Small Numbers, Big News

Currently in the news is the disappearance of a Indonesian airplane with 162 people aboard. It is not unreasonable to assume that it has crashed killing all aboard, but it has not yet been located.ⁱ

It's big news. Viewers and readers are eating it up. It may even convince some of them not to fly, although flying is a safe form of transportation. Between 1990 and 2000 there was one death for over twelve billion passenger miles. Actually it's the safest form of transportation. More than sixty-two drivers and riders died going the same distance and one thousand eighty-four walkers – probably from exhaustion.

Obviously the decision not to fly but to find some other form of transportation would be harmful to the airline industry, and counterproductive for the consumer. But the feeling of loss of control and a potential “all or nothing” outcome is enough to stir both the fascination and the fear of many.  So the media are all over the story.

The secret of selling newspapersⁱⁱ to a gullible public is to pull their strings and push their buttons. People look for the unusual – the unexpected. So if the headline is “Man Bites Dog” you can be sure the paper will sell. And if it's “Headless Corpse Found In Topless Bar,” the paper will need an extra edition. The more eye catching and bizarre the story and its headline, the better. Especially if it involves someone well-known. And even moreso it tears him down – politically, economically or (and this is the real attraction) sexually. Voyeurism is a big seller.

Another attraction for readersⁱⁱⁱ is the catering to their preconceived beliefs. Allege police misconduct and all the agitators will run out to get papers. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of interactions between the police and the public are beneficial, and it doesn't even matter if the allegations are not proven. That's what they want to read. Say something suggestive about a personality and the People Magazine crowd will line up;^iv describe a gory murder in an Iowa house and everyone else will read about it, and then lock their doors. The more unlikely an event, and the less likely that it will affect the reader, the greater its power to attract a big audience.^v

One thing is certain. The common doesn't sell. No one cares about what he sees every day. It's not news. No one is interested in what he experiences – only in what he fantasizes. So if he has fears that his plane may go down, now he has justification. It doesn't matter that the numbers are small. The news is big.

I        Why that is the case is not clear to me. I'm sure that all airplanes have, or could have, GPS or other satellite tracking devices that would lead searchers to the wreckage (or, less likely but more hopefully, the intact plane which has landed safely).

ii       I 'm using newspapers as the model but obviously the same is true of the other media. In all likelihood, the internet will exceed them all until the next form of communication comes along.

iii      See note number 2 (ii).

iv      Or the New York Times readers if it's a Republican.

v       Actually, if I'm talking about newspapers, “vidience” is a better word – whether or not it exists.

The Tenth Amendment And "... all the other Acts and Things ..."

OK. Let's cut to the chase.ⁱ Do you know (without checking Google) what's in the Tenth Amendment?ⁱⁱ Do you know the origin of the quotation in the title of this essay?

I didn't think so.

And that's a serious problem. The quotation, from the document that justified our severing ties with England, and the amendment from the Bill of Rights – which is part of the document by which we are governed – are unfamiliar to us at the same time that we pledge fealty to our country and what makes it great.

Our revolution was based on the belief that England, as embodied by King George III,ⁱⁱⁱ was harming us, rather than protecting us. John Locke had expounded the view that there was a Social Contract by which people accepted a government that would protect them, and that they were willing to trade some of their liberty for safety. The Founding Fathers felt that England was not living up to the bargain and it was time to change governments.

And though the threats have changed, along with the manner of addressing them, we face similar challenges today – perhaps more. We're a world power now, and besides the pressure to solve the world's problems, we're a target of the unhappy, whatever their gripe. Either we caused it or we should solve it.

Our own citizens are divided about this. They seek security but many are reluctant to make sacrifices for it.^iv For example, as the American People were panicking over the possibility of ebola – as they demanded isolation of anyone who have come in contact with an ebola patient – a nursing student refused isolation and threatened legal action against the government if it forced the issue. Who was right and who was wrong in the particular case isn't relevant. What matters is that individuals are certain that their view of matters is the one the government should follow. That applies to what we should be doing elsewhere and what we shouldn't be doing at home. Everyone is smarter than those we have chosen to represent us. We may insist that our leaders save us, but they must do so without in any way limiting our actions or our freedoms, or our inalienable right to make our own decisions. About anything.

But that's anarchy, and “anarchy” and “democracy” aren't synonyms. Many political philosophers have told us this. We instituted a government and we, in the form of our people at the time, accepted the bargain. That has implications for us, even though we weren't there. If we accept the concept of democracy we must follow the laws, changing our representation if we believe it to be failing to do its job properly. Unfortunately the government that represents us^v and is responsible to us doesn't always follow our views. Not that they should necessarily do whatever polls say is the majority view at any particular moment, but they should be aware of public sentiment and, if they disagree with it, they should publicly inform their constituencies of their reasoning and their positions. That would provide us with the chance to learn about the situations and their thinking, making our next votes better grounded. We chose them and we may pass judgment on their performance at the next election. But until then we are bound by the laws they have passed.

However well we know their views – even if not at all – they're well informed of ours, whether we like it or not. The Constitution forbade quartering, torture, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. All were ways of gathering information then. We agreed that they were not warranted.^vi Now hidden cameras, telephone taps, monitoring of our internet and social media messages, and other similar techniques are in use. And that raises an important question: what rights did we give up, and what rights are we willing to surrender in order to be safe? Do we want the government to have access to our communications?

The Constitution, as it was written, was obviously silent on modern information gathering techniques, but we have chosen to extend the original concept with the times. Unfortunately, however, those who challenge our liberty have also moved with the times – both in their ways of planning and in their ways of waging war. Of course we reject any action that would make us like them. Their ways are not our ways. They use the telephone and the internet to communicate with each other and to spy on us. But we will not sink to their level. We have completely unlinked our demand for safety from any willingness to sacrifice for it. And those who would destroy us are entitled to the same rights as we, even if they have no compunctions about what they do with those rights and how they exploit us.

So now, as beheadings, other murders, rapes, and abductions are becoming common elsewhere, we “deplore” them.^vii But often that's all we do. The perpetrators vow to continue their mayhem – even on our own soil. One response, the Patriot Act (and some less publicized actions by our government) promotes surveillance and electronic monitoring as methods to neutralize the threat, although many of or citizens protest. They would eliminate all monitoring as invasions of our privacy. But it is reasonable to view such surveillance as a part of the protection that we demand of our government. It is, after all, the government's responsibility to “provide for the common Defence [sic] … of the United States” and this is one of the mechanisms that it uses. If we believe there to be problems with the program it is incumbent on us to so inform our representatives and to elect others if necessary – to work within the system, not to destroy it, and ourselves in the process.

I don't think we're ready to change governments yet. I know I'm not. So if I have to give up some of my privacy to protect myself, I'm willing to do so. I don't think it's the “slippery slope” that's going to lead to tyranny, but even if it is we have more time to address it than we have to deal with the clear and present dangers we now face.

Next episode: “Do You Really Think So?” – Better not to think about it.

I        The catch-phrase derives from the inevitable chase scene at the end of silent-movie comedies and is usually attributed to Hal Roach, Sr.

ii       I'll let you look it up – and the quotation (from the Declaration of Independence) as well. I suspect that I could have chosen another amendment and another quotation and obtained the same result. The specifics of the amendment and the quotation weren't the point. More important is the fact that we haven't been properly educated on their significance.

iii      Look up “syndoche” as well.

iv       Or they are moved by what they consider a “higher” cause.

v       We the People.

vi       Although we permit some searches now when properly warranted.

vii      We're reluctant to do much more.

In Praise Of Homosexuality

Homosexualityⁱ is the answer.

What, you ask, is the question? Fair enough. But let's begin with some facts. No. First comes disclosure. I'm heterosexual. I blush to admit it since it's not fashionable at the present, but I have to place Truth above my embarrassment. OK. Now that's out of the way.

Facts:

There's a lot of homosexuality in the world. Conservative estimates place the number at between one and two percent. So that means that there probably are at least 100 million individualsⁱⁱ who would so identify themselves. That doesn't include the bisexual and trans-sexual population – but who's counting.

Same sex bonding, moreover, is not limited to humans. According to Wikipedia,

“Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom. As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.”

We're not alone.

Homosexual behavior has existed as long as people have. Longer when you consider its presence in other species. It was prominent in ancient societies and must have been sufficiently influential a few millennia ago that the Bible had to spend a lot of time excoriating its practitioners. And the disrepute resulting from theological sources, as well as the psychological reactions of non-participants, resulted in widespread condemnation by the governments of societies around the world. In some placesⁱⁱⁱ sodomy merits the death penalty – even today. In many lands it is simply ignored, although some cultures celebrate it. It's unlikely that you'll get through an evening of television or the movies without seeing homosexual characters or hearing homosexual themes – usually in an approving manner. Yet it wasn't until 2003^iv that the United States Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, and the battle over same-sex marriage is still going on. (Back to disclosure. As I said in a previous essay,^v I'm opposed to homosexuality because of the hijacking of the language. “Marriage,” “gay,” and “partner,” for example have been twisted into words with very different meanings from the past, though the use of new words with more specific meanings could have preserved past definitions in a recognizable way. The practice itself is of no interest to me and I have enough problems of my own without involving myself in those of its adherents.)

However it doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean to judge the specific behavior of members of the LGBTQ community. It's the biology that confuses me. I've learned that it's nature, not nurture, that is the background of homosexuality, and that it's not a disease but a normal condition. But what is its origin?

If it's an inborn characteristic as current teaching tells us, it is governed by genetics. And beyond that, it should be ruled by the precepts of evolution. That means that the characteristic is heritable, and its persistence suggests that it is beneficial to the continuation of our species.^vi Which doesn't make all that much sense. Homosexual unions are un(re)productive, and if the behavior is not taught, it is unclear how it can be transmitted. It should be self-limited, and it should have disappeared a long time ago. But it didn't.

Is that proof that evolution doesn't work? That it is an intriguing, but false, concept? Does it prove that homosexuality is part of a Divine Plan? That the Creator wants homosexuality to persist? Or perhaps it indicates that there are mutations that occur frequently enough to keep the number of homosexuals constant. Whatever.

If it is part of a Divine Plan, however, it's one we might consider imitating.  As I've noted before,^vii we should be encouraging homosexuality and homosexual unions because they are of benefit to the world. One of the major problems we face is the threat of overpopulation and one solution is obvious – sterile unions. Same-sex unions, or whatever else you want to call them. Whether we can relate to their “life-style” or not, they are clearly doing a service for the rest of us, and for that we should be grateful. We may have a question, but we also have an answer.  The question is about the past.  The answer is about the future.

Next episode: “The Tenth Amendment And “ … all the other Acts and Things … ” --  You know what I mean.





 

i         When I use the term I'm referring to all the variants of same-sex bonding, gender dysphoria, and the like. It's just easier to use a single word, even though I realize that the varieties have many differences.

ii        Give or take a few tens or hundreds of millions.

iii       For example countries ruled by Sharia law.

iv       Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

v        “It Goes Without Saying,” November 28, 2010

vi       That's what natural selection is all about.

vii      “The New Paradigm,” July 27, 2014. Actually, much of what I'm saying here I've said before. But I never considered the place of evolution in the equation, though its role is uncertain. Nor have I considered mutation as a cause of homosexuality.

Nota Bene

Reality has raised its ugly head. I've been doing this now for over four years and my list of potential subjects keeps getting long faster than I can publish. I admit that some of the subjects are really repetitious – but I've said that before. Anyway, it's become obvious to me that I'll never be able to write about all the things that interest or bother me. So I thought I'd offer some of them to the few readers of these essays. (And I'll do so about once a month from now on – at least until I stop doing so.) If you'd like to use one, for fiction or non-fictional setting, let me know using the comment option below and I'll make sure that others don't use it as well.ⁱ Some are story ideas and others are subjects for essaysⁱⁱ – but don't let my preconceived notions govern the use that you have in mind. And I'd love to read your discussions of the subjects. Since I'm unlikely to ever get to them anyway I may, in this way, get the clarification of the issues that I seek. I'll try to mix up the subject matter in each offering. To wit:

1. Scientists tell us that the “Big Bang” was a random event – a “singularity” – and before it happened, time didn't exist.ⁱⁱⁱ If that's the case, however unlikely the event, it could happen again, at least theoretically, perhaps next Tuesday.

Suppose it did happen a second time, some distance away from earth.^iv What physical impact would that have? And when? What would be the implications of a new start of time? Would that apply to us or only to the new universe? How would our belief systems be affected?

2. What goes through the mind of someone involved in the manufacture of an item whose “proper” use will certainly injure or kill a percentage of the users? Tobacco products are certainly convenient examples, but they are hardly unique in this respect. Alcohol and pharmaceuticals are other commodities from which a certain number of deaths are predictable. Drug manufacturers warn us all the time of the side effects^v as they encourage us to discuss our using their potions with our doctors.

Justification may take the form of cost/benefit balance^vi or by the citation of other products or industries that also exist despite the certain knowledge of the casualties they will cause. Automobiles and airplanes are two such products, and construction (of bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers, etc.) is a dangerous industry. How does the executive, or even the low-level worker in the industry, justify his actions?

3. How would you react, after having to rebuild portions of your house twice because it is in a flood plain, if the government offered to buy you out, tear down the building, and turn the area into wetlands? The house is where you were born, and the area is the only home you have ever known. Your parents lived here and they left it to you. It is their heritage, one that you intended to leave to your own children. All of your friends are from around here, although some of them may sell and leave. Do you owe it to your heirs to stay or to go?

4. Suppose a society that practices cannibalism subjects a citizen of a “retentionist” (of capital punishment) country to its practice. Suppose, then, that a member of that society visits, as a tourist, the country of origin of the victim, and his own citizenship is noted. Should the culture of the society that produced cannibals be respected as a valid choice? Should the cannibal be tried and executed? Are there absolutes or is everything relative? Is cannibalism permissible? What about capital punishment? Would the “appropriate” remedy be any different if the cannibalism were performed in the “enlightened” country or does the cultural background of the individual justify his acts wherever he is?

I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner. That will surely cut down on the backlog of subjects I have compiled for discussion.

Next episode: “In Praise Of Homosexuality” – There are two sides to every question.

I        We can also discuss any mutually beneficial arrangements relating to the use of my ideas.

ii       Some may be single sentences or short questions. You'll see.

iii      I must admit that I have difficulty with the entire concept – at least its details if not its occurrence – but that's neither here nor there. I'll deal with that separately however, and in a manner that doesn't affect the issues raised here.

iv      The distance could be one mile, fifteen billion light years, or somewhere in-between. I don't know if the effects on our planet would be different depending on the distance, or if the event itself would cancel out any previous beginnings (I hesitate to say “Creations,” however this might be a consideration in the mind of the writer).

v       Including death.

vi      Cigarettes, for example, might be defended because of the “pleasure” they give to their (addicted) users or because of the beneficial economic impact of he industry.

We The People

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is undeniable. But there were wise men before them and there have been wise men (and women) subsequently.

Their achievement in writing the Constitution is general proof of their wisdom, but more specifically they recognized their own limitations, and they provided for the updating of their labors. The incorporation of a mechanism to do so is a demonstration of their love for the new country, and their dedication and determination that it be vibrant and responsive to its citizens for the foreseeable future. And if we don't utilize the tool they gave us to do so we deny their wisdom and foresight. They made it difficult – possibly out of fear that the mechanism would be overused. Nonetheless, Article V gives specific steps which could be utilized in the amendment process and, although the process is difficult, it could – and I think should – be made easier and more frequent, although this, itself, would have to be done by amendment. And that, perhaps, is where we should start.

As I noted at the outset, there have been wise people since the Constitution was written, and they are certainly more familiar with modern social mores and technology than our beloved Founding Fathers. Currently interpretation of the existing document might yield answers to the conundrums we face, but interpretations often contradict each other, and contradictory rulings are both confusing and productive of errors. Moreover while many learned scholars tell us that we should follow the original intent of those who wrote the document, they often disagree as to what that intent was.

Complicating the process is the fact that things move faster now than they did then – especially technology – and, in addition to greater speed regarding the actions performed under the laws, more frequent tweaking of the document itself is needed. Thus Inauguration Day, originally the fourth of March to allow for travel from the President-Elect's residence to the place of inauguration after the election, was changed by the Twentieth Amendment in 1933 to January twentieth. With better roads and faster vehicles, less time was needed.ⁱ

March fourth is only a single example, but the reality is that the world has changed markedly since 1789. However the Constitution – the law by which we live – hasn’t kept up. Should computers and the internet have a place in the election process? Is the current election cycle counterproductive? Do our system of checks and balances, and the relative strength of the branches, need reformulation? Should the bureaucracy be eliminated or better regulated? Do any of the “interpretations” of the law that have been adopted over the centuries need to be memorialized or disavowed? Should the courts be able to decide what Congress and American citizens meant when they voted? There are more questions, but you get the point.

Whether public opinion should play a significant role in the process is something that would certainly spur disagreement, but my view is that those who set the rulesⁱⁱ are elitist, and have too wide a set of (often personal) priorities to be allow any real choice for voters. Voting yes or no, as we do for an individual, doesn't permit the expression of views on particular issues. Not all of those issues rise to the level of constitutional questions, but a system allowing for the popular expression of opinion on fundamental matters may, in the future, provide for legislative choices as well. I think, moreover, that people in the twenty-first century are as wise as those in the eighteenth, and have the advantage of knowing the results of the original words. So I wish to present a proposal aimed at modernizing what has been a superb basis for American civilization, but which may benefit from the recognition of current views and tools.

In order for the plan to work, it would be necessary to start with the current amendment process for which I suggest the following:

In addition to the mechanisms listed in Article V, a method shall be established to allow for the initiation of amendments by all citizens, with acceptance by favorable popular votes in three-fourths of the states. The details of the voting process, and the definition of passage of any proposal, shall be set by the legislatures of the individual states prior to any balloting.

Congressional and Executive approval of such amendments is not needed for such amendments to be effective.

Polling regarding such popular initiatives shall occur in the first year divisible by four following each census.

If such an amendment were to be passed, it might be necessary to limit the number of proposed changes in each voting cycle – especially the first – since every interest group would rush to suggest changes, and the larger the number of proposals, the more likely people will be to ignore the whole process. Steps would have to be considered regarding the input of groups, rather than citizens, although, perhaps, the definition of an individual as opposed to a groupⁱⁱⁱ might, itself, require legislation.

Prior to the states taking over the voting process, a national debate should be entered to determine what topics would be subject to vote. Where possible the use of modern technology would be employed with access for all to computer systems in the libraries and other public buildings. Over a period of time, citizens might list their areas of interest and the basic problem with each in a way that a computer program could compile them, listing the top concerns of the people.

Proposed amendments^iv could then be offered for review and discussion^v over electronic media^vi with some kind of process formulated to select the top three^vii proposals regarding each question for vote. The selection of the proposals that will be on the ballot could take place over a period of time, but a fixed final date should be set for a decision about which options would be placed on the ballot for the election chosen by the previous amendment.^viii

Problems remain. The always do in a democracy. It will be necessary to protect the minority from the majority, and those who believe in democracy from those who would use it against itself. And we would all have to protect ourselves against the interest groups that might want to use the Constitution to promote their own programs. But we are a thoughtful and resourceful people, and ways to do so can be created. Times have changed and so must we.

Next episode: “Nota Bene” – Your turn.

I       The winning candidate could get to Washington today in a much shorter time, but time to rest after the election and time to organize a government and work out program proposals make shortening of the process in my opinion (wait, everything in these essays is my opinion) undesirable.

ii       Then and now. (Substitute “were” for “are” – and other past tenses – when thinking about the founders.)

iii      And, of course, the definition of when does a person attain that status, as opposed to a fetus.

iv      Length not to exceed 100 words or some other arbitrary number that would permit individuals to read and understand them.

v        In addition to the merits of the proposal itself, there may be views expressed about the costs and about unintended consequences.

vi       Or whatever else might be available in the future.

vii       That's an arbitrary number and another may be chosen.

viii     On June 22, 1788, the ninth state (New Hampshire) approved the Constitution, which was all that was needed to ratify it. It makes sense to memorialize that event as Constitution Day, and decide on further amendments then.

Garnering Favor

It was announced yesterday that no bill was returned by the grand jury that had been investigating the “choke-hold” death of Eric Garner by a New York City policeman. The failure to indict him for any offense – murder, manslaughter, negligence, etc. – is troubling. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's troubling. 

A few days ago I wrote about a death in Ferguson, Missouri which I regretted, but viewed the community response as regrettable. I'm not inclined to write about the subject again, but the issues are different and the differences are worth pondering. Rather than flesh them out, I have simply outlined some of the thoughts that came to mind in response to the news. I leave it to the reader to consider them and reach his or her own conclusions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Background. There have been several recent deaths of unarmed blacks. There is a history of lynchings and lesser (but severe) prejudice in the United States. There is a high incidence of crime and statistically high numbers of criminals in minority neighborhoods.

The situation at hand.

Eric Garner

          His personal past and background
          There is no indictment of the officer who killed him
          Nature of his “offense”
          His reaction to the stop

Policeman

          Training – Would his actions have been different with a white defendant?
          Experience
          Prejudices
          Was he appropriately vindicated, or was he whitewashed because he was a                         white policeman and the victim was black?

Grand Jury Procedures

          What does a grand jury do?
          Who may testify?
          What evidence is permitted?
          What examination is permitted by attorneys for the state and for the defendant?
          How hard did the state's attorney try to get an indictment?

Grand Jury Members
          Composition of panel in terms of sex and race
          Their charge and the instructions to them
          Their authority
          Prejudices

Grand Jury Officials

          Judge
          Prosecuting attorney
          Defendant's attorney

Finality of action – Could another grand jury indict him?

Responses

          Community
                     Peaceful protest – lawful and warranted
          Justice Department
                    Additional investigation re: civil rights violation – appropriate?
          Is it second-guessing the grand jury?
          Is it double jeopardy?
          Should an investigation center on training methods – the system not the individual?

What is the relationship between the police (and government in general) and the community?

Is a white policeman automatically guilty in the black community?

Is he automatically innocent in the white community?

To what degree do minority rights and the desire to get the votes of the minority and their supporters “wag the dog?” Can elected officials not respond to the outcries of the community irrespective of the issues of right and wrong? Should they? Is another investigation warranted? Or is the administration garnering favor by favoring Garner?

Off With Her Head

`Idiot!' said the Queen, tossing her head impatiently; and, turning to Alice, she went on, `What's your name, child?'

`My name is Alice, …

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her a moment like a wild beast, screamed `Off with her head! Off--'ⁱ

... 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first – verdict afterwards.' ...ⁱⁱ

Shoot first, ask questions afterward.ⁱⁱⁱ

These are some of the ideas that have come to mind in recent days, in light of the decision of a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury not to indict a policeman who had killed an unarmed man, and in respect to the the riots and demonstrations that both preceded and followed that decision.^iv I don't know whether proper grand jury procedures were applied in this instance and I can't judge the facts of the case, but I do know that from a legal point of view the matter is settled. Demonstrations are going on all around the country, but it is contrary to our heritage to view someone as guilty until proved innocent. But that is what is happening.

It doesn't mean that no action can or should be taken. It only reinforces the principle which teaches us the problem that has to be dealt with in a way that offers a remedy that addresses the legal system – not the specific defendant. At least in terms of the response of the community at large. Certainly the family of an individual killed may decide to pursue relief based on civil violations, but the grand jury has already decided that there is no criminal case. From the standpoint of the law, no crime was committed. 

Those who believe that wrong was perpetrated may also involve themselves in peaceful civil disobedience, but they should be prepared to face prescribed legal penalties. The injuring of others, and the destruction of property, don't fall into the category of peaceful civil disobedience, and those who participate in that kind of activity are likely to be more interested in personal gain than in any attempt to correct a system that they view as oppressive. What they do represents a kind of general lashing out – venting rather than correcting. Perhaps that response is warranted psychologically,^v but it cannot be accepted in a democratic society.

Rioting is not the answer. When O. J. Simpson was acquitted there was no rioting by those convinced of his guilt. And there was none earlier – either before the trial or as it was taking place. Our laws call for an orderly and peaceful resolution of legal disputes, and that was the charge of the grand jury. Our legal system may be flawed, but its repair should be by legal means.

The decision as to the only acceptable outcome prior to a legal opinion being rendered, and the determination that justice wasn't done if the desired result is not reached, makes a mockery of the concept of presumed innocence. Presumed guilt is not an acceptable alternative. It is not a situation where affirmative action requires the conviction of the accused irrespective of the evidence.

There is a wide chasm between law enforcement and large segments of the community, and there are many reasons for it. Most significant among those reasons is an apparent failure of the legal system to provide the justice it promises. There is a perception – often valid – that those charged with enforcing the law are using it for their own purposes, and as a shield for their own prejudices. These are problems that call for rapid resolution, but that cannot be achieved by lawless behavior and the refusal to provide assistance in the investigation of crime. And it cannot be solved through the instigation of demonstrations by those whose political objectives are best served by unrest – people who wander the country looking for situations they can exploit. Reasoned discussion is more likely to provide an answer than violence. There are those who are experiencing the marginalization of large segments of their community, and there are others who feel the fear that ambiguous situations may cause. And those feelings are present among all who are involved. There is much to discuss and much that can be done. Legally.

In the meantime, however, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And don't break it either.

I        Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. Chapter 8.

ii       Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. Chapter 12.

iii      The best reference for an origin that I could find was by “Smoky Stover” who wrote in response to a question about its source: “I don't know the answer, but there's a widespread opinion, including my own, that it has a connection with the American 'Wild West.' If you Google the phrase, you won't find the first to use it, but you'll find references to cowboy days.” It is usually understood to mean “Don't take any chances. Act now and sort out the details later.”

iv       And those related to too many previous instances.

v        Viewing the deaths as an expression of lynching may justify demonstrations; it may provide a reason for protests; it may warrant the lobbying or replacement of public officials; but it does not legitimize anarchy. It may be prudent for law enforcement officers to permit a degree of lawlessness while people are “letting off steam,” but it remains lawlessness.

They The People

“If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate.”ⁱ

That was then. 1775. Fourteen years later the United States also became a nation of laws, not men, when a constitution was written. True, there had been laws but they were not considered to be adequate. So a convention was called in order to correct the problems of the Articles of Confederation but those assembled produced a new, and far more effective instrument. It is the Constitution of the United States, under which we have lived for two and a quarter centuries.

It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise document. No one was completely happy, but all accepted it as the best they could get at the time. At the time. That's what a compromise is. There were conflicting opinions and competing “parties”ⁱⁱ and, in order to compose a document that would get the backing of enough of the participants, it was necessary to include the views of all of them – at least to some degree.

And, in order to get a sufficient number of the new States to sign on, it was necessary to agree to further additions.ⁱⁱⁱ But the constitution they had written took into consideration the likelihood that changes would be necessary in the future, and instructions were included for amendment. It's not easy – there have been only sixteen amendments in the 223 years since adoption of the Bill of Rights – but it can be done.

The question, however, is whether it should be done. Some feel that any attempt to change the document will result in a great deal of dissension in our country. The Founding Fathers were wise and they wrote a timeless document. The real problem is that we tinker with it rather than enforcing it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Follow it.

Others believe that it is broke. The original constitution may have been appropriate in its time, but that time has passed. The Founding Fathers (propertied white males), brilliant as they were, anticipated neither a country of this size and complexity nor the technology that now exists. Whether or not they agree with current interpretations, any changes should be written in rather than inferred. And questions remain: what does the Second Amendment mean?; should the President, whose authority was very limited in the original,^iv have the powers assumed by holders of the office?; what is the place of the bureaucracy in our current government^v and what should it be?; do the currently prescribed terms of office and the current election schedule make sense?^vi; should the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of what Congress meant, as it has asserted?^vii,viii And there are numerous other unanticipated issues which might be addressed head on. From their perspective, now is the time for a new compromise – new amendments or a new constitutional convention.

As I mentioned, changing the Constitution is no easy matter, but it can be done. Should it, though? Whether or not public opinion favors alteration or upgrading of the present document, there are considerations other than text that must be considered. What would be the mechanism of change? How can we incorporate the concept of "consent of the governed" in that new document and in the procedure to formulate it? Is there the possibility that the process will be compromised by fraud? Will "rich lobbyists" dominate the discussion of the proposals? Should the political season be limited? Does public involvement raise the specter of majority rule at the expense of the minority?

These are just a few of the many questions that come to mind when considering the reopening of this great document,^ix but it seems clear, since they provided for it, that the Founding Fathers both approved of, and expected, changes to be necessary. Until such time that it is done, however, it is incumbent on all of us to follow the rules that now exist, whether we agree with all of them or not. I don't, but we're a nation of laws, not men, and the ones that exist now are the ones we all have to live by.

In the next essay I'll offer some ideas about changing the Constitution. Perhaps some of them are feasible.

Next episode: “We The People” – It's time for a change.

I        John Adams, Novanglus Essay Number 7, 1775.

ii        Actually there were no parties at the time, but there were two main bodies of thought comparable to the parties we have today.

iii       The Bill of Rights.

iv       Out of fear that he would assume the role of King. They had suffered greatly at the hands of George III. They suffered at the hands of Parliament as well, but they feared the King more. Thus they made Congress primary (Article I) and the Presidency relatively weak (in Article II).

v        It has been termed “the fourth branch of government” by some (analogous to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches established by the Constitution – the maker of most of the rules by which we are governed), but that term has also been applied to lobbyists and other interest groups.

vi      See “Cancel the Midterms,” David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan (New York Times, November 3, 2014)

vii     The writers of the Constitution had relatively little to say about the Judiciary, and they dealt with it after the Legislative and Executive branches (in Article III). There was no clue in the Constitution that it would take on the power it now has.

viii   Indeed. Will Supreme Court view Constitutional change as constitutional? Especially if it weakens them.

ix      Can of worms?

The Anniversary

Today is November 29^th, 2014. It is the 67^th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's approval of “Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine.” Included in that resolution was provision for the establishment of “[i]ndependent Arab and Jewish States.” It called for a “Jewish” state. The United Nations General Assembly authorized the formation of a Jewish state.

The Jewish government-in-formation accepted the plan, although there were some who felt that by doing so they gave away some land that should have been part of a new state, since it had been ordained by G-d to be theirs. The “Arab” statesⁱ unanimously rejected any division, with the view that any Jewish state in their region was unacceptable.

For its entire historyⁱⁱ the State of Israel has been under attack by its neighbors, and by the world at large. In 1947 a majority of the UN may have approved the formation of a Jewish state, and in 1949, based in part on a recommendation of the Security Council, it may have admitted Israel to membership,ⁱⁱⁱ but the Arab nations have taught their children that Israel and the Jews are their enemy and that it is their^iv obligation to give their lives to destroy “the sons of pigs and monkeys.” And, benefiting from their numbers and from their oil, they have launched an extensive campaign^v to isolate and destroy Israel. The world has funded this effort with its contribution of billions of dollars, ostensibly for the improvement of the lives of the Palestinian people, but somehow not finding its way into that work.^vi The work the Palestinian officials do is far more important.

It is of interest that there is much concern among the nations that Israel may define itself as what the United Nations sought to form: a Jewish State. According to Wikipedia, “A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.” It lists twenty-one countries as Islamic.^vii There are also several with one variety or other of Christianity defining them or with Buddhism as the state religion, and this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. But Israel's claim is racist and a cause for outrage around the world. One Jewish state is too many.

It doesn't seem likely that there will be resolution of the problem in the near future – if ever. A few million people in a tiny land, however dominant they may be militarily at this time, cannot hope to prevail forever. Even if Israel were to find a substitute for oil^viii it would still have only one vote against dozens of Islamic states, and those states would be courted by the world's nations; and even if Israel could mount an informational campaign to illustrate the falsity of the accusations against it, there would be countless people who would continue to believe and spread the libels. It would take Israel's demise, and that of all Jews, with the world's problems continuing, to make it clear that in reality there are other causes which they are ignoring. But by that time it will be too late, and they will still believe that somehow or other the Jews were the cause of the troubles. Unfortunately, there is no obvious answer. Unless ...

Billions support them. All we need is One.

I        For the most part they are led and peopled by Muslims, but there are a few others as well.

ii       And before. Of course prior to 1948, when the state was declared, the aim of annihilation was directed at the Jews in general – by the Christians and the Muslims. That aim has, since the Holocaust, and since overt anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion, been directed against Israel. At least nominally.

iii      “Admission of Israel to the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), 11 May 1949”

iv       Primarily Muslims.

v        In the media, in public and political fora, on college campuses (including both faculty and students), among church leadership, and in those in whom they recognize the existence or potential for anti-Semitism.

vi       Much of it seems to have disappeared, so Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are seeking additional funding from nations around the world.

vii     The Organisation [sic] of Islamic Cooperation, which considers itself "the collective voice of the Muslim world,” comprises 57 member states. Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Pakistan are officially “Islamic Republics,” and others limit participation in any substantive aspect of public life of any but Muslims.

viii    And I suspect it will. Israel is a modern technological island in the middle of an area focused on the medieval era and its practices.