Baseball’s New Rules

Major League Baseball has encountered difficulty in maintaining its appeal to younger people who have appeared more inclined to view either professional football, hockey or basketball.  Unlike the latter three sports baseball is not a sport divided by quarters or halves where the end of the game occurs when time has expired.  Baseball beats to a different drum than to the rapid movements displayed in either of the other three sports.  Cell phones along with social media in replacing slower more contemplative habits, such as reading from hard copy news, have increased the pace of life.

To confront the challenges of the sound bite generation, the stewards of baseball understood they had to, in some way, quicken the pace of the game.  Until some recent changes became agreed upon by the league, many ballgames lasted well over three hours.  After incorporating the changes I will discuss, the length of the average game dropped to 2 hours and 36 minutes.  I am quite sure shortening the duration of a baseball game has helped with overall attendance at games.

In the past batters and pitchers could call time out without being penalized.  For example, at any time during an at bat, hitters could step out of the batter’s box and call time out.  The new rules curtailed this habit by only allowing hitters to step out of the batter’s box one time per at bat.  Likewise, pitchers could step off the rubber at any time when pitching and take some time to refocus on the batter.  Now pitchers are required to throw a pitch to a batter within 15 seconds when bases are empty and 18 seconds with are runners on base.  If a pitcher exceeds the time limit, an automatic ball is added to the count of the batter.  Furthermore, with a runner on base, a pitcher is only allowed to check the runner two times or two throws to whichever fielder is covering the runner (usually first base).  If the pitcher exceeds two throws without picking the runner off, the runner is automatically allowed to go forward one base.  For example, if a base runner is on first base and a pitcher throws over to the first baseman more than two times, the base runner goes to second base.  This would be similar to a balk made by the pitcher in which the player on base advances one base.

The size of the bases have been increased from 15 inches to 18 inches to make the base more visible with the hope of reducing injuries to players attempting to steal a base.  This rule has encouraged more attempts at base stealing that I feel adds to the excitement of the game.  The new regulations restrict the infield shift by making it necessary for two infielders to stay on their side of second base.  In the past, infielders could shift where they played their position toward the side where the batter was most likely hit.  In 1946, Lou Boudreau, player manager of the Cleveland Indians employed what was labeled the Boudreau Shift when Ted Williams, the Boston slugger came to bat.  Subsequently, when the Red Sox faced the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1946 World Series, the Cards utilized this same shift on Williams.  Williams, a pull hitter by nature, could not beat the shift, batting .200 in the Series, as he went 5-for-25, well below his season batting average.

To reduce the length of games that are tied, thereby going into extra innings, the player making the last out for each side in his part of the 9th inning is placed on second base to start the 10th inning.  If the game goes beyond 10 innings the same rule applies for further extra innings.  Finally, the latest revision in baseball is the automated ball-strike rule (ABS).  Here the player, be it batter or catcher-pitcher, has the right to review the umpire’s call whether it is a strike or a ball.  Each team is allowed two such reviews, per 9 innings, that remain in place if the player’s challenge corrects an umpire’s mistake.  However, if the umpire’s call was correct, whichever team challenged the call, loses one of the two chances.  Two such errors in judgment by a club ends that team’s opportunity to question an umpire call.    To date, batters are more likely to err in asking for a recall than catchers. This could be due in part to the fact that batters are more emotionally involved in the decision making than catchers.  Moreover, catchers probably have a better angle than batters in deciding whether to challenge a call made by the home plate umpire.

A rule enforced earlier allowed teams to challenge plays on the field with the same proviso: If the team was incorrect upon review of the umpire’s call on two occasions, that team was disqualified for the remainder of the game from any further challenges of close plays.  The result of these changes has lowered the anger volume of managers and players toward umpires with whom they have disagreed.

I like all of the above baseball revisions with the possible exception of the infielders not permitted to shift to guard against a hitter’s strength.  I believe that batters need to learn how to use as much as the field as they can rather than a hitter always hitting to his strength by pulling the ball.  However, because pitchers have dominated batters for the past several years, I am ambivalent about this rule.  Batting averages have significantly dropped in the last 10 years or so where today the compiled average of hitters is only .247.  The era of .300 hitters has disappeared.  The number of player strike outs is at an all time high.  When the pitcher on your team is hurling the strike outs, that fan is happy.  But when both teams are striking out at ridiculously high rates, the game becomes less interesting.  The resounding crack of the bat hitting the ball is key to the thrill of baseball.  So, if the infield rule helps batters, I would keep it.

There are a few reasons why baseball currently appears to favor the pitcher over the batter:  1) Hurlers are throwing the ball with greater velocity; 2) Breaking balls are used more frequently with more spin on the ball; 3) Starters no longer pitch the entire game but give way to bullpen specialists. 

Because hitters’ averages had dropped to .237 in 1968, that year was designated the year of the pitcher.  The action of runs and hits was on the decline.  In an effort to assist baseball hitters, MLB reduced the height of the pitcher’s mound from 15 inches to 10 inches.  Some of the pitcher’s leverage was reduced due to less downhill angle causing less velocity and movement.  This allowed hitters to see the ball more clearly resulting in higher batting averages.  In short, by simply changing the configuration of the pitcher’s mound, the game allowed for better hitting and more excitement.

 Given the above, why not consider reducing the pitcher’s mound from 10 inches to 5 inches. The Atlantic League provides another option where it was decided the mound would be moved back 12 inches from home plate.  The result was fewer strike outs, more balls in play, higher batting averages, and more walks recorded.  Rather than move the pitcher’s mound 12 inches back from home plate, MLB might consider a smaller distance, such as 6 inches, so the mound would be 61 feet rather than 60 feet, 6 inches from the batter’s box.

In conclusion, I view the recent changes related to a player’s chance to challenge umpire calls along with increasing the tempo of   the game as positive ones.  However, I believe the current imbalance of pitchers dominating hitters needs to be addressed.  I have proposed two possible revisions in baseball to aid batters in confronting pitchers:  1) Lower the pitching options would increase fan interest by adding excitement to the game.  mound or 2) Move the pitching mound back 6 inches away from home plate.  I believe employing either of these two options would increase fan enthusiasm and add excitement to the game.

War in Iran

Lisa and I just finished reading The Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey Rosen.  The book discusses where the founders of America obtained the knowledge to create the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Most important was the manner in which they went about their everyday lives in pursuing what they considered virtue rather than pleasure in guiding their political decisions and the institutions that they built.  They learned many of their ideas by reading stoic philosophers in addition to more modern philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume.

 President Washington provides one of the best examples of how they applied this idea in their everyday lives.  Washington embodied republican virtue that modeled restraint, duty, and public service.  Although Washington had been known to have a temper, he understood that letting his anger control his emotions was not a suitable way of leadership.  As opposed to other heads of state, Washington had no interest in being president of the United States for more than two terms.  Washington set the stage for his successors by employing the power granted in his role as president for the good of the people and not for his family or for himself.

During the President Trump’s first term in the White House, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal outlining the way he went about making decisions when he was becoming a real estate mogul.  His style of decision making was based more on instinct than deliberate thinking.  The type of behavior is the antithesis of the stoic template embraced by the founders who understood the importance of restraints and moderation.  They recognized that these latter characteristics needed to dominate their way of thinking rather than decisions coming from their impulses that might result in unplanned and unruly consequences.

One current example of “unruly consequences” is the manner in which President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu initiated attacking Iran.l  Trump may have believed that the ease and rapidity with which he went into Venezuela and captured Nicholás Maduro would be similar to his ridding Iran of Ayatollah Ali Khomenei.  Although Israeli and American forces successfully assassinated the Irani leader, Iran’s dictatorial government did not vanish.  Rather, it appeared that the Irani leadership hardened becoming more rigid and ironbound tightening its hold on dissidents.   But the bigger surprise to both Trump and Netanyahu came when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz not permitting any ships delivering oil to pass through.  Because oil carried through this Strait represents 20% of the world’s oil, this has caused a lot of pain to the many countries supplied by this oil.  Although the United States produces its own oil, Americans have seen the price of gasoline going up significantly caused by Iran’s power to close the Strait of Hormuz to vessels carrying oil.  This has resulted in an increase in inflation that has affected the pocketbooks of American consumers.

The global crisis that the Iranians have caused by closing off the Strait of Hormuz affects Europe in an even greater way because before the conflict, EU countries were already grappling with high energy costs and declining industrial competitiveness. The bloc’s energy system will become more vulnerable with the price spikes resulting in the fuel shortages.  

Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and no-Trump fan, recently published an editorial:  NATO, Please Help.  Trump Has No Strategy for Iran.  Friedman points out he understands both Europe’s resistance in assisting in a war they had no part in initiating, and the fact that Trump has not been particularly helpful in supporting NATO against Putin.  I agree with Friedman in seeking European assistance in view of the fact that the whole Western alliance is in dire “straits” due to Iran’s actions.  Furthermore, In ignoring Trump’s pleas for help, I believe European leaders are cutting their nose off to spite their face.  This lack of unity in the West occurred because of Trump’s egoistical views of himself in the world.  They have caused a rupture in the alliance that the United States has had with its Western allies.  But whereas Trump is both pompous and a fool, Iran’s leadership is repressive and evil.  I ask you, Europe, put away your anger and hurt you have toward Trump and do what’s right for both you and the world.

.

      On Antisemitism

My wife, Lisa, and I recently saw, Giant, a play on Broadway, featuring John Lithgow, the American actor, playing Roald Dahl, the truculent children’s book author from Great Britain.  We had previously seen Lithgow recite by heart some stories by Ring Lardner while playing the roles of the characters in each story.  Quite a performance.  Lithgow performed admirably as the embittered Dahl adapting a British accent in playing this part.

The core of the play, written by Mark Rosenblatt, was an event that took place in August of 1983, when Dahl wrote a book review in reference to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon saying the following: “Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers.” Subsequently, he underscored his comments in an interview with Michael Coren of the New Statesman when he stated: “I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere, even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on Jews for no reason.”  Despite the fact that Dahl never apologized for his antisemitic comments, his books sold millions of copies during his lifetime.

  In approaching the age-old problem of antisemitism, I have begun my discussion with Dahl to illustrate the complexity of this issue.  Dahl was in Britain’s Royal Air Force during World War II, had been married to the American actress, Patricia Neal, and had found fame and success as a story book writer for children.  He was educated and quite bright so why did a man of such background become not only anti-Israeli, but also by his own admission, antisemitic?

Of course, Dahl is only one person so he represents a mere microcosm to the vaster popular antisemitic tropes heard with much greater intensity presently.   Much of the current anger toward Jewish people started after October 7, 2023 when Hamas led an attack on Israel killing 1200 people and took around 252 hostages into the Gaza Strip.  This act resulted in subsequent bombings by Israel in an attempt to destroy Hamas.  What everyone was seeing on their television screens, however, appeared to be the deaths of many Palestinian civilians with little accounting of how successful Israel had been in wiping out Hamas.  The repeated broadcasts of Israel’s bombing the Gaza Strip resulted in world outrage and condemnation of Israel.

Particularly painful for many Jews like myself was that former progressive groups that many Jewish people had supported were now condemning Israel’s actions.  Younger people, such as college students, were chanting: “Free Palestine from the river to the sea.”   The meaning of this, whether understood or not by those that shouted it, meant abolish Israel as the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are the geographic locations encompassing Israel.  The irony of this, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, is that Israel more than any other country in the Mid-East treats women with respect and does not persecute those that people that are not heterosexual.  Suddenly, Israel along with being Jewish no longer received the support of young people that could be classified as progressives.

Although President Trump is not an antisemite, a reaction to his refusal to accept the election results of 2020 when he was defeated by President Biden, spawned conspiracy theories that some of his past followers have integrated into their thinking.  Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are some high-profile people that have taken on far Right positions with their commonality being in denigrating Jews.  Many influencers of their ilk without any evidence to support their claim, believe that Jews were responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk.  The consequence of all this is that both extremes of the Left and Right, although polar opposites, have come down strongly against Jewish people.

When it comes to antisemitism, social media has added gasoline to the fire spreading messages to their followers that don’t have a vestige of truth.  Podcasts say all sorts of things such as the Old Testament is about genocide and violence.  But going beyond social media, according to Yoram Hazony, in an interview with the American author and columnist, Ross Douthat, enlightened rationalists have dropped God and tradition that represent particularism.  They oppose the Jewish Bible in seeking out a universal truth that is accessible to everybody.

The distinction between being critical of Israel and being an antisemite is one of utmost importance.  Jews in both America and Israel are critical of the manner by which Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the Israeli government.  The view of Jewish congregations toward the conduct of Israel has been polarized pretty much throughout America.  I have witnessed this with my own two eyes.  But though many may detest Israel’s behavior, for the most part, they have not forsaken this Jewish Homeland.  But the reaction to these people is similar to Roald Dahl when he claimed to not only hate Israel but also to be an antisemite.  Here the disdain for a Jewish State, as manifested by Zionism, extends to anyone of the Jewish faith.  If one disagrees with Trump like so many do, that does not make that individual an anti-American.  Foreigners that dislike the way Trump is running the American government would be foolhardy if they were to hate all Americans.  But somehow that same type of judgment has created ill feelings by many, both from the political left and right, toward Jews.  Consequently, in various places from in the Western world, there have been attacks on individual Jews or their temples.  Unfortunately, this ubiquitous atmosphere of hate toward anyone calling him/herself a Jew has necessitated congregations in hiring security to protect the real possibility of an attack.  Those that belong to temples have incurred an additional expense, that of security, as part of their membership to these houses of prayer.

In his interview with Douthat, Hazony saw antisemitism is much more far reaching than Israel’s battles with its neighbors.  Hazony stated that antisemitism runs far deeper than foreign policy. Rather, foreign policy is one of the tools that antisemites employ to denounce those of the Jewish faith.  He told Douthat that a small group of people with a lot more influence than their numbers would indicate is an irritant to many people.   Foreign policy may have ignited the smoldering hot ashes but those ashes were there prior to the attack by Hamas that precipitated Israel’s reaction.  

Perhaps most disturbing about antisemitism is that it comes from both those that are educated as well as those that are not.  Mr. Dahl represented the educated when he made his disparaging remarks about Jewish people.  It did not appear to matter to Dahl that his British publisher, Tom Maschler, was the child of Holocaust survivors.  A recent article in the New York Times, pointed out that Jewish officials, whether supportive of Israel or not, throughout America have been confronted with a wave of antagonism.  Unfortunately, as the Times article stated:  “For some, the line between anti-Israel protest and antisemitism feels increasingly blurred.”

Childhood Play

To my delight, upon shopping for a toy for my grandson, Noah Bernard, who just turned 2 years old, I discovered several board games for children.  In locating the game, Candy Land, the cover indicated it was for children 3 years and over.  But because Noah already shows signs of being gifted, I believe he will be playing the game before his next birthday.  As a very young child, I have fond memories playing Candy Land with my brothers.

 I recently read an article in the New York Times about the woman, Eleanor Abbott, who created the game.  Ms. Abbott was among the many who were afflicted with the disease of polio when it hit the city of San Diego in 1948.  While recuperating in the hospital that year, she observed the many sad faced children who had been stricken with the same illness.  The sight of these children motivated Ms. Abbott to design a game in 1948 that would bring the joys of childhood into their homes.  The rules of the game were quite simple:  There was a trail of colored spaces leading to the end of the path with a picture of a Candy Castle.  A player would draw a color-coded card from the deck and then move to the nearest space matching that same color.  There were sweet stopping points:  Peppermint Stick Forest, Gingerbread Plum Tree and Gum Drop Mountain.  If a player drew one of those pictured cards, she would advance her piece to the space marked by the picture.  As a young child playing the game, the candied path of this game remains etched in my mind

Ms. Abbott created the game for young children that did not know how to read or juggle with numbers.  All they had to do was match the color of the card they drew with the nearest space on the board with that same color.  Because Noah already not only understands the difference in colors but can also name the different colors, I am confident that he will soon be an expert in playing Candy Land.  I am happy to say, not only for the sake of children like Noah and myself, but also for Ms. Abbott, who received handsome royalties when the game of Candy Land gained the novelty of television advertising to become wildly popular in the market of children’s toys and games.

As Noah becomes older, I hope to instill in him the great fun I had as a child playing other board games such checkers, chess, monopoly, clue and scrabble with my brothers and friends.  I hope Noah will be able to enjoy these games in the company of his peers in the future.  Playing games like these teaches young people how to socialize with their peers along with learning to follow the rules and regulations that are a part of any organized play.  The social skills developed by children in participating in activities that require engagement with their siblings and friends are invaluable to their upbringing.  When they are in front of a board game, children need not obsess with an iPhone or iPad.

  Groupthink

My colleague and friend, Chuck Sooter, asked me to write a blog about Groupthink.  Because I consider this both a most important and relevant topic of discussion today, I agreed to do it.  Noting the origin of the term, it was first used by William H. Whye Jr., the author of The Organization Man, who coined the term “groupthink” in a 1952 Fortune magazine article to describe a “rationalized conformity” in corporate and government decision-making.  Subsequently, Irvin Janis popularized the term in 1972 in an article appearing in Psychology Today when he analyzed past foreign policy disasters.

Both Whyte and Janis borrowed the term from George Orwell, who first used the term “doublethink” in his classic work, 1984, that was published in 1949.  Doublethink maintained the dictatorship, described in 1984, by forcing party members to believe in opposing ideas and accept them both as true.   Groupthink pressures people to suppress doubts and align with group members even when the group’s position may not be rational and unable to support the extant data.

Well before the term groupthink existed, Abraham Lincoln, as president of the United States, understood the peril of homogenous thinking underpinning excessive loyalty.  Lincoln recognized the danger of advisors echoing their leader resulting in decision-making without dissent.  In her book, Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin points out how Lincoln intentionally appointed cabinet members who openly disagreed with him.  In this context, Lincoln encouraged debate rather than unilateral support of an idea a cabinet member may have  had.  Lincoln could do this because he was secure enough within himself to accept criticism.

The problems inherent in groupthink manifested themselves when President Kennedy, who had maintained past President Eisenhower’s military advisors, led him astray into the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba.  It became obvious that the mission with its potential disastrous consequences was not addressed.  The Cuban expatriates were left hanging with no support when U.S.  forces abandoned them.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco has been attributed to groupthink insofar as all of Kennedy’s advisors saw the Cuban problem the same way without contemplating consequences.  

Kennedy changed his view of decision making when he took on advisors who no longer saw things alike but were able to discuss their differences.  Kennedy’s ear was open to alternative approaches.  This tactical way of seeing problematic issues helped him make what subsequently was seen as the right move in the Cuban missile crisis that occurred later.  His confrontation with Khrushchev, in 1962, forced the latter to remove his missile bases, an existential threat to the United States, from Cuba.  Because I lived through the intense nerve ending of this period, I very much remember those scary days when we were all seating at the edge of our seats awaiting a tragedy.  Because Kennedy had the wherewithal to no longer employ likeminded advisors, what could have been a disaster was averted.  

Of the many flaws Trump has, I believe the most serious one is the way in which his advisors act as followers in placating him rather than, on occasion, disagreeing with his intuitions.  He chose cabinet members, not by looking at their competence, but rather by seeing whether they agreed with the views he held on to various issues.  This has created the confirmation bias Trump has had in his decision-making that has disallowed the give and take of further rational discussion. Listening to people that agree with you rarely leads to a thoughtful analysis of worldly issues related to the complicated issues of governance.    If this is how Trump made his decision when Netanyahu and he initiated war against Iran, let us hope and pray that the fragile situation in the Mid-East does not unravel and worsen. 

Apparently, unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, who were secure enough within themselves to accept criticism, Trump does not appear able to accept rebuttals, and that can result in unexamined alternatives that can lead to unintended  consequences.

The Contagia of Social Media

When I was teaching psychology in Bangkok, Thailand over 10 years ago, I attended a classical concert there.  Before the show I purchased some food at a café inside the concert hall.  To my surprise I observed several couples more engrossed with their cell phones paying little attention to whomever may have been their partner.  The smart phone. along with its extensive overuse, had spread to Asia.

The smart phone and social media are the consequences of the progress in technology.  Most products of technology have benefited us all.  Everyday life would not be the same if we were without electricity or automobiles at our disposal, once the case over a few centuries ago.  But unbridled use of technological innovations, such as the smart phone and social media, can lead to deleterious outcomes.  Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, has conducted several studies that have shown the ill effects of social media on Generation Z (Gen Z), the age cohort born between 1997 and 2012.  Social media, such as TikTok and Instagram, emerged around 2010 when those born during that time frame became adolescents.

Haidt’s investigations have shown an increase in anxiety, depression and social withdrawn, first in 2010, with this trend continuing in subsequent years.  Some critics of his research have complained that he is merely showing a correlation between the increase in mental health issues and the onset of social media.  However, his studies have revealed that other age cohorts have not manifested this sudden increase in psychiatric symptoms.  Moreover, the data Haidt displays in his book illustrate a sudden precipitous rise of these symptoms in the year 2010 and afterwards.  He has done multiple studies of different groups and different locations with similar results that suggest the widespread nature of the negative impact of social media on teenagers.

Haidt’s work has demonstrated how female adolescents, especially, can suffer from social media when they compare their looks to other females their age that have posted photos on these platforms.  There is a self-imposed competition these adolescent females engage in based on physical appearance.  Often these teenagers do not realize that their peers “doctor” their photos to falsely improve their appearance.  Young females are more conscious of the way they appear vis-á-vis their peers than male teenagers are. This leaves them more susceptible to this type of disinformation often found on algorithmic social media.

Attempts to mitigate the ill effects of social media are now being considered in the United States and other countries.  Australia already has enacted a law disallowing youth under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account with social media.  This is probably not a coincidence in that this is the same age suggested by Haidt to prohibit the use of social media by youth.  America, unlike Australia, has not enacted national laws forbidding the use of social media by adolescents until they reach a certain age in part due to the 1st Amendment.  This Amendment prohibits government from censorship; also limiting the federal government’s reach on this matter is the   propensity to allow individual states to make these decisions on their own.  Accordingly, with the help of parental backing, different states have begun to adopt measures limiting social media use to adolescents in educational settings.  Thirty-five states have implemented smart phone bans in schools with some of these schools not allowing students to have access to their smart phones the entire school day. 

The rate of change caused by technology has never been as fast as it is currently.  The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will only accelerate the rate of change societies will face throughout the world.  This is why it is imperative that the leaders of these countries begin to address the consequences of AI before it becomes a technology gone amok.  We waited too long to rein in social media.   Hopefully, we will not make the same mistake with AI, a technology that can offer a vast amount of improvement in our daily lives but also has the potential to be ruinous. 

Two Pieces:  Fiction and Non-Fiction

My wife, Lisa, and I recently returned from a most relaxing vacation at Kona, Hawaii (the big island).  My goal on that trip was simply to take in the fresh air, swim and catch-up on reading the many back issues of the New Yorker, I had yet to peruse.  For those not familiar with the New Yorker magazine its content consists of interesting essays regarding people or places, a few poems and one short story by young and old writers who have successfully published their work.  The length of all this content often comes to about 100 pages with the essayists all being skilled at the craft of writing.

Of the many essays and short stories I read, I would like to share two of those that really stuck out in my mind.  The first, a fictional piece called Jubilee by Jhumpa Lahiri, a female author born in Bengal but raised for the most part of her life in America.  Short stories in the New Yorker ordinarily represent a slice of life that end elliptically often leaving the reader, somewhat puzzled, wondering where the story will go next.  As the story unfolds, the author’s captivating prose takes you inside the mind of the protagonist whetting your appetite for more when suddenly, almost unexpectedly, the story concludes. At times, I have found the lack of a clear-cut ending where there is no closure to be quite frustrating.  However, I continue to read these stories more for the beauty of the language than for receiving the satisfaction of a completed tale.  After I have finished stories of this nature, they are quickly put out of mind with little memory retention. 

But on occasion, I may find myself reading a story that has a more typical structure of a beginning and ending.  Jubilee by Jhumpa Lahiri fits this description.  This story, semi-autobiographic, is narrated from the perspective of a 10-year-old Bengali girl growing up in London who comes from an Indian family who have immigrated from India.  One feels the author’s struggle to navigate her outside world of British culture with its concomitant rituals along with the world of her parents’ Bengali customs, language, and expectations.  She remembers feeling both included and excluded in a celebratory event occurring in London.  Later in her life, she reflects on this year in her life when she sees more clearly the issues, especially, that of her mother had to face with the hardened paternal customs of her native culture vis-à-vis life in London.  This then is a coming-of-age story when a young girl begins to recognize what it means to be a female migrant dislocated from her native culture trying to adapt to an entirely novel way of living.

A Family Doctor’s Search for Salvation,written by Joshua Rothman,is the second piece, a non-fiction essay, I wish to discuss.  Reading this story brought tears to my eyes.  It tells of a pediatrician, Greg Gulbransen, who accidentally killed his son by running him over in his driveway.  Rather, then taking time off at the suggestion of his colleagues, he immediately returned to his heavy case load attending to his patients and their families.  It was not paranoia when he said: “Everyone was watching me.  I was the most watched person ever—a pediatrician who backed over his own kid.”  I cannot imagine a fate much worse than that of a parent accidentally ending the life of his/her own child.  Parents (and I have personally known some) have an inordinate amount of difficulty recovering from the premature death of a child but what Greg Gulbransen suffered from was far worse.

Indeed, he sought professional help with his therapist pointing out to him that it is impossible to control every event in one’s life.  But even this knowledge could not alter the fact that it was he, and not someone else, behind the wheel that killed his son.  The psychic pain that Dr. Gulbransen faced may have destroyed many an individual. It had been rumored by some of his colleagues at the hospitals, where he consulted, that he might take his own life.   On the contrary, his reaction to this catastrophic event in his life resulted in his taking on the enormous project of reducing the pain and suffering of those beyond his work.  This was in addition to his own practice that he diligently kept and pursued.  He became involved at Mott Haven Houses in the Bronx where he brought his skills as a human first, and second as a physician, to help drug addicts.  The people he saw were hanging on to life by a thread many of whom had overdosed and barely survived.  He brought them food, assisted in their medical care and did whatever was needed to keep them alive.  But he was not just performing these benevolent acts unreciprocated.  Although the people he assisted could not reimburse him for his services, he needed these people he helped for his own healing.  There was a mutuality he felt in their stories that would become a part of his own.

When the news would cite a medical emergency in other communities, often he would make the time to reduce the suffering of those in need.  He rarely went on vacation working ceaselessly during the week.  But somehow, he thrived on his contribution he made to those he assisted.  As he put it, “I wanted to show Scott and Julia (his children) how, when the shit hits the fan, you behave like This.” 

Greg Gulbransen’s goodness was not part of a system or religion but rather was personal and even arbitrary.  They say that sometimes good can come from the bad.  This couldn’t be truer than in the case of Dr. Gulbransen.  Rather than succumb to a tragic event in his life, he fortified his existence in caring for those in dire need of help, perhaps experiencing the flow that athletes have described at the peak of their skills.  Dr. Gulbransen’s resilience and acts of goodness allowed him to overcome his grief and make the world a better place.

Spike Lee Does the Right Thing

This past Monday we all took some time off to celebrate the great black leader, Martin Luther King Jr.  One of the many gems in Reverend King’s speeches was: “It is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of high maturity, to rise to the level of self-criticism.”  As Robert L. Woodson, an American civil rights activist, recently pointed out in an article in the Wall Street Journal, it is sometimes necessary for leaders to confront the enemy within.  He goes on to say that black families have suffered from the moral decay so essential to their well-being.

Like Mahatma Ghandi in India, Martin Luther King Jr. did not advocate violence but rather non-violence as a means of social protest.  Roland Fryer, a black economist and professor at Harvard University, has written that Reverend King understood some black protests to have been rooted in violence.  Reverend King claimed violence, as a means of protest, would alienate many white people from supporting black causes such as civil rights.  Years ago, I remember, a woman that was dating a friend of mine comment on a black protest that turned into violence and mayhem in the Los Angeles area.  Her reaction to the violence was: “I really am giving up on black causes.”  It is important to realize that this woman was neither a racist nor a segregationist.  The destruction done to communities in and around Los Angeles televised throughout the country apparently had made her uneasy and uncertain about protesters’ aims.

Fryer, in his column, addressed the brilliance of Martin Luther King Jr, in his employing a non-violent means of protest, to change public opinion.  The underlying point is that non-violent protest showed a Democratic increase in support of civil-rights protests in the 1960’s.  However, violent protests had had the opposite effect precipitating media coverage to “law and order” candidates typically from the Republican party.  Accordingly, Martin Luther King Jr. had the insight and wisdom to understand the forces behind behavior change that would have a positive influence on the American public.

Spike Lee’s latest film, “Highest 2 Lowest,” points to a healthy evolution in his role as a director.  Lee never has been shy about highlighting the impact of societal racial issues at the root of the problems blacks face in their everyday lives.  For example, his film, Jungle Fever, demonstrated quite clearly the negative social impact of interracial dating had on the couple depicted in that picture.  The movie reminded us of the theme in the play, Romeo and Juliet, and the very well received theatrical and subsequent movie release of West Side Story.  The theme to all three of these works was the insurmountable barrier that confronts couples in love when they come from different ethnic and cultural groups.  Eventually the couple represented in Spike Lee’s film, a male black architect and an Italian American woman, are overwhelmed by the societal and personal tensions they experience during their relationship.

Lee’s film, Malcolm X, was both an accurate and wonderful portrayal of Malcolm X’s life as depicted in his autobiography, coauthored by Alex Haley.  The destructive racial outbursts Malcolm X had to bear are graphically shown in Spike Lee’s movie.  The impact of these abuses on his life and, the struggle he countenanced in raising himself above the violence of the racial oppression he was exposed to are central to Malcom X’s story.  One can begin to understand Malcolm X’s hostile reactions to white society by knowing that two of his early childhood homes were burned down by white supremacists.

Lee’s underscoring of racial issues came to a head in his film:  Do the Right Thing.  In this picture, Lee’s message to the public appeared to be that black outrage and violence were the only ways of dealing with the racial oppression that confront so many Afro-Americans.  The script title, Do the Right Thing, gave substance and meaning to blacks fighting back with violence to correct the injustice and violence brought on by white hatred toward them.

Lee’s latest work Highest 2 Lowest, a screenplay he adapted from an earlier film, High and Low, made by the famous Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa, offers a more complex view of what it means to be an Afro-American.  The protagonist in this film is Denzel Washington, who gave an unforgettable performance as Malcolm X in Lee’s earlier movie.  The two of these men, as they did earlier, appear to reinforce each other’s greatness in movie making.  Rather than give the plot away spoiling a movie well worth seeing for those who have yet to view it, I will discuss some of the underlying themes that emerge in this film.

Inasmuch as the film’s cast is almost entirely that of black actors, racial oppression by white society is no longer the core of Highest 2 Lowest.   Rather it deals more with class conflict and the moral pressures amongst Afro-Americans in vying for success and fame.  In the movie, Denzel Washington plays a successful entrepreneur of music, the Highest, while ASAP Rocky, is a rap singer, the Lowest, that kidnaps the best friend of Washington’s son.  His purpose is to make Washington pay a ransom if he wishes the safe return of this boy.

Unlike the Kurosawa film, Denzel Washington, and not the police or legal authorities, is central in bringing home justice.  The two of them participate in a confrontation where rap takes the forestage (ASAP Rocky, among other things, is a rapper in real life).  During their clash, Washington pleads with ASAP Rocky not to go down the same road as his wayward father.  Here Lee is focusing on the issue so many blacks face when their father goes astray, a problem he never had to face because he was raised in an intact family in Brooklyn by both parents. 

Washington has likewise pointed to the importance of intact families being a huge asset in the raising of our children and how often, the black father is absent.  He has been quoted in saying the following: “If the father is not in the home, the boy will find a father in the streets.  If the streets raise you, then the judge becomes your mother and prison becomes your home.”

In Highest 2 Lowest, Lee has gone beyond racial oppression in addressing some of the problems that exist within black society.  Some film critics have viewed Lee’s movie as a shift to a more conservative stance insofar as the external societal oppressors of what progressives’ label as systemic racism is not a primary feature of this film.  I think they are mistaken in putting a political label on Lee’s work.  A more accurate perception of Highest 2 Lowest is that the film concentrates more on problems within the black culture as opposed to outside forces.  In this sense, Lee is following the advice of Martin Luther King Jr. who pointed to the value of self-criticism, a viewpoint most difficult to adhere to when discussing one’s own race, ethnic group or culture.  The black community has looked up to Spike Lee, as a most successful Afro-American director, who has not been influenced by outside societal forces.  I hope they, as well as the rest of us, take the time to see this most noteworthy movie.

O. Henry’s Gift to Us

The recent column by David Brooks in the New York Times, We’re Living Through the Great Detachment, somberly details the falling out of love among our youth.  A comparison from the 1980s to the 2020s shows fewer high school students dating than previously with current marriage rates hovering at an all-time low. According to the data he presents, Brooks arrives at the sad fact that Americans are experiencing less love now than in earlier times.  He concludes that “to be loveless is to be on autopilot and disengaged from life.”

The enduring popularity of O. Henry’s short story, The Gift of the Magi, a love story written in 1905, would appear to be at odds with the above observations that Brooks makes.  O. Henry’s story title frames it as if its underlying theme is a religious one.  The Gift of the Magi alludes to the three wise men that play a part in the nativity scene by travelling hundreds of miles to present the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  Although the time of the story is Christmas Eve, the plot centers around the deep love that a young couple feels toward one another.  In my discussion of this very beautiful tale, I will be sure not to let any spoilers slip in.  Many of you, my readers, I am sure are familiar with the story.  For those that have never read it, I highly recommend you take a break from your schedule and peruse it. 

The story is considered one of O. Henry’s best because it has a universal appeal in which most readers can identify.  The love and affection reflected by the couple probably has been experienced by most of us.  I hope those who have never felt this way, at some point in their life’s journey, can experience it.  It is such a strong feeling that it may render a change in the way you see your life in relation to the everyday tasks of living.

It is the way O. Henry spins this tale that makes it so unforgettable.  It is told through the eyes of the omniscient third person narrator with little dialogue or conversation between the young couple until the end.  This narrative sets the tone and captures the reader’s attention to the description depicted of each partner’s desire to bring happiness to the other.  But both have a dilemma, the story’s opening sentence: “one dollar and eighty-seven cents.” That is all Della, the wife, has to buy her beloved husband, Jim, a Christmas present.  She sits on the “shabby little couch” in her apartment teary eyed, weeping not knowing what to do.

When Della looks out the window, suddenly, she realizes what   she needs to do, and when she does, O. Henry lets the reader see Della’s facial expression change from gloom to a “brilliant spark in her eyes.”  I cannot go further without revealing the plot containing the ironic twist so much a part of O. Henry’s style.  Much like Hemingway, every word in the story is necessary with no need for extra words or phrases.

Artificial intelligence has the capability of beating the best chess players in the world along with doing many other things such as writing essays for college students.  But the regurgitation of all human knowledge, the base of AI, is not equal to the creative impulse of a skilled writer such as O. Henry.  My bet is any attempt at a reproduction of The Gift of the Magi by AI would result in an inferior product.  That said those of who have never read this story, read it, and enjoy it as a most pleasurable gift O. Henry has given you.

 The Dumbing Down of America

After completing my first semester at the University of Pennsylvania in 1963, I went to my mail, opened the envelope containing my transcript, and with chagrin saw that I had received a C in Introductory Sociology.  I had counted on at least a B in that class as I had believed my scores on tests and papers had merited that grade.  As I felt quite strongly and believed I had a good case, I made an appointment with the instructor to review the grade he had given to me.  In preparation for our meeting, he had his book of grades in front of him and went over all my marks in relation to my classmates.  Although most of my grades had been B’s, they were not any higher than many of my classmates so, in effect, he had marked down my final grade, as he had done to other students, for the semester to a C.   When I complained that this way of grading was misleading, he responded that he needed to grade in this manner or otherwise the dean would have him over the carpet (indeed, not a red carpet).  Feeling cheated with little more I could say, I angrily departed from my instructor’s office.

We all know the system of grading I was exposed to as an undergraduate no longer exists.  The average grade point average (G.P.A.) at Yale recently was 3.8, that of Harvard, 3.6 where a 4.0 is an A or the best possible G.P.A.  one can have.  Moreover, because it is that much easier to receive an A, data reveals the amount of studying college students do each week has decreased from twenty-four hours a week in the ‘60’s, to about fifteen hours per week today.  If students know beforehand they will receive an A, there is little incentive for them to diligently carry out their assignments.  On the contrary to my instructor who downgraded my B’s to a final C, today’s college educators appear pressured to give students better grades following the trend set where they teach.

But grade inflation is only part of a much wider more pervasive problem in how we educate today’s youth.  To my surprise, I have read that junior high and high schools are no longer assigning pupils entire books to read but rather excerpts of those books.  Books I had to read in high school such as Thomas Hardy’s The Return of the Native or A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, I cannot imagine would have equaled the experience I had if I only had to read selected excerpts from them.  How one reads selected passages of a play by Shakespeare rather than the entire play, and gain the same amount of satisfaction from that cursory reading makes little sense.  Of course, it takes a certain amount of discipline and prolonged effort to get through difficult literary masterpieces. 

Unfortunately, schools currently prioritize short passages to prepare their students to take standardized tests.  The incentive for teachers is that their students obtain high test scores indicating they have progressed well.  The focus is on outcomes or the skills necessary to receive high test scores rather than allowing students to enhance their intellectual growth developed by reading a full-length novel.  Social media has reinforced this cheapening of education where young people read pieces or bites of information that agree with what they already may believe.  The jury is still out on how social media may be rewiring our brains but, without a doubt, the reading habits of our youth have been altered. 

Jonathan Haidt, a prominent social psychologist, pointed out in his well-researched book:  The Anxious Generation, social media reached prominence in 2010 when Instagram was launched.  According to Haidt, adolescents and younger children that had full access to social media in 2010 and afterwards suffered the most.  The lucky ones that were born much earlier did not bear these ill effects.  The limited attention span that our youth experience in reacting to the stimuli presented by social media in conjunction with their being asked to read passages rather than entire books cater to what I would call: the shallowing of their minds.  Short-cuts in the learning process have begun to replace deliberative thinking so essential to the development of the minds of our youth. 

Perhaps it is no coincidence that 2010 also marked the year that cursive writing was no longer regularly taught in elementary school.  It was removed not because it lacked value but rather because schools prioritized digital readiness.  Studies have shown that students that take notes by hand have better access to what they learn than those that type their notes.  From my own experience, I know that when I have written notes during a lecture, I feel that much closer to the material than if I type it.

When we add Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) to the mix above, the problems illustrated in the above become even more intense.  Full disclosure on that:  I did use A.I. to frame some of my ideas in this essay, but I have rarely used A.I. in previous blogs.  I mention this because the easy access to AI will make it most difficult for all of us to avoid.  Recently, I read an article in the New Yorker by Hua Hsu, a professor at Bard College, titled:  The End of the Essay.  After interviewing several students, it was clear that the temptation to allow AI to do the creative thinking in writing compositions was too great to avoid. 

In some ways the problem A.I. causes in higher education reminds one of way cheating is unfair as it gives unfair grade recognition to an undeserved student.  A student toiling for several hours on an essay who receives the same or lower grade than a student who utilized A.I. to create his essay cannot help but feel cheated.  Are we far off from the time students need write an essay about a particular subject and upon turning their papers in, the instructor discovers they are all very much alike?   Hua Hsu pointed out that college instructors and professors have circumvented some of the negative impact from A.I. by employing in class blue book exams, a throwback to past grading procedures.  One professor cited in the same article stopped using take home exams and rather went back to administering in-class exams, an assessment method he had not used for years. 

The improvement for most of the 20th century in IQ scores in America and many other countries is called the Flynn Effect, named after James R. Flynn, who documented this phenomenon.  The increase in IQ scores was attributed to better education, nutrition, and public health.  Unfortunately, the past two decades has seen a reversal of the Flynn Effect where IQ’s and academic scores have gone down.  It is well documented that American youth are consistently performing below grade level in their reading and math scores along with lower IQ scores as compared to previous generations.

A number of factors have come together to produce both a less educated and a less intelligent trend in our young people.  This problem is not only evident in America but as a free society, it is perhaps more evident and more difficult to confront than in less permissive countries.  Jonathan Haidt has suggested that schools ban the use of smart phones during class time.  He also has recommended children do not have access to smart phones and social media until they reach a certain age.  Here parents will need to enforce certain limits on their children, and in so doing, will need to be more present than ever in the lives of their children.

On the other hand, the availability of A.I. is so new that no one knows how this tool can best be beneficial without impeding the critical thinking skills so necessary in the development of the minds of our young people.  The founders of A.I. have gained much wealth in a short amount of time.  Let us hope that these same people, our leaders in the future, will explore intensively the ways to manage the potential negative repercussions of their discoveries.  Finally, although I employed A.I. as an aid to this blog, nevertheless, I spent several hours in the writing and editing of it.