The right to offend vs. the right to be offended

Today, I am struggling with the notion of personal responsibility.

Well, to be honest, I’m struggling with reading tenth grade papers and am looking to procrastinate, so I let my mind wander and lo, and behold, it wandered to “personal responsibility.” I’m sure that there is some irony in there somewhere, but I won’t dwell on that.

I read in the news about some students who were in a confrontation with some other people. I’m not linking anything or taking a particular stand on the specifics because I neither know enough, nor care enough to stake a claim and engage anyone in a useless flame war about the issue. But one thing which I can concede is that some number of students (1 to 1 million, apparently) wore a red hat with the “Make America Great Again” slogan on it. Others seem to have responded to the hat and the political position it apparently invokes.

So then my question arises – to what level are we responsible for our own actions? It is easy for us to go all first amendment and say “they have a right to wear what they want – and though people have the right to be offended, their offense cannot stop the wearing of the hat.” If we defend those whose outrage was inspired by the hat, aren’t we blaming the victim? Is it acceptable to say to a woman who wears (next to) nothing in an area rife with men of a certain gender that she was asking for their catcalls and unwelcome approaches? Does my wearing ostentatious jewelry absolve a thief of his personal obligation not to break the law?

But on the other hand, do I have a responsibility not to be an idiot? Under the law, as far as I can glean from the little dabbling I have done, there is an idea when driving of “contributory negligence.” If I do something stupid then, while the blame might mostly lie with someone else for an accident, I bear some burden of guilt because I was not being careful. Is there, in life, a parallel idea of contributory insensitivity? If I walk into a minority community with a shirt emblazoned with “F___ minorities!” am I blameless if it elicits a response? Isn’t there an expected human response to this kind of incitement which is, to some degree, understandable? [I’m thinking of a scene in Die Hard 3]

In Jewish law, there is a concept of “you shall not but a stumbling block in front of a blind person.” If I know that my actions will entice another person towards a particular (inappropriate) behavior, then I have an obligation not to take that action. And we know that under American law, there is such a thing as hate speech, and that DIRECT incitement to violence is not protected under the 1st amendment, but what about inevitable but indirect incitement? How responsible am I for the behavior of others, especially when their response is foreseeable? Can I push all the buttons I want and then wash my hands of the result? Though legal, is that morally defensible? But, then must I monitor my every word and action because someone might be induced to respond by anything I do or say? Where do we mandate sensitivity and where do we expect self-control in the face of incitement? What lines can ever be drawn to protect us from ourselves while we are being protected from others?

The extremes make it sound obvious. Each person is responsible to control himself no matter how provocative the incitement. Sure, that’s easy – 100% on the self to stop the self. But is that reasonable and feasible? OK, let’s let the pendulum swing the other way – the individual has to consider the feelings of others and can’t offend others; the concept of forbidden hate speech becomes the absolute. But there goes my freedom of expression and we all become coddled snowflakes, triggered at every breath, unable to stand hearing an opinion which doesn’t comport with our worldview. So the extremes are not the answer. The truth, it seems, lies somewhere in the middle, allowing everyone the right to be a jerk without fear of getting pummeled, but ensuring that no one’s jerkiness crosses some line into hatefulness because people are allowed to want to defend themselves from even non-physical attacks.

Yeah, I have no answers and (I just checked) those papers have yet to grade themselves. So I’ll err on the side of not being a jerk but defend to the pain the right of others to say what they want. At least until it really annoys me.

Sh'ma=fail

Jews teach that one of the most central declarations of faith, and a cornerstone of the religion is the “Sh’ma” prayer. The Sh’ma, when said as part of the morning and evening prayers is composed of an opening statement from Deut 6:4, and then 3 paragraphs (Deuteronomy 6:5–9, 11:13–21, and Numbers 15:37–41). While it forms that backbone of belief, I feel that it also is a singular statement of human failure and, as such, it makes a case for an even more important tenet of Judaism because of that failure.

In the first part of the Sh’ma, we read that statement of God’s unity and his dominion over us. Then we have an argument in favor of “loving” God (text copied from the Judaica Press edition found on the Chabad website):

“And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.”

We are to hear (through our ears, I would assume) and our reaction will be to love (which I would source in our hearts).

Then, Hashem points out that what he is commanding must go beyond our ears and actually be on our hearts:

“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.”

The next three verses include 4 verbs incumbent upon us, starting with “teach”:

“And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them” which is followed by “bind” and ”inscribe.” The details of the Sh’ma (and any other laws) has to be communicated so that others can learn. Sounds like an important charge, right? No. I think it is the nut of the problem. If, as stated a verse or two earlier, these words which God commanded are to be on our hearts, then why would we have to teach anyone, or make a public display so that others will learn? Was the law only placed on the heart of those in the desert, in that first generation? Weren’t we all, in a way, there at Sinai, hearing the law from God?

I think the answer can be found in a particular promise that acknowledges our current limitations. Hashem knows we are imperfect and that, as we are now, we can’t deal with things “on our hearts” and we need to use our other senses, and we must be taught and reminded of our laws and responsibilities. The law, as taught, doesn’t go automatically on our hearts and we don’t know how to put it there so we stick with our other modes of knowledge. The prayer is known by the word "Sh'ma" -- hear, a sensory experience and a function of our human body. We are then expected to "love" which is not part of hearing, but because that won't happen, we are commanded to teach. This is why we have a vision of the future in Jeremiah 31 (verses 31-34). The renewal of our relationship/covenant with God in the future will be signaled not by a change in content, but by a change in mode and actor:

“But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days—declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

The teaching (Torati, my Torah) is still the content, but instead of the law’s having to be “on your heart” (a requirement at which we will fail, thus requiring us to teach it) Hashem will PUT it into our being and INSCRIBE it into our hearts. Then as the next verse states, “No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, “Heed the LORD”; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me”.

In the Messianic era, God, himself, will place the law into our hearts so that the essential commandment of the Sh’ma, teaching others, will no longer be necessary! The Sh’ma, then, is attesting to what we have to do NOW, only because we are currently incapable of concretizing our belief in the more desirable/automatic (trans-human) way. It calls forth, though, the essential Messianic belief – why do we need a Moshiach? Because we need to rise above the limitations inherent in the Sh’ma and its teaching process, into a realm of universal understanding as explained in Jeremiah.

The Sh’ma, then, is about failure and making the best with what we are now. We say it twice daily because we have to, not as a matter of halacha and law, but as a function of our fallible humanity. But it is a reminder of what lies ahead and WHY we should be saying it, so that we can prepare the world for a time when we no longer have to.

A retrospective

As I approach the half century mark (I have a bunch of months to go, but why wait?) I thought it proper to look back on all that has changed during my lifetime. The world is a very different place from what it was in 1969 and I think that we should be able to catalog those differences and assess the miraculous shifts that observable in the world around us. So I will now make a list of the changes which I have seen during only my lifetime (which will therefore not include the introduction of televisions and microwave ovens, but, if things develop the way they should within the next few months, include television/microwave ovens):

Back in 1969, it seemed that everyone I knew was taller than I was. Now, 50 years later, the population's general height has normalized and now everyone is around my height. Science!

In 1969, to get around, you had to crawl! Since then, there have been incredible advances and now, I find that to get places, I can use all sorts of different methods, and that people don't even really crawl all that much anymore. Incredible changes!

Over the last 50 years, food has gotten progressively more interesting. Way back when, it seemed that there were only drinks, and even those were pretty generic -- white and milky, but not really interesting. Clearly, mankind has worked hard to create new gustatory options -- good going, mankind!

I remember when I was a baby -- no one had 4 computers. Now, some people have 4 computers. Crazy, right?

This one is for all you coin collectors out there: in 1969, we could not imagine that there would be coins that said "2008" on them, but these days, I see so many coins with that number on them. Collections now are considered incomplete if they don't have one of those!

In 1969, the Mets were the champions of baseball. Now, in 2019, this is no longer the case. I should have seen this coming, I guess.

Diapers seemed to be de rigueur when I was a child but now, the only people who wear them seem babyish in their fashion choices.

We have taken incredible strides in the last 50 years and we should appreciate all of these advancements. I can't even begin to imagine what the world will be like in another 50 years. I wonder if diapers will make a comeback!

A hero in his day and all days

I just finished reading an article in the New Yorker (yes, the New Yorker) about Atticus Finch, TKAM, Harper Lee and the new Broadway production of it. The article summarozes the history of Atticus as hero and, more recently, as a less than heroic figure. It references legal attacks on him,

In “Atticus Finch, Esq., R.I.P.,” which appeared in the professional journal Legal Times, Freedman notes that Atticus only defends Tom Robinson because he is forced to do so by the court, that he willingly participates in the segregation of his society, and that he insists on the human decency of even overt bigots. The case against Finch was taken up by another legal scholar, Steven Lubet, in the Michigan Law Review, seven years later, and began to spread to wider audiences.

.

First off, I'm ignoring the entirety of Go Set a Watchman as non-canonical. The Atticus that people admire should be viewed from within the confines of the seminal text, not an earlier draft which is effectively about a different character. Next, I want to argue that the criticisms of Atticus are downright foolish. You might ask why and my answer is that we do not improve ourselves by tearing down others and the reasons for the current criticisms are reflective of serious misunderstandings about how we should view history and its personages. Attacks like this speak more about us and how contemporary voices are uninformed than they do about the objects of their attacks. The whole the book TKAM is the Mockingbird. It should be above these attacks, unable to defend itself and serving only a positive purpose. So let me explain my position.

What (every English teacher, ever, has asked) is a "hero"?

The concept of hero has shifted and still defies a singular, fully explicative and predictive definition. A Shakespearean hero might fulfill one function which a 9/11 first responder doesn't, and vice versa. I would suggest that even a more refined construct, such as a literary hero also has shades of meaning. A hero OFTEN must struggle with societal norms and expectations that he sees as being in conflict with a more universal "good" or truth. He must rise above limitations and serve a larger force. But there must be 2 provisos attached:

1. The hero can only move a step or two beyond the social mores, legal tangles or other local expectations of his time so that his act can be seen as influential, reasonable and in-line with the rules of the universe in which he is written. If Atticus had suddenly developed super powers and used them, or if he got up and made an impassioned speech invoking the (not yet existent) Civil Rights movement, his heroism would make no sense. He worked to push society ahead step by step. So criticizing him because he was still a vestige of his time, and he did not rise to a level of twenty-first century consciousness is illogical. We can admire an 18th century Tory for embracing the freedom that will become the United States and not denigrate him as less than heroic because he does not embrace full equality for minorities, a 20th century ideal. A man must move forward, against a tide that would keep him in one place. This does not mean that he must reach the end, for, in truth, we never reach the end.

2. The hero can only be written based on the potential that the author envisions and is limited in his heroism by the understanding of the author. An author creates a world based on his or her experiences and expectations. Harper Lee saw a potential for a better world. Could she have foreseen the world of 2018? Should she then have created a character who satisfies what we, in 2018 look for in our heroes? Of course not. She writes someone who is consistent with the time period of the text (the 1920's) and with her own vision of a better society in 1960. To criticize her hero because she could not anticipate (in any realistic sense, a necessary component to a work of realistic fiction) the ebbs and flows of law and culture 60 years later is, as stated, foolishness.

So Atticus Finch is a hero because he works to advance understanding in his own time and because he becomes an archetype for a hero in any generation, and he does not lose one iota of that heroism because he is bound by the logic and laws of his actual placement, nor because he espouses ideas not currently in vogue.

So there. Mr. Finch, if you would please return to your position on that pedestal, I'll be much happier. Thank you, sir. And thank YOU Harper Lee.

A Blessing on your head

This afternoon, I spent some time at my big brother's house. It was a celebration. Beer was poured, pie was served and there was salmon. All the food groups were present. But the occasion for the occasion wasn't simply a Channukah get together -- it was the engagement party for one of his daughters. And some guy. Whatever. Anyhoo, it got me to thinking (danger, danger...yeah yeah).

While there, I watched my brother light the candles and usher in the 8th day of Channukah. Channukah is a celebration of the miracle of survival. The dedication and re-dedication of us as a Jewish people to a life imbued with the light of Torah and the vision to see miracles all around us. This eighth day, though, has an even deeper identity. This last day is called "Zos Channukah".

As I sat in the house, watching people eat latkes, tiramisu and sesame noodles, basking in the glow of candles, lights and each other, as I saw two young people who love and respect each other and who are preparing to dedicate their own house among the Jewish people, as I witnessed a testament to the survival of a people and its beliefs and practices, I understood this eighth day.

All of this, all this love, and light, all this starting new and continuing tradition, all the remembering those we have lost while re-dedicating ourselves to building a solid future, Zos Channukah - this is what Channukah is all about.

So to the future chatan and kallah, to their families and to the entire of klal Yisrael, I wish a mazal tov. May we all share in the miracle that allows the light which was supposed to last only 8 days to continue unceasingly into the future so that everyday can be Zos Channukah.

A Study in Science

I haven't seen my dog in a few days. Truth. While the missus (h/t to everyone's favorite, lovable abusive lush, Andy Capp) is away, I have dropped the dog at a friend's house so he can have someone pay any attention to him. I mean, I like him, but I go to work and he sits around all day plotting my demise. It is best to keep him busy with playdates.

I visited him yesterday -- it was a cold morning so I, as is my wont, wrapped my head in a scarf. He saw me and growled. "He doesn't recognize you" my friend commented. I removed the scarf and he stopped growling. So I thought, "I wonder how a dog recognizes a person -- whether covering one particular feature or another confuses a dog."

I decided to experiment so I moved the scarf to a different location, covering my mouth. He growled until I removed it. Over my eyes? He growled. In fact, it seemed that if I used the scarf to obscure any single defining feature, that was enough to make the dog unable to recognize me. Unwilling to give up on my theory that recognition is bound in the discernment of specific features, I have altered my original hypothesis and hope, some day, to publish the definitive study on why dogs hate scarves.

Second verse. Different attitude.

I don't like to repeat myself. I like to say new and different things and not repeat myself. Alas, sometimes repetition is, I repeat, necessary. In this current situation, I will be repeating and yet not - I will take a new tack as I explore a change of life which I have already addressed.

You might remember the traumatic moment that was my being labeled a senior citizen at Dunkin Donuts. It was so emotionally wrenching that, while I haven't stopped going to Dunkin (now, sans Donuts) but I have refused to look at the receipts. Today, i broke that streak and looked at the charges. I saw IT again (the senior citizen line item) but I didn't let that cow me. I am a strong, independent, woman (sans woman) and can deal with a bakery franchise deeming me over some metaphorical hill. Truth is, I'm a 49 (or so...math and I do not occupy the same space at the same time) year old, bald-esque, over, wait, not horribly fat Teaneck Jew-boy and no matter whether or not I feel old, I have learned to just go with the flow. But that's not the attitude adjustment I came here today to speak of.

So let use review the salient portion of my receipt. I bought a large decaf. Black, no sugar. All bitter and angry. A good cup of coffee should punch you in the nose on the way down. My receipt, listed as "Eat In Order: 216" in case your are keeping score at home, reads

1 Ht Cof LG Decaf 2.59
Black
1 Senior 5% (0.13)

To quote the bard, "that would be scanned."

Let's just say, for a moment, that I'm old. You needn't say it out loud, but grant me my senescence for a moment. If I have reached that lofty and exalted status of senior citizen, then I have proven my worth to society over a sufficient number of years and need to be recognized and rewarded for not currently being dead. And you know what? Five percent isn't going to cut it. Thirteen measly cents off after all my years of hard work aging? If you want the position of authority to call me a senior citizen then you are going to have to pay handsomely (so smile). Giving me 13 cents does not properly provide recompense for all the years I have had to endure. I now reserve the right to be a curmudgeon, a complaining codger! So give me my coffee and chop at least 25% off that bad boy's bill. Make me feel loved, or at least properly pitied. So, yeah, I'm old(ish) and want whatever goodies are coming to me before I get to the point when I can't complain publicly and loudly about it.

Fiver percent isn't even worth putting on the receipt. I am a senior. I want my senior swag.