RESPONSE TO: “CHRISTIANITY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY”

(I received the following email from “JG” about my post on Dissecting Leftism about whether Christianity had any role in fostering the respect for individual liberty that characterizes the Anglo-Saxon nations)

Greetings,
Interesting post that touches on several themes, and in general I agree with you, though I think you left out a few points:

** I'd argue that the roots of Protestantism were based more on political differences, than theological. Even though Luther is often cited - the truth of the matter is he had more in common with the Catholic Church than with the modern definition of Protestants (how many Protestants today believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?). Modern day Protestantism is a product of a continual schismatic process, of individual will taking precendent over that of the community. Its process, beginning with the Age of Enlightment, and later the Industrial Age (Calvinism leading to growth of capitalism as a sign of predestination) was about individual over institution. To a certain extent that's anti-Catholic in concept.

** Your point about Africa, I think could be misconstrued to suggest Africans are more prone to violence, as if it were a genetic defect. I don't think you meant that, rather I think that what you were saying is that the pattern of governments has led
to the violence (and Christianity failing perhaps to address that issue).

** The graf that begins "It is then the fact that Protestantism became the characteristic religion of the Anglo-Saxon peoples" I believe is incorrect from a
statistical standpoint, both looking at history and certainly with respect to current trends (just check a few of these figures for 2001: Austria: Catholic 6.4
million, Protestant 407,500; Belgium: Catholic, 7.7 million, Protestant 2.5 million; Canada: Catholic 13.3 million, Protestant 12.6 million; France: Catholic 54
million; Protestant 1.2 million; Germany: Catholic 28.2 million; Protestant 31.54 million; Netherlands: Catholic 5 million; Protestant 3.4 million to name only a few countries - of course with respect to US there are more Protestants in total, but the largest Christian faith remains Catholic.)

** The problem with using a broad Protestant paintbrush, could be another issue - Methodist, to Amish, to Baptist, to Quaker, etc. -

Cheers
JG

Reply:

JG
Thank you for that interesting email. You may be interested in my much more extensive treatment of the issues concerned here

Just two points at this stage:

I do believe in the reality of racial differences and that some of those differences are genetic. I think both statements to be obviously true in fact. But what is true of races may not of course be remotely true of any given individual within that race. And I do think that the universality of high rates of violence among negro populations -- whether the negroes concerned are in any part of Africa, in the USA, in the UK or in Europe -- does point to a genetic difference in that respect.

You are quite right that Protestantism was fairly thoroughly suppressed in most of Europe (particularly the South) but my point concerned the Anglo-Saxons particularly -- and the Anglo-Saxon countries (UK, Australia, USA, Canada, NZ) do have Protestant majorities.

I might be inclined to post this correspondence on my blog. Do I have your permission for that? Can be anonymous or not as you like.

Cheers
JR

Reply:

John
Greetings
I appreciate your comments back, and I hope that you gathered that I am interested in dialogue, and that I wasn't criticising your post. I truly enjoy posts that cause one to think, my background is in sociology (with emphasis on religion) although I work in a separate field.

I too believe in racial differences. In fact, I believe that each race has certain aspects that are unique to them, and which can either enrich or degrade the global
human race as a whole. But I have to admit, and I hope this doesn't end our dialogue, that I have serious doubts that violence is of a genetic quality, but
rather I see it (violence) more of a product of ingrained habits, trends, etc. that have been passed on from generation to generation... I believe that the Bible to
a certain extant almost says the same thing when it speaks of the sins of the father being visited upon those of the 3rd generation following... I suspect that we're actually arguing the same thing, but perhaps it's a question of semantics.

You of course are free to use anything that I´ve written if it is for the purpose, as I suspect, to create an atmosphere of dialogue. i´d only ask that you don´t say that it´s from me. and if, to allay any doubts on your part, JG isn´t my name (it's a name that I use to protect me a bit here in Spain - suffice it to say that I am Anglo-Saxon, and a convert to Catholicism (from Anglicanism, although as a child I was raised Protestant), married to a Peruvian), and I could be found fairly easily if I used my real name, which would cause me security problems, etc as in the line that I work we are on the list of ETA terrorists (I am being serious about this... In fact, a bomb went off in my offices a few years back)...

Just as an fyi... I don't really align myself with any political definition, as I find myself on social issues leaning left, on personal and family issues leaning right, on economic bothways... but what I do try to do is be consistent, so when I say I am
pro-life, I also mean that in other aspects of life, meaning that I don't support buildup of weapons of massive destruction, etc. I suppose some would say that makes me leftwing, but the truth of the matter is I probably wish in the utopian ideal of a "divine dictatorship," (which is what makes a General Franco so dangerous) but since that will never happen, I suspect the next best thing is democracy, and that's pretty much my view on life.

I believe that man is a fallen creature and thus all the things he touches are flawed, not that they are bad, but that they can never reach perfection.

With respect to Catholicism, Protestantism and Anglo-Saxons, I'm afraid I wasn't meaning the South of Europe... I know the trend changed when we speak of
some of the Nordic countries, but what I was just trying to point out was that even "core" Europe is and was predominately Catholic. That said, another thing that I've noticed is that even in cultures where the majority may be Catholic, it's often the Protestant voice that is heard.

I will read your other writings. Anyway, I hope this helps and look forward to the
"chats"

Cheers
JG

Reply

JG
Good to hear back from you.

Yes. The idea that blacks have a genetic predisposition to violence has not to my knowledge as yet been examined by the geneticists. The only evidence I have is sociological -- the universality of frequent violence among negroes regardless of their history or the political system under which they live.

I will put our correspondence up.

Cheers
JR

**************

Let Them Fend For Themselves

By Arlene Peck

So! They don't like us? Germany and France are in a huff about our "policing the world." You know, I sort of agree with them. We have taken far too much on ourselves in the care and feeding of much of those European countries. We had a war there over fifty years ago. Can anyone tell me why we are still spending millions and millions of dollars sending our troops over to those ingrates? For what? Who are we protecting? The French? Germany, that started both World Wars? It nauseates me when I think of the short memories those countries have.

I hope to G-d that when all of this is over, we'll remember who was with us, and who sided with the terrorists. What possesses us to continue sending our tax dollars to people who not only treat us with scorn but also, obviously, hate. So they don't like us? They don't want our help? Fine. We'll stop giving them money, aid, and for sure, we don't need any troops there to drain our economy while building up theirs. Hey, if it weren't for our saving the French not so long ago from their newest buddies, the Germans, they wouldn't even have a nation called "France." It would have come under the heading, "Greater Germany."

As to the Jewish aspect, the French were the ones who rounded up their Jews for the Nazi ovens even before they were ordered to do so. And the French were the ones who tried to build a nuclear plant capable of making a bomb for Iraq. No wonder they now want to appease Iraq. However, what's our excuse? We owe them nothing. If they do decide to give their "approval", are they going to send troops? Give money? No way! The most we can expect from our 'allies' the French is to sit back and watch as again, America liberates a country from a madman. Isn't that what they are good for. Standing on the sidelines like they did in WWII?

We, the United States, I'm sorry to say are not always dealing with a full deck. There is a long list of violent acts from these Muslims. Many American lives have already been lost by their radicalism. Right? So, why is it when I go to my local post office I am faced with a celebration stamp for the Muslims and their religion? To me, it is obscene that our government has a stamp honoring those who killed so many Americans. In our quest to be "politically correct", have we totally lost our minds? Why aren't these anti-war activists marching against terrorism instead of war? Someone ought to tell them that just about every corner of the world is under direct attack or under immediate threat by the "peaceful" nation of Islam.

For years I have been writing about the senseless violence that Israel has had to contend with at the hands of evil, mindless people with evil, mindless, sub-human values. For some reason, our press, and, actually, the world press, has been unable to articulate them for what they are. Has anyone, besides me, noticed that terrorists and murderers are never referred to as that? They are called "gunmen", "militants", "activists", and good old-fashioned "guerillas." And oh yes, "freedom fighters." Why? They are terrorists! Why is that word so difficult to put into print? Why must the news desk often only describe the carnage wrought by "homicidal terrorist" and refer to them as "suicide bombers"?

Radical Muslims are the source of most of the evil in the world! Just look where there is a brutal regional conflict, and you'll find that the radical Muslims are the root cause. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it when I'm fed the fallacy of a "peaceful people" and how the Arab world doesn't support the policy of the few. Their few are what? Three hundred million? Four? Show me one mosque that has come out publicly in support of our fight against terrorism. Is there one Arab cleric who has done so? Not to my knowledge.

We talk about going to the "source". What exactly have we, as Americans, done to offend these Islamic radicals with our policies? It offends them to have "infidels" walking around their "hallowed ground." Interesting how nobody ever finds fault with the continuous desecration of Jewish and Indian (Hindu) holy places and icons perpetrated by Muslims with impunity. Any of you want to remember Josephs Tomb? Also, if my memory serves me, they sure didn't have a problem just a few short years ago when we sent in our troops to save them AND their oil! Oil, which I believe should be used to reimburse us for the destruction they've caused us. And, I'm talking every last dime! France isn't fighting for peace. It all comes down to their billion dollar oil deals that both France and Germany have struck with Saddam Hussein. And, speaking of oil, we shouldn't be buying any of ours from those people either!

The roots of their terrorism lie in the evil and totally abusive way their families are being raised. That is the nature of their infrastructure. They bring up their children to be terrorists. That is the natural result of a fundamentalist culture that raises their children in a dysfunctional system from birth. They are pre-conditioned in a misogynist system where farm animals are treated with more sensitivity than women. Why do we keep saying Saudi Arabia is a "moderate country"? We know of their barbaric laws: chopping off body parts and creating a system that constitutes a total degradation of women. Yet, the press always overlooks that. These people are so barbaric that they still cut off their daughter's sexuality with razor blades or pieces of glass in one of their "rituals."

I'm sick and tired of the Western world overlooking the murderous tactics that are being pushed through by the seventh century mentality of the Arab countries. There is no "cycle of violence." Israel is in a defensive mode. Indeed, the entire Western world is now in the same boat. The same way their ultimate goal has always been the demise of Israel, so now are we facing the same reality.

I wrote two years ago about how the wave of terrorism in Israel was only the beginning. I said that 9/11 was the canary in the mine because they were "testing." If the Arabs got away with such destruction, then the flood doors would be opened. Today, we are talking about running out and stocking up on water and duct tape and plastic sheeting to make "safe rooms." Gee, didn't we watch that not so long ago in Israel? And, now it's coming to our shores. I fully expect the "suicide bombers" to start in Starbucks and our shopping malls. Hey, they were pretty successful doing it to Israel. The world still is meeting and passing resolutions for a "balanced approach." There is no "balanced approach" to terrorism. If they won't live in the twenty-first century, that's their problem. We can't let them bring us back to live in caves and eat road kill which they seem to prefer.

POSTWAR IRAQ: PROPOSALS FROM KARL POPPER

By Rafe Champion

If we do go into Iraq, how can we be sure to win the war and not just the battles? By winning the war I mean producing a good long term result, especially freedom and prosperity for the people of Iraq.

This means getting rid of Saddam and his police state on a permanent basis, not just changing the bums on the seats of unchecked power with a new rule of terror under different management.

I would like to commend the "Popper Plan" for dealing with this situation. The plan was sketched in a long note (7) to Chapter 9 of The Open Society and its Enemies. The chapter was a critique of the utopian impulse, the quest for ideal societies, in conformance with some mad plan, regardless of the human consequences. The paradigms were post-revolutionary France and Soviet Russia.
Note 7 is an essay on keeping the peace on an international scale and the Popper Plan was sketched as a suggestion for the steps that might have been taken after World War I to prevent Germany from getting out of control again. The aim was to prevent Germany from re-arming, without harming the citizens of Germany. The parallel with Iraq is obvious.

"We must realise that we can treat individuals fairly, even if we wish to break up the power-organization of an aggressive state or nation to which those individuals belong. It is a widely held prejudice that the destruction and control of the military, political and even the economic power of a state or 'nation' implies misery or subjugation of its individual citizens. But this prejudice is as unwarranted as it is dangerous."

The plan is extremely simple, in principle.

"The fringe of the aggressor country, including its sea-coast and its main (not all) sources of water power, coal, and steel, could be severed from the state and administered as an international territory. Harbours as well as the raw materials could be made accessible to the citizens of the state for their legitimate economic activities, without imposing economic disadvantages on them, on the condition that they invite international commissions to control the proper use of these facilities"

.

And that is about it. Of course for people who regard the state as a sacred thing, this would represent an intolerable intrusion upon state sovereignty. However the aim is to ensure that a rogue state is never in a position to wage aggressive war again and this would appear to be desirable even at the cost of some hurt feelings on the part of aggressive nationalists. This plan would not stop the nation from making an impact in ways other than war, for example in sport, in economic achievement, science or the arts.

Popper's plan did not address the internal politics of the defeated state. Presumably if the winners of the war and the international authorities had the will to execute his plan to prevent the state from re-arming, it would be feasible to supervise free elections and nurture some democratic processes and institutions. The plan was designed for a nation like Germany which had democratic institutions in place (for all their defects) and democracy did not need to be built from scratch, as may be the case in Iraq.

Drop into the Rathouse Forum to look at some of the Popper Centenary papers...

LEFTIST DENIAL

An Email from a reader:

I read your monograph. I found it very interesting. As regards to anti-Americanism however, I believe that there is an added dimension to the phenomenon. You point out that leftists in general have a strong propensity to engage in "denial," pretending that inconvenient facts simply do not exist. I think it can and does go beyond this to what Orwell described as "doublethink," holding two contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time and drawing upon each at need to reach a preordained conclusion.

On the one hand the left is confronted with a mountain of evidence that free market capitalism produces prosperity on a scale that no socialist scheme has ever been able to match, and that the wealth produced tends to lift up the poorer members of society as well, not just the evil capitalist class. On the other hand they suscribe to their core notions that capitalism is, by definition, oppression, and that equality of result is the ultimate goal of society. On some level I think that the theoreticians of the left realize that the institution of their schemes will ultimately alienate the proletariat so long as the "proles" have the example of a large and vibrant non-socialist economy to compare to their own standard of living. People simply prefer prosperity to egalitarian poverty. The US is hated because it is the largest example of a free market economy. If it ceased to exist tomorrow then the left would probably transfer their hatred to the next largest free-market economy. This dynamic can also be seen in the EU, where the forces that be seek to force all the nations into the same economic mold. God forbid that there be any diversity in taxation or economic policy which might show the practical disadvantages of a given EU policy. Ireland drew heavy flak from the EU bureaucracy because of its low taxes on corporations, but the screws are slowly tightening.

The Durban conference in S. Africa also tends to demonstrate this. Two points that were often made by the speakers were that:
(1) free market capitalism is not a workable or desirable system, and
(2) it would be impossible for the third world countries to acheive standards of living comparable to those in the West, because the resources needed have already been consumed by the US and other wicked countries.

Of course, the notion that the resources no longer exist is a total fabrication. The basic thrust is that on some level the Greens know that the system they wish to impose on the developing world probably cannot provide such a standard of living, and they are hedging their bets by creating an excuse beforehand, which is of course the USA and other capatalistic nations.

As to post-modernists, I think that this ties in again to the tendency to pretend that inconvenient facts do not exist. It is nothing more than an application of Orwell's "Newspeak." Concepts which are antithetical to the tautological precepts of the left are declared to be mere "contructions," and are therefore meaningless. It follows then that there is no argument, and therefore nothing to address or refute. It is simply a mechanism to avoid analysis and thought rather than a tool OF analysis. It is denial masquerading as wisdom.

*********************

MORE ON PRUSSIA

It is often said that to understand Hitler you have to understand the Prussians -- the people who created modern Germany in the first place. Roughly speaking, Prussia is the Northeastern part of Germany which, over the course of the 19th century, gradually came to dominate the whole of Germany. And the Prussian army had a famous tradition of requiring that its troops be Kadaver gehorsam (corpselike obedient) so how that squares my claim of a Germanic respect for individual liberty does at first seem very difficult to explain indeed.

Perhaps the first thing to note about the Prussians, however, is that they were not originally Germans. They were a Baltic people until conquered by the Teutonic Knights and the Old Prussian (Baltic) language did not die out until the 17th century.

The second thing to note is that the militarized and bueaucratized nature of the Prussian State was largely the the creation of one man -- King Frederick William I, who ruled from 1720 onwards. And although Frederick William was undoubtedly German, he may have been assisted in setting up his militarized State by the large non-German element in his subjects.

Frederick William’s son, Frederick the Great (who reigned from 1740), did nothing to undo the efficient bureaucracy set up by his father and made triumphant use of the army created by his father but he was nonetheless notably tolerant and humane. He was hailed by Voltaire (whose model was England) as the “philosopher king” and was noted for instituting freedom of conscience in religious and other matters. As a result, at one time the only place in Western Europe where the Jesuit order was legally permitted was Protestant Prussia. And Voltaire was welcomed in Prussia at times when he was unwelcome in France. So, under Frederick, Prussia was the acme of individual liberty in the continental Europe of the time! An efficient military did NOT mean an oppressed citizenry. Even in militaristic Prussia, the ancient Germanic respect for individual liberty was alive and well and thriving.

The third thing to note is that rigid obedience to orders was NOT a requirement higher up the chain of command in the Prussian army. The famous Prussian general and military theorist, Clausewitz (1976), is clear that an innovative, flexible, opportunistic, improvisatory strategy is of utmost importance among military commanders. Kadaver gehorsam was, in other words, even in the military context a strictly limited requirement. Germans have always been good military men and the strict obedience to orders of the ordinary soldier is an age-old military ideal. It has no necessary implications for what is true of the society as a whole. The armies of many very different societies have endeavoured to impose such an attitude in their troops -- though probably it is only the Japanese who have ever achieved it!

And such a robotic attitude was certainly not true of Prussians generally. Prior to their subjugation by another strong figure in German history -- Bismarck -- the Prussian parliament was in fact notably liberal (in the 19th century meaning of that term). Though Napoleon himself ran a police State in France, Prussian legislators of the 19th century were influenced by his liberal ideals rather than his authoritarian deeds. As one small sign of that, the emancipation of the Jews was proclaimed in Prussia in 1812. So to mistake Prussian military requirements for the nature of Prussians themselves is a large mistake.

So militaristic Prussia does challenge only to some degree the notion of German individualism. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors were great warriors too but they still respected individual liberties.

Perhaps the most important thing here, however, is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Prussia's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.

So prior to 1871, Germany was a disunited and decentralized agglomeration that generations of Prussians, French and others tried unsuccessfully to subdue. And from 1871, unity of a sort was achieved and maintained only by the diplomatic genius of Bismarck. And even with the armed might of Prussia behind him even Bismarck had a lot of trouble with the other German States. He could not even get his Prussian monarch declared as being "Emperor of Germany". He had to make do with "German Emperor" as a title. And even Bismarck was not able to shake the independence of the Germans in the Austrian lands. He had to be content with them as not always reliable allies.

And after the remarkable restraint provided by Bismarck was dispensed with by the new Kaiser (Wilhelm II or “Kaiser Bill”) , the German Empire very quickly self-destructed. We know it as World War I. And Hitler's attempt to revive it went the same way.

So now Germany today is back to something much more like what it always was -- a nation with a strongly decentralized power structure in the form of the various Land (State) governments. And that is of course exactly the same structure that certain other countries of mainly Germanic origin (the USA, Canada and Australia) have adopted too -- a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. And it might be noted that "devolution" is rapidly leading to a similar state of affairs in Britain itself. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.

***********************

They’re Getting Older. Not Me!

By Arlene Peck



Recently, I went shoe shopping with a friend and reality hit! I no can longer wear those “hooker shoes that I walked around in for so many years. Now, when I even try on those four-inch stilettos, I want to park my feet in handicapped. If high heels were so terrific, then I suppose that men would still be wearing them. Is that how it happens? Just when you think you’ve got your head together you find that your body is falling apart. One day you wake up and your rear end is three inches lower. Just like that! Maybe I thought that the best way to forget my troubles was to wear tight shoes. You’re tripping along thinking you’re somewhere between eighteen and twenty-two and suddenly pass a mirror and think, “Who is that woman?” Am I the only one who feels that inside of every older woman is a teenager wondering what the hell happened?

It’s shocking. Just when I thought I was getting used to yesterday, along came today and Al Qaeda and terrorists weren’t in my vocabulary. I’ve tried however, to tone down my political views at parties. This was about the same time that I decided that either I would have to control my attitude or be offered medication. I no longer compare myself to others. They’re often more messed up than I thought. Besides, it’s not so bad. Sometimes just having friends like that makes their dysfunction makes me feel better about myself.

Over the past few years I’ve noticed my eating habits changing also. I read fat contents and strive to go to the gym. In LA, everybody is going to the gym. It’s a mantra. They learn early on, brain cells come and brain cells go. However, fat cells go on forever. In the old days, if I didn’t die from it, it had to be healthy. Growing up in Georgia, we all married so damn young that nobody ever had to worry about biological clocks. My mother had friends that were grandmothers in their 30’s. We all believed that there was a reason that women over fifty didn’t have babies. We would probably put them down and forget where we put them. I lost my dog Kugel that way two times last week. I think that there is a bit of a generation gap with the girls I see today. The women of my era were taught that it was better to be a girl than a boy because it was more preferable to hold out than to beg.

Relationships change. No matter how old I think I’m getting, there is always a “younger man” out there who looks upon older women as a challenge. I used to avoid what I considered inappropriate men. However, my younger men seem to have gotten a lot older. As time goes by, you somehow learn that it takes you a long time to sleep with the person you want. We get jaded and no longer believe in love at first sight. Age has taught me that I may not have always won, but when I lost, I tried to not lose the lesson that I was taught. It’s funny though, how all the people you care most about in your life are taken from you far too soon. The older you get you sometimes you are able to get flashbacks. There are times in your life when you miss someone so much that you even if your dreaming, you just want to pick them up and hug them for real.

Yet, the less important ones just never go away and hang on forever. However, now that I’m an “older woman” I’ve learned to appreciate that it’s possible to look upon life as a blessing and whatever “adventures” that come along with it. I have bras in my closet older than some of the men who contact me, but, hey, G-d must have a reason? No? So, maybe the secret is learning the rules and then learning how to break some of them. Falling in love is awfully simple. Falling out of love is simply awful. The heights are great. But, I don’t like the valleys so much.

Besides, I firmly believe that Jewish men, or maybe just men, don’t look at grown up women. For over twenty years I have had an Israeli male friend. He still continues to invite me to his parties along with the guys he grew up with there. Over the past few years I’ve noticed that I’m the only adult female person there. The guys still come. However, the dates hanging on the arms of these men

are younger and younger. Usually I feel as though I’m swimming in a sea of Barbie dolls. Unfortunately those men haven’t learned the value of conversational skills. These girls could be dumb as dirt. What could these girls possibly know? To them, Michael Jackson has always been white. They don’t care who shot JR. Hell, they don’t even know who JR was! In the words of that great sage, Erica Jong, “You see a lot of smart guys with dumb women, but you hardly ever see a smart woman with a dumb guy.

Women, I think, tune into the truism that you have to have someone around that you can talk to. The older you get, conversational skills become just as important as any other. With this crowd, I could be invisible. Ah, but when I go out with my girlfriends, the guys who could probably be their sons approach me and, ask for my card. And, I’m at the stage where I can appreciate their good taste. I’ve also learned never to interrupt when I’m being flattered. Older men and I’ll go further, American men, don’t usually have the same way with words.

A friend recently accused me of being a bit of a snob because usually upon meeting someone new, I wait about two minutes and then inquire, "What do you do in real life? … Do you have a day job?" I'm not into asking, "What's your sign?" and deplore it when someone asks it of me. I usually answer, "Dollar bills — Yield, why fight it?" Besides, I don't see anything wrong with that. I think my questions show an inquiring mind. Also, they tend to weed out the wimps.

But, I'm not especially drawn to people who think that way. It’s possible that growing up in Georgia and dealing with the Redneck Riviera population jaded me in some respect. Too many of the men that I met had me believing I was living in Darwin’s waiting room. Evolution was an option. There are guys down there who I am sure grew up to be their own fathers. Men sometimes just do such dysfunctional things. Other than going out of their way to start silly wars. Spitting, for instance. It’s such a disgusting habit. How many women have you ever seen do that?

Granted, the Jewish ones had a little more savoir-faire. I think, even a little naive. They thought that KKK was the symbol for Kosher. Today, the Jewish men seem to prefer Asian women. They think they are unlike the Jewish women and will be subservient. Yeah, right! To them, meeting an older Jewish woman is the wife they left.

And finally, on the subject of men, G-d bless them. Life is so easy for them. When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It’s taken me a while but I’m learning “Old age ain’t no place for sissies.”