Over & over & over, in his book, The High Cost of Free Parking, Donald Shoup says that we need to charge more for on street parking, especially for parking in desirable spots. Cities may not be listening to him, but businesses are listening. They know a lucrative market when they see one, and they are pouncing -- and charging.
Arabs now collect the money citizens in Chicago put into parking meters downtown. You heard me correctly. In 2008 Chicago leased its 36,000 parking meters, the third- largest U.S. system, for $1.15 billion, to Morgan Stanley. Why did it do that, because it needed to balance its budget. But I just said Arabs collect the money. As reported elsewhere, the state owned investment firm of Abu Dhabi ended up owning a controlling share of Chicago’s parking meters.
The deal has been widely condemned as monumentally stupid. Chicago received a little over 1 Billion dollars. Abu Dhabi will collect ten times that much, roughly 10 billion from the parking meters. And that estimate is probably quite low. Abu Dhabi, business people, know what to do with a scarce resource. They listened to Donald Shoup who said one should charge a market price for parking.
Almost immediately, they raised metered parking from three dollars an hour to five dollars an hour. That’s almost double. The rates are set to rise to six dollars fifty an hour in 2013. That’s more than double, and that has happened in only the first five years of a 75 year deal. There is nothing citizens of the City of Chicago can do about it. Abu Dhabi owns their parking meters.
But that’s not all a smart business man does with a valuable resource. They decreased the size of the parking spots thereby adding more cars per block, more parking meters citizens need to put money into. They invested 420 million and added 4,000 new parking meter pay boxes. In addition, they extended the hours the parking meters are in effect.
How stupid can we be. In many cities we let people park downtown for free. They double the charges, extend the hours and add 4,000 new meters in the first five years of their 75 year lease.
Indianapolis, Pittsburg & Los Angeles plan to sell their parking meters and at least they think they are not going to be as stupid as Chicago. They are going to charge the private companies more money to buy the parking meters. But they are still being stupid. If a private company wants to buy a public resource, why doesn’t the public wake up and realize this is a valuable, money making resource.
Over & over & over Donald Shoup says we must charge a fair market price for parking. Every store pays a great deal of money for the real estate its store sits on. Every car should pay a great deal of money for the real estate it sits on. In fact, it should pay by the hour.
Businesses know a valuable resource. Businesses know people will pay to park their private vehicles in a prime area. City’s should charge for parking, and increase that charge until they make money -- and once they make money they won’t sell what is public land to greedy private companies, many of which are based abroad.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Monday, 2 April 2012
An Invasion
I know it is very hard to imagine another country invading America, sending their troops on to our soil. But try to imagine it. We are in trouble. A dictator has arisen in our country and we need help. We are being oppressed.
In the process of freeing us from the dictator, foreign troops who have come to free us, kill 700,000 Americans. They can’t help it. The troops in the pay of the dictator oppressing us, use us a human shields. Collateral damage. Seven hundred thousand Americans are killed by those trying to help us.
In addition, to help fund their war of liberation, this foreign country collects 8 billion dollars in taxes. Eight billion dollars. They say, “Our top priority is to get the economy moving again. The first step is to get money into the hands of the American people as quickly as possible.” That is what they say.
Then this foreign power loses the money. I kid you not. They lose the money.
When Bremmer -- the head of American occupying forces in Iraq was asked about the missing 8 billions dollars, he says, and I quote word for word; “Yeah. I understand, but what difference does it make.”
What difference does it make? Can you imagine collecting 8 billion dollars from the American people, losing it, and then saying; Yea, I understand, but what difference does it make.
But there is more -- and yes, I am talking about what happened when we went into Iraq. Two hundred state owned, government owned companies that produce the staples of their diet -- everything from cement, to paper, to cooking oil -- all these government companies are privatized, sold to foreigners. These foreign companies are allowed to own 100% of the Iraqui companies.
And these companies are then allowed to take 100 per cent of the profit they made out of the country. They are not required to re-invest in the country and the money is not taxed.
This is absolutely unbelievable. Foreigners can buy 100 per cent of an American company. All the profits are not taxed, and they are allowed to take all their earnings out of the country. They collect 8 billion dollars to put into the hands of the people as quickly as possible, and then they proceed to lose all of it. They kill 700,000 civilians, that’s almost a million people.
Can you understand why the people in Iraq might hate us? We kill them. We lose the money we collected from them. We privatize their government owned companies, sell them to foreigners, who are allowed to keep & export 100 per cent of the profits.
If this happened in our country, we would be incensed.
In the process of freeing us from the dictator, foreign troops who have come to free us, kill 700,000 Americans. They can’t help it. The troops in the pay of the dictator oppressing us, use us a human shields. Collateral damage. Seven hundred thousand Americans are killed by those trying to help us.
In addition, to help fund their war of liberation, this foreign country collects 8 billion dollars in taxes. Eight billion dollars. They say, “Our top priority is to get the economy moving again. The first step is to get money into the hands of the American people as quickly as possible.” That is what they say.
Then this foreign power loses the money. I kid you not. They lose the money.
When Bremmer -- the head of American occupying forces in Iraq was asked about the missing 8 billions dollars, he says, and I quote word for word; “Yeah. I understand, but what difference does it make.”
What difference does it make? Can you imagine collecting 8 billion dollars from the American people, losing it, and then saying; Yea, I understand, but what difference does it make.
But there is more -- and yes, I am talking about what happened when we went into Iraq. Two hundred state owned, government owned companies that produce the staples of their diet -- everything from cement, to paper, to cooking oil -- all these government companies are privatized, sold to foreigners. These foreign companies are allowed to own 100% of the Iraqui companies.
And these companies are then allowed to take 100 per cent of the profit they made out of the country. They are not required to re-invest in the country and the money is not taxed.
This is absolutely unbelievable. Foreigners can buy 100 per cent of an American company. All the profits are not taxed, and they are allowed to take all their earnings out of the country. They collect 8 billion dollars to put into the hands of the people as quickly as possible, and then they proceed to lose all of it. They kill 700,000 civilians, that’s almost a million people.
Can you understand why the people in Iraq might hate us? We kill them. We lose the money we collected from them. We privatize their government owned companies, sell them to foreigners, who are allowed to keep & export 100 per cent of the profits.
If this happened in our country, we would be incensed.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Obama is Not a Muslim
I believe in democracy, one man, one vote, but someone said that when he realizes that the votes of two ordinary people defeats a vote by Einstein, he begins to have his doubts about democracy.
When I am told that 45 per cent of the voters in Alabama believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and 41 per cent aren’t sure what his religion is, and only 14 per cent think he is a Christian, I have grave doubts about democracy. Eighty six per cent of eligible voters don’t know the President’s religion. President Obama is a christian -- has said over & over & over that he is a believing christian. Those 86 per cent are either calling our president a liar or aren’t paying enough attention to what he says.
That 86 per cent is eligible to vote, plans to vote. The poll was a poll of 600 likely GOP Primary voters. Those who vote in a primary are registered voters -- serious voters who take the time & effort to vote in a primary. They almost certainly will vote in the upcoming election -- and they are either deeply ignorant or deeply affected by the sound of a name. Obama, they say to themselves. That man must be a muslim, they say to themselves.
I truly despair. The common man is really not well informed enough to vote, to decide the fate of not only America, but because America is so powerful, the fate of most of the people who live on planet earth. Obama is a Muslim, 86 per cent of GOP voters in Alabama believe.
The situation is slightly worse in Mississippi where “of 656 likely GOP primary voters surveyed…52 per cent classified him as a Muslim, and 36 per cent fell in the “not sure’ category.” That is 88 per cent of registered to vote in the GOP primary voters who are either ignorant or believe the President of the US is a liar. Time after time after time Obama has declared to the whole world that he is a Christian, a man who goes to a christian church on Sunday.
Am I saying I no longer believe in Democracy? What would I offer as an alternative? That is the tough question. If not a Democracy -- one person, one vote -- what do I propose?
I have no easy answer, and when one can’t offer an alternative, perhaps one should stick with the system in place. Or, as one man said, “Democracy is the worst form of government -- until one considers the alternatives. A Dictatorship? A cabal of the chosen few -- chosen by intelligence or wealth?
I don’t know, I really don’t know. I am not offering an alternative, but I am saying we live in a deeply flawed democracy when 86 or 88 per cent of supposedly informed & committed voters simply believe an untruth: President Barack Obama is a Muslim. He is not, has never been. These people are deluded, or prejudiced, or ill informed, or all of the preceding. So long
When I am told that 45 per cent of the voters in Alabama believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and 41 per cent aren’t sure what his religion is, and only 14 per cent think he is a Christian, I have grave doubts about democracy. Eighty six per cent of eligible voters don’t know the President’s religion. President Obama is a christian -- has said over & over & over that he is a believing christian. Those 86 per cent are either calling our president a liar or aren’t paying enough attention to what he says.
That 86 per cent is eligible to vote, plans to vote. The poll was a poll of 600 likely GOP Primary voters. Those who vote in a primary are registered voters -- serious voters who take the time & effort to vote in a primary. They almost certainly will vote in the upcoming election -- and they are either deeply ignorant or deeply affected by the sound of a name. Obama, they say to themselves. That man must be a muslim, they say to themselves.
I truly despair. The common man is really not well informed enough to vote, to decide the fate of not only America, but because America is so powerful, the fate of most of the people who live on planet earth. Obama is a Muslim, 86 per cent of GOP voters in Alabama believe.
The situation is slightly worse in Mississippi where “of 656 likely GOP primary voters surveyed…52 per cent classified him as a Muslim, and 36 per cent fell in the “not sure’ category.” That is 88 per cent of registered to vote in the GOP primary voters who are either ignorant or believe the President of the US is a liar. Time after time after time Obama has declared to the whole world that he is a Christian, a man who goes to a christian church on Sunday.
Am I saying I no longer believe in Democracy? What would I offer as an alternative? That is the tough question. If not a Democracy -- one person, one vote -- what do I propose?
I have no easy answer, and when one can’t offer an alternative, perhaps one should stick with the system in place. Or, as one man said, “Democracy is the worst form of government -- until one considers the alternatives. A Dictatorship? A cabal of the chosen few -- chosen by intelligence or wealth?
I don’t know, I really don’t know. I am not offering an alternative, but I am saying we live in a deeply flawed democracy when 86 or 88 per cent of supposedly informed & committed voters simply believe an untruth: President Barack Obama is a Muslim. He is not, has never been. These people are deluded, or prejudiced, or ill informed, or all of the preceding. So long
Monday, 12 March 2012
Generalizations & Stereotypes
A few times before I’ve mentioned that there is a fine line between stereotypes -- all Jews are…all Germans are…and generalizations -- intelligent observations about what a group of people tend to do.
Here is a list of generalizations -- intelligent observations -- that I found in a book about China The Pool of Unease by Catherine Sampson -- and yes, I recommend the book.
She is talking about the influx of foreigners into China: “Americans put stern-eyed marines at their embassy gate, Filipinas sang in hotel lounges, the French collected antiques, the Italians shopped for textiles, the British opened schools for the children of the rich, the Germans ran five star hotels, the Russians bartered furs, and Mongolian women worked in brothels, the Koreans opened barbecue restaurants and Japanese ate raw fish and refused to apologize for history.”
She is not saying that every American did this, or every Frenchman did that, but she is a keen observer of what people tend to do -- and people always try to do what they are best at doing.
The Germans, a highly efficient, hard working, organized group of people, and they run five star hotels. If you go to China and want to stay at a hotel, you would like to stay at a well run hotel -- clean and efficient. Germans do that well. In general, you want to stay at a German run five star hotel, not a five star hotel run by Filipinos.
The hotel run by Filipinos might be a good hotel, a well run hotel, but you should go with the odds, and you should go to listen to Filipinas who sing -- and they probably sing in German run hotels.
You could be stereotyping when you say you like to go to Jewish doctors and eat at barbecues run by black people. There are great black doctors & there are Jews whose barbecuing skills are terrific -- but in general, it is good to go with the odds.
When you shop for clothes, you think of Italian names -- Ferragamo, Oarmani, Versace -- and indeed, in China, to quote book again “Italians shopped for textiles.” Though the French have always been known as great cooks, she observes that “the French collected antiques, and the Russians bartered furs.’ Stereotypes evolve -- or generalizations (which become stereotypes) must change with the times. The French are now into antiques, the Russians barter furs.
It is a sad state of affairs when she says “Mongolian women worked in brothels.” They sell what they have to sell -- their bodies. This will not always be true. It is not that Mongolian women have looser morals than women in other countries, but Mongolians are poor, are truly, at this point, a third world country. Let us fervently hope that America will not long be known for “stern eyed Marines at embassy gates.” Just as Mongolia is a third world country, America is a first world power that needs to defend its gates -- hence, stern eyed marines.
And finally, the last three of her generalizations: barbecue restaurants are run by Koreans, the highly educated British have a long history of living abroad so they are known for opening schools for the children of the rich, and the Japanese eat raw fish and refuse to apologize for their history. Stereotypes are, to some extent, intelligent generalizations.
Here is a list of generalizations -- intelligent observations -- that I found in a book about China The Pool of Unease by Catherine Sampson -- and yes, I recommend the book.
She is talking about the influx of foreigners into China: “Americans put stern-eyed marines at their embassy gate, Filipinas sang in hotel lounges, the French collected antiques, the Italians shopped for textiles, the British opened schools for the children of the rich, the Germans ran five star hotels, the Russians bartered furs, and Mongolian women worked in brothels, the Koreans opened barbecue restaurants and Japanese ate raw fish and refused to apologize for history.”
She is not saying that every American did this, or every Frenchman did that, but she is a keen observer of what people tend to do -- and people always try to do what they are best at doing.
The Germans, a highly efficient, hard working, organized group of people, and they run five star hotels. If you go to China and want to stay at a hotel, you would like to stay at a well run hotel -- clean and efficient. Germans do that well. In general, you want to stay at a German run five star hotel, not a five star hotel run by Filipinos.
The hotel run by Filipinos might be a good hotel, a well run hotel, but you should go with the odds, and you should go to listen to Filipinas who sing -- and they probably sing in German run hotels.
You could be stereotyping when you say you like to go to Jewish doctors and eat at barbecues run by black people. There are great black doctors & there are Jews whose barbecuing skills are terrific -- but in general, it is good to go with the odds.
When you shop for clothes, you think of Italian names -- Ferragamo, Oarmani, Versace -- and indeed, in China, to quote book again “Italians shopped for textiles.” Though the French have always been known as great cooks, she observes that “the French collected antiques, and the Russians bartered furs.’ Stereotypes evolve -- or generalizations (which become stereotypes) must change with the times. The French are now into antiques, the Russians barter furs.
It is a sad state of affairs when she says “Mongolian women worked in brothels.” They sell what they have to sell -- their bodies. This will not always be true. It is not that Mongolian women have looser morals than women in other countries, but Mongolians are poor, are truly, at this point, a third world country. Let us fervently hope that America will not long be known for “stern eyed Marines at embassy gates.” Just as Mongolia is a third world country, America is a first world power that needs to defend its gates -- hence, stern eyed marines.
And finally, the last three of her generalizations: barbecue restaurants are run by Koreans, the highly educated British have a long history of living abroad so they are known for opening schools for the children of the rich, and the Japanese eat raw fish and refuse to apologize for their history. Stereotypes are, to some extent, intelligent generalizations.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
4,000 Cubic Feet
If you are anything like me, you can’t quite visualize a cubic foot -- so if I say 3 cubic feet vs. 4,000 cubic feet you will immediately know one is very-very big, 4,000 cubic feet, and one is very-very small, 3 cubic feet.
What if you had a very desirable space, a place everyone wanted to be. It was the place to be. And 4,000 cubic feet applied and 3 cubic feet applied. If you let lots of 4,000 cubic feet people -- or things -- downtown, at this desirable place, there wouldn’t be room for very many. Those things take a lot of space, 4,000 cubic feet. But you could accommodate lots & lots & lots of 3 cubic feet.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about cars and I am talking about people. People, humans, occupy three cubic feet of space. We are portable, easy to get around. We are not a menace. Lots of us around is pleasant. A social space. People like other people.
Cars occupy 4,000 cubic feet of space. Cars don’t like other cars -- or people. Cars are private, solitary, deadly to others. Cars want to see nothing on the road with them. Cars want to zoom. Cars consume vast amounts of space; cars are killers, in fact, in the US alone they kill 40,000 people every single year.
My point? Charge those car people -- make them pay extra. Which people? The people who consume 4,000 cubic feet of space. Yes you may come downtown, to the mall, go anywhere you want to go, but if you choose to come in such a space consuming vehicle, you will be asked to pay for all that space. High parking fees.
Why should parking be free? It takes money to maintain a parking lot, pave it over, clear it from snow. It takes money to devote real estate to tons of cars.
Those who choose to bicycle to this desirable place, walk there, take public transportation to there, those people consume three cubic feet. Why should they have to pay for parking spots set aside for 4,000 cubic foot monsters -- and you know all of us pay. The prices in all stores & restaurants are higher because the price reflects the need to pay for large tracts of land to park cars & to maintain that land.
We should continue to provide parking for 4,000 cubic feet monster, but they should be asked to pay for it -- to pay every single time they use it.
It seems so obvious that 4,000 cubic feet on an airplane pays much more money than 3 cubic feet.
Only a little thought will make obvious that something that large, 4,000 cubic feet, used by one human being for the pleasure & convenience of one human being, should pay more than human beings who carry only themselves around, consume only three cubic feet.
We, me included, have been so blind for so long. We have done everything for cars -- streets, parking spots, parking garages, gas stations, traffic lights -- we’ve done nothing for Mr & Mrs 3 square feet -- no public toilets, no benches to sit down, no sidewalks, no pleasant places to walk.
It is time to do less for large cars, more for portable pedetrians who consume so little space and who really crave each other’s company, not the company of cars.
What if you had a very desirable space, a place everyone wanted to be. It was the place to be. And 4,000 cubic feet applied and 3 cubic feet applied. If you let lots of 4,000 cubic feet people -- or things -- downtown, at this desirable place, there wouldn’t be room for very many. Those things take a lot of space, 4,000 cubic feet. But you could accommodate lots & lots & lots of 3 cubic feet.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about cars and I am talking about people. People, humans, occupy three cubic feet of space. We are portable, easy to get around. We are not a menace. Lots of us around is pleasant. A social space. People like other people.
Cars occupy 4,000 cubic feet of space. Cars don’t like other cars -- or people. Cars are private, solitary, deadly to others. Cars want to see nothing on the road with them. Cars want to zoom. Cars consume vast amounts of space; cars are killers, in fact, in the US alone they kill 40,000 people every single year.
My point? Charge those car people -- make them pay extra. Which people? The people who consume 4,000 cubic feet of space. Yes you may come downtown, to the mall, go anywhere you want to go, but if you choose to come in such a space consuming vehicle, you will be asked to pay for all that space. High parking fees.
Why should parking be free? It takes money to maintain a parking lot, pave it over, clear it from snow. It takes money to devote real estate to tons of cars.
Those who choose to bicycle to this desirable place, walk there, take public transportation to there, those people consume three cubic feet. Why should they have to pay for parking spots set aside for 4,000 cubic foot monsters -- and you know all of us pay. The prices in all stores & restaurants are higher because the price reflects the need to pay for large tracts of land to park cars & to maintain that land.
We should continue to provide parking for 4,000 cubic feet monster, but they should be asked to pay for it -- to pay every single time they use it.
It seems so obvious that 4,000 cubic feet on an airplane pays much more money than 3 cubic feet.
Only a little thought will make obvious that something that large, 4,000 cubic feet, used by one human being for the pleasure & convenience of one human being, should pay more than human beings who carry only themselves around, consume only three cubic feet.
We, me included, have been so blind for so long. We have done everything for cars -- streets, parking spots, parking garages, gas stations, traffic lights -- we’ve done nothing for Mr & Mrs 3 square feet -- no public toilets, no benches to sit down, no sidewalks, no pleasant places to walk.
It is time to do less for large cars, more for portable pedetrians who consume so little space and who really crave each other’s company, not the company of cars.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Rich get Richer
How would you feel if you found out one family had as much money as 120 million Americans. Let me repeat that number -- 120 million Americans. That is one third of the people who exist in America. All of them put together have as much money as the members of one family.
Nowadays, liberty has become “Security for financial operations.” We are confusing this kind of liberty -- liberty for financial operations -- with the simple concept of Liberty. The freedom to make as much money as you can is being confused with freedom.
If you have the Freedom to make money then what has to happen is that money accumulates in piles. The biggest pile? The Walmart Family that has as much money as 120 million Americans.
Or, in 2005 “21.2 per cent of US National Income -- that’s one out of every five dollars earned -- went to 1% of earners.”
It’s not rich families who have inherited money that we are talking about. Earners. These are people who earn the money that’s out there for all of us to earn. Ninety nine percent of us get four out of every five dollars, One percent of us get one out of every five dollars.
Wow. That’s inequality. That’s somehow wrong.
As the book I am quoting from says “In the 1970s the concept that the point of life was to get rich and that governments exist to facilitate this would have been ridiculed.” Ridiculed. Made Fun of. Just forty years ago. Government exists to secure liberty for Financial operations? You gotta be kidding me. Look at what happens in the so called Free Market. One per cent of the people rake it in. The rest of us get to split what’s left.
That’s just not fair.
In finance, the one per cent who are the best rake in 21.5 per cent of the money available to rake in. And don’t you out there think you’ll join that one per cent. In America, those who began in the bottom fifth in income, are less likely to get out of that rut than the bottom fifth in any other developed Western nation. You know how hard times are now. You know most people are struggling -- and yet we have laws in place to make sure the rich few get to keep what they earn and to multiply it. The gap between the rich and the poor is greater now than it has ever been before in American history.
We need to tax the rich more -- and perhaps we even need to curb their right to earn as much as they can earn. That may sound like Socialism, but a mere fifty years ago, in the 1960s, in the good old USA, the very richest earners paid as high as 90 per cent of their income in taxes.
Nowadays, liberty has become “Security for financial operations.” We are confusing this kind of liberty -- liberty for financial operations -- with the simple concept of Liberty. The freedom to make as much money as you can is being confused with freedom.
If you have the Freedom to make money then what has to happen is that money accumulates in piles. The biggest pile? The Walmart Family that has as much money as 120 million Americans.
Or, in 2005 “21.2 per cent of US National Income -- that’s one out of every five dollars earned -- went to 1% of earners.”
It’s not rich families who have inherited money that we are talking about. Earners. These are people who earn the money that’s out there for all of us to earn. Ninety nine percent of us get four out of every five dollars, One percent of us get one out of every five dollars.
Wow. That’s inequality. That’s somehow wrong.
As the book I am quoting from says “In the 1970s the concept that the point of life was to get rich and that governments exist to facilitate this would have been ridiculed.” Ridiculed. Made Fun of. Just forty years ago. Government exists to secure liberty for Financial operations? You gotta be kidding me. Look at what happens in the so called Free Market. One per cent of the people rake it in. The rest of us get to split what’s left.
That’s just not fair.
In finance, the one per cent who are the best rake in 21.5 per cent of the money available to rake in. And don’t you out there think you’ll join that one per cent. In America, those who began in the bottom fifth in income, are less likely to get out of that rut than the bottom fifth in any other developed Western nation. You know how hard times are now. You know most people are struggling -- and yet we have laws in place to make sure the rich few get to keep what they earn and to multiply it. The gap between the rich and the poor is greater now than it has ever been before in American history.
We need to tax the rich more -- and perhaps we even need to curb their right to earn as much as they can earn. That may sound like Socialism, but a mere fifty years ago, in the 1960s, in the good old USA, the very richest earners paid as high as 90 per cent of their income in taxes.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Graven Images
We all know that the second commandment states “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.” But precisely what is a “graven image”?
Any bible, in Spanish, in English, in Turkish, in Greek -- is a translation of an ancient language. In a sense we will never-ever really know what was meant when the commandment, in Hebrew, says “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
We can guess, we do guess. If you go into any synagogue in the world -- any synagogue, you will not see carvings of humans or cows, or trees, or images of any kind. That is the simple definition of graven image -- something that represents something all of us recognize -- a Bhudda, a Christ, an image -- something we can see.
I have just visited what is reputedly the most beautiful Synagogue in all of Europe. It is in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and it is full, blatantly full of graven images. Representations of humans? No. Images of any kind? No. So what do I mean when I say full of graven images?
The Synagogue in Prague is carved out of gold. I mean carved out of gold. It glows. It is yellow, beautiful, splendid -- it is the most beautiful synagogue I have ever seen. It is all geometric patterns of one kind or another -- no image is to be seen. The patterns fill the side walls, the domed ceiling, the columns. The intricate patterns are varied, immensely beautiful. But all I could think of is Gold, money. These people worshiped money.
We Jews do not place “graven images’ in places of worship because we believe only God should be worshiped. He and he alone is worthy of our worship.
Every time Prague Jews came to pray, they could not help but think of money, of gold, of the splendor that could only be bought with a great deal of money -- money for materials, money for craftsmen, money for designers.
They had to leave this place of worship and lust for something resembling this shimmering golden splendor in their own homes. It all glows. It shrieks out -- I am rich. I can afford all this. Isn’t this beyond belief beautiful? Isn’t this splendor on a vast scale -- and don’t I want some of it for my abode?
Virtually every synagogue I’ve ever visited is simple, white, stark. It may have a high ceiling. It may be vast. It may be beautiful in its way, but it is totally free of graven images -- no gold, no marble, no statues, no filigrees. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. Focus on God. You are here to worship him, not the craftsmanship of Michelangelo, or a silver & gold maker.
I do not mean to denigrate the splendiferous synagogue in Prague. It is so beautiful that a picture of the inside of this synagogue, the dome, is now my screen saver. I can’t stop looking at it. It is so beautiful.
But I am worshiping a graven image. I do not think of God, or the meaning of my existence. I think of beauty upon this earth. And that is not what a Jewish god would want.
Any bible, in Spanish, in English, in Turkish, in Greek -- is a translation of an ancient language. In a sense we will never-ever really know what was meant when the commandment, in Hebrew, says “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
We can guess, we do guess. If you go into any synagogue in the world -- any synagogue, you will not see carvings of humans or cows, or trees, or images of any kind. That is the simple definition of graven image -- something that represents something all of us recognize -- a Bhudda, a Christ, an image -- something we can see.
I have just visited what is reputedly the most beautiful Synagogue in all of Europe. It is in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and it is full, blatantly full of graven images. Representations of humans? No. Images of any kind? No. So what do I mean when I say full of graven images?
The Synagogue in Prague is carved out of gold. I mean carved out of gold. It glows. It is yellow, beautiful, splendid -- it is the most beautiful synagogue I have ever seen. It is all geometric patterns of one kind or another -- no image is to be seen. The patterns fill the side walls, the domed ceiling, the columns. The intricate patterns are varied, immensely beautiful. But all I could think of is Gold, money. These people worshiped money.
We Jews do not place “graven images’ in places of worship because we believe only God should be worshiped. He and he alone is worthy of our worship.
Every time Prague Jews came to pray, they could not help but think of money, of gold, of the splendor that could only be bought with a great deal of money -- money for materials, money for craftsmen, money for designers.
They had to leave this place of worship and lust for something resembling this shimmering golden splendor in their own homes. It all glows. It shrieks out -- I am rich. I can afford all this. Isn’t this beyond belief beautiful? Isn’t this splendor on a vast scale -- and don’t I want some of it for my abode?
Virtually every synagogue I’ve ever visited is simple, white, stark. It may have a high ceiling. It may be vast. It may be beautiful in its way, but it is totally free of graven images -- no gold, no marble, no statues, no filigrees. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. Focus on God. You are here to worship him, not the craftsmanship of Michelangelo, or a silver & gold maker.
I do not mean to denigrate the splendiferous synagogue in Prague. It is so beautiful that a picture of the inside of this synagogue, the dome, is now my screen saver. I can’t stop looking at it. It is so beautiful.
But I am worshiping a graven image. I do not think of God, or the meaning of my existence. I think of beauty upon this earth. And that is not what a Jewish god would want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
