No Lazarus

Several decades ago, Mel Brooks appeared on William B. Williams’ radio show on WNEW New York. Brooks regaled Williams and his listeners with the story of the Resurrecting Rabbi.*

I will give a rendition of the tale—unfortunately without Brooks’ Yiddish accent and shtick.

A very wealthy Jewish man dies suddenly. His family had heard of a Resurrecting Rabbi living in Vilnius, Lithuania, and so they hire a private jet to rush said Rabbi to the Upper East Side of Manhattan. 

The Rabbi arrives at an apartment filled with people who want to behold the miracle. He goes into the bedroom where the deceased is laid out and begins to daven. “Baruch etc.etc yada yada . . . (imagine Brooks doing this). Morris Reshevsky, listen unto me. Arise ye now from this bed and join your family and friends. Baruch etc etc yada yada. Sit up now!”

Nothing.

“Too many people in the room. Only the close family.”

The friends and neighbors file out.

“Morris Reshevky! [Davens] Baruch yada yada etc etc. Hear this: ye are to arise from the bed, return to life, and have a glass tea with your loved ones. At the count of three. One. Two. Three. Arise now!” 

Nothing.

The Rabbi shrugs his shoulder. “Now that’s what I call dead.”

*

The New York Times printed a front page today with the names of 1,000 of the 100,000 American victims of the coronavirus. No Resurrecting Rabbi can bring any of them back to life. They are what you call “dead.”

*

Almost since the peril of the virus to human life became apparent, shtarkers have been volunteering others to face the dangers lurking out in the world. An early recruit to shtarkerdom (almost exactly two months ago) was the lieutenant governor of Texas,** Dan Patrick.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) seems to think that if given the choice, Americans 70 and over would be willing to risk getting coronavirus and possibly dying if it means stores re-open and the economy rebounds.*** 

The chorus of shtarker voices has only grown louder over the past months. “Yeah, people will die—but the economy will live!”

I’m waiting for the shtarkers to man up and say, “Me, Sarge. I’ll go first. I’m willing to die so the economy may live.” Rather, they’re like their leader, who was spurred to take to his heels during the Viet Nam war.

Oh, the economy won’t die. Even on life support, it will be fed intravenously by Treasury bailouts. 

The shtarkers can rest comfortably behind their desks. No way they’re delivering groceries or flipping hamburgers. 

They are proof of the truth of the old song: “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.”

***

*  I may have the only tape of the tale in existence. Now, if I could only find it . . . .

**  What qualification do you need to be lieutenant governor of Texas?

  Answer: An IQ equal to that of a rock.

  What qualification do you need to be governor of Texas?

  Answer: An IQ just slightly higher than that of a rock.

***  https://news.yahoo.com/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-021600858.html

Give and Take

"When someone shows you who they are believe them." 

Maya Angelou

*

"The expressiveness of the individual . . . appears to involve two radically different kinds of sign activity: the expression that he gives and the expression that he gives off."

Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

*

As individuals, it is always in our interest to control the impression that others have of us. Thus, we attempt to convey to others what we want them to think of us by our dress, our speaking style and language, our gestures, and so forth. These are the signs that we give. They are choices made to establish our persona and to allow us to navigate the world in the manner we desire. 

But we are not always in control of our expressions, and thus the impression that others have of us. The ill-fitting suit, the outdated slang, the nod when there should be a wink are examples of “sign activity” that subvert the intended impression that we wished to convey.

*

No one of recent vintage has been more assiduous at giving verbal signs in an attempt to influence the perception of his persona by others than Donald Trump. He is, he has claimed to be, “very smart”—indeed, “a stable genius.” We note these statements here without bothering to pursue them further at this time. What we are interested in right now are two recent statements (verbal expressions, in other words) by Trump in which he attempted to control others’ impression of him—but which gave off contrary information that contradicted the impression he tried to give.

The first statement was Trump’s attempt to maintain the image of a Teflon don (pun not necessarily intended) in a blue Bar Mitzvah suit. Attempting to give that impression in response to criticism of the bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic, he stated, “I don't take responsibility at all.” However, Trump’s verbal sign is contradicted by the expression given off by a knowing reading of the words by his audience. Here is a man, says this contrary reading, that is not responsible—that is, irresponsible. “I don't take responsibility at all” thus equals “I am irresponsible.”

The second statement recently made by Trump in an attempt to give a favorable sign came when he was asked if he had “any interest in reaching out to presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama, Carter . . . .” Trump replied, “I don’t think I’m going to learn much.”*

This was Trump with his “very smart,” “stable genius” hat on. But what the statement gives off is the impression of someone who is either unable or unwilling to learn anything.

*

I used to make the point to my freshman classes that it would be wonderful if people carried a sign that announced what they were really like (“I am a jealous person”; “I am a generous person”; and so on). Unfortunately, that’s not the case in the real world. We can, if we dare, take people only at their self-evaluation, judging them on the signs that they deliberately give. But it is always best to scrutinize the signs given off, those unconscious expressions of selfhood that convey to us observers what trust we should or should not have in the expressions that others’ give us.

***

*  https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2020/03/2020-time-capsule-7-i-dont-think-im-going-to-learn-much/608569/

Cut The Deck

President Trump said Thursday that he had seen evidence to prove that the coronavirus pandemic had spread from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but he declined to detail what that evidence was.
“I’m not allowed to tell you that,” he said . . . .*

Let’s consider this for a bit. Trump says he’s “not allowed to tell” us. Well, why is he not allowed to tell? Who is stopping him? Way back early in his administration he declassified secret information; as president, he had the right to do so. Just a year ago last May, for example, he gave the Attorney General broad power to declassify documents.** He had no one above him to say no, to disallow the release of such information. 

Trump’s refusal to divulge his (apparent) evidence immediately reminded me of this scene in the W. C. Fields/Mae West film “My Little Chickadee.”

Clearly, Trump (no gentleman) was pulling a fake “Gentleman’s Game” ploy before our eyes. To quote Gertrude Stein, as far as Trump’s privileged information went, there was “no there there.” 

Trump has been pulling the fake card trick for years now. His most used fakery phrase is “many people.” A recent variant was "very good experts”—who supposedly predicted that the coronavirus outbreak "would never affect the United States.”*** 

When next he tries to pull that stunt, I am waiting for someone to pop up and demand: “Name one!”

***

*   https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-he-has-evidence-coronavirus-came-from-a-chinese-lab-but-he-cant-reveal-it-232946854.html

**  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/trump-barr-intelligence.html

***  https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-very-good-experts-said-coronavirus-would-never-affect-us-2020-4