“We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.” Obama at the Arizona memorial 1/12/11
This is a telling statement. No experienced medical person tries to understand madness. Indeed, it is an affliction that can be defined by its isolation; one cannot be empathetic, one cannot understand. So what can this mean? We certainly are not declaring war on madness.
How about violence? This country is at arms all over the globe; we cannot be so naive.
So what can this mean? Does it mean that with the right environment, the correct controls, the appropriate laws, that violence can be eliminated or profoundly lessened? And how does self defense or defense against tyranny come in to all this?
Who is it that is examining these "facts"? And do we have confidence in their analytic ability?
One translation that fits is a jaundiced view of free will, a view that sees individuals as part of a historical strip tease where history is gradually revealed to some predestined endpoint. This view does not just deny free will, it denies evil. Individual deviation is a bump in the road that causes an accident. (Pelosi actually called the Arizona shooting an "accident".) And the state, with its clear view of the future, is merely nosing around the accident scene, looking for clues.
Thus the state is an appropriate preemptive agent to be used in anticipation of individual deviation.
For a banal speaker, that is a profound idea.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Assassination Two
According to the media, savage and violent behavior towards seemingly peripheral individuals can be stimulated by nasty and erroneous public opinions. So an isolated idiot or a completely disconnected maniac can be focused into action by the written or spoken word. This is in contradistinction to our opinion on education which shuns any kind of moral or civics teaching. So people can be stimulated to do negative things but not to do positive things. And we apparently know what these dangerous stimuli are. This comes as good news to those who remember the interview with the attempted assassin of George Wallace who revealed that he experienced great anger and hostility while watching The Donna Reed Show, certainly a vipers' nest of chaos and social disruption.
Of course we need to identify these high risk dangerous information areas and stop them. The problem seems to be what is causing what. It appears that violent rap music does not cause violence in inner city youth. Mark Twain, however, can cause prejudice. Muslim terrorists point to the Koran as their inspiration but apparently they are wrong. Does Homer and books about whale hunting cause aggressive behavior in the West? And what censorship could have saved Senor Carlos Castro from his unfortunate recent demise?
There is no reason to denigrate these insightful people who know the causes of these terrible things. But it would be more reassuring if they had something that looked like evidence to bolster their belief. Otherwise the merely plausible might become law. Perhaps it is a simple matter of reading further in the book. The notion is the hypothesis; it is only a starting point. Once the hypothesis is made, long and difficult evaluations have to be made as the hypothesis is stressed. Only after good challenge does the hypothesis get any credibility and, even then, may fail.
But the first day of any study is always exciting and fun. And easy.
Of course we need to identify these high risk dangerous information areas and stop them. The problem seems to be what is causing what. It appears that violent rap music does not cause violence in inner city youth. Mark Twain, however, can cause prejudice. Muslim terrorists point to the Koran as their inspiration but apparently they are wrong. Does Homer and books about whale hunting cause aggressive behavior in the West? And what censorship could have saved Senor Carlos Castro from his unfortunate recent demise?
There is no reason to denigrate these insightful people who know the causes of these terrible things. But it would be more reassuring if they had something that looked like evidence to bolster their belief. Otherwise the merely plausible might become law. Perhaps it is a simple matter of reading further in the book. The notion is the hypothesis; it is only a starting point. Once the hypothesis is made, long and difficult evaluations have to be made as the hypothesis is stressed. Only after good challenge does the hypothesis get any credibility and, even then, may fail.
But the first day of any study is always exciting and fun. And easy.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Assassination
Murder, in crime, according to The Turk in The Godfather is just business; it is nothing personal. Assassination in politics is almost never business. But it is rarely personal either. Politicians are never killed for any of the Deadly Sins. Of all the assassinations and attempted assassinations in the United States only Booth and possibly Oswald had a political basis. Among the rest, there is no real thread among the assassins except two: Mental illness and Anarchism--in fact the two are so prominent that one could think that one might be diagnostic of the other.
Lincoln: Booth. Certainly political.
McKinley: Leon Czolosz. An Anarchist and follower of Emma Goldberg.
Theodore Roosevelt: John Schrank. A psychotic New York saloon keeper who stalked Roosevelt all over the country because of a dream.
Franklin Roosevelt: Guiseppi Zangora. "Since my stomach hurt I want to make even a capitalist."
George Wallace: Arthur Bremmer. A fame seeker who also stalked Nixon.
Robert Kennedy: Sirhan Sirhan. A Christian Palestinian whose self avowed reason was anti-Zionism. But a stretch to be political as Kennedy had little responsibility there.
Jack Kennedy: Lee Oswald. A Marxist and member of Free Trade Cuba. Perhaps political.
Gerald Ford: Squeaky Fromme. Addled dingbat.
Ronald Reagan: Hinckley. A fame seeker who wanted to impress actress Jodi Foster.
The most recent assassination attempt, that of Congresswoman Gabrelle Giffords presumably by Jared Laughner, has yet to be elucidated. It is likely that a lot of pronouncements and declarations will be made and probably distant causes offered. If the history of assassinations holds true, however, it is unlike that the simple connections that work in common murders--drugs, revenge, jealousy, lust, business--will be applicable in this event either. And any attempt to do so should be seen as disingenuous and, more importantly, distracting. But the amorphous fringe is a poor target at best. It may be easier to hold responsible some innocent group that is closer at hand.
Assassins act symbolically. So will the outraged culture.
Lincoln: Booth. Certainly political.
McKinley: Leon Czolosz. An Anarchist and follower of Emma Goldberg.
Theodore Roosevelt: John Schrank. A psychotic New York saloon keeper who stalked Roosevelt all over the country because of a dream.
Franklin Roosevelt: Guiseppi Zangora. "Since my stomach hurt I want to make even a capitalist."
George Wallace: Arthur Bremmer. A fame seeker who also stalked Nixon.
Robert Kennedy: Sirhan Sirhan. A Christian Palestinian whose self avowed reason was anti-Zionism. But a stretch to be political as Kennedy had little responsibility there.
Jack Kennedy: Lee Oswald. A Marxist and member of Free Trade Cuba. Perhaps political.
Gerald Ford: Squeaky Fromme. Addled dingbat.
Ronald Reagan: Hinckley. A fame seeker who wanted to impress actress Jodi Foster.
The most recent assassination attempt, that of Congresswoman Gabrelle Giffords presumably by Jared Laughner, has yet to be elucidated. It is likely that a lot of pronouncements and declarations will be made and probably distant causes offered. If the history of assassinations holds true, however, it is unlike that the simple connections that work in common murders--drugs, revenge, jealousy, lust, business--will be applicable in this event either. And any attempt to do so should be seen as disingenuous and, more importantly, distracting. But the amorphous fringe is a poor target at best. It may be easier to hold responsible some innocent group that is closer at hand.
Assassins act symbolically. So will the outraged culture.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Conceptual Inkblot
A discussion has developed as to the most important moment--moment--in the last four hundred years. Of course the responses will be separated through various prisms--all colored as well by an individual's belief in the dominant concepts of history. A Marxist might think Lenin's taking power as communism's first great step, a transnational might suggest the creation of the European Union or the Euro or the collapse of the Soviet State, a Catholic might say the election of Pope John Paul, a Jew the Balfour Amendment or the American recognition of Israel, a Muslim might say the loss of Battle of Vienna in 1682--indeed a Christian might say the same. What would a Jewish Marxist think?
Of course there is no correct answer but it is an interesting exercise because it reveals much of the thinking of those in the debate. Groups, individuals, religions, states--all the answers as plausible as they might be--are revealing as to the makeup of the individual presenting the answer, what in college we often called a person's "conceptual framework."
It is a sort of intellectual Rorschach Test. Takers?
Of course there is no correct answer but it is an interesting exercise because it reveals much of the thinking of those in the debate. Groups, individuals, religions, states--all the answers as plausible as they might be--are revealing as to the makeup of the individual presenting the answer, what in college we often called a person's "conceptual framework."
It is a sort of intellectual Rorschach Test. Takers?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Caution of Humility
"Ending Bullying an Inexact Science."
This is not from The Onion; it is a headline from the HuffingtonPost. It implies a body of work investigating bullying and thoughtful self-criticism that attends it. Moreover it implies the value of such inquiry, that bullying is both a reasonable subject of research and that successful management is mere time and effort away. The headline itself is a wonderful bit of modern nonsense: Ending bullying is a hope or desire, not a science. Indeed, science has no aspiration or wish. But it is doubtful that there is not a Bullying Institute somewhere. And if there is one, the employees are certain to wear white coats.
This calls to mind Shimon Peres' lovely observation (a la Niebuhr): "If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time." This is an enlightening thought. How many of the difficulties facing us are problems and how many are facts of life? And how are we to distinguish between them? What screams for change and what for accommodation?
We are a restless and impatient people; we want to improve things. We want to clear the land, bridge the gap, raise the barn. Problems are challenges. But are they really?
Where in our cowboy restlessness and our charming Yankee penchant for tinkering does ambition--or simple foolishness--start to cloud our minds? Is everything to be overcome? Or do we work away at some targeted condition of life like Frankenstein, creating some monster imitation of a solution.
This is not from The Onion; it is a headline from the HuffingtonPost. It implies a body of work investigating bullying and thoughtful self-criticism that attends it. Moreover it implies the value of such inquiry, that bullying is both a reasonable subject of research and that successful management is mere time and effort away. The headline itself is a wonderful bit of modern nonsense: Ending bullying is a hope or desire, not a science. Indeed, science has no aspiration or wish. But it is doubtful that there is not a Bullying Institute somewhere. And if there is one, the employees are certain to wear white coats.
This calls to mind Shimon Peres' lovely observation (a la Niebuhr): "If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time." This is an enlightening thought. How many of the difficulties facing us are problems and how many are facts of life? And how are we to distinguish between them? What screams for change and what for accommodation?
We are a restless and impatient people; we want to improve things. We want to clear the land, bridge the gap, raise the barn. Problems are challenges. But are they really?
Where in our cowboy restlessness and our charming Yankee penchant for tinkering does ambition--or simple foolishness--start to cloud our minds? Is everything to be overcome? Or do we work away at some targeted condition of life like Frankenstein, creating some monster imitation of a solution.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Our Enlightened Caste
Dean Roscoe Pound (Harvard Law Dean from 1916 to 1936): "(law should be) ....in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."
It is hard to imagine what time in history a Harvard Law Dean could say this without some controversy, without some comment. It certainly doesn't sound like an American opinion on government or leadership. (John Adams' lapses excepted.) Especially the "caste" reference. One of the things that so shocked de Tocqueville was that no citizen in America called another "master." There was no such distinction among Americans. The Americans might revere someone or some group but they felt no one above them, recognized no superior "caste". The problem is that the "special caste" is usually self appointed, as others may recognize themselves as Napoleon, Jesus or the Queen of the Sun and Moon. And in a world of uneven distribution of wealth and talent, there is always the chance that those who have less will see it as deserved, just as a six foot three inch blond Plantagenet probably should be a war leader--then king.
But if a culture allows people to feel inferior, they will. Then they will start deferring their decisions, and eventually their lives, to those seemingly more competent. The genius of the American creation is its insistence that everyone is equal before the law, that there are no special citizens. Every man is given responsibility for his own life. It is the American starting point.
The average men who fought and died at Valley Forge did not think like Madison or Jefferson. The brilliance of the American creators is that Madison and Jefferson were capable of thinking like them, the average man, and with admiration not condescension. The Founders of the country felt these farmers, tradesmen, merchants and trappers were capable of any achievement. And why not? They had seen it. They had seen a small peripheral society take arms over points of law and defeat the most powerful nation on earth on the battlefield.
Perhaps that astonishing military victory still hangs on the memory of our "enlightened caste". An element of fear, even paranoia, has crept into modern commentary of late. The recurring theme is "inequality", inequality of income, wealth and position. As if the citizen's accomplishment was not the fulfilling of one's potential as a free man but rather in the collections of goods. The wealth of the nation is unsurpassed in the history of the world but inequality threatens the stability of the nation!
This is new. In the minds of the Founders, the threat to the country was never the grasping average man, it was always the grasping leader.
It is hard to imagine what time in history a Harvard Law Dean could say this without some controversy, without some comment. It certainly doesn't sound like an American opinion on government or leadership. (John Adams' lapses excepted.) Especially the "caste" reference. One of the things that so shocked de Tocqueville was that no citizen in America called another "master." There was no such distinction among Americans. The Americans might revere someone or some group but they felt no one above them, recognized no superior "caste". The problem is that the "special caste" is usually self appointed, as others may recognize themselves as Napoleon, Jesus or the Queen of the Sun and Moon. And in a world of uneven distribution of wealth and talent, there is always the chance that those who have less will see it as deserved, just as a six foot three inch blond Plantagenet probably should be a war leader--then king.
But if a culture allows people to feel inferior, they will. Then they will start deferring their decisions, and eventually their lives, to those seemingly more competent. The genius of the American creation is its insistence that everyone is equal before the law, that there are no special citizens. Every man is given responsibility for his own life. It is the American starting point.
The average men who fought and died at Valley Forge did not think like Madison or Jefferson. The brilliance of the American creators is that Madison and Jefferson were capable of thinking like them, the average man, and with admiration not condescension. The Founders of the country felt these farmers, tradesmen, merchants and trappers were capable of any achievement. And why not? They had seen it. They had seen a small peripheral society take arms over points of law and defeat the most powerful nation on earth on the battlefield.
Perhaps that astonishing military victory still hangs on the memory of our "enlightened caste". An element of fear, even paranoia, has crept into modern commentary of late. The recurring theme is "inequality", inequality of income, wealth and position. As if the citizen's accomplishment was not the fulfilling of one's potential as a free man but rather in the collections of goods. The wealth of the nation is unsurpassed in the history of the world but inequality threatens the stability of the nation!
This is new. In the minds of the Founders, the threat to the country was never the grasping average man, it was always the grasping leader.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Palin-tology and Prophesy
This seems to be a time of prophesy from Nostradamus to the Mayans. The Middle East has dueling prophesies with the Apocalypse from the old testament and the various writings loved by Achmedinijaad.
Here is Palin's prophesy from the OED:
palingenesis \pal-in-JEN-uh-sis\, noun:
1. Rebirth; regeneration.
2. In biology, embryonic development that reproduces the ancestral features of the species.
3. Baptism in the Christian faith.
4. The doctrine of transmigration of souls.
We're more interested in rebirth, regeneration--particularly economic rather than the transmigration of souls. Not to say we are opposed to the transmigration of souls......
Here is Palin's prophesy from the OED:
palingenesis \pal-in-JEN-uh-sis\, noun:
1. Rebirth; regeneration.
2. In biology, embryonic development that reproduces the ancestral features of the species.
3. Baptism in the Christian faith.
4. The doctrine of transmigration of souls.
We're more interested in rebirth, regeneration--particularly economic rather than the transmigration of souls. Not to say we are opposed to the transmigration of souls......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)