Honey vs. Vinegar

A while ago, I was pulled over for nothing more than having the bad judgement to cut off a cop.  See, I was stopped at an intersection.  I had a stop sign.  The perpendicular traffic did not.  I swear I looked both ways and saw no cars.  Unfortunately, there was a bend in the road several yards to my left and, as I stepped on the accelerator and drove out into the intersection, a police cruiser suddenly came around that bend, headed right for my broadside.  His lights and siren were both off but, in hindsight, he must have been moving pretty quickly.

I floored it, in order to get out of his way as quickly as possible, while the officer behind the wheel of the cruiser simultaneously floored his brake pedal and turned on his bull horn.

Now, some of you may sympathize with me.  Some of you may be thinking "he must have been coming around that curve pretty darned fast!  Clearly, this was not your fault, Halmanator!"  Some of you might even have suggested as much to the police officer if you had been in my place, making protests along the lines of "I looked and saw no-one coming!  How fast were you driving, anyway?  You must have been speeding along at a pretty good clip!  I could understand it if you were responding to some kind of emergency dispatch but your lights and siren were both off!  Now, I'm willing to keep this little incident between us, but don't let it happen again ... pig!"

But that's not what I said.  I pulled over once I'd cleared the intersection, rolled down my window, and waited.  Within a few seconds, the cruiser drove up and stopped behind me.  The cop stepped out of his cruiser and sidled up to my driver's door.  Before he could say a word, I gave him my most sheepish smile and said "Well, that was definitely my bad!"

He regarded me silently for a moment and said "Yes it was."  Then he asked for my license and registration, which I promptly produced.  He went back to his cruiser for a few moments, presumably to check my history and look for any outstanding warrants, then came back, handed me back my license and registration and said "I know that curve is pretty close to the intersection but, next time, look more carefully" and, with that, he left.  No ticket.  No fine.  All in all, I'd gotten off easy.

My point here is that, had I been more combative or even belligerent, both my wallet and my demerit point collection would likely have wound up considerably lighter.  My apologetic, if not friendly attitude, probably helped a lot.

A more serious example:  In her book, Completely MAD (A History of the Comic Book and Magazine, author Maria Reidelbach talks about the history of MAD cartoonist Max Brandel, before he joined the magazine:

"A native of Austria, he had just begun a career as a cartoonist when the war broke out; during the Russian occupation of Poland he and his wife were captured by the Germans.  He was imprisoned in concentration camps, where he escaped death by amusing the Russians and the Gestapo with his caricatures of them."

Even in the midst of one of the most hellish institutions in history, Brandel was able to soften the hearts of men who thought nothing of sending whole families to their deaths by simply being likeable and making them laugh.

Then there's my dad.  During his battle with leukemia, he spent a fair bit of time in the hospital, not surprisingly.  The nursing staff always seemed particularly fond of him, again because he was simply a nice guy.  He accepted his sickness and the discomforts that arose from it gracefully, with few complaints, and he was always congenial with the nursing staff, smiling and chatting with them and occasionally expressing his appreciation for the care that they gave him.  When he died, several of them showed up at the funeral home visitations to pay their last respects.

Never underestimate the power of niceness and likeability.

Waxing Philosophical

René Descartes, philosopher; a wise and learned man
Said "I can prove that I exist; I think, therefore I am!"
I'd like to pose a question, though, that puts him on the spot:
A table doesn't think, so does that mean that it is not?

That verse was written by your friendly, neighborhood Halmanator back in the days of his youth, when he fancied himself a poet.

My tongue was, of course, planted firmly in my cheek when I wrote that verse.  As any logician will tell you, just because a premise is true, it does not automatically follow that its opposite is also true.  To wit: although thinking or self-awareness can be considered proof of an entity's existence, it does not follow that any entity which is not self-aware and unable to think does not exist.

We might extend the argument to say that an entity can also prove its existence by imposing itself upon the thoughts of one or more other sentient entities.  If you or I think about the table, we acknowledge its existence even though the table itself has no self-awareness or thought.

But if we accept that, we may blunder into the following challenge:  Hundreds of thousands of young children believe in Santa Claus.  They think about him so, given the previous argument, that is proof of Santa's existence.  But of course, Santa Claus doesn't exist ... or does he?

Perhaps the argument can be made that anything that occupies the thoughts of another does exist in some sense, especially if it occupies the thoughts of multiple others.  The tooth fairy, the bogeyman, Bugs Bunny, Darth Vader, Tom Sawyer, el chupacabra, Superman, Little Red Riding Hood and, yes, even God.  It may be argued that all of them exist in some sense, if only because we, the human race, have willed them to.

Happy Chalk

Like many other people, I'm working from home nowadays because of the Great COVID-19 Pandemic.  I have to admit, all things considered, I've been lucky.  My job lends itself easily to working from home (I'm a computer programmer) so, for one thing, my family's income hasn't been affected too badly (my wife isn't working for the duration but qualifies for employment insurance benefits and hers is by far the smaller income anyway, so we're not feeling the pinch too much).  Still, being cooped up in the house most of the time is starting to give my wife and myself a minor case of cabin fever, so we mitigate the effects by taking walks around the neighborhood.

While taking such a walk yesterday, I noticed that someone had scrawled some "feel good" messages on the sidewalk with sidewalk chalk; "You're special", "Be happy", "Stay strong" and the like.  I smiled at that and, as our walk continued, my amusement turned into amazement, because the messages didn't stop after just a couple of houses.  They appeared at regular intervals for an area that covered at least two or three blocks; "U R #1", "Be kind", "Smile", "You're Awesome!", "Think positive", "Life is beautiful" ... the messages went on and on.

My heart melted to think that, in the midst of all the fear and uncertainty caused by this virus; empty grocery shelves, tumbling financial markets, social distancing, strained budgets, thousands dying for the love of God ... some Neil Pasricha wannabe out there not only manages to remember the simple joys that can still be found, but actually spreads a little sunshine around.

Awesome!

We're Bigger Than This

Hi.  Remember me?  I haven't written in a while, I know.  Somehow, I just haven't found much to inspire me to write.  I consider myself to be something of an introvert and, as an introvert, I don't tend to speak unless I have something to say.

As I write this, the corona-virus, or COVID-19, is spreading inexorably around the globe, causing a fair degree of angst.  It's not a particularly dangerous virus.  Most people who it has infected have recovered from it after experiencing only modest symptoms of illness.  But it's extremely contagious and it's dangerous to the elderly and the infirm.  Even for the younger and stronger among us, a positive diagnosis means at least two weeks of social isolation.  So people have started to take precautions.  Some are appropriate, such as frequent hand washing, avoidance of unnecessary large gatherings and unnecessary touching such as shaking hands, and some are less appropriate, such as stockpiling and hoarding things such as food, water, cleaning supplies and toilet paper.

COVID-19 itself has not directly caused any shortages of the aforementioned goods; we have done that.  Ordinary people who, out of fear and paranoia, feel the need to stockpile as though the end of the world were at hand. 

Since there is no shortage of goods and supplies, I assume that this is largely driven out of over-cautiousness.  "If I get the virus, I need to quarantine myself for about two weeks, and during that time I can't go out and buy the supplies that I need, so I had better stock up just in case".   While this is a legitimate concern and sounds reasonable at  first blush, I think people are reacting disproportionately.  Look at toilet paper, for example.  If you were forced to isolate yourself, how much toilet paper would you need to last you for two weeks?  How many rolls to you go through in a day?  Two?  (That's probably generous).  Okay, so 14 days times two rolls a day ... you might need 28 rolls of toilet paper.  That's about two twelve packs, plus a bit.  Heck, let's be generous and round it up to three.  But some people have been seen leaving bulk warehouse stores with two and three and more packs of 40 rolls each!  The problem, of course, is that this leaves less for the rest of us.  So you get line-ups, and empty store shelves, and arguments.  At one warehouse store in my vicinity, a fist fight actually broke out over toilet paper according to a recent news report.

The irony is that we are only making it harder on ourselves.  We are taking a small problem and making it into a much bigger one.  We are making a mountain out of  a proverbial molehill, if you'll forgive the cliché.  Much of our misery is self-inflicted.  What worries me is that if a relatively benign problem such as this one brings out the worst in us, causing us to act with no more reason or grace than our simian cousins, then what will we do when we have a real crisis?  What if this virus was truly deadly, like ebola or anthrax?  What happens when global warming causes inevitable shortages of food and water?

I'm reminded of a story I once heard, a modern day parable if you will:  A man dreamed that he was shown the afterlife.  First he was shown hell.  In hell,  there was a long banquet table laden with delicious food of all sorts, but the only utensils available for eating were chopsticks that were three feet long (and if someone tried to eat with their fingers, Satan chopped them off, I suppose).  Everybody at the table wept because the chopsticks were too long.  They couldn't bring the food to their mouths, and  so they went hungry, even as they had to look at all that enticing food sitting right there in front of them.

Then the man was shown heaven.  Strangely enough, there was the same sort of banquet table and everyone had the same three-foot chopsticks for utensils.  But the people in heaven picked up the food with the end of their chopsticks, and offered it to their neighbor across the table, and everyone was satisfied.

This story illustrates beautifully how things can be so much better when we cooperate and work together rather than against each other or think only of ourselves.  We needn't be "picking holes in each others' coats" as Dickens' charwoman so eloquently put it in his immortal novella, "A Christmas Carol".  We're bigger than this.

No Fear

I have a request for the members of the LGBTQ community and all their supporters.  Please stop referring to anyone who doesn't applaud your sexual preference as "homophobic".

The "phobic" suffix comes from the word "phobia", which is defined in psychological circles as an irrational fear of something.  Hence, when you refer to someone as "homophobic" you infer that said person is somehow afraid of your sexual orientation.  While I have no doubt that there are people who feel threatened by it, there are also many of us who disagree with your sexual preference without actually being afraid of it.

For the record, as a heterosexual male, I believe that all persons should be treated equally in all things regardless of sexual orientation.  That said, I also believe that homosexuality is a mental abnormality.  The brain is meant to be wired to prefer intimacy with members of the opposite sex.  It's biologically necessary for the propagation of our species.

I don't believe homosexuality to be a matter of choice, any more than heterosexuality is.  Therefore, I would never judge or condemn a homosexual person's sexual orientation, nor would I in any way discriminate against such a person, any more than I would  condemn or discriminate against a bipolar person or someone with down syndrome or autism or depression.  These people can't help being what they are but that doesn't change the fact that their conditions are abnormal.  That is not meant to denigrate them in any way.

What I do object to is those members of the  LGBTQ community who expect the rest of us to go beyond simply accepting them for who they are, and to actually applaud their sexual preference, or who would profess their sexual orientation as being normal.  It is not.  And I especially object to those of us who stop short of embracing their preference being referred to as homophobes.  After all, I'm sure that they would balk at being called heterophobes.

The Christian Conundrum

I was raised in the Christian faith; Roman Catholic to be precise, although what I'm about to say would still apply had I been raised as a Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist or any other of Christianity's many branches.  The thing is, even having been indoctrinated in the Christian teachings for most of my life, I still don't "get" Christianity.

The Christian faith centers around the person of Jesus of Nazareth whom Christians believe was the Christ or the son of God. My first problem with Christianity is that I'm not convinced that Jesus was the Christ, or that there is even such a thing as a Christ.  But that's not what I don't "get" about Christianity.  That's just my own personal crisis of faith.  I understand that.

What I don't "get" about Christianity is that its central tenet makes no logical sense to me at all.  The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus, being the Christ, accepted suffering and death at the hands of ordinary men in order to atone for the sins of mankind.  Mankind had sinned against God through the ages, over and over again, and that opened up a rift between God and mankind.  In order for mankind to be reconciled with God and brought back into His good graces, an atonement was necessary.  Somebody had to pay the price for all that sinning.  So God made His only Son incarnate, one of us, and He took it upon Himself to pay the price that God exacted for our sins, and so redeemed us.  And not just up to that point, but forever thereafter.  I mean, sadly, people haven't stopped sinning since Jesus allegedly rose from the dead but apparently all those sins committed since then, and forever on into the future, are still forgiven as well, thanks to Jesus.

I imagine that any Christian, having read this far, is probably scratching their head thinking "That's exactly right!  So what don't you get (aside from doubting Jesus' divinity and that snarky use of the word 'allegedly' with regard to His resurrection?)"

Okay, let's take God out of the picture for a moment and let's look at a similar scenario in human terms.  Imagine that a couple of guys break into your house, take all your most valued belongings and vandalize the place, not to mention scaring the bejeebers out of your wife and kids.  They have sinned against you.  They've done you wrong and, if brought to justice, the law would surely demand some kind of atonement from them.

Now let's say that you find out who they are but, rather than call the police, you send your only son to talk to them, open their eyes, teach them the error of their ways and maybe inspire a little remorse..  Well, not only do they not listen to him nor show any remorse, but they call the police themselves and report him for trespassing.  The police arrive, arrest your son, and put him in jail.

There.  All good now, right?  Their debt has been paid and their sins are forgiven.  Not just the break and enter perpetrated in the past but, should they do it again, that's forgiven too.

No, it's not all good of course.  How does punishing your blameless son for the wrongs perpetrated against you make anything right?  I simply cannot reconcile that logic in my own mind.

Ironically, it would make more sense to me if we discarded the notion of Jesus' divinity.  If he were just an ordinary (or make that extraordinary) man, but not any kind of deity, then he becomes one of us and he accepts the punishment exacted by God on everyone else's behalf.  Now, that's noble and that begins to make some sense.  Maybe in so doing he shows God that not all men are evil and restores His faith in His own creation, thus reconciling God and man.  I understand that devout Christians will still have a huge problem with this kind of thinking, but at least it begins to make some sense to us not-so-devout people.

Shall We Not Avenge?

Imagine you're at a bank when suddenly two or three people there pull out guns.  One of them approaches a teller and demands, in German, that she open the safe.  You understand this because you happen to speak German but the teller does not.  Frightened out of her mind, she assumes the gunman is demanding money, so she opens a cash drawer and hands over a wad of bills.  The gunman becomes angry because his instructions were not followed and repeats his demand, again in German, brandishing his weapon in a threatening manner.  Meaning to help, you explain to the teller that the gunman wants her to open the safe, which she then does.

Realizing that you speak both languages, the gunmen now press you into their service, forcing you to translate between them and their victims.  Staring into the business end of their guns, you of course comply.  Now, imagine that, before the incident is over, the gunmen wind up shooting several bank employees and a customer or two for good measure but the police do arrive and the gunmen are eventually arrested.  Unfortunately, so are you because one of the security guards assumes, mistakenly, that you were one of the gang all along.  After all, you were their translator.

You're eventually brought to trial and, as the case is heard, all are in agreement that you yourself stole nothing and harmed no-one.  However, the prosecuting attorney argues that you aided the bank robbers which makes you complicit. 

To your dismay, you are found guilty, but you appeal the verdict and are eventually vindicated.

However, about a year later, you are again tried for the same crime and once again found guilty.  You appeal again and are exonerated again.  Some time after that you are tried again, but this time you are found not guilty and don't even need to appeal.  Nevertheless, the prosecuting attorney will not accept defeat and hauls you back to court yet again.  This goes on for about two decades, during which period your legal fees practically exhaust your life savings, not to mention the fact that you can never really rest easy and enjoy life because you never know when you'll have to defend yourself against the same accusation yet again.

Surely most of those reading this would agree that this entire affair was a travesty of justice, yet this is essentially what has happened to an elderly man by the name of Helmut Oberlander.  The difference is that Oberlander was a translator for German Nazis rather than bank robbers and the victims were Jewish, which brings politics into the picture as anyone siding with Oberlander suddenly risks being labeled an anti-Semitic.

During the second world war, Helmut Oberlander was pressed into service by the Nazis as an interpreter for one of the Nazis notorious Einsatzkommando death squads.  This is not in dispute.  Oberlander maintains that he was seventeen years old at the time.  He was coerced into service in that the alternative would have been to risk being executed himself, and that he was merely a translator and did not personally participate in any violence against Jews or any other Nazi prisoners.  These statements are not in dispute either.  Although I`m sure that Oberlander`s accusers suspect him of being more complicit than he admits, the fact remains that there is not one shred of evidence, none, that he ever personally harmed anyone.

So his accusers, primarily the Canadian Jewish Congress, have had to content themselves with arguing that Oberlander lied about his association with the Einsatzkommando squad when he first applied for Canadian citizenship and that this should be grounds to revoke that citizenship.  Oberlander maintains that he did not lie on his citizenship application.  While he concedes that he did not go out of his way so reveal his association with the Nazi death squad, it was only because he was never asked about any such association.  At worst, he is guilty of failing to volunteer information about a part of his past which he could not have changed and that he would just as soon put behind him.

For "lying" on his citizenship application, Oberlander was stripped of his citizenship, won it back on appeal, was stripped of his citizenship a second time, won it back on appeal again was tried yet a third time and won yet again.  This has been going on for over two decades.  This past week, he was once again tried for the same non-crime and stripped of his citizenship a third time.  He plans to appeal again.

In what sort of legal system is it acceptable to continuously try a person over and over again for the same crime until the court finally produces the desired outcome?  Unfortunately, unlike the United States' legal system, Canada has no "double jeopardy" law to prevent this sort of thing happening.  In Canada an accuser is free to hound the accused over and over again with impunity.

Helmut Oberlander is over 90 years old.  If his citizenship is not restored, he faces possible deportation, likely to the Ukraine where he was born, far from his family, his friends and the country that he has come to call his home.  Is  this a fair and just punishment for a man whose worst crime was to translate, involuntarily,  for a group of Nazi thugs? 

To the Jewish community, and anyone else who, like Shakespeare's Shylock, cries "If you wrong us, shall we not avenge?" I say this:  While it is understandable that you should want to see someone held to account for the atrocities committed against your people, singling out a person who has done nothing wrong but whose background and nationality make him a convenient symbol of the source of your anger is wrong.  Punishing a blameless man will not bring back the dead.  Two wrongs still do not make a right.  Leave Helmut Oberlander to live out his final days in peace and let your God be his judge.