Why Isn’t Wall Street in Prison

No one from Wall Street ends up in prison.  Why?  Because the the politicians and government bureaucrats are bought off.  This analysis of Matt Taibbi says it all.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?print=true

Economics and Our Op-Ed

Some doubt has been cast on the importance of Israel to the US economy and jobs.   However, many underestimate the importance of Israel in global technology, especially in computers, health care and agriculture.  It is large.  We live in an interconnected world, and our economic relations with other countries (including foreign aid) have an economic impact on our own economy.  We cannot go it alone.  No one can.

See http://mysticscholar.org/2011/02/22/aid-to-israel-protects-us-interests/

Aid to Israel Protects US Interests

AID TO ISRAEL PROTECTS US INTERESTS

Lexington Herald Leader Op-Ed

By Linda Ravvin, Laurence H. Kant and Mike Grossman

Posted: 12:00am on Feb 18, 2011; Modified: 7:45am on Feb 18, 2011

Sen. Rand Paul recently stated that not only does he advocate cutting off U.S. aid to Israel, but he sees that aid as fueling a Middle Eastern arms race.

As a proportion of the total budget, aid to Israel is negligible. The Israeli military has been purchasing American military hardware for many years, and an elimination of this money would cost the U.S. many manufacturing jobs.

Additionally, Israel has been at the forefront of developing military technology, and U.S. military aid funds joint projects that the American military has taken advantage of in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes drone technology, which has saved countless American and coalition lives.

It is safe to say that Israeli technological achievements (which are at least partially funded by U.S. military aid) have helped keep American troops safer.

Israel is the only full-fledged democracy in the region. Tiny as it is, with only 7 million people, its presence serves as a model for the development of other democracies and free-market societies in the region.

Its own Arab population (including Muslims, Christians and Druze) has more freedom, legal rights, social mobility and economic opportunity than the vast majority of Arabs elsewhere in the Middle East. Many Arabs (Palestinians and others) seek to enter Israel because of the work opportunities afforded by its vibrant, high-tech economy.

Per capita, Israel has the highest level of technological entrepreneurship in the world, supported by a deep commitment to education. U.S. military aid to Israel allows Israel to continue its leadership in this (in spite of Israel’s own large military budget) and work as a partner with the U.S. in creating a global high tech economy. This means jobs for U.S. citizens as well.

Israel’s neighbors dwarf it in both population and geographical size. Many of these neighbors are sworn to Israel’s destruction. While Israel will never have a quantitative edge militarily, Israel does have a qualitative edge, and it is this edge (partially due to U.S. military aid) that has prevented its destruction.

If Israel were to lose that qualitative edge, its enemies would certainly become emboldened, and the likelihood of a new and destructive war in the Middle East would substantially increase. Given our continued dependence on oil and our other strategic interests, this would almost certainly mean a much heavier financial and military U.S. investment in the Middle East than currently exists.

U.S. military support for Israel actually increases the likelihood for peace. Israel’s qualitative military advantage makes it significantly more likely that it will take the risks necessary for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians (and the Syrians as well). Should Israel lose U.S. military support, it would certainly not be willing to withdraw from any militarily strategic positions it currently controls, negating the land-for-peace formula of United Nations resolutions.

The main backer of state terrorism and global jihad is Iran, and a decrease in Israel’s military advantage (which would certainly occur should aid be reduced) would cause Iran to further fund anti-Israel and anti-American militias throughout the region.

Israel has been on the front line of the global war on terror for many years. Unfortunately, it appears that Israel will be forced to fight this war for many years to come.

Given the burgeoning grass-roots movements for freedom and democracy in the Arab/Muslim world (especially in Tunisia and Egypt), U.S. involvement in the Middle East and commitment to Israel are more important than ever. When a region reaches a turning point that has profound implications for the world and for America’s own interests, the U.S. should not retreat, but stay engaged.

Nobody disputes that fiscal responsibility is a vitally important goal for our nation and that we will have to make painful budgetary sacrifices. Aid to Israel is in the interest of the U.S. from a financial, strategic and moral standpoint. We encourage Paul to reconsider his stance on this issue and to support fully funding our commitments to Israel.

Linda Ravvin is president of the Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass; Laurence H. Kant is chair and Mike Grossman is co-chair of the Jewish Community Relations Committee.

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/02/18/1640058/aid-to-israel-protects-us-interests.html#more

Corporate and Para-Police Spying on Environmental Activists

You would think with all the really dangerous terrorists running around, we would be focusing on them rather than on people who are actually trying to improve the planet.  The vast majority of enviro activists are peaceful or engaging in civil disobedience.  Why are we engaging in this madness?  Do corporate interests own us lock, stock, and barrel?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/15/activism-protest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/14/energy-firms-activists-intelligence-gathering

MERS Mortgages Rejected by Court

This is a move toward some kind of fairness (I hope).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/merscorp-decision_n_823302.html

California Aid Program for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

This is what more states and the federal government should be doing.  Unfortunately, many people don’t want to help out, because they believe that homeowners should take responsibility for their poor judgement.  However, government failed to protect home buyers from predatory banks and loan agencies, while massive foreclosures are driving down prices for everyone (not just those facing bankruptcy).   Therefore, we have both moral and practical reasons to support this kind of aid to those facing the trauma of losing their homes.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-keep-your-home-20110210,0,2404099.story

Putting the Axe to Workers Rights

The Wisconsin governor’s proposal  is simply an out and out attempt at destroying public unions.  By taking away collective bargaining and by making it almost impossible to organize and collect dues, the governor is removing a basic human right:  the right to organize and bargain.

Now, I  am certainly aware of the the flaws in unions:  corruption, living in the past, backwardness, seniority over merit, and general ineffectiveness.  The inflexible opposition of unions to workers contributing more to health care and pensions is a serious problem.

At the same time, unions are responsible for worker rights, lunch breaks, the 8-hour day, 40-hour work weeks, overtime, vacations, the weekend, child labor laws, the retirement system, and so much more.  In general, people are unaware that the lives they lead are possible because people died and suffered violence on picket lines.  No matter how flawed our unions are, they serve as a check against an inherently unbalanced relationship between management and workers.  It’s not ultimately the fault of management that absence of unions has led to abuse–it’s simply the human condition.  Without unions (or some kind of collective bargaining forces), workers (both union and non-union) will find themselves going backwards, increasingly losing their time off and unable to live middle-class lives.  And management will find itself saddled with unhappy and unproductive workers, as they shuffle paper on the deck of the Titanic.

I don’t know what to advocate here in terms of union tactics, but I can say that the time is coming when what the Egyptians had to do in a non-violent protest against a cruel dictatorship, we will have to do to preserve our basic human rights in the workplace.  The governor of Wisconsin is betting on public dislike of unions, as he and his corporate, billionaire backers use one segment of the populace to beat down the other.  In the ensuing division, both groups will go down the tubes while the extreme rich grow even richer–unless people stand up for their rights.  They will to have risk their jobs and well-being to make sure that they preserve a reasonable standard of living, which is the foundation on which our democratic republic stands.

This country is not supposed to be a tyrannical plutocracy, where billionaires secretly run the rest of us poor slobs by convincing some of us that we can be rich just like them.  That’s nothing more than a con.  Of course, wealth can be a worthy goal, but it should not be the primary value of a humane society, nor will it lead to a nation’s economic prosperity.  That only occurs when everybody works together, when we each have a voice in the governance of our society, and when we each have realistic access to educational and vocational opportunity.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158522/dictator-governor-sets-out-cut-wages-slash-benefits-and-destroy-public-unions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12unions.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23 (via Nelson French)

Egypt and Crony Capitalism

Of course, this is far from a free market–when the government picks and chooses the economic winners among its allies and friends.   It’s yet another example of government by the few for the few.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07corruption.html?hpw

“How to Build a Progressive Tea Party”

Here’s an idea.  When government officials say we have to cut this or that service, what about the corporations and multi-gazillionaires who aren’t paying their taxes through off-short hide-aways or other loopholes?  When a state says, we can’t support this 50 million K program, what about a company that owes 50 million and hasn’t paid it?  Why is it that most of us shlubs pay our taxes, but corporations and the mega-rich don’t pay theirs?  In Great Britain, an organization called UK Uncut has created a sensation by staging protests and sit-ins at stores whose parent companies have not bothered to pay their taxes.

I don’t see this as solely  a liberal thing at all.  We should all have to play by basic rules that the law fairly applies.  That’s also a deeply conservative value.  Maybe tea party fans could join in too.  If an entity or person is not paying what they owe, then we have the right to pressure the government into making sure that they do.  This is inspiring.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party?page=full

Food Speculators (Banks) Have Driven Up Commodity Prices, Fueling Hunger and Poverty

This is illuminating.  Bank speculators not only caused the crisis in the US and Europe through dubious housing deals, but they have sparked unrest all over the world, now in Tunisia and Egypt, by artificially ginning up the commodities markets.  Blessings, Larry

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/egyptian_tinderbox.php

Foreclosures: Owners Represent Themselves

Perhaps this is the beginning of a much larger movement toward self-empowerment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/business/economy/03class.html?pagewanted=all

Foreclosing on On-Duty Soldiers

This is just another example of how many large corporate institutions have lost their moral compass.   Over the past several years, large banks frequently subject soldiers called to duty to unlawful foreclosures.  This is precisely why some regulation is necessary if we want to preserve a healthy, functional free market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/business/27foreclose.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1296353099-/N1TWrh0XYHJWyudn8MalA

Theory and Practice: China Has an Economic Plan — The US Does Not

Robert Reich notes the fundamental difference between the economies of the US and China:  China has a plan, and we don’t.  This hands-off approach has characterized both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations.  In general, the US relies on faith in the free market place, while China assumes that the government must make careful plans to advance its interests.  Consequently, the Chinese invest heavily in green industries, even when there is no immediate profit and cost is high, because this technology is the future.  Whoever controls it will have an enormous advantage in global competition.  The US engages in talk, but not much action.

The US has an almost magical faith in the free market.  It’s almost as if the US believes that simply reciting an ideological creed will guarantee economic success.

The US still has one advantage:  the deep creativity and inventiveness that marks our culture.  Americans do not rely on the past and on tradition, but look for new and original ways of doing things.  This has always carried the US through before, and I hope it will continue to do so.  But can the US rely on this, while others make plans?

The whole issue relates to an even more fundamental matter.  Will human beings rely on ideology or on practical, integrative approaches to solve problems?  Ideology is  pure theory, ideas separate from concrete reality.  Communism, Marxism, radical free market capitalism, absolute pacifism, religious fundamentalism, and postmodern theory all fall into that category.  They are ideologies rather than evidence-based methods. Significantly ideologues exist on both the left and right. among both the secular and the religious.  Even when something contradicts the theory, followers of the theory simply ignore the data, because fundamentally day-to-day life is messy, confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, and therefore too difficult to interpret.

While the US has recently been primarily concerned with ideas about what should work, the Chinese and others are approaching matters pragmatically, testing for what actually does work.  The US would do well to return to its historical roots in pragmatism and develop more of a balance between theory and practice.

http://robertreich.org/post/2830348699

Judges Berate Foreclosure Lawyers

Many judges are particularly critical of foreclosure lawyers who use sloppy and improper documentations on behalf of lenders:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/11lawyers.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

MERS and Foreclosures

A vast pyramid scheme: http://www.ourbroker.com/foreclosures/the-real-foreclosure-crisis-who-owns-the-mortgages/

A Review of the Net Neutrality Debate

http://lifehacker.com/5720407/an-introduction-to-net-neutrality-what-it-is-what-it-means-for-you-and-what-you-can-do-about-it?utm_source=Lifehacker+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4306c49fc7-UA-142218-1&utm_medium=email

An excellent review. The internet is key medium of information and news exchange for coming decades. Corporate attempts to control the flow will limit freedom and transparency. Government regulations have their limitations and dangers, but the power of corporate control is much more harmful and pernicious.  (Via Gary Yarus)

Bank Auditor Scandal

FYI:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/crisis-dominoes-start-falling-with-lehman-auditor-20101220?print=true

Bank Break-Ins

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/business/22lockout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

This is not the way a stable society acts.   It is not good for the residents–or the banks in the long run.

MERS and the Housing Crisis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/merss-smoking-gun-part-1-_b_794713.html?view=print

We need to fix this not only because it’s wrong, but because it is destroying the middle class and will destroy the banks as well.

Outsourcing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_overseas_hiring

If we want to alter this trend, the US will have to improve its educational levels and make sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes (which they are not because of loopholes).

The decline of educational quality in the US is part of the reason for this.

The other is cheap labor in developing countries.  Corporations are able to take advantage of this labor without suffering financial consequences in the US.  However, corporations should contribute sufficiently to the national community that makes it possible for them to exist and thrive.  Otherwise we will not be able to maintain our standard of living and quality of life.

The rise of transnational actors like multinational corporations and the decline of the power of nation states has negative consequences such as this, but it also promises new kinds of structures through which humans will govern themselves.  Corporations have their own interests, and communities have theirs.  Just as corporations protect themselves, communities will have to do the same.  Corporations are driven by economic goals, but communities have moral concerns.  This divergence in interest will inevitably force communities to find others ways of asserting themselves, as national governments find themselves unable to act.  These communities may exist as places, but they may also form as virtual entities.   Instead of looking at a global map with nations, we may be beginning to see the emergence of another kind of map with different governing entities.

World Progress: The Joy of Statistics

For those frustrated with politics and bad news, take a look at this video.  It shows the general trend of the world toward healthier and more prosperous societies. Countries are converging, and the world is improving.  Thanks to Nelson French for this video!:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

The Importance of Net Neutrality

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html

“Ben Franklin’s Nation

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212:

David Brooks: “America should focus less on losing its star status and more on defending and preserving the gospel of middle-class dignity.”

“Ellen Brown: Publicly Owned Banks Can Help States and Residents

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/reviving-the-local-economy-with-publicly-owned-banks

“The Fed may have played all its cards, but state and local governments still hold a few aces: publicly owned banks that could funnel credit where it is needed most, directly into the local economy.”

Banks over Homeowners

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/232611

How the foreclosure courts in Florida heavily favor banks over homeowners.  Another illustration of the growing power of corporate institutions.

Cutting Languages in Universities

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/education/05languages.html?hp

This is exactly the wrong direction that universities are taking.  In a time when globalism is the watchword, how can universities cut language study?  Doing so is obviously parochial and short-sighted. French, which is at the chopping block in many places, is the only language spoken on every continent, 119 million people speak it as their mother language, another 65 million are partly French speakers, and there are over 56 Francophone states and governments. Of course, other languages such as German, Italian, Greek, and Latin are essential for understanding who we are as human beings in the West. People who study these languages are much more likely to study other languages (Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, etc.) and be able to operate in a global environment.”

Map of a Mortgage

This is something else:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/mortgage-security-chart_n_784274.html

Ownership

Everything we own is borrowed.

A New Theory of Money

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/time-for-a-new-theory-of-money
Interesting. Money is not a thing, but relationships. Ellen Brown proposes a kind of advanced, high-tech barter system with public community banks: a credit (debit) system, not an interest-based system (North Dakota is the model!). I have no idea whether this would work on a large scale, but maybe somebody does.

Our Legacy

Our legacy is not money, power, buildings, or books, but rather the core energy that we release from ourselves into the universe.

The Highest Paid Athlete in History

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/roundtable/greatest-of-all-time.php
A Roman charioteer was actually the most well-paid athlete in history.

Learning is What Matters

It’s not what you accumulate that matters; it’s what you learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqc6t711zn8&feature=related
This is excellent (not political). It’s an Israeli advertisement for investment that highlights Jewish commitment to learning, entrepreneurship, high tech, and the collaboration of business and government:

Social Networking and the Movement of Money and Power

With global social networking, money and power move much more effectively and faster horizontally than they do vertically in traditional structures.

Adam Smith was No Ideologue

http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments
Amartya Sen reminds us that Adam Smith, the founding philosopher of modern capitalism, was not a market fundamentalist and did not believe in unfettered markets. He just believed in the market. He also believed that various human values other than self-interest–e.g. justice, humanity, generosity, spirit–were indispensable to a free, capitalist society.

Africa as the New Asia

Africa is becoming the new China and India.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/how-africa-is-becoming-the-new-asia.html

Not Democrats vs. Republicans, but Elites vs. Working People

I think that this by article by Dan Gerstein is excellent.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-health-care-republicans-democrats-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop

See also this piece on smart populism: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html

And see this one on progressive vs. populist politics: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/03/the-progressive-and-the-populist.html

The real issue in the U.S is not Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, big government vs. small government, libertarian vs. communitarian, raise taxes vs. cut taxes, etc. Rather the fundamental division is between the elites and the working class (which is the vast majority of us). Many of us don’t like to think of ourselves as working stiffs, but we are if we have to work to live or if we can’t afford to pay massive hospital bills. Those in power would like us to imagine that we will all be billionaires or that our tastes (food, literature) make us better than others, because that keeps us divided and impotent.

There are elites from the entire political spectrum. The extreme wealthy back both Democrats and Republicans. We are chumps if we think otherwise. And then there are those in both parties who have contempt for working people–and many of those who express that contempt are themselves working people. Many conservatives sneer at those who are unable to get adequate medical care, because for them it’s an individual responsibility. Many liberals have contempt for those who express frustration with taxes that make it impossible to live in many communities. Many conservatives look on anything intellectual, scholarly, or environmental as a waste of time. Many liberals scorn sports, pick-up trucks, budget restraint, and down-to-earth pragmatism.

I consider myself a radical independent and a progressive populist. For me health care is essential and a top priority. I consider access to adequate health care a basic right and a prerequisite for a civilized society. But people are hurting economically right now and fearful about employment, and they need relief. If the government does not address the basic fear of those in the workforce and show that it understands what we are facing, then no reform will ever get done on anything. We need leaders who comprehend what it is to struggle in day-to-day life and address those of us who deeply want reform, but who also have to work.

Right now our leaders may talk about jobs and the economy, but I don’t have the sense that they identify with working people. Until they do, one party will defeat the other, only to be defeated again. It is an illusory cycle of change, where movement seems to take place, but actually we’re standing still. And, as the world changes swiftly around us, our government will be in effect non-functional (as it seems to be now). And then there will be two choices: a demagogue (or a demagogic movement) will find his or her way into the vacuum and take us in to some kind of authoritarian hell; or (I hope) a grass roots movement will force a third party or some other mechanism to emerge that will make our political leaders responsive to the concerns of those of us in the trenches and move us forward as a free society.

Judaism and Social Action II

This is an email response to a friend of mine:

———————————————————-

We both agree then:  The Government is US, and there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of government (federal, state, county, city).  And you’re right that the GI bill and the federal interstate highway system are projects WE commisioned government to implement.  That’s exactly my point:  “They” is “us.”

But here’s where we disagree.  The very projects that changed our lives are “improvement” projects.  They are a form of “social action.”  The GI Bill allowed a whole generation of people to move into the middle class.  The interstate highway program (even though it began as a defense project) made it possible to truck goods quickly and efficiently all across the country and helped to unify this county by making it accessible to a much larger percentage of the population.  Social Security and Medicare helped to transform the economic and social status of our elderly population.  Affirmative Action (flawed as it is) made it possible for large numbers of women and minoirites to enter into careers and companies from which they would otherwise have been excluded.  Etc.  This all involves improvement.   If you call that “socialism,” then I guess we’re stuck.  I call it intelligent public policy.  And nothing is value-free.

Further, “improvement” is related to “stability.”  Look at Cincinnati and what happens when a city fails to deal with deeply rooted policies of racial prejudice.  City government in Boston did something different.  When confronted with the same problems, the mayor and council adopted a plan that changed the ethnic and racial makeup of its police force.  Guess what?  The problems diminished, and Boston (once synonymous with racial tension) has developed a reputation for decent community policing and relative ethnic harmony.  In other words, if you want stability, you also need “improvement.”  I don’t see how you do this without government (WE), though private corporations and non-profit groups are equally important.  Cliched as it is, “private-public partnerships” is an excellent and apt phrase.  By its very definition, government is involved in forms of social action.  Otherwise, I guess we’re back to the state of nature.

Judaism and Social Action I

This is an email response to a friend of mine:

——————————————
I enjoyed your essay. There’s a lot there that makes sense. I think you’re right about the importance of “separation” and binary opposition. Have you read the work of the structural anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, on this general subject? He bases his theory primarily on the work of structural linguistics and its application in the study of kinship patterns. The anthropologist, Mary Douglas, has a lot to say as well (particularly in her book, “Purity and Danger”). Most recently, Saul Olyan has written a book that you might find interesting and relevant: “Rites and Rank: Hiearchy in Biblical Representations of Cult” (Princeton, 2000). I have not seen or read it, but he apparently deals with these issues in detail.

On the issue of polarity in Christianity, you definitely make a good point about the centrality of evil, the consequent concern for preventing it, and the resultant tragedies that have occured. Yet, it is also true that Christianity is fundamentally different from Zoroastrian religion in at least one respect. Christianity does not posit an equal force of evil (the devil) in the universe that is on a par with God (good). Gnostics, Mandaeans, and even some Jews (Elisha ben Abuya) may have done this, but not the mainstream Christian tradition as it has come down. Original sin is a human creation (Adam and Eve), not directly part of the original creation of God. So Christian views of evil are actually rather complex.

At the same time, Judaism was certainly influenced by Zoroastrian religion. The notions of an afterlife, physical resurrection, and paradise may all have part of their origin in Zorastrianism. And the Christian idea of a “devil” figure comes from Judaism! Satan occurs in Job, and in later intertestamental Jewish texts, Satan appears as an opponent of God. Many Jews have had, and continue to have, a preoccupation with evil forces in the universe. Evil is not an exclusively Christian concern, though I think you’re right that Christians may emphasize it somewhat more than Jews, especially as an abstract concept or force in the universe. You’re also right that Christians tend to place evil outside of ourselves and the world than have Jews. And your point about entropy and original sin is excellent.

Yet, I do believe that we Jews have had our own preoccupations as well and that this has led to our own process of externalization: unclean and clean, pure and impure, especially. While traditional Judaism has not posited “sin” as an outside force, we have tried to keep “impurity” and “uncleanliness” outside of our environments. Some have gone to great lengths to achieve this. Judaism has tended to envision these disturbing elements not in theological terms, but rather in ritual terms.

As for “gemilut hasadim,” I think “acts of mercy” or “acts of compassion” is a translation that does not quite catch the depth of this phrase. “Rahamim” usually translates “mercy,” and that’s what most translators have used. “Hesed” can mean “kindness, “love,” “affection,” “piety,” and more. “ahabah” refers to the concept of love, particularly between human beings (whether that of friendship or family). It’s a very common word in Hebrew. “Lovingkindness” is an English attempt at trying to convey two of the connotations of “hesed”: “love and “kindness.” I think “hesed” includes the quality of humaneness associated with the Yiddish word (from German) for a real human being, “Mensch”: Somebody who goes above and beyond their apparent obligations to take the pain, suffering (and joy!) of others into their hearts. It is a concern for others that includes an awareness of our fundamental connectedness to one another.

The noun, “gemilut,” comes from the Hebrew verb, “gamal”: “to do good/evil,” “to reward,” “repay,” “ripen,” “wean.” “Gemilut” is not used in the Bible, however, and we are not certain of its original meaning. It is my hunch that “gemilut” conveys a sense of “ACTION,” EDUCATION (broadly speaking), and also of “MORAL OBLIGATION`.” So “gemilut hasadim” is a moral imperative to love your neighbors, helping them when they need it and sharing in their joy: clothing the naked, feeding the starving, healing the sick, comforting the bereaved and the depressed, celebrating weddings, rejoicing in other’s successes, adding positive energy to the world. It’s that force of goodness in the world that maintains our existence, as Simeon the Righteous implied when he said, “On three things, the world stands: the Torah, worship, and acts of lovingkindness.”

So “gemilut hasadim” definitely calls us to act on behalf of others, including social action. As to the specifics of “sweatshops,” you have made some very good points. This is not an easy issue. Even so, I think, for example, we have an obligation to stand up for what we believe. If we believe that it is inappropriate and immoral for children to work full-time for low pay at factories which produce our clothing, we have an obligation to say so and work toward another means of production. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, industrialists and free market theorists offered the same arguments when they faced popular opposition to child labor. Yet, though the content of the arguments had changed, the assumptions have remained more or less the same since antiquity: cheap labor allows the production of more goods at a lower cost and greater profit.

But we decided to pursue another course, eventually resulting in a system of compulsory education for children. In fact, this gave us the skilled labor that allowed us to create the powerful economic engines characteristic of Western nations. I think we have the obligation to encourage other countries to take a similar course–to use the incentives at our disposal in order to produce more just societies. Do we want societies riven by the division of the population into small wealthy classes and large poor classes? I don’t think so. What threatens our national security? I believe it is no longer large armies, but rather unstable nations, much of whose populations live in poverty, illiteracy, poor health, and consequent despair. This produces terrorism, jingoistic nationalism, mass emigrations, environmental disasters, population explosions, drug economies, antagonism to the U.S. and the West, etc. It’s not just a moral or economic issue, but one of national security. By discouraging child labor and by encouraging education, we have the chance to see the formation of nations with dynamic middle classes and more powerful economies. In other words, we will have a more productive and safer world. At least, I hope so.

I’m by no means an expert on this, but it seems to me that the moral call to social action and economics actually conspired to create what we have now. Does it always work out this way? No. Do good intentions sometimes lead to bad results? Yes. Can bad intentions actually at times produce good results? Yes. Can good people disagree about a moral course of action? Of course. In fact, the discussion itself may produce an awareness and a plan of action that would not have otherwise existed.

I believe, however, that “Gemilut hasadim” does call us to take action on behalf of others, including those we don’t even know in parts of the world we may never have visited. We may make mistakes, but that does not mean we should avoid putting ourselves in the world. Not to do so is (in my opinion) an error and misses the thrust of “gemilut hasadim.”

Thank you for thinking about these issues so deeply. Your essay should help us all. I know it’s helped me. I think you’re absolutely right about God and the holocaust. We spend too much time thinking about God’s intentions and not enough looking at our own actions and foibles. Also, I had never thought about entropy in such positive terms as you put it. You really changed my view there Perhaps entropy is a gift that God has given us. Hmm . . .

Next Entries »