Bentham, Dirksen, And The Mars Rover

Listen up, everyone. The Imperious Loudmouth is about to speak. And, of course, he's right. But you know that. I've already told you. Many times.

We send too much money into outer space. We should send the people who vote for it.

A few days ago the Rover delivered the “Curiosity” to the surface of Mars. It was a striking scientific achievement and may yield information about the origin of our own planet billions of years ago, as well advance our knowledge of whether there has ever been life on Mars. And it only cost $2,600,000,000. What a bargain. For the low, low price of 2.6 billion dollars we'll be able to satisfy the curiosity of many scientists, as well as provide jobs for a passel of NASA employees, most of whom would quickly find jobs in other scientific settings.

But, as Everett Dirksen is alleged to have said,ⁱ "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." 2.6 billion dollars may not be much in terms of our national budget,ⁱⁱ but added to other similar endeavors, it adds significantly to our tax bill.ⁱⁱⁱ

The meaning of that cost, however, takes us back further than Dirksen – to Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarians.^iv Bentham's philosophy, and that of the Utilitarian movement, was simple: it was the goal to maximize “happiness,” or, indeed, to obtain the “greatest happiness for the greatest number.” The value (utility) of the results of an endeavor was the only guide to judging it.

I would never minimize the results of our space program. It certainly cannot be denied that space exploration has merits in providing answers to scientific questions, some, in fact, with the potential to improve our own situation. The exploration of Mars, however, and even moreso the exploration of more distant space, seem to fail Bentham's test of utility – at least for the greatest number.

Not so some alternative use of the funds. For example, according to the World Hunger Education Service, “Children [around the world] are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.”^v

Various charitable organizations state that it would cost about a dollar a day to feed the hungry,^vi and doing that would prevent numerous hunger deaths^vii – adults as well as children. So 2.6 billion dollars could feed over 7 million starving people for a year. (Dispensing with other unnecessary programs, and projects designed to help campaign contributors, might allow us to help other nations to improve their agricultural programs and to create better conditions for their citizens so they would not be as prone to look for violent solutions.)

It's nice to know that, should life on earth no longer be optimal, we might live on Mars, but when that time arrives we may find that we're simply moving our problems to another place – transferring international conflicts and doomsday machines to a place which we haven't evolved to live in – rather than correcting them in our natural habitat. But that's the stuff of Star Trek. If the earth is no longer inhabitable, it's unclear how we would move about 7 billion people^viii through space to Mars or some other place^ix we identify at high cost. How important is it to know about places that even our descendants will never see, but will have to pay for? Perhaps we should spend billions or trillions investigating that problem. That will probably be politically preferable and more eye-catching than feeding the hungry and wiping out disease in countries away from our view. And it will feed the curiosity of hundreds – perhaps thousands – of scientists. Can you think of something more worth votes?

Next episode: “Politics, Leadership, Polls, And Language" -- It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

i     He may have said something like that, but he denied the specific quotation. Since he liked it, however, he never really corrected the misimpression.

ii       $3.796 trillion in Fiscal 2012.

iii    As do numerous weapons systems, entitlement programs, tax breaks, and boondoggles.

iv    It only sounds like a singing group. It's actually a philosophic movement.

v     http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

vi    Perhaps that's an overestimate based on their own overhead costs, but even if it it would cost more, it would probably be a lot less costly than if it became a governmental program with all the accompanying bureaucracy and regulations.

vii    And improve the lives of many others who were fed.

viii  That's what it is now (2012). Who knows what it might be when the time arrived.

ix    To which the transportation would be far longer, many lifetimes, if it is at all possible.

The Olympic Spirit

                                                                              

Every four (or two, or whatever it is nowadays) years, my wife watches the Olympics. So I watch it as well.ⁱ I'm too lazy to change to a real program – not that there is any – and I'm far too smart to make an issue over the choice. I see the same ads over and over again, and there is an occasional event shown. The events themselves, however, on occasion seem strange. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Olympics are said to have been organized originally in the eighth century BCEⁱⁱ – at least that's what the history books say – but they probably started earlier, and they only achieved real popularity a few centuries later. They were dedicated to the gods on Mount Olympus and their goal was to solidify the relation between between the various city-states of what is now Greece. In fact, during the games wars were put on hold. The medium was sports, including events like the javelin throw which, notwithstanding the suspension of such activities during the games, mimicked the activities of war. The prizes were quite modest – crowns of olive branches and artistic tributes like statues and poetic tributes. With the rise of Christianity, however, celebrations of pagan gods doomed the games and at the end of the fourth century CE Theodosius banned them.

Fast forward to the end of the nineteenth century: the reconstitution of the Olympics.ⁱⁱⁱ And, since 1896, after being revived by de Coubertin, the Olympics have been held every four years, except for the war years.^iv But from 1896 to now there has been a sad deterioration of the games – not commercially of course, but in terms of the ideals that had inspired them. For example, instead of stopping war to compete, the games were suspended to allow for the pursuit of war.

What were those ideals? The Olympic movement prides itself on promoting a holistic philosophy: “Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”^v In view of such ideals, and the sentiment that sport should be accompanied by social responsibility and ethical principles, the need to ban certain substances, and the penalties for cheating and throwing events are hard to understand. And while the spirit of competition is to be commended, participation should be accompanied by “a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”^vi From what I've observed, those ideals are often lacking, and the Guinness Book of World Records is more of a motivation for the athletes than the Olympic Charter.

But it is not fair to blame the participants when the games themselves have changed and when the Olympic Committee has interests and prejudices of its own. According to the Council of Europe, “'Sport' means all forms of physical activity^vii which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.”^viii We also understand the term to refer to the kinds of physical competitions that have primarily athletic, rather than entertainment, value. So such “sports” as synchronized swimming and diving, dressage and ice dancing don't seem, on the surface, to reflect what Coubertin may have had in mind.^ix Training, often arduous, is an important component, as is the sense of competition. But they do not define sport.^x

Rather, the Committee has chosen to use commercial licensing and profit-making as the criteria for its choices. Amateur status used to be demanded of participants^xi but that limitation has been abandoned because professionals provide more excitement and revenues than amateurs. Television rights are now a critical property, and advertisements and fluff take up more time than the actual events. In addition, fireworks-filled ceremonials and displays are certain to draw big audiences. And so as to keep the consciousness of the events ever in our minds, and to keep the revenues flowing, the Olympics are now featured every other year instead of every four years.

Even the Olympic logo belies the stated goals of the Charter. The five rings are said to symbolize the world's continents. There are, however, seven continents – a fact of which the Committee must be aware. It may be argued that there are no participants from Antarctica, but it is hard to maintain the same position in regard to Australia. A new symbol, though, probably wouldn't be as striking as the one now in use, and would lose some of its commercial value.

Perhaps the worst of the offenses of the organizers, though, is the politicization of the games. According to the Olympic Charter, “The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries,” yet the prizes seem to be awarded by countries with national anthems an important feature. Medal counts and media coverage also seem to focus on international rivalries. And “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” Yet despite the long memory of ancient games, officials seem to be unable to remember the more recent murder of Israeli athletes and coaches in Munich at the 1972 games, nor to pay any tribute to them in the extensive pageantry in which the games glory.^xii Many people consider this to be a slap at a particular people and a particular country, illustrating the prejudices of the organizers. As does their readiness to erect a barrier so that Lebanese athletes wouldn't have to see or acknowledge the presence of the Israeli athletes. The world reacted with horror when the Israelis constructed a barrier to keep them safe from terrorist attacks, and it was decried by an angry world. But the reaction to a direct violation of Olympic principles by the Olympic Committee itself in the building of a barrier to exclude Israelis is of no consequence. Clearly the Committee doesn't view such an action as a “form of discrimination with regard to a country.”

The committee will condemn the acts of others while never considering its own hypocrisy and the violation of its own rules. So why should we demand more of the athletes. And we who watch should not condemn either the organizers or the athletes. Not as long as we ourselves keep watching and admiring the Olympic Spirit.

Next episode: “Jeremy Bentham And The Mars Rover” – On the uses of money.

i      I'm writing this on August 7^th, although it won't appear for a few weeks.

ii     Specifically 776 BCE.

iii    There had been attempts to hold similar celebrations in between – including one on the heels of the French Revolution – but they were short-lived.

iv    Fealty to the gods may have been a motivating force for the Greeks, but religion played no part in the modern games. Or so they claimed.

v     As stated in the Olympic Charter.

vi    Ibid. “Fundamental Principles, Number 6.

vii    Air rifle shooting may require a good deal of concentration, good vision, and steady hands, but it is not what would come to mind immediately as a physical sport.

viii   European Sports Charter, Article 2, 1a.

ix     It also seems unlikely that he would have listed beach volley ball among his favorites.

x      A lot of training is necessary to win a hot dog eating contest or a chess match, and “road rage” is certainly the result of an overly competitive spirit, but none qualifies as an Olympic sport. Nor do we see, at least not this year, dancing with the stars.

xi    Jim Thorpe, described by King Gustav V of Sweden as the greatest athlete in the world, was stripped of his Olympic medals because he had played professional baseball and that was enough reason to consider him a professional and ineligible for Olympic participation even though he competed in track and field.

xii    Indeed, the Munich games went on after the murders as if nothing had happened.

Bang, Bang, Bang

                                                                                 

First things first.

I strongly favor gun control. But I have two problems. The first is that I don't know what it is. And, since gun laws are controlled largely by the states rather than the Federal government, they're all different. Surely the armed forces and the police need to be armed, but after that, things become murky. Whatever the views of vegetarians, there will always be hunters. And they want more than sling shots and bows and arrows. Buffalo Bill used an 1863 Springfield, and rifles seem appropriate as hunting weapons, though not everyone would consider hunting to be defensible. Hunting as a sport, as opposed to hunting for sustenance as our ancestors did, is difficult to defend, at least for me. But there are many who consider it justifiable. Indeed, they see it as part of the “American Way of Life.” Human life, that is. Those who are hunted might view it differently. Even so, it doesn't seem likely that most hunters would use side arms or automatic weapons to down a deer or a rabbit. But I'm not a hunter, so I don't really know.

Nonetheless, I have another problem. The Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment sanctions the personal ownership of weapons.ⁱ So it's the law of the land. What kind of weapons? Justice Scalia tells us that “Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and 'bear,' so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchersⁱⁱ that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”ⁱⁱⁱ That's a frightening idea, but since the purpose of the amendment was to ensure “a well-regulated” militia, and there was concern about our own government, our Founding Fathers wanted to give the states and their citizens the ability to defend themselves against Federal troops.^iv The Justice noted that there were some limitations on the weapons that could be carried,^v but the principle remained.

So that's the law. It's important to note that the revulsion with guns and gun violence isn't universal. Even if most people are opposed to the free sales of weapons, police are not. A majority of law-enforcement personnel^vi favor laws permitting private ownership of weapons. Some believe that it is necessary to have guns for self-protection. After all, they argue, the criminals will continue to have guns, so law-abiding citizens need them as well. I'm not convinced. Clearly there needs to be better enforcement of existing statutes as well as harsher penalties^vii for those who possess illegal weapons, but that's better than than an increasing number of guns in the environment. Still, the Second Amendment doesn't express a need to bear arms to protect against criminals. It was for protection against the government. And perhaps the most dangerous gun owners are those who are so paranoid that they are fortified against invasion by our own troops. But it was for them that the amendment was written. Indeed, apart from the need to pay off the debts incurred in our struggle for freedom, the American Constitution only approved taxing to “provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare^viii of the United States.”^ix And our defense was to be provided by State militias rather than a standing Federal army.

So the Second Amendment and the actions of the founders of our country are completely understandable. At least in terms of the situation at the end of the eighteenth century. But times have changed. Our protection from attack is now the responsibility of the Federal armed forces, not of state militias. Those militias may be activated, but their arms will be provided by the government. Weapons that they keep at home will not be a part of their supplies. Notwithstanding the Bill of Rights, that “well-regulated militia” will be supplied by the quartermaster. And the police, who form the domestic protection corps, will also be issued weapons to carry out their duties. If privately owned guns are constitutionally authorized, it's clear that their purpose is not for the formal protection anticipated when our nation was formed.

Is there a solution to the problem?^x It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse itself, so unless the Constitution is further amended,^xi gun ownership will continue to be permitted. But regulation by the states remains as a possibility, and the first step is stricter enforcement of existing laws. Mandatory sentences for those who violate state restrictions would be desirable – especially for those who use the weapons criminally or have prior criminal records. Illegal sale of guns should justify long jail terms for those who participate in such activities, with geometrically increasing sentences as the number of weapons increases. In addition, tighter controls on licensing^xii and safety may be helpful, as will better supervision and limitation of the venues where arms sales are permitted. Gun shows, for example, should be carefully monitored and records of all sales that occur at such shows should be supplied to state authorities. Reporting requirements and background checking should be at least as strict as they are in fixed establishments. And similar regulations should apply to materials sold over the internet or through the mail.

Dealing with the situation on a state-by-state basis will be more time-consuming and expensive than by a single congressional bill, and the results will be more inconsistent, but the regulation of firearms by the states is more likely to be effectuated, notwithstanding the NRA. While that is going on, attempts should be made to amend the Constitution in a manner that will protect not only gun aficionados, but an anxious public. Weapon ownership is not a right I want to defend to the death.

Next episode: “The Olympic Spirit” – The myth and the reality.

i       District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

ii       You should be able to bring down a rabbit with that. Even Bugs Bunny.

iii       Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2012

iv     Why else would people need automatic weapons and rocket launchers?

v      And various limitations are placed by individual states.

vi      Not to mention the NRA and its members.

vii    Including mandatory sentences. Those who believe that gun ownership is necessary for their well being should go through required safety training as well as licensing.

viii   In this context, “welfare” certainly refers to protection against foreign invasion.

ix      United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

x       Whether I'm in the majority or the minority, I consider it a problem. From my perspective, the Supreme Court got it wrong. The purpose of gun possession was for the militias, and privately owned weapons are not what the military will be called upon to use. Unless they're muskets. But those are not likely to be of much use any more.

xi       Amendment of the Constitution has been proposed and attempted, but it is a difficult task. While this avenue should be followed, it seems unlikely that it will lead to a solution. Surely not in the near future.

xii     Particular attention should be paid to qualifications for the ownership of bombs and bomb-making materials, as well as ammunition, automatic weapons, and especially threatening weapons like rocket launchers. Gun ownership may be a right, but the states may legitimately regulate some aspects of that ownership.

Watch Your Language

                                                      

The battle over euphemisms and politically correct speech is all but over – to the detriment of free speech,ⁱ the English language,ⁱⁱ the United States and its citizens,ⁱⁱⁱ and common sense. Saying the “correct” thing, even if it's not accurate, is much more highly regarded than saying the “wrong” thing, even if that's what you believe and that's what is true. Our current culture places a higher value on sensitivity than saying what's on your mind. Being right is less important than being correct.

But apart from self-censorship and acceptance of the whims of society, there are a number of language changes that somehow have become embedded in our legal system. “Marriage,” for example, which most dictionaries describe as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife,”^iv now has a secondary definition based, in some areas, on the legislature and the courts. Thus, the OED^v now includes in its definition “(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.”^vi The definition, therefore, depends on where you are. That's not unusual. Language varies depending on time and place. But the variation generally reflects usage patterns rather than the law.

Similarly, the difference between “fetus” and “baby,” one with far-reaching legal implications, is a difference based on law, not science or theology. Abortion is legal, the courts tell us, even if murder is not.

But those changes and differences are not the subject of this essay.

On July 20^th, James Holmes shot a large number of people inside an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, killing twelve^vii and injuring many more. Neither he nor his attorney has denied it. "This is not a whodunit," said Craig Silverman, a former chief deputy district attorney in Denver.”^viii So the issue of what happened and the identity of the shooter are not in question.

But none of the media appears willing to say so. All of reports of the crime refer to Holmes as the “suspect” or the “accused killer,” or they speak of him as the “alleged” killer. For example, “James Holmes, theater shooting suspect, faces formal charges Monday,”^ix was the headline on the posting of WPTV, while CBS notes that “Accused Aurora Killer James Holmes Allegedly Foreshadowed Crimes.” Another headline, on ABC, boasts “James Holmes: First Video of Alleged Killer Released,”^x while the Wall Street Journal noted that the “Alleged Colorado Killer Makes Court Appearance.”^xi

It's not hard to understand what's happening. This crime is not the only example of this phenomenon. The media are unable – or unwilling – to distinguish between fact and motive, and they're fearful of the legal consequences of using the wrong words. Because of this fear they are unable to state the obvious – that James Holmes killed some people. They will not say so until it has been certified by the courts. Only then will the defendant be a killer rather than an “alleged killer” or a suspect. In the meantime the suspected victims, alleged to be dead, will be buried. Or, at least, reported to be so.

When killings occur in other countries, the media are not shy about identifying the killers, whether Syrian armed forces, Chechnyan nationalists, or the Sudanese government. There is no talk about an alleged genocide or accused killers or suspects in a massacre. No one will sue them in these cases. But the press has been terrified into using misleading language out of fear of the American legal system. Rather than report that Mr. Holmes killed the people, and the dispute centers around whether the killings constituted “murder,” there seems to be anxiety about whether the wrong man has been accused, even though no one has made that claim.

The English language is becoming the world's second language. It is being adopted as a means of communication even by those for whom it is not the native language. That is so not only because of the dominance of nations which speak it, but because it is an expressive and nuanced language. Unfortunately we are removing those nuances in order to meet the demands of pressure groups, our own guilt, and the threat of the law.

"The only possible defense is insanity." Craig Silverman said that of the upcoming trial of Mr. Holmes, but it would apply as well to the press coverage of the event, and to our own treatment of the words we speak.

Next episode: “Bang, Bang, Bang” – Getting our way.

i     If someone who hears you speak deems you insensitive, you may be subject not only to academic censure, but to charges of “hate” speech. The old saw, “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you,” has been superseded by legislative and judicial outlawing of anything “offensive.” And when they develop a way to know what we're thinking ...

ii    For example, pronouns have been neutered and gender – a linguistic term – eliminated. The previously used term to designate a single individual, “he,” has been replaced by the pleural “they,” and similar changes have been made it the various forms of pronouns. Just yesterday I heard someone say, without irony, “To each their own.”

And a ship is no longer “she,” but “it.” It cannot be denied that language changes, but this wholesale imposition of the views of some on the entire language is regrettable. Apart from other considerations, the changes sound silly. And the language, itself, is impoverished by imprecision and by lack of color. Examples are numerous but these will have to do.

iii    An outstanding student – one very bright and with great potential – was once viewed as “special” and the educational system sought ways to maximize his (or her, but certainly not “their”) potential. Today the dumb and disabled (yes, I know that I'm violating all concepts of civility, sensitivity, and correct speech) are the ones we consider special and for whom we readily dispense our resources. No child, we are told, should be left behind, but our current system also ensures that no bright child will be helped to get ahead. It's no wonder that America's place among the nations educationally is falling, and that other countries are surpassing us in technical development and scientific achievement.

iv    Merriam-Webster.  

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

v      Oxford English Dictionary.

vi       http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

vii    By the time this is published the number may change.

viii    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/colorado-shooting-suspect-to-be-formally-charged-in-aurora-movie-massacre/2012/07/30/gJQAd8ukJX_story.html

ix http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-theater-shooting-suspect-faces-formal-charges-monday

x     abcnews.go.com/ July 22, 2012.

xi    July 24, 2012.