Various Thoughts XVI

Today – October 31, 2017 – is the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It recalls the nailing of Martin Luther's 95 theses to his church's door. What is the significance to Catholics? To Protestants? Does its appearance on Halloween indicate anything positive or negative? What was the significance of Halloween during the sixteenth century? Was Luther trying to make a point by posting his complaints on this date or was it strictly a random choice?

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

That was written a few days ago, but while going through old notes I found some thoughts I had written a few years ago, on November 10^th, the anniversary of Kristallnacht – much more recent, than 1517 – a time when history records numerous deaths and other evidences of vehemence rather than simply an expression of theological views. What I wrote then noted the fact that I found no mention of that more recent violent event in the New York Times. Martin Luther was an antisemite, there's no doubt about that, but he left it to others to do the dirty work.

The Times was first published in 1851 and has been owned since 1896 by a German-Jewish family. The culture of the German-Jewish community was to be American – to flount Judaism – to minimize its significance – rather than flaunt it. And though founded as a conservative organ, it is now a proudly liberal publication (it last supported a Republican for president during the Eisenhower era) and, like all good “modern liberals,” it is Pro “Palestinian” (anti-Israeli) and mildly antisemitic. That, however, isn't new. During the Holocaust the Times didn't show much interest in that historic issue. It did its own dirty work then, before, and since.

Antisemitism has existed for millennia. It wasn't started by the New York Times. But the “Gray Lady,” America's “newspaper of record,” has an obligation to be objective. It isn't.

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

The Houston Astros won the World Series last night. It was the first time since their establishment in 1962. (That was the first year for the Mets as well.) In fact it was the first time that any Texas team has done that.

Over the years there has been a discrepancy in the fortunes of the various athletic teams – in baseball the real hero has been the New York Yankees, although other New York teams (including the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, the New York Mets) get a lot of attention because of this city's media predominance.

But the big driver of our sports teams – college as well as professional – is money.

Sports makes money.

That's not a surprise. You knew it. And you paid the money. Ticket sales, with prices going up annually, and the profits they produce, provide the impetus for the problem. The bigger the city, the more people who fund those profits, and the more money available for the unseemly salaries earned by sports figures.

Can there be an equalization of salaries? Should there be? Or at least an equalization of talent. Should sports “scholarships” be forbidden? Right now the attitude is that we have a free society. So suck it up and pay for the ticket.

Perhaps that's the proper position. But the economics of sports might benefit from a thorough review.

November 2,2017

Bully For You

We are a society that is confused. We have conflicting views both about the value of life and the conditions that justify its ending. (The end justifies the end.)

And the confusion – or better the inconsistency of our views – is manifested in very contrary ways. There are those who cry out loudly at the possibility of abortion, while promoting the death penalty and supporting the gun industry, and others who favor abortion and assisted suicide but consider the death penalty as sanctioned murder. Of course, there are some who are more consistent in their outlooks, but they're not newsworthy.

The rewards for the killers of animals are often higher, and the outrage louder, than for humans. We've come to accept the death of our fellow men as usual. In times of war the body counts may be in the thousands or tens of thousands – and sometimes large multiples of these. Unfortunate, but c'est la guerre. And we, in America, rarely face war ourselves. We even pay “volunteers” to fight and die for us when a conflict arises abroad. We can express our views without any personal risk. Medals aren't that expensive.

War at home, however, is more chancy for the average citizen. According to the New York Times (not the most reliable of sources, but I'll leave that for another time): “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities.” And the murderer is often caught, but that presents us with a new problem – what do you do with him (or her)? What should be the penalty for murder? In 2007 the United Nations (like the Times, quite unreliable despite our hopes) called for a moratorium on the death penalty (Resolution 62/149). According to Wikipedia (itself not the most reliable of sources, but you get the point) there are 102 countries that proscribe it entirely, with an additional seven countries that only permit it for war crimes. Nonetheless, there are still 87 countries around the world that permit it under some circumstances. The majority of our own states still permit it, although many of them have not practiced capital punishment in recent years. (And the Bible permits it for certain offenses.)

But the reality – that of the existence of capital punishment – raises the question of whether it should be practiced at all. Some family members of individuals murdered would forgive the killers, but the majority are less understanding. Whether they seek vengeance, or simply justice, they call for the punishment – often the execution of those who have taken their loved ones. And they fear the possibility that the killer will one day escape or be released, or that he will murder again either in the prison or outside.
However there are many who believe that the government should not be involved in killing people, and that our tax money should not be used to support such a practice. They argue, quite convincingly, that there are inequities in its application, plea bargains by those who can afford good lawyers, and there have been instances when innocent people have been executed. Their primary solution to these problems is imprisonment – often a life sentence without the possibility of parole. That, in their view, is more humane. 

But is it? Or is it cruel and unusual punishment? What would be the perspective of a twenty-year-old who knew that he would die in prison after years of abuse by other prisoners and by sadistic prison guards? Would the prospect of fifty years of bullying affect the thinking of someone who already felt guilty for taking the life of another person? And if he preferred to die, would we let him? We may favor assisted suicide in general, but might prohibit it in this instance, believing that our government should play no part in the taking of a life. (Only the free are entitled to kill themselves.) Not only that, but there are many who would argue that lifetime imprisonment with no hope of anything but solitary confinement or bullying is fitter punishment of a murderer than letting him off the hook immediately. Perhaps this perspective contributes to the frequency, by murderers, of “suicide by cop.”    (Admit it.  You're opposed to the death penalty because you think that life in prison is crueler, and more deserved.)

The pragmatic, discarding emotion, may balance the costs of lifetime imprisonment and execution, remembering that the latter, if not the former, would be accompanied by years of appeals – some mandatory – placing a great burden on the judiciary. It would be cheaper not to seek, try, or punish murderers, and that would also eliminate the possibility of convicting the wrong person. If the family suffered because of the lack of closure it would be a necessary and acceptable forfeiture on their part to favor the economic and ethical needs of the community. As would the losses suffered by the families of additional victims of murderers. And there is plenty of room for debate over whether the possibility of capital punishment has any preventive effect on future crimes.

It is too much to expect anyone to view all killing as wrong, or to caution against any. War will always exist as will the call for defense, rather than turning the other cheek.  For both soldiers and civilians we allow murder, and even encourage it, during war.  (We cannot forget the firebombing of Dresden and other cities, the atom bomb, and the refusal to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, in addition to the straightforward killing of enemy combatants.)  Whether abortion is acceptable will also remain a subject of debate as will euthanasia and suicide. But remaining blind to the justifications, various implications, and results of particular kinds of killing is not a service to the community. 

 And, when dealing with individuals convicted of murder, "sensitivity" and "understanding" are not always services to them, or to the families of those murdered.

Next episode: “Love And Marriage” – And all the variations thereof.