Migrating Notes from facebook to here: part 1 - On faulty logic

This was a note from my facebook page over 3 years ago. 

Faulty logic... 

It may be time for a little rant. I hate faulty logic. Just hate it - in particular this nugget of half-truth/ pure bullshit that I was told again today. Someone told me that it was "scientifically proven" that women are better drivers, and brought as proof the fact that in civilised countries, there are special deals by insurance companies that give women better insurance. This is not true. Don't get me wrong - women might well be better drivers,  but I am sure it can't be proven that they are, and certainly hasn't been yet. But I don't care about that - I care about the faulty logic. Women get better insurance because they are less likely to get sued by someone else for damage done. This has a number of causes, most of which it is hard to say lead to the claim that women are better drivers.

As a rule men drive a lot more than women (Far greater number of men commute long distances for work) - hence when an insurance company insures a man for a year, it is possible that they are insuring him for twice or three times as many hours on the road. Moreover - even when involved in an accident, and even when they may have caused one, women are less likely to get sued - either because of chivalry/chauvinism/sexism or because they are less likely to get into an argument -whatever! But it doesn't prove they are any better drivers! That is faulty logic! Now if someone argued that on average they believed that women were better drivers because among men there is a sub-culture of machismo which encourages young male drivers to act like boy-racer idiots, then I would buy it. Or if someone were to claim that society equates fast-driving with manliness and hence women are less apt to drive irresponsibly, i would agree - but the ridiculous insurance thing just does my nut. A definite case of (Alexandra - this is for you) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Rant done.

Home

To be at home
is not a geographical reality.

To go home
is not a physical journey.

To leave home
is not an easy decision.

Home
is not just where the heart is.

Home
is where the kishkes are.

Where I grow.
Where I see the future.
Where that future is mine to build.

Home.

Thoughts on returning to a land at War....

My heart is in the east
And my suitcase is packed.

Leaving home
To go Home.

Looking to a promised land
with so little promise.
Aching to be there
Waiting to be there.

But praying that peace will come
Knowing that it will not come ...
... soon enough.

Written after the murders of Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frankel, Gilad Sha'ar and Muhammed Abu Khdeir

A parent should never have to bury a son.
God, don't bury your sons and daughters in violence.
Don't drown us in blood.
May we live to praise your name.
May we live to see your image in each other.
May we live.
In peace.

My 2 shekels' worth on the Rabbi Kimche Letter

I was originally going to write this as a response on the facebook wall of Andrew Gilbert, but obviously it got a bit long for a response...

I am referencing Rabbi Alan Kimche's Open Letter about Limmud which you can find here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-gilbert/rabbi-kimches-infamous-innaccurate-and-in-some-cases-offensive-article-on-attend/10152061054651392 and also Dr Harris Bor's response which you can find here: http://jacquelinenicholls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lets-be-honest.html

.

I thought Harris Bor's response on Jacqueline Nicholls blog was exceptional, spot on, humourous and incredibly insightful. But I was not in any way offended by the original letter from Rabbi Kimche. I may have found it to be inaccurate (nothing new when talking about Orthodox rabbis characterisations of non-Orthodox Judaism - have we forgotten that the former Chief Rabbi of the US called Reform Jews, "those who destroy the faith" and a "false grouping"). I thought that what he said about LGBTQ Jews was offensive, but I was not offended, since I would expect nothing else - mainstream Orthodox Judaism is homophobic. So I think that Rabbi Kimche's main point needs to be understood - let's be honest.

Rabbi Kimche, from what I know of his reputation (and I might be wrong), is a good representation of mainstream orthodoxy's rabbinate. What we need to be honest about is the fact that the vast majority of UK Jewry doesn't believe in the type of Judaism these people espouse, and yet for the past couple of centuries, they have been propping up this necrotic institution of the United Synagogues and their affiliates.

I think that we should have an open honest conversation, and we don't need to take offence too easily when people disagree with our viewpoints, our understanding of the world or our values. I disagree with Rabbi Kimche, but we can disagree and respect each other's right to do as we wish, and he has every right to use his office to convince people why they should reject the wonderful beit midrash which is Limmud. He has every right to reject my understanding of Jewish history and Jewish identity.

If there is one place where Dr Bor's characterisation of narrow-minded Orthodoxy fell down, I believe, it is in the idea that he believed that somehow this type of Orthodoxy will cease to be vibrant. Dr Bor recognises that in fact, intolerance breeds itself very well and that the anti-modern forms of Jewish community are the only ones genuinely thriving numerically in the UK and around the world. We, on the liberal side of this debate also need to be honest - and admit that Rabbi Kimche has some good points to make (isn't that the point of the Limmud ethos - that we can learn from those people with whom we fundamentally disagree). When he accuses non-Orthodoxy of encouraging assimilation, he is obviously talking from ignorance, but nevertheless, it encourages us to ask genuine questions about what assimilation does mean to us today and where we stand on such an issue. How do we anticipate and react to the growing numbers of Jews who find non-Jewish partners and how do we help them to create meaningful lives within these partnerships?

Most of all, I think that the Progressive reaction to Rabbi Kimche's letter misses the main point - which is that it is not talking about us at all (though of course we are pawns used by him to make his point). But Rabbi Kimche is not talking about us and he is not talking to us, but rather to those members and leaders of "modern" or "open" orthodoxy, and he is asking them to be honest. He is asking people who use the moniker of Orthodoxy to be honest about that usage. In what way are "Orthodox" leaders who reject his fundamentalism, reject his obscurantism, reject his intolerance, reject his homophobia, reject his xenophobia really Orthodox? That is the question he is asking, and the honesty he is seeking. In the end it has nothing to do with Progressive Judaism - we just look on from the sidelines, wondering whether the leaders of "Modern" or "Open" Orthodoxy still want to share a camp with Rabbi Kimche and the other Orthodox rabbis who oppose dialogue and debate, or whether they want to share a camp with those who support it.

I am not trying to deny the leaders of Open or Modern Orthodoxy the right to define themselves as they wish, or to re-define Orthodoxy, but I would ask, together with Rabbi Kimche, for some honesty. I think that the leaders who Rabbi Kimche wants to reach, people like the incredible (Hopefully chief-rabbi-to-be), Rabbi Rafi Zarum, could probably give a fascinating response to Rabbi Kimche and to me, about the radical honesty which underpins Open Orthodoxy. I would love to hear it.

Monarchists - You can't have it both ways

I am a republican.

No don't worry - not a Republican, a republican. I believe the UK (and all other monarchies) should be a democracy - they should get rid of the Monarchy and become a republic.

Most of the time when I enter debate about this, the Monarchist side will usually come up with the following points:

1. They're great for tourism - the UK would lose so much money if they got rid of the Royals.
2. They do no harm.
3. They don't impede democracy, they have no actual role in government.
4. They're great for tourism
5. The UK is a constitutional monarchy - it is simply an effective way of having a head of state who has no executive functions.
6. They're great for tourism.

Now - anyone who can read and add up will realise that there are actually only 2 arguments here, one repeated so many times that people think its true, without any actual proof is that they are great for tourism. The other three supposed reasons are in fact also just one - they actually don't do anything - so they're doing no harm.

Ignoring the fact that they are a really really expensive redundancy - the interesting thing is that this point actually undermines the only other point monarchists have - and particularly Jewish monarchists.

I was recently accused of being unpatriotic because I did not want to say a prayer for the queen. I was told - how could I not want to honour the monarch of this country which gave so many of our grandparents refuge. Ignoring the fact that the Royals were probably very sympathetic to many of the people organising the pogroms and mass murder which forced us to flee - this often heard canard should theoretically completely undermine the main point of monarchists - IF the monarchy has nothing to do with actual government, then the monarchy had nothing to do with our receiving refuge! So - Monarchists can't have it both ways. Either the Monarchy are not involved in government, and therefore had nothing to do with the country giving Jews refuge, or the Monarchy does involve itself in government - in which case there is no democratic process.

Really - i despair!

Why are Israeli and English commentators so stupid?

After the bitching and moaning of the first paragraph, I get to the real point: Education, Education, Education...

So, it's Euro 2012 time, and if you think that this is some form of monetary currency convention between Europe's great economic powers, then clearly we don't inhabit the same planet. It is a football (soccer) competition, and is what gets people through the four long years between World Cups, for those who worship at the altar of the one true religion, namely: the Beautiful Game. Anyway, as I currently live in footaballing exile (i.e. outside of a country that knows how to appreciate the game), I am sentenced to death by idiocy - that is to say, I have to put up with Israeli commentary on football matches. This is truly painful. It seems that the broadcasters actually cast around to find the most non-sensical idiotic morons available to comment upon and give analysis of these games. I often watch the games on mute - my wife thinks it is because I am being considerate and making sure I don't wake our gorgeous son sleeping next door - this is a fantastic win-win situation. Occasionally I put the sound on to be able to hear the crowd but make sure it is too low to hear the idiocy coming through. So I was slightly in shock recently when I actually watched some English commentary and analysis, and found to my horror that they are just as bad, if not worse. The inane chatter and supposed joking around seems to cover the fact that these people know nothing about anything and do not have the ability to talk intelligently about the one thing they are meant to know something about. It is hard to believe they are getting paid for this.

So - it is one thing to complain - but one has to ask - why is this the case? Why are football commentators almost universally stupid in the two places where I watch football. Well, first of all, I was forced to ask the question whether it is universal. After a tiny amount of anecdotal research, I find out that, while other countries do have some idiots behind the mic, as a general rule, it is not true of most European countries. Not only this, but it seems to be particularly true of football, as opposed to other sports. And moreover - it is not just commentators - everyone involved in English football, barring a small minority seem to have difficulty expressing themselves in a reasoned and intelligent manner. What's going on? Now of course this is a ridiculously unfair generalisation - and I really do apologise. It isn't true - there are plenty of intelligent footballers, coaches, managers and commentators, in England, Israel and around the world, but, still, there is a sense that those involved in football in England lack the ability to analyse the game and speak eloquently about it. Now - I can see good reason for that to be the case with regard to footballers themselves. When someone says of a footballer, his brains are in his feet, it is meant as a compliment, but it also comes across as a back-handed insult. If his brains are in his feet - they aren't in his head. And I also am happy to admit there are lots of different types of intelligence and it is narrow thinking to concentrate on eloquence as a defining characteristic of intelligence - and of course there are many ways on the pitch that footballers show how aware of the world they can be and how quick they can think. Nevertheless - there still remains a sense that elevated intellectual thinking is not a necessary requirement for success in the footballing field. But coaches? Commentators? What's going on? And is it really fair to believe that somehow footballers are not as smart as others? Wasn't the last pope a semi-professional standard goalkeeper? Albert Camus? Didn't he play a bit? So once again - I ask - what is going on?

So here are some of my observations, and then some conclusions, primarily relevant to the English case, but I am sure also to the Israeli case:
Observations:
1) Most commentators and most coaches are ex-footballers themselves. So essentially the question is about the footballers themselves.

2) There is a culture that surrounds football (all good religions develop cultural elements to them).

3) The culture of football has become anti-elitist, anti-intellectual and to some extent - anti-learning.

4) To become a top-flight footballer these days, one has to basically commit the majority of one's energy to achieving such a goal from the age of about 8, meaning that one's priority is to develop one's footballing skills, rather than to develop one's overall mind.

5) As noted - non-British, European players, coaches and commentators seem to come across as more cultured, more educated and more intelligent than British players, coaches and commentators.

6) Football is a working class sport in the UK, and the vast majority of players have a working class education.

7) The vast majority of people who try and make it as a footballer do not end up earning their salary for the majority of their life from the sport.

8) MOST IMPORTANTLY - these people are actually just as intelligent as anyone else. This is not about intelligence. This is about sounding eloquent. This is about sounding informed and engaged.

So - some conclusions:

1) British footballers are uneducated, because they have been encouraged to believe they do not need an education to be a footballer. This is short term thinking. Even if they are good enough to make it as a footballer (the tiny minority who start on the journey), they remain uneducated after finishing their relatively short career as a footballer. It seems that in other countries, people who end up being footballers, also have a general, rounded education.

2) This is about class and power - there is a reason why footballers are encouraged to be well paid but poorly educated. They are more manipulable as such.

3) It is self-defeating. England has enough resources to be better than Italy, Spain, France and Holland at football, and yet it has never reached the success at major tournaments that those countries have. I believe this is because of poor coaching and poor attitudes of players. This is an educational issue.

In short, the UK seems to be happy to allow its footballers to lack an education. This may be all well and good if really the issue were footballers (or coaches, or commentators, or winning trophies by developing smart coaches), but actually what is important about the UK football education dearth is what it says about the UK's educational system - that if you come from the working class in the UK - no-one has an interested in making sure you will receive a good education.