner in a public forum. That's it. An unexplained name check. Just one. And if that doesn't happen, I won't even know and probably won't care anyway. I have other ideas to move on to. So here we go (if you haven't clicked away from this, I thank you for your indulgence; if you have, then, um, well, you won't uh...see...forget it).

Here it is. Use it as you wish. 

A trend in game shows seems to be letting Americans prove how great they are. That's wonderful. But a real American isn't just recognized for his talent -- he is lauded as being the best at something. Better than all those other schmucks for heaven's sake.

100 people in the audience, all thoroughly vetted by staff.

Vetting requires that a rep from the show visits the contestant at home pre-taping and makes a list of confirmed possessions in the house of the individual. 

 Each one is given $1,000. One is chosen at random to be the contestant. That person takes his money and places a bet (at least 10% of what he has must be betted. Is "betted" a word? If you can, find a high school English teacher and ask him or her...I'm just an idea man). The bet is worded as 

I (can/have) more ___________ than anyone in this room.

All the other contestants in the room are then allowed to indicate on their given devices if they wish to bet any amount that the main contestant is wrong. If it is a matter of "have" (that is, a collection or a possession), then the audience member is claiming to have the same or more of the named item than the contestant and this is adjudicated by the staff-judges. If the guy on stage wins, he gets the money from the audience member. If the audience member wins, he gets from the contestant.

If the claim is an ability or skill, his claim can be challenged by an audience member (I can ride a pogo stick for longer) and an impromptu head-to-head contest is set up. The winner gets the money.

[if there is a time lag while the competition is set up and run, another audience member can be brought up and, in parallel, a new set of challenges can be run until the other contestant competition is resolved]

If an audience member runs out of money because of failed challenges, he leaves. If the contestant either

loses 3 challenges or 

runs out of money, he leaves. 

If the contestant is not challenged, he wins 50% of his bet. He can choose to walk away with cash at any time before he makes his next claim. This is where the strategy kicks in. The contestant might know he will undoubtedly win in one area and lead with that. But people might expect him to start with a strength and simply not challenge him. He will make whatever he makes on the first one but then continuing to where he can make real money is a risk. If he starts with a bluff, saving his big guns for later when he can really cash in (as he will have more money so he can bet more) he might end up losing early.

If the contestant is challenged by more than one person, the contestant has to win against each (and he can then collect money from many audience members).

After the contestant leaves or loses, another member of the audience is chosen randomly (with new audience members chosen to replace any who might have left).

I have 3 working titles:

1. Bragging Rights

2. Wanna Bet?

3. [if you can get clearance from the Who] You better? You better? You bet.

anyhoo, it is just an idea and I feel better having typed it out. 

A skit I wrote

 

The scene: aboard an air liner. We see rows of seats, all occupied (there should be at least 15-20 people on stage, in seats, and there should be an aisle through the seats – every once in a while, a flight attendant should walk through, or push a cart through and the conversation mostly ceases or turns falsely innocent.

We hear the tail end of the captain’s announcements about the flight time etc)

Passenger 1: mumbles prayers

Passenger 2 notices the praying and turns to his neighbor.

P2: Excuse me sir, but I couldn’t help overhearing your prayers. Are you Muslim?

P1: Yes, I am!

P2: ASalaam Aleiykum brother! I’m Muslim too!

P1: Ah, praise be to allah to put me next to a believer and not an infidel.

P2: I know, right?

P1: I must tell you this brother – I was making peace with allah as I am on a holy mission and will have to blow the plane up soon for the glory of allah and to strike a blow against the great Satan. You should pray as well so that you can go to heaven.

P2: Um…ok then. Blow up the plane?

P1: Yes. All glory to allah.

P2: yeah…

[awkward silence]

P1 goes back to praying

P2 looks over and finally taps his neighbor’s shoulder. P1 looks at him.

P2: See…here’s the thing, and it really is quite ridiculous and funny if you look at it in just the right way…

[silence as P2 struggles for the words. P1 starts to get irritated]

P1: You interrupted my prayers and for what? For you—

P2 (interrupting and just blurting it out): My mission is also to blow up this plane as a show of resistance against the occupation of our lands.

P1: What?

P2: Yeah, crazy, right? I mean, you and I both getting the assignment to blow up the same plane. It’s actually so embarrassing.

P1: Wait, what? Are you saying that you are here to blow the plane up also?

P2: Yep, that’s the gist of it.

P1: Great!

P2: What?

P1: Well, I can blow up the plane and you can be considered as having succeeded in your mission also! No one will know whose bomb it was, just that the plane exploded.

P2: But allah will know! You will go to heaven as a martyr and get 72 virgins and I will be a victim, lumped together with all the other non-believers who deserve to die. I want the virgins. Why don’t we use my bomb and, as you say, no one will know the difference.

P1: No way. The virgins are mine. I’m blowing the plane up.

P2: Are not.

P1: Are too!

[They turn away from each other with arms crossed, each pouting and fuming. Eventually--]

P2: Come on brother, we cannot be angry with each other. We must work together to find a solution.

P1: Yes, yes, of course. Let’s just consider this for a moment.

[after a series of false starts “I’ve  got it…no…”]

P2: Here’s an idea. Why don’t we blow up our bombs at the same time?

P1: That’s kind of crazy, but it just might work.

P2: OK, we’ll push our bomb detonators on the count of three.

P1: Got it. OK, 1, 2…

P2: Wait – are we doing three and boom, or just 1, 2 boom?

P1: I don’t know. I guess I figured 3 AND boom? Is that ok?

P2: Yeah, yeah sure…

P1: No, really, tell me if that doesn’t work for you.

P2: It’s fine, it’s fine.

P1: no, really. Tell me. Would you rather 1, 2 boom? I can do that if it would make you more comfortable.

P2: Would you? I would really appreciate it. It’s just that 1, 2 boom is how my father and uncles did it and I want to be part of that tradition…

P1: No sweat. Of course we can do it that way. Who am I to get in the way of an honored family practice.

P2: You are so kind. I truly appreciate your willingness on this. I owe you one.

P1: I’ll let you have a couple of my virgins. I hope that will make us even.

P2: Abso-smurfly!

P1: OK, so let’s do this. One, t---

[P3 leans over the seats from the row behind]

P3: Um, excuse me guys, but did I over hear that you are planning on blowing up the plane?

P1: Yes! For the glory of allah and to strike a blow against the western serpents who try to control us.

P2: and also the occupation of our lands

P1: yes, and the occupation of our lands.

P3: well, so, hear me out, and I know this is going to be the craziest coincidence but I ALSO am supposed to blow up this plane to take the fight to the infidel where he feels safe.

[awkward silence]

P3: yeah, so I guess you can see how this puts me in a bind.

P1: Well, we can ALL just blow up our bombs at the same time, right?

P3: You’d think so, but…well, we can try I guess. I’ll let you know afterwards if it worked.

P2: Great! [P1 facepalms]

P1: OK…one, t---

P2: Now don’t either of you try to blow anything up before we get to three. That wouldn’t be proper, now would it?

P1: You suspect me of such treachery? After all we’ve been through? I will honor my word and not push the button a moment early.

P3: Y’know, I wasn’t even considering that until you said something and now I’m thinking about it. YOU weren’t planning on going early by any chance were you? And just warning us off so you’d be the only one?

P2: No, no. Really! Trust me. I just wanted to make sure this was going to be fair.

P3: just one other little thing. Before we blow up the plane, I have to give a little speech on the loudspeaker so the world knows what I am doing and why.

P1: Well that doesn’t bother me. Have at it! You have voice for it, you know.

P3: Aw shucks, than you. I had considered a job in radio but, you know, allah and revolution and all that.

P2: Don’t I know it. I wanted to be a electronics salesman.

P1: Never give up on your dreams. I bet you would have been great at it.

P2: You’re just saying it…but I’ll take it!

[all three start laughing and eventually settle down]

P2: But seriously, if you give your speech, no one will know that we are doing this resist occupation.

P3: Maybe we can take turns giving speeches and then count together and blow up the plane.

P2: That is a magnificent plan. I vote yes on that. Who will give his speech first? I vote you because this was your plan.

P3: You are too kind.

[P3 makes to stand up but before he does, P4 stands up holding a detonator]

P4: Ladies and gentlemen – I am here to punish you all for your sins against allah so I must---

P1 to P4: What are you doing?

P4: I’m delivering a speech before I blow up the plane so that people understand why I did this.

[P2 and P3 begin to snicker and giggle]

P4: What? What’s so funny?

[P2 and P3 try to hold it together and tag team an explanation – we get snippets that overlap and step on each other – “Because he” “and him!” “and all three of us, really” “right, 3 of us” “were all planning” “this is crazy” “all planning” and then with all the cacophony, P2 and P3 end up at the same spot and say together

P2, P3: blow up the plane!

[silence. Then P4 starts to laugh]

P4: So maybe this isn’t the time to mention it, but I saw a bomb belt in the bag of that lady across the aisle when I boarded the plane.

[he motions to a woman passenger across the aisle]

P1 [in stage whisper to the woman]: Excuse me madame. Madame. MADAME!

Female passenger looks over and behind her, unsure that P1 is talking to her. She points to herself, looks over her shoulder and mouths “me?” P1 nods vigorously.

FP: Yes? May I help you?

P1: I was wondering, well, actually, WE were wondering, well, you see, this gentleman here [he points to P4] told us that-

P4: Hey, don’t put this on me

P1: but you ARE the one who told us that

P2: enough already. Just ask the lady the question. Ma’am, I’m sorry for my friends here. They, um, don’t get out much.

P3 [has had enough]: Are you planning on blowing up the plane?

[FP stares in silent horror as all 4 P’s lean in for an answer.]

[she slowly softens and starts to smile]

FP: Actually, yes. How did you know?

[high fives, back slaps, and even an “I told you so” and an “unbelievable”]

P4: I noticed the bomb belt in your purse.

FP: Why you scamp! Yes, I couldn’t find my suicide purse so I had to take this one. This is what you get for rushing into things. Anyway, I need to blow up the plane so people will see the dedication of Women to the cause, as well.

P2: This truly is an enlightened time.

[The passengers behind the woman now lean over – they have been meeting in hushed tones and close conversation throughout this scene]

P5: Guys…and ma’am? Hi. So my seat mate and I were just going through the preparations for our bomb and we heard that you guys had a belt?

FP: Yes, a bomb belt. Stylish, form fitting and comes in many colors.

P5: Where do you get that?

FP: Nordstrom’s.

[they all murmur together in understanding and appreciation “ah, of course” “Nordstrom’s, yeah”]

[the more they talk, the more they attract the attention of other passengers many of whom now also start to take out bombs]

P1: Wait, wait, wait. [he stands]

P1: Hi everyone – I’m Hassan.

Everyone: Hi Hassan (a la an AA meeting)

P1: Who here is planning on blowing the plane up?

[almost all the hands rise, the last one rather slowly]

P1: and who here was NOT planning on blowing the plane up?

[one man (OM) raises his hand]

OM: I wasn’t going to blow it up.

P1: OK, in that case, let me explain why I’m doing this. Then we will go in seat order and each person will explain his or her cause and motives—

P6: what if I don’t have a motive and I’m just a psychopath?

P7: I didn’t know I’d have to give a speech! I didn’t write and, and, and I have a fear of pubic speaking.

P3: I have heard that that is the most common fear around so don’t feel bad.

[others chime in support]

OM: ok, but here’s the thing (and he takes a plastic ghost gun and a ceramic scalpel out of his bag). I’m supposed to hijack it to help us get our prisoners back.

P2: Ha! That’s stupid. No one will release prisoners because you hijacked a plane. What a silly idea!

OM: No sillier than your dumb ass cause.

P2: [tries to charge at OM] You take that back!

[he is held in place by his seatbelt. As he is about to unbuckle it, the “seatbelt” sign comes on and he settles back in, angrily.]

P2: Not cool, man. Not cool.

P1: Maybe we should put this to some sort of vote.

P3: OK, what are we voting on?

FP: How about “should we blow this plane up or let the hijacker take us someplace awesome”?

P5: I can get behind that. Can we vote about where?

OM: You don’t get to choose. I need to land in Yemen.

[mass cries of “ugh, Yemen?” and “Yemen is SOOOO hot” and “there’s nothing to DO there. It’s gonna be so boring” and “I don’t have any friends in Yemen. What am I supposed to do?” and “can’t we go to Disney?”]

P2: Look, if it has to be Yemen that we might as well blow ourselves up now. I got my ass kicked in Yemen once and I’m not going back. No way, no how.

P6: What if we landed in Yemen and THEN blew the plane up?

[all “shhhh” P6 sits back, dejected]

P1: OK, so here’s the plan. Let’s all write down our causes on pieces of paper and then put them in a turban and pick one out randomly. That person, as chosen by allah, will have the privilege of representing all of us and making a single speech that will include all of our grievances.

[almost all eventually agree after discussion, some animated]

P8: Sorry, but I can’t go along with this I—

[he is shot by OM]

[short pause and then conversations continue]

FP: Does anyone have paper we can pass around, and any pens?

[a number of hands go up]

FP: Real ones – no detonators that look like pens or pens that open into knives or squirt acid.

[half the hands go down]

[paper is distributed as are pens. Mass writing, ripping]

Voice: do I have to write in the form of a question?

[ripples of laughter. More scribbling and whispers]

[a voice yells in pain “this pen has acid in it!” another voice pipes up “my bad. Wrong pen”]

Different voice: does it have to be in the form of a question?

[no one laughs though there is an awkward cough]

P7: If whoever had my pen is done with it, I’d like it back. It’s my favorite.

[a pen is passed across and papers start being collected and put into a turban]

P3: May I pick the winner?

P5: Why does HE get to do it?

P1: Well, he did ask first.

P4: not fair! I didn’t know we could call it or I would have first. No one said we could call it.

P3: whatever – you want to do it? Fine, be like that. You will go into the next world but I’m not talking to you anymore, that’s for sure.

As P4 gets the turban the captain’s voice is heard making the announcement to prepare for landing

P1: Damn. We are ready to land. We can’t go through the whole process now. There’s no time left.

P2: We could just push this off until tomorrow.

P7: I’m not flying tomorrow. I need time to recover from the jet lag.

P2: What jet lag? Just stay awake and blow up a plane tomorrow. How hard could that possibly be?

P3: Listen, we need to coordinate this better. How about we all meet up at a restaurant later tonight and ort this whole thing out? How’s that sound?

P2: works for me

P1: OK

[Others add in their assent.]

The plane lands and the passengers get their bags (there is the usual commotion of “I think this bomb is yours” “no, mine was in a blue bag and that’s yellow” a shout “yeah, that one’s mine”)

As they move out P2 looks at P1 and says: Well, that’s a relief. We really could have messed this whole thing up.

Certainty

 Just a quick note before I get started -- this little bit of linguistic silliness only works if one relies on the transliteration in use in most of the world. I'm no xenoethnolinguist to know if the transliteration is accurate so just let's roll with it, shall we?

There is an old Yiddish saying which translates roughly to "it's hard to be a Jew." Why is that? I mean, why do we take it as a given that will be the eternal victims? Why are we perennial targets? I refuse to believe that it is something specific in our collective behavior -- the body of Jews is too large and varied; we don't all walk in lock step nor do we all share rites, behaviors, politics or anything else. The only thing that unites most Jews is simply that they are Jews.

So if it isn't inherent to us individually, and it isn't clearly a single theological argument, a simple issue of contested geography or any specific issue. People don't like Jews because there is, hard wired into some people, the tendency or even the need to be angry and hate others and history has shown the least repercussion for going after Jews so, yay us I guess. But I'm developing a different idea so please, humor we while I cobble this together.

I think that what unites us all as Jews is that, as Jews, we are subject to the divine will. This is, of course, whether we like it or not. I, as an Orthodox man try to profess and pursue a belief and faith that have me accept the Hashem is in control and that there is a plan. I don't know the plan, and heck, I might not even like parts of the plan, but I am a lowly private carrying out his small work as part of a larger army. But I think that Hashem knows that if we don't feel threatened, we lose connection with that force that has historically saved us. I'm not going to try and point to specific events in history and claim that they are punishments for our abandoning religiosity. Instead I'm going to posit that sometimes Hashem works through a system of reinforcement (positive and negative) as he guides us so that we can become better. There must be, for any system like this to work, a down side -- something that threatens us so that we can continue to rally round the metaphorical flag.

In the haggadah, we remind ourselves that in every generation, there are those who rise against us to destroy us but we continue to persevere and this is because of our faith in Hashem. In some generations, that external threat is a plague, or a king, auto da fe, or a war or something else. In some generations, the threat is obvious and in some, we don't necessarily see the challenge as a divine edict. Hashem sometimes has to remind us in very blunt and obvious terms that there is a price to pay for being Jewish.

I know, that sounds, ominous, but it really is true. We are assessed all sorts of costs as Jews -- financial ones when we are required to give the best of one group, a percentage of another...our stuff is not our own. But there are other costs: missed opportunities, public enmity, expulsions and so on. It seems that there is almost a tax on our identity -- a cost we are required to pay, like a membership fee, simply for existing within the group. And that's not a bad thing -- that tax, that external threat can cause us pain and worse, but it can also force us to band together against the external (and this often allows us, for some times, to overlook all the internal strife that is often even more damaging). But like taxes, death has become a staple, equally certain.

At the end of the megillah, Achashveirosh enacts a tax on the people. I don't think it was financial. I think he was reminding the Jews (who had just recently properly affirmed their acceptance of the Torah) that he is still in control and that there will always be a tax for dedicating yourself to Torah. Mordechai knows this and most of the people at the time seem to accept this reality: if you are an observant Jew, there will always be a tax you pay.

I think that right now, we are paying that tax as a people. We can identify the external threat (Hashem has made it easy) as the tax that we are charged as we try to prepare the world for a messianic era in which we will no longer have to be taxed.

Who is the current challenge to us? Who is taxing us with their actions? We are not a generation of scholars like those that came before us but Hashem has made it obvious -- The Tax.