Picture Perfect

There is some uncertainty about my future!

At least, for one of my parents, not for myself. I know perfectly well what I wish to do and when I wish to do it, but those parently forces do not agree.

I wish to qualify as a lawyer, but I'll be damned if I spend the rest of my life practicing law. I'm much more interested in journalism, politics and teaching. I'm disillusioned with politics, however, as everything within it is so sordid it makes my head spin. Political leaders wantonly lie time and time again to the people; they have absolutely no regard for the electorate at all. Nothing is as it seems and everything depends either upon public opinion, or better still, keeping the public ignorant of the facts for as long as possible, to cram through whatever policy you want to for as long as you possibly can.

Journalism, on the other hand, is about influencing public opinion in ways I deem positive, without having to fall in line with party-politics, or worrying about whether or not you'll get elected next term. Teaching is something I think I'd enjoy, challenging the young minds of tomorrow as I myself was challenged, once upon a time, remains appealing to me...but I don't see that as a career for myself, more something I want to do at some stage in my life.

However, Journalism, teaching and being a Rabbi - in the words of my grandfather is "hardly a job for a Jewish boy" (to be fair, it was only the job-description of rabbi [to which I have no aspirations] which my grandfather was commenting on, but my mother, no doubt, would insert the other two as well).  

Law and journalism may be combined, there's no doubt about that. But I feel my passions lie mainly within international politics. There's demand for legal correspondents on matters of domestic politics, sure - constitutionalism and other catagories of law-making - which I am "almost equally" passionate about. But we shall see.

The main point of life, according to a religious Jewish and even secular view, is to enjoy it. I do not wish, in the words of Karl Marx, to be reduced to a glorified wage-labourer in the larger system of capitalist furtherment, which the lawyer no doubt is. The same may be said of the teacher and journalist, but those positions have a chance to change the fabric of society, either through shining spotlights on issues or through education. And even an ordinary teacher may do that.

I was once a sceptic on teh matter of student politics. "Does it actually make a difference?" Whilst those involved in it opined that it did, nothing spoke the answer "yes" as vehemently as my fellow students. "I want to go into politics, actually" one of my fellow law students told me. I just laughed and mischievously told them that I'd "keep an eye out for them" if ever I became a journalist, a comment they seemed to appreciate as she too started laughing. 

It was mutually understood that politicians and journalists are almost always natural enemies. I have interviewed a few politicians, many of whom I agreed with on what they were saying, but whom I ferociously attacked nontheless. In one interview at the IDC [a body whose faculty serves as prime advisors to the UN on matters of terrorism], fellow students noted me down as "very journalistic." In the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I was deemed equally journalistic and bodering on obsession [especially as I obtained the business card of the person in question, without even asking for it]. I conducted one phone interview with a spokesperson from UKIP, whom I gave absolute hell. I would have been amiable enough, had he not called me "son" at the start of the interview. As it was, I drew out their sordid financial state of affairs - the party was undergoing investiagtion for their payment - or rather lack of it - of tax. I also (somewhat cheekily, I suppose) asked about their affiliations with the British National Party [the leader of which has previously been imprisoned for inciting racial hatred] and if they agreed with their policies. The gentleman on the other end of the phone repeated something which sounded rehearsed, asked to be taken off record and said "we have a Jewish fellow working for us, who does his job very well." "Well" I said "so does the BNP." I allowed the conversation to degenerate into a history discussion about the Nazi party (he claimed the Nazis were actually a leftist organisation, not a right-wing one, citing the name "National Socialist German Worker's Party" as proof. I happened to study the rise of the nazi party for history, but didn't bother pointing out the policies were characteristically right-wing and the leftists in the party were purged upon their succession to power in 1933, during what was called the "Night of the Long Knives"). I ended the conversation and thanked him for his time. He requested a copy of the article I was writing and left me his e-mail address (a useful contact tid-bit I still have). 

The point is, the words and policies which these people were speaking out, I mostly agreed with (woe to those, then, whom I don't agree with at all) - but the second pointis, I actually enjoy all this. 

So finally - finally! -  I have been given an interview for a journalist/writer position which actually pays! If all goes well, I could finally start to eak a living doing something I really do seem to enjoy. A part of that enjoyment may be giving cat headaches telling her to read my latest article, but I'd enjoy that anyway, no matter what job I have.

At the end of the day, life should be enjoyed. Dreams, afterall, isn't something which just has to be dreamt - I intend to them too!

As most of you all know, I went away for a few days, that place being the French Alps. I shall now regale you all with tales of my perilous journeys, up mountains and down them, braving elements like the scorching sun, dense fog and many cow pats.

The first day was lovely. The weather was perfect - for sun bathing, not deciding to walk up this massive mountain. But alas, due to the rarity of sandy beaches and open seas by the alps, up the mountain we went. The views were stunning. The cow pats were manyfold. By the end of the day, I had two nice, big, juicy blisters, one on the back of each foot, both of which were burst by my constant walking.

The second day was also lovely, the weather was yet again perfect, but this time, we went bike riding. Aha. Now the fun really began. Zooming down the mountain is an amazing thing, struggling up it - not so much. Thusly, whoever invented the sport of mountain biking certainly did not have a good head on their shoulders - who in their right minds would like to take a bike up a narrow path with massive stones/small rocks on it, with a large fall on one side of the mountain and weird plants on the other side, all of which, by the way, has many a sting and even more weird insects which seem to also carry a sting, or like to bite people. What's up with that?

Interestingly, I saw a fly insect thinggy on my arm, sucking my blood. I could actually see my blood in its "stomach." My friends were aghast that I was watching it and not killing it, but hey! Science is fascinating stuff, and watching a bug suck your blood is science. For those of you who are shocked that I'd allow an insect I couldn't rightly identify to suck my blood, I wasn't exactly concerned about diseases it could carry...there haven't really been any reported cases of malaria or anything like that in the European areas since 1886 or something...but don't worry, if I start foaming at the mouth, or am suddenly able to speak good French, I'll let you know. I did remove the insect in the end, it still left a nice red bump where it had been on my arm, though.

The high of this day was, without a doubt, the rubbishy beach we happened to stumble across in our misery. My friends bought ice lollies and relaxed in the sun. I bought an ice cream and winked at one of the pretty girls at the next table I thought was most likely to be single (there were tons of them! She winked back ;-)
My friends were anxious to leave such a place. Satan, no doubt, attempting to ensnare us all with half naked girls. There is a related story here which happened in that place, but I shan't publish it. Ask me privately and I'll consider telling you it.

Day three was ok. We wanted to go horse riding. We were told that, without a car, the quickest way to get to the place was to take a ski lift up the mountain and walk down the other side, which would take about 2 hours. The weather at the top was ghastly, so foggy and wet and slippery. My friends slipped a few times (not I, however! I was also the only one to not fall off my bike the day before - and NOT because I didn't get on it in the first place) and I avoided slipping by taking my time getting down.

But I did notice the tendancy for the sides of paths to scarily lack any safety wires or netting at all. Instead, some bright spark had the idea to fix it with - not just electric wiring - but razor wire. What if someone slipped off the side? Not only could they look forwards to falling some distance down the mountain, but they would be cut up by razor wire before that happened. Charming. Surely safety netting would be a better investment? Personally, on end of every downhill path, I'd like to see gigantic edible marshmellows. That way, not only is your fall broken before you start tumbling down the mountain, but you get a conciliatory sweet. And let's face it, everyone loves marshmellows.

But you wanna hear the sad part? It took us 3 hours to get down the mountain (slippery! steep! fog!) and we arrived at the horse riding place an hour late, so it was closed by the time we got there. We found a bar and drowned our woes in a few beers, before going into Evian itself (we were staying about a 15 minute car ride outside of Evian).

The next 2 and a half days poured with rain - rain rain rain rain! The locals said they've never seen it rain so much in such a short time, just our luck! What was supposed to be a day of water skiing, fare du kayak et le canoe, turned out to be a day walking about in the rain and freezing myself silly in lake geneva, which is where I went. I was all for the heated olympic swimming pool, but apparantly, we weren't allowed in with swimming shorts - only the pant-like type which accentuates your bum and reveals the exact size of your penis is allowed. I hate it when men wear those. If you're a guy, please don't. Go invest in a pair of swim shorts. Or at least consider the environment (i.e. me) when wearing those sorts of swimming costumes and wear a towel! It has to be embarrassing if someone get's an erection (said with complete professional sterility, read it the same way too!) whilst wearing those things and I'm pretty sure lil' John Doe 'aint so lil' and would pop out the top and say "hi!" to the world.

Which brings me on nicely to the paradigm which is France. They're Catholics. Many of them still religious, especially in the remote country areas (I imagine, at least). Yet there is a disturbing amount of intermingling with the sexes. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean men and women talking. I mean, in that beach place? The men's toilets was the same thing as the women's toilets. Ok, fine. A little surprisin, but I've seen that before. At the Evian spa (where I spent a day and a half) not only were the toilets the same for men and women, but the changing room area was the same too. What the hell's the point of having a changing room area if the opposite sex can just come in to the changing room area and stare and drool? Just what privacy is being achieved here? Privacy from whom, or what? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss. But I did have fun exploiting it...

...Not really. There were private stalls for people. And anyway, I didn't stare and drool at anyone in the changing rooms...

That actually came in the swimming pool and jacuzzi :P
If ever I'm at a loss for a place to meet pretty girls, my first stop shall be the spas, beauty salons and the like...brilliance. But anyway. I found that the jacuzzi is the worst place - or best place depending on your perspective - for "funny stuff" to take place. I only had a brief brush (literally) with the dark side of the jacuzzi; it had nothing to do with me. Don't forget you can't actually see what's happening beneath the water in there. Too bubbly (I always leave when the old men come in and their hands aren't above water).

I was just minding my own business, enjoying the bubbles and wondering how many diseases were breeding in the jacuzzi, when an old lady gets in. She stays for only a brief time, but she kept smiling at me. I tried not too, but every time I looked at her, *old lady smiles.* She tactfully positioned herself opposite me too. When something like this happens, I usually think, "oh, what the hell, she's an old lady" and smile back, to the more persistant and pervy ones, maybe a wink. But here, I was naked! not completely, no, but I felt vulnerable.

Anyway. Away she goes. My friends now join me, after having been in the steam room. The jacuzzi is about 1/3rd full with 3 of us in it. We're having fun talking, laughing. In come two girls, both of whom choose to sit on my left hand side (heh heh). My two friends leave lest Satan trap them (lovely friends I have, really. Couldn't ask for better ones, I love the odds they provide me with) and I stay (blatantly). I was in there for a little bit longer than you're supposed to be (50 minutes) but eventually got out and went to the steam room. Upon my return to the pool jacuzzi area though, I couldn't see either my friends or the girls. I was the only person in that area, in fact. Funny.

Anyway. I tire, now, of writing this, so I'm going.

Bye! 

Thanks to all those who read and replied. Interesting stuff. Everything which follows is in reply to Nossie and Ant, in that order. 

Nossie, I did go away and now I came back. I still don't have internet, but am using (with permission!) a neighbour's wireless internet connection.

Basically, look at humans. How did they come to be? No, this isn't a Creation/Evolution debate I'm going to give you. We will assume that they began to come into being many many years ago, in a pool. And that they started as a tiny bacterium. Well. How did that bacterium come into being? How can you explain it, other than that there is indeed a God somewhere who started it all off. There is no other reasonable rational way of explaining it (quoted from Nossie).

I believe the ideas you propound are termed "creationist evolution" or "intelligent design." I used to believe that sort of thing when I was your age, and enjoyed debating it in (a faith) school where the majority believed in the literal 6 days of creation in Genesis. It got quite lively at times...But anyway. I have read and studied both Jewish and Christian creationist ideas. I believe the latter to include intentionally misleading statements and the former to be incomplete - the science is correct (unlike the latter), but it isn't all there...so I suppose that's misleading too, but I suspect it isn't intentional (that's more an inference from writing style - you can see the thought process of the author as he expounds the ideas and sometimes he gets it wrong and says the equivalent of "actually, that's wrong, BUT...").

Alternately, you're endorsing evolution as a scientific theory, but are saying it all started with God placing the first pool of water, or first bacteria there. Whilst I could give several examples of how that could be untrue, I understand what you mean and shall thus strengthen your question and bring about the first and foremost thing which is troubling me from a scientific viewpoint and which is a large obstacle which impedes my switch into complete disbelief in God - the Big Bang. It happened, that much we know. There's all sorts of evidence for it (such as radiology evidence...the waves of the Big Bang are still "visible" to us today). Science says the origin of life was a single atom, which exploded and eventually became what we know and love as the universe. How did that one atom get there? Science doesn't know. That doesn't mean to say religious people do know, but God is one possibility.

Also, humans have a spiritual side. It can't be denied. And why would they have a spiritual side if there is no God? Can't it be denied? I'm very wary of statements and ideas when people follow it up with something like "it can't be denied" or "it's obvious" - in my experience, those statements and ideas usually can be denied, or are't at all obvious.

However. Let's move on. 

A cursory lesson in Anthropology would answer this suitably (that subject is, of course, one of my university courses). Just read M. Bloch's essay "symbol, song and dance" or any of M. Weber's works on religion, or perhaps Durkheim's views. Because I've already read them all, I'll explain what each one says so you don't have to.

M . Bloch - Jewish bloke, I think, teaches in my uni. A student of the famed anthropologist Shapiro (another Jewish bloke) who was taught himself by another famed anthropologist (who was also Jewish, I think) called Malinowski (I think the reason for the very great number of Jewish Anthropologists is because Jewish people tend to move about a lot - especially in the first and middle part of the century - and are also brought up with at least two languages, making it easier for them to grasp new ones. But anyway....

Bloch says religion exists merely because people seek to dominate others. And sure enough, one readily example is Christianity. Over the years, the Church was a terrible dominator of persons for nigh on two thousand years.

Durkheim is less cynical and says it's more to do with social (moral) cohesion - i.e. making sure everyone of one particular group stays in one particular group. Darwinians would say that this statistically improves the chances of that group in surviving. Cynical Durkheimians and perhaps traditional - perhaps even neo - Marxists would say it's to do with the ruling class imposing its own values upon everyone else, the better to control them with. That is its effect, essentially, whether we as religious people like it or not, but feel free to be wary of that.

Weber says pretty much the same thing as the above, and goes into antagoinsing detail of groups, sub groups, part groups, culture groups, religious groups, etc. etc. etc. to prove his point. There is almost literally not a group he doesn't discuss. Not content with the modern world, he even talks about the ancient Israelites.

So there we have it. Many views as to why there is religion in the world and not one of them has to do with God or spirituality.

Moving onto Ant's ideas...

Interesting.... to be honest, I don't think you can prove the unprovable, and God's made it that way. Its a faith thing! And I know many people out there will despise this way of thinking ;)

The reason why people despise it is because you believe in an invisible, untouchable, unseeable, unhearable being you credit with creating everything and just believe it. A typical discussion with someone who does not believe in God and someone who does, replacing "God" with "fairies" would to you sound proposterous and rightly so...

Person A: I believe fairies exist.
Person B: They don't, they're not here. They're fake.
Person A: How do you know?
Person B: Have you ever seen one?
Person A: No.
Person B: So how do you know they exist?
Person A: I have faith. I just know. It's what my gut tells me.
Person B: Having faith doesn't make it so.
Person A: I also have evidence...I haven't watered my garden for years and everything grows amazingly in it. Must be fairies! Also, I have personal experience. They talk to me. Tell me things. Not with voices in my head, but through signs.

Understandably, anyone seeing signs from fairies is either really young, really old, or really mad.
So why is it any different when you replace "fairies" with "God" and "faith" suddenly becomes an admirable and respectable thing to have, when based on similar things to the above?

You cannot reasonably expect mature adults to simply have (blind) faith in something which they have never seen or heard.

I grew up agnostic, then was converted to Christianity in my teens. So flitted between belief and agnosticism. I am now, however, a firm believer.

I grew up indifferent. I reached the pinnacle of Jewish education, found Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, Druidism and Hinduism to be false - fascinating, but false nevertheless. So why not Judaism? There are fundamental differences, which I shall come to later, which also serve to propel me towards Judaism and away from agnosticism, atheism, or any other religion.

I had serious doubts about God per se about 3 years ago, but decided to reach the top of Judaic religious education first, before making ny conclusions on the matter. I also did it so no one could say "you're ignorant of scripture/rabbinic writings," and so that when I made the choice, I was standing on a solid tower of knowledge, rather than one of assumptions and ignorance. I never realised how far I actually came, until I recently debated (about Jewish matters) some students in a world class Jewish acadamy of higher learning, and outshone them both. The time, I feel, is ripe to make a choice and stand firm. But let's take a look at your evidence...

Creation - this was proposed by Maimonides (1134-1205). I used to agree, but now do not see how the logical conclusion should be God. Yes, there are amazing things in the world, but each has a perfectly sound scientific explanation, none of which has to do with God. As Douglas Adams (one of my favourite authors) once said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the end of it?

Conscience - If we are merely biological machines, why do we have these? (1) And if conscience, morality and ethics are a social construct, (2) why don't we all rebel and kill each other? (3) After all, its survival of the fittest right? (4) Oh, but thats wrong. Says who? (5) And why is there opinion more weighty than mine or yours? (6) Conscience is evidence of a moral God.

1) First off, you'll have to note that "morality" has different definitions in different societies. For example, it's immoral for men and woman to walk in the same street according to Bedouins of Egypt. But it isn't regarded immoral by the inhabitants of the cities of Egypt, who practise this. Another example - it's immoral to notchop off the hands of thiefs in Saudi Arabia. Yet it would cause outrage if done - and is regarded to be immoral - in the west. There are millions of examples, literally. So yes, they are social constructs in that there is no universal path of "morals" or "ethics," but is peculiar to each society.

2) Maybe many would. If there was no government, no enforcers of the law, it is reasonable to assume that there would be no order. The proof of this is that we have enforcers of the law - if it wasn't needed, they wouldn't be there.

I am very much taken with a news article I read on the tube a few years ago (in the Metro, that bastion of knowledge) which was reporting on the very large fires in california (arty may recall them). The police, fire and ambulance services - in other words, all hte trappings of modern daily law enforcement and emergency services - were all functioning perfectly well, and yet in that moment of unusual chaos, people were reported as looting shops, cars and houses. Chilling pictures of signs with the words "looters shall be shot" were displayed in the paper.

Furthermore, you cannot seriously suggest that it is only because of your belief in God that you do not do all these things? Surely before you were religious, you had no desire to kill, maim, rape and rob? Therefore, I find, on both these counts, your argument to be incorrect.

3) Maybe.
4) Is it wrong? And says who? I don't know, you tell me!
5) Maybe they have more knowledge about the subject?
6) I see no evidence of conscience. In many religions, I see evidence of guilt, fear and the promise of reward. Judaism is not one of them; we are taught "do not serve God out of fear, nor for the desire for reward. Rather, out of love should you serve Him." 

But to bring all those last points into one paragraph, if I've understood what you've said (i'm not convinced I have), I would offer you what someone once said to me: "I'm not doing it because I'm kind, I'm doing it because then they'll be in my debt. It's a totally selfish thing." So here we have our first alternate argument: the promise of payback.

Just today, travelling on the tube, someone moved their bag out the way, to which they were thanked many times by someone else. The person who moved the bag sat next to me and whispered "actually, I did it for me, not them" - another selfish motivation.

Not that every apparantly selfless act is due to selfishness. Others may be to show dominance ("I am the man of the house. I do the work and provide food!") or help given to one's own group, which would therefore ensure the continuation and success of that group - e.g. compatriots, relatives, friends...or in cybernations, the little gift-aid package you get when first joining an alliance.

Other times, because it makes no difference to the person providing help. A few days ago I loaned someone some money. It made no difference to me at the time and I knew the person would repay it, so it wouldn't exactly break the bank. So why not help someone out? As it happens, the thougt running through my mind was "he's laid out cash unquestioningly for me in the past, so I'll do it for him now" - which brings us back to the repayment of favours argument.

Anyway. The point is, there is no reason to conclude that we do nice things because there's a God, just like there's no reason to conclude we don't all kill each other when there's no God (as I've pointed out, we often find we do in fact kill each other when there is no human law, so how cuold that happen if God exists? I'm not suggesting it's a proof that he doesnt exist, but am suggesting everyday morals have more to do with state law enforcement than God). 

I look forward to the responses which shall no doubt crop up (btw, Nossie, I notice you haven't speedily sent back my e-mail RE: the Judao-Christian debate we're having).

Thanks for playing, hope you all come back and do so again some time! Take care.