What's In A Name?

They're reading the list right now. It's September 11^th. And when two hijacked planes destroyed its towers in 2001, 2,753 people were killed. There were additional people killed in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Each year we read the names of the victims of this act of war.

While most were our own citizens, there were many from places around the world. It was an act targeting not only Americans, but the entire world. The perpetrators were killed as well, though they chose their own fates, believing they were martyrs for a holy cause. It's harder to track down those who planned the attack however that is and has been a goal of our government ever since.

But back to the names. The reading is going on as I write. What does it accomplish? Is it appropriate in view of the events, or simply an emotional act meant to pacify the relatives and friends of the deceased? Should the practice go on in perpetuity? The reading of names has been extended to other similar tragedies, although none matches the horror with which we remember this one.

But millions died in the second world war. Millions died in the various bouts of “ethnic cleansing,” the African genocides, and numerous other similar catastrophes. Many of the same unnatural fates are suffered in annihilations all over the world every day. But we don't read their names. We may, from time to time, commemorate the events surrounding their murders but we don't read their names. It would be impossible to do so because we don't know all of their names. If we did the amount of time necessary for the recital would preclude any such act. And those events didn't happen in our country. Only 9/11 did.

But the Civil War did. And like the natural disasters, like the hurricanes just past and those still occurring, and like the calamities that have occurred in the past, it did not result in any such ceremonies and name readings. And it would be a sad commentary on our own level of compassion if our only concern were for the lives of our own people. Without in any way minimizing the tragedy of our lives lost, however – without questioning the heroic nature of their final moments – the significance of reading their names is problematic. Certainly it is meaningful to loved ones, but so would the reading of names of those dying under other circumstances. Yet we do not do so. It's a private matter.

There are several reasons why this particular incident resonates. It occurred as a part of the attack by terrorists on the “civilized” world. It could have happened to us as individuals. A large part of the reaction echoes the idea that “there but for the grace of G-d go I.” We are angry that we were attacked, but relieved that we were not directly affected. Except for the families of those who died. They were affected.

So in gratitude we honor those who perished. We do so, for the most part, not just for their benefit, nor as an expression of our patriotism – our love for America and hatred of our enemies – but because “it could have been me.” Reading their names is the least we can do.

As the years go by, however, fewer and fewer will remember the attack, fewer will remember the victims, and more and more will be bored and confused at the attention being given to people who in reality mean nothing to them. And fewer will attend any commemoration of their lives. It's already happening regarding the Holocaust. Millions died in the evil of that inhumane calamity, but the annual commemorations of the tragedy are attracting fewer and fewer attendees. It's history. People no longer connect. Especially the young.

9/11 was a catastrophe. The people were important. But their names weren't. It's far more important that we teach our children about the events and why they are to be remembered than the names of those who perished. We're saddened by their loss and we're grateful to them, but their names are not the issue. We didn't know them.

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare knew that the experience was what counted, not what we called it.

We cannot forget the attack. We're saddened by what happened sixteen years ago. But less so by the names of the victims. Were the names different we'd feel the same sorrow.

9/11, Guilt, And Pseudoscience

Today (at least the day this was written) is 9/11. It is a day that all of us who lived through it, especially the families of those directly affected, will always remember. It will be noted in future history books, and as part of the American heritage; it is be part of what our children will be taught as they learn of the travails through which we have gone.

Our resolve has stiffened. We will not succumb to the fear that those who attacked us sought. We will pay the price necessary, whatever it is, to shore up our defenses against future attacks. And we will remember those who perished in the attack, and those who risked, and often gave, their lives to protect us (and that includes those who fight to protect us) – the police, firefighters, private citizens, the military, and anyone who participated. They have made us stronger and more determined, and our gratitude is without bounds.

And that's the problem.

I don't mean it that way, but this will sound heretical. It's likely to be considered insensitive, blasphemous, and unappreciative. But we sometimes don't know how to react to tragedy so we try to pay our way out. We try to assuage our guilt with ceremony, and money. I can't fault the ceremony: it's good for the families of survivors, for politicians, and as a public penance for our remorse. It serves many purposes the most important of which – for the country at least – is the show of unity and determination, lest those who oppose us would be tempted to repeat their act.

I understand the grief felt by the survivors and by the families of those who perished. They're entitled to the recognition they have received, and there is no way we can fully express our gratitude to them. But we try. Indeed, as I noted above, “our gratitude is without bounds.”

So we try to payoff those who have suffered. We do that by designating the sickness and death of participants, whatever the cause, as “9/11 related.” Perhaps sometimes it is. But simply because something happened to those we revere – to people who selflessly struggled to save strangers and to protect us all – doesn't mean that the cause was that act. People get diseases, people die all the time. They suffer from processes that afflict those who were never involved in the courageous acts of these heroes, people who are often afflicted with the same ailments. Which means that some of the first-responders probably would have suffered from them and, perhaps, died even if they had stayed home. But we'll never know which ones.

We have adopted a post hoc propter hoc mentality. Out of sympathy, gratitude, and guilt we have chosen to set up funds for those involved to show that we care. It's unscientific, but it's probably necessary and appropriate. Whether there is any relationship between the initial incident and the current suffering cannot be ascertained, so we assume that one exists and, out of taxpayer money, we pay for it. We owe it to them. The politicians who support legislation to do so are recognized as caring; those who might prefer better scientific evidence of a relationship remain quiet. Scientific caution would be seen as unpatriotic, and they would suffer in the next election.

If this were an isolated incident it would be tolerable. If we simply honored those who had acted bravely and on our behalf we could justify our generosity. Rewarding those whose concern was for others – for us – seems a matter of virtue.

Unfortunately the linking of events and responsibilities has become an industry. It may be a chronic systemic autoimmune disease which follows breast enhancement, or bleeding following the use of a (necessary) anticoagulant; it may be the presence of ovarian cancer in a woman who has used talcum powder, or a heart attack in a policeman. Whether any of these events represents cause and effect is not known. In some case the answer is unequivocally “no” since, despite newspaper articles and public suspicions, there is no scientific evidence of a relationship, but there is always some “scientist” willing to testify to cause based on anecdotal evidence, or to testify at least to the possibility of a relationship. And a sympathetic jury is willing to draw from the deepest pockets around to pay off the victim of some horrible disease or other event.

There are many to blame for the phenomenon. It's not simply a matter of public guilt and solicitude, though these play a large part. After all, who – what jury member – in the position of the plaintiff, wouldn't want a large windfall. But there are other contributors. These include less than candid corporations that withhold information, law firms that will benefit from the payout (you hear their ads on the radio all the time advising us that we may be entitled to compensation from some company), and “experts” who testify to the possibility of a relationship even when there is no proof. But the plaintiff is suffering whether or not there is unequivocal proof, so let's just pay.

Like the sympathy for 9/11 victims, we show our concern for all who suffer – as long as we don't have to pay for it ourselves. We feel virtuous and it doesn't cost us. And the litigators make out like bandits, through law suits or the threat of such suits. Meanwhile we have no need to feel any guilt. Society has done its part to correct the situation. And if someone has to pay the price, that's all right. Even if there was no responsibility in this particular instance, it existed elsewhere and wasn't punished. We'll help even the score.

Who's To Blame?

Yesterday was Bastille Day. Ordinarily it would be a day of great joy in France, however there was an attack on revelers then – a fatal attack. At least eighty-four were killed, although there were many injured and the number is likely to rise. The perpetrator drove a truck into those celebrating the holiday, and started shooting them after he left the truck. At the moment the most likely cause, in the view of authorities, is that it is related to a previous episode of “road rage.” That is what is assumed to be the reason for the massacre by a Tunisian citizen. According to official reports, there is no evidence that the killer had any terrorist connections or that this was a terrorist attack.

Last month, in Orlando, Florida, a man attacked the patrons of a night club, killing forty-nine and injuring many others. The man was the son of Afghan immigrants, and he pledged allegiance to ISIS during the spree. The night club was a gay establishment – one which he had attended several times before, yet there are many who view this as an act of homophobia. And there are others who emphasize the point that a Latin American celebration was taking place. They see it is as an attack on the Latin community. An action against “minority” members is a more politically palatable explanation than anything implying that Islamic culture and religion were in any way involved.

There have been several other such incidents which have caused deaths in this, and other countries, and which we have attributed to a wide variety of causes, although we usually obscure the origins and activities of the offenders, trying hard not to mention that the vast majority of them are Muslims. To say so would be evidence that we are Islamophobic for that would be a blemish on us, rather than on the culprits, so we come up with other causes for their actions that distract us from any consideration of the facts. Or we intentionally distort the facts we have; hence there are many who still believe that the events of September 11, 2001 were caused by the United States or Israel.

It's not a surprise that many groups would like to distract us from the actual situation – many in order to get our sympathy for their cause, while others would like us to blame them for the violence. The blame not only gives credence to their movement but also serves as a call to arms and as a recruiting tool. Both distractions present dangers to our society.

Certainly we are threatened by groups that have the goal of disrupting our lives and, ultimately, of defeating our nations. It is a challenge, however, that we are loath to face because to do so would be viewed as evidence of prejudice, and we Americans are not biased people. So it is governmental policy to play down any suggestion of a predisposition of any religious group toward violence, since that would be evidence of our partiality.

Equally deleterious – or, perhaps more so – is the attribution of a problem to a cause other than the one we know to be responsible. We cannot hope to solve a problem whose existence we refuse to recognize or admit. When we claim a problem to be other than it really is, we look for a solution that is not likely to provide any help. And we convince others that another problem exists, or is more severe than we have recognized, and they should turn their attention to that. In addition we give credibility to those who have been making such a claim even if their arguments have been fallacious.

Admit it or not, however, a problem exists. There seems to be a predisposition of Muslims to violence, whether as part of a specific campaign or as a general solution to any perceived injustices. Perhaps it is cultural, perhaps it is provoked, but it is real. As long as we deny the problem we will not solve it. And if we ignore the problem, we are to blame for it.

Fear And A Changing Attitude

It's interesting that “the party of the rich,” the Republican Party, is now attracting the poor – not the minorities, but the poor among the “majority” who fear a takeover by the “immigrants.” And interesting as well that the Democrats count among their followers the headliners in the movies and theater – the high-salaried “stars” – and the liberals, opposed to injustice, who believe they speak for the downtrodden, though among them are many of the wealthiest of our citizens – members of the fabled one percent. And they have added more to the campaigns of their favored candidates than the conservatives whom they blame for distorting the First Amendment and the political process with their money – however that's not really the point.

There is no denying the conservative nature of some of the leaders of industry, since free enterprise is one of the primary tools of their success. But now, in addition to private industry, large government and extensive regulation have provided jobs and income for large segments of our population – whether union officials or the executives who employ them; whether middle-class or higher. And the ninety-nine percent, and, even more so, those who claim to speak for them, demand increased taxation of the rich – of the one percent – although they are often of that class whether or not they admit it. In fact whether or not they recognize it.

Around the globe, however, there is a swing toward a conservative mindset that encompasses the lower middle-class and poor of many nations. It has many causes, but nationalism, religion, and economy are its tap roots. The concept of Eurabia, however applicable it may have been a decade ago, has become a more prominent issue as migration from a war-torn Middle East has increased recently. And the populations of many of the affected recipient countries involved have become more and more and more concerned. And more and more conservative.

The recent “Brexit” vote is illustrative of the renaissance of isolationism which is one of the hallmarks of the new attitude. Patriotism and xenophobia accompany it, with increasing fear and rejection of the immigrants. In part this reflects an economic concern – there is fear that the market will be flooded with unemployed “foreigners” who will take jobs from the homeborn. And they'll change the nature of the society. Whether or not the fears reflect reality, they're real. Elections in many of the involved countries demonstrate the “rightward” turn of the public.

There is also worry that among the immigrants are some who actually threaten their new homes. War has raged in the Middle East throughout history, and terrorism is a feature of the last few decades. That terrorism has spilled over into nations around the world, and the perpetrators almost invariably have connections to the Middle East – to (contrary to political correctness) Islamic governments, clerics, and organizations. With very few exceptions they are Muslims.

Those involved in violence are a minute minority of Muslims everywhere, but their impact, physical and political, has been tremendous – causing fear everywhere, and sometimes even retaliation. (Retaliation, when it occurs, is generally irrational and based on ethnicity rather than ethos. It usually has nothing to do with the attitudes and actions of the victims, only with their ancestry.) Anxiety about the risks associated with the immigrants may be overstated, but it is increasing, and probably is an intentional result of the terrorists' efforts. Whatever increases tensions between nations benefits the radicals. Islamophobia may result from terrorism, but it also results from people's fear of terrorism. And since Islamophobia's existence is “proof,” for those already convinced, that the society is evil, the terrorists gain from inducing it.

Small as the risk may be, however, it cannot be ignored. And neither our protectors (military and police) nor our politicians are likely to ignore it. Actions taken by our protectors are usually aimed at the benefit of society, while the words and actions of politicians are generally undertaken in order to obtain personal gain. The populism that xenophobia can arouse is a powerful political tool for them.

Perhaps the elimination of the terrorists, by whatever means is necessary, is a step the world should be taking. Defending them as understandable victims of an unjust West only validates their claims and justifies their acts. Many of our own people insist, however, that we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's not “who we are,” and doing so allows “them” to win. (What we're doing now, though, doesn't constitute a win for us, nor make it likely that there will be one.)

On the other hand, the ideas of survival, self-defense, and a “just” war need to be worked out. There is no virtue in suicide or extending our necks to the sword. That's not who we are either. Turning the other cheek to tyrants is tantamount to approving their actions. We reject the role of “world policeman” viewing it as a pejorative designation, but isolationism isn't the answer. We cannot as easily reject our responsibility to help those who need us – though it sometimes seems to be national policy to do so.

Perhaps finding a middle ground between their ways and ours is the best approach. Perhaps some will view that as a compromise with evil. Whatever we decide, however, that decision should come soon. Whether or not we allow it, they're winning. We're turning to the right largely because of the perceived threats of immigration. The “sympathetic,” if naïve approach of so many of our citizens, needs to be rethought. There is a new alliance of conservatives with many of the poor who fear the changes that are occurring around the world and are beginning to speak out. If, as we claim, we oppose injustice, its time for us to listen to their concerns.

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

Following the writing of this essay and its publication, a terrorist (“no terrorist connections” but a pattern familiar in Israel) drove a truck into a crowd and then started shooting them. It was apparently a “lone wolf” attack making prevention of similar attacks difficult. But it emphasizes the need to understand both the psychology of the killer and of the theology that promotes such horrors. If it happened in Israel, it's likely to happen elsewhere.

Two Roads Diverged In A Yellow Wood

We are threatened. By the past and by the future. Frost may have foreseen a different scenario in his time, but concerns have changed.

We're admonished that if we don't learn from the past we're condemned to repeat it. That would be a positive outcome, because it speaks to future possibilities, but our future doesn't look that hopeful – especially since history suggests that it's likely to contain some challenges that will be hard for us to meet.

Let me start with the past and then I'll get back to the future.

It is not fashionable – at least in centers of liberal thought – to note the threat of Radical Islam. It's “Islamophobia” and it's not politically correct. Yet it's hard to deny the rapid rise of Islam throughout the world. In the early seventh century CE, about the time of Muhammad's epiphany, when he was the sole adherent of the new faith, there were approximately 203 million people in the world. There are now more than 1.6 billion Muslims out of a population of 7.1 billion. Put differently, the Muslim population has risen 1.6 billion times while the world's population is only thirty-five times what it was in Muhammad's time. (Islam is now the world's second largest religion, behind Christianity, which it is expected to pass in about fifty-five years.)

How did Islam gain so many adherents? Natural growth, of course, was one of the factors. But however prolific Muhammad and his followers, that would certainly be a minor factor. Another mechanism was the proselytization of others – starting with those around him. The Qur’an attests to this being problematic. It certainly contributed to the number of believers, but the contribution doesn't nearly account for the numbers.

The new believers, however, were passionate and resolute. Muhammad had written in the Qur'an

“[F]ight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

Convert to Islam or die. It was a simple, and very convincing, argument. And the policy was carried out without mercy. To an alarming degree the new religion was spread not by the word, but by the sword. And, sadly, that medieval approach exists today among many – for just a small percentage of 1.6 billion is a lot of people, and many of them are ready, and even eager, to die for their beliefs. Their determination is evident from news broadcasts we hear daily. The sword threatens us today. Terrorism is rampant around the globe ("[t]errorism is rampant around the globe dozens of Swedish citizens received threatening letters with 'ISIS' signatures, calling for them to either convert to Islam, pay tax to the terrorist organization, or be killed – according to a Russia Today Arabic report") and, notwithstanding the struthious attitude of many, including world leaders, the vast majority of perpetrators of multi-victim terrorist attacks are “radical Muslims.” (Less frequently the insane and imitators.) The media also promote a head-in-the-sand approach: they decry prejudice by advertizing their own bias. And it's not just political correctness. It's bias.

What about the future – a future in which the number of Muslims (including radical terrorists) will increase? Humanity will become even more dehumanized than it already is. Robots will increase. In a sense, the history of robots is a long one, dating back to several centuries before the Common Era. But for most of the time what was theorized, drawn, or built were little more than toys. They were non-moving or moving statues that served no practical purpose. The first such construction that actually did something was built in 1865. John Brainerd created the Steam Man which apparently was used to pull wheeled carts and other objects. And their existence was literary in 1921, as noted in robotshop.com, “[T]he term 'robot' was first used in a play called 'R.U.R.' or 'Rossum's Universal Robots' by the Czech writer Karel Capek.” The plot was simple: “man creates a robot to replace him and then robot kills man!” And while there were other tales of robots, R.U.R. raised a serious problem dealt with by Isaac Asimov in his laws of robotics.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But scientists, good and bad, don't accept limitations. There are robots now and it is certain that sooner or later there will be others programed to go about on their own without any intervention or limitation by human beings. H.A.L., in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” defied human control in fiction, and, as is so often the case, science imitates science fiction, and this ability will probably be installed in some future computers and robots. And along with that will come the ability to produce additional examples of themselves. Horrifying as it might seem, it is not difficult to imagine the ultimate control of humans by those machines.

Muslims who live in the past or robots likely to be created in the future? Neither is an especially attractive prospect. And the answer? There is none I can imagine. I may not be around to see it, but one or the other seems likely to me. I'm not sure what we can learn from the past. I'm not certain what we can do to prevent the challenges we face from overwhelming us. It's up to the politicians and the generals to find a solution if one exists. We're in trouble if we have to rely on politicians and generals, but I fear that that's the reality.

Je Suis An Islamophobe

There are lines between fashion, fawning, and fear. They're almost invisible, so you don't always know when you're crossing them. And there are times when they become irrelevant – it doesn't matter what the motive is, as long as the action is suitable. Now is one of those times.

Several decades ago – it's not clear when – it became fashionable to substitute euphemisms for the terminology that most people used. Whether it began with “gender neutrality” or in response to other perceived slights, political correctness became the answer selected to deal with the hurt feelings.ⁱ It was trendy to speak of postal workers instead of mailmen, Native Americans instead of (American) “Indians,” Afro-Americans rather than blacks – at least in this country, “special needs” as an alternative to mental or physical disability, and visually challenged rather than blind. And there were many other terms – some facetious – to describe individuals or groups that might object to existing terminology. Short people were “vertically challenged,” deaf people were “hearing impaired,” and French Fries became Freedom Fries.

It may have begun as a fad, with the “correct” people as examples for the rest of us, but it soon became virtually mandatory. The practice of using the new jargon became an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with everyone and those who didn't follow the trend were considered insensitive and prejudiced. It was, and is, especially prevalent in academiaⁱⁱ – in its practices and in its publications. They were catering to anyone who might be offended by something someone said or did.ⁱⁱⁱ Well, not “anyone,” but to certain groups. It was again a matter of fashion. For a long time the catering was to blacks, and one of its major manifestations was affirmative action. The tool has been applied to other groups as well – women, the poor, people from particular areas.^iv

Fear came into play when some of those groups took offense to something they viewed as a manifestation of prejudice or blasphemy and responded with violence. The tactic was often effective, and following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims viewed as blasphemous there was rioting and killing. Out of fear, many newspapers would not reproduce the cartoons to prevent the violence from affecting them. Yale University Press would not allow their inclusion in a book specifically about them.^v

Ever since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, anger at Muslims, and fear as well, have been increasing. So has our vigilance. But the response to increased security efforts – a response by non-Muslims as well as Muslims – is that they represent Islamophobia and should be discontinued.

The recent events in Paris and elsewhere in Europe, suggest that preoccupation with the Danish cartoons and those of a Paris magazine justify additional violence. And there have been numerous other terrorist incidents around the globe, including the United States. One common feature of such terrorism is that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims.^vi And the attacks do not have to be aimed at those seen as the attackers of Islam. They are aimed at terror, and unpredictability is a feature of terrorism. And they are justified by the belief that there are Islamophobes everywhere.

But what is Islamophobia and is it justified? A phobia is a fear. It is not opposition or hatred. As such, it may be justified. “Anti-” signifies such opposition, and often hated. Someone with acrophobia is afraid of heights. An antisemite hates Jews. So Islamophobia is not a manifestation of an anti-Muslim philosophy, but a fear of Muslims and of the religion that teaches its children and its adults that killing, and dying as martyrs, are worthy goals.

Is it irrational to be afraid of those who may be infected with this philosophy as we are afraid of those with an infections disease? That's all Islamophobia is. And to that degree Islam is winning. It is inspiring fear in many people who realize that a terrorist attack may come at any time, and if it does, it will most likely be caused by a Muslim. The fear may be irrational and the likelihood of harm may be overstated, but that fear is caused by those who are working to provoke this reaction.

I am not anti-Muslim. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims, whatever their personal concerns about the world around them, do not represent a threat. But a few do. And they are unpredictable. And I am afraid.

I       Actually the term was used much earlier, although it's original citation (see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. {2 Dall.} 419, 1793) gives it a straightforward meaning, speaking of conformance with existing political doctrine.

ii      Most recently, Duke University wanted to let Muslim students use the tower of the church on campus for heir call to prayer. After protests the decision was revoked.

iii      Those who opposed this form of censorship were considered reactionaries and right wing crazies for their criticism of this form of censorship.

iv       Affirmative action has a long history, apart from its use racially. For example, donors and alumni get preference when it comes to college admissions and veterans often get extra points in examinations for jobs.

v        See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=0 The report in the New York Times is interesting since the “Gray Lady” also kept the cartoons off its pages.

vi       Jews have been described as the world's canaries. What happens to them will ultimately be visited on everyone. (A recent citation – one of many that have appeared over the years – is http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Canary-in-the-coal-mine-387914) Muslims have long tried to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Now their terror attacks are affecting others.

Nostra Culpa

Yesterday some Muslim terrorists killed at least twelve people in an attack on a French satire publication. The search is underway now for the killers, and there is fear that additional attacks may occur. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, while condemning the attack, urged readers to “avoid religious profiling.” Specifically, he cautioned against blaming Muslims, “the most courageous, peace-loving people in the Middle East.” Since they are by far the most numerous people in the Middle East, it is likely that there is peace there.

But wait. There are also Jews there, and everyone knows that they are neither courageous nor peace-loving. That's not religious profiling. That's fact. (If there is not peace in the region it must be their fault.)

So when an article appeared this morning in the International Business Times (India edition) that suggested that Mossad was responsible for the attack, it put matters more in perspective. The story was subsequently removed but it is likely that the action was taken because of pressure brought on the paper by the Elders of Zion.

It is sad that antisemitism, an irrational stance that had for so long been the domain primarily of the Church, has taken over the world's politics as well – largely promoted by supporters of Islam. The world has no interest in reality when it is in conflict with prejudice and politics. And as long as there is a convenient scapegoat. That's all Israel has going for it.

What's In A Name?

 

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's a long monicker for a newborn baby, but that's the name that my daughter and son-in-law, who live in Jerusalem, chose to hang on their youngest son.

It happened just a few days ago at his bris — a ritual circumcision which is the first rite of passage of a Jewish boy. The ceremony, on the eighth day of his life, is one in which he is welcomed into the religion and the time when he is named.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. It's likely that he isn't the only child so designated, for it contains the given names of the three boys murdered a few days earlier by terrorists in Israel. It was the trigger for the fighting that followed, although in reality there had been much provocation earlier with rockets sent from Gaza to kill whatever Israelis they might find. Precise aim was not an issue. It was not a critical capability of the weapons of terror, and it wasn't all that important who got killed. The more important point was that those rockets were intended to attract return fire, fire that would kill and maim those in Gaza — both terrorists and the civilians they used as shields — in order to attract the world's attention. Those killed in Gaza would be "martyrs," and they should be grateful that they were accorded the "honor" of dying in the war against Israel.

All wars have soldiers, and many are volunteers. But there are also a large number who are drafted. The typical draftee is young, in his late teens or early twenties, and male. He is chosen because it is assumed that he will be a fit warrior, and he is trained for this task, as well as armed for it. In this instance there are numerous unnamed draftees, civilians neither trained nor armed for their duties.

And all wars have what is euphemistically called "collateral damage," those inadvertently killed while the battle is raging. Inadvertently. Their deaths may be inevitable but are unintended and undesired. In this war, however, the collateral damage is the goal. The fewer fighters among the terrorists who are killed and the more civilians the better. They, the unwilling draftees, are the martyrs who will show the world the justice of their cause. They may not choose such a role for themselves, but the choice is not theirs. And the presence of any protection, such as shelters, would be counterproductive — so none are available.

Accordingly, three teenaged Israeli boys were abducted and murdered. It was one of many provocations but the one that led to the current hostilities. And it was one that brought all of the citizens of Israel together. It united a country that had many internal disputes. Political disagreements and religious differences in Israel were of no consequence. Everyone prayed for them together when they were reported missing. And everyone mourned them when their fate was known. We do not know the names of their killers because that is irrelevant. We will name no streets or squares after the boys or after the terrorists who killed them. That may be the practice of those who would like to see us destroyed, but it is not our way. We will name babies after our sons, and we will do our best to ensure the safety of our other children. And we will punish those among us who adopt the inhuman practices of our enemies. They are not our heroes. They are our enemies — the adversaries of all we believe.

Eyal Gilad Naftali. My youngest grandson and, I hope, a representative of a future of peace in a region that has always known war. My children and grandchildren live each day in the midst of the war, as do millions of others. And they bear and rear children despite it. It's a fact of life. I only pray that those who place death before life will realize the folly of their acts and renounce them. I'm not hopeful of such an event, but prayer is all I can offer.

A Chip Off The Whole Block

                                                                                  
“Ah, for the good old days.” I'll bet you've heard that before. It represents a generational confrontation. The older takes issue with some of the changes in society which have occurred since their own youth. We say it of our times and the faults of our children, which are numerous. Our parents said it of us; their parents said it of them; and on back throughout history.

But this time it's different.

Recently two terrorists committed mayhem at the Boston Marathon. Three were killed and hundreds were maimed and injured – many seriously. My particular interest, however, is not the terrorism itself, but the fact that the bombs that were used appear to have been triggered by some electronic device. Murder, which has been a part of our history since Cain and Abel, has, in recent years, teamed up with computers and chips to make chaos, pandemonium, and terrorism easier to effect and harder to prevent. The toll at the marathon – both the human toll and the destruction of the local streets and stores – was devastating, but the incident in Boston was certainly not the first of its kind, although it has provided a good deal of publicity for the technique. We have achieved the distinction of being able to destroy something or someone from the other side of the world.

The integrated circuit was, for all practical purposes, developed in the nineteen fifties,ⁱ and a Nobel Prize was awarded to Robert Kilby in 2000 for his work in bringing about this revolution. Even before the chip changed everything, however, societal disruption by television had already taken place. Idiotic local news shows had made everything banal or titillating. “Will the burning down of your house mean any change for you?” “How do you feel about your wife being raped and murdered?” Intrusive reporters asked stupid and insensitive questions. Their local “features” crowded out the real news. (Now we've advanced to “reality” programing. “Reality” attempts to imitate reality, only not very well. It's popular, but it's all pretense. And there is certainly no art in it. As long as there are clouds and ether, though, it will continue to plague us. )

But even though such gossip has remained on the air, and now, supported by electronics, we reveal all there is to know about ourselves. With the various social media and the ability to upload our most mortifying moments for everyone to see, we no longer need aspiring “investigative” reporters as our intermediaries. We can create cybergossip, or embarrass ourselves,ⁱⁱ because we think others care or are interested. We're exhibitionists and the computer chip has revolutionized our lives. And while there are untold improvements that have been brought about by modern electronics, the negatives make it unclear if we are really better off. A listing of some of those negativesⁱⁱⁱ may put some of the progress into perspective:

1. The addiction of the screen. Some view it as a psychiatric disease.
2. The inactivity and related health issues caused by that addiction.
3. The cost of the devices, and the services for them – both for the wireless provider and for the electronics repairman.
4. The costs of the various applications – both for the applications and for the things that are so easy to do and to buy since you never have to leave your house.
5. Loss of privacy associated with the presence of personal information on line that is available to the increasing number of people around the world who know how to get it.
6. The costs associated with hacking and identity theft. Among the information accessible by hackers are passwords, account numbers, and any social security and bank information that you probably thought were safe.
7. Improper actions caused in the stock market which may result from computer programs which automatically respond to monitored information, even if it isn't true. A few weeks ago there was a precipitous fall in the market^iv due to automatic responses to a “Tweet” containing false information.
8. Penetration of firewalls in governmental agencies like the Pentagon resulting in loss of security. Similar mischief might be caused in other agencies like the IRS, FDA, Fannie Mae, and all the rest. Cyber attacks are now a great cause for concern, especially those arising in other countries, and may be aimed at spying on us as well as disrupting our government's functions. According to recent news, China has been waging “cyberwar” against us for years.
9. Hacking for the purpose of industrial espionage. That's one of China's projects.
10. Hacking for the purpose of obtaining mailing lists and personal information held by commercial and governmental organizations.
11. Spam, scams,^v fraud, phishing, and other personal intrusions. It's so easy now to contact huge numbers of people simultaneously. That's what happened when someone – apparently overseas – caused the stock market to tank.
12. The unwanted interruptions and annoyance and cost of “robo” and live junk telephone calls on cell phone units – not that they're any great pleasure on land lines. (Note: Don't call on “Do not call” lists for help. They're not worth the effort, and those supposed to compel their use have sometimes given up. They – the lists and the enforcers – frequently don't work.)
13. The risk of answering calls while driving and the cost of hands-free devices.
14. The use of electronic devices to trigger weapons of mass (or other) destruction.
15. The use of the internet to get information regarding how to make a bomb.
16. The use of the internet to contact and connect to others with similar ideas regarding what used to be considered anti-social activities.^vi That includes, among many other things, for example anarchy and conspiracy.
17. Search engines that, in addition to the useful information they make available, assist in plagiarism.
18. Social media that cater to the voyeur and trivialize everyone's existence as they waste our time.
19. Pornography and a platform to induce the naïve and trusting to become involved in psychologically unhealthy, or physically dangerous relationships.
20. People all around us who are walking and talking to those we cannot see. Those we used to view as touched are now reaching out and touching others, but they're in far greater numbers than they used to be, and their addiction interrupts conversations, meetings, and the public peace.^vii

Of course I've just begun. I haven't mentioned such problems^viii as cyberbullying,” computer games and their risks (immediate and long-term), GPS's and our inability to just get away without others knowing where we are, and the dangers to the libraries and the newspapers.^ix And I suspect you know many others. If nothing else, the addiction that I mentioned drains time from our attending to other matters. And some of them may even be significant.

When I was young,^x things were slower and simpler. We can accomplish a lot more now, and do it faster. But I sometimes wonder if it's all worth it.

Next episode: “Food For Thought” – Thinking about it won't help.

i      The first such integrated circuit was patented in 1949 but never adopted for use in any device nor developed. According to Wikipedia,

“Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (de) (Siemens AG) filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device showing five transistors on a common substrate in a 3-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi disclosed small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. An immediate commercial use of his patent has not been reported.”

ii     Possibly permanently. Computers and the cloud are good at keeping such information alive forever.

iii     The particular problems, of course, will differ depending on the nature of the device(s) you have.

iv    The Dow Jones Industrial average dropped 146 points and there was a temporary (fortunately) loss of over a hundred billion dollars.

v      While many of them seem to be originating in Nigeria, the sources are numerous and international.

vi     Some of them still are.

vii    I still think they're crazy, but for a different reason.

viii  Among numerous others.

ix    Some favor the sacrifice of print media in favor of that delivered over computerized devices, but I prefer a book or a newspaper. And you don't need to recharge them.

x      You've heard that one too.

Death And Texas

 

Just about every year Texas tops the list as the state with the most executions, with 17 in 2010. This is twice as many as the next state, Ohio with 8 executions. www.antideathpenalty.org

Since 1976 Texas has executed about 375 people, followed by Virginia with about 100. And before each execution there is some kind of demonstration demanding that the sentence not be carried out. The two main arguments against the death penalty are that the individual being executed may, in fact, be innocent but the penalty is irrevocable, and even if he is guilty, the death penalty is atavistic, an act of vengeance. The government has no right to take any life, irrespective of the circumstances. They maintain, moreover, that opposition to the death penalty may be causing some prosecutors to look for lesser charges and it may be inducing some juries to acquit murderers or find them guilty of lesser crimes. Because they recognize the evil of murder, however, and the possibility that death penalty supporters may have public opinion on their side, opponents often recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole, both because, in their view, it may be appropriate, and in order to satisfy the others who believe that execution is a just punishment so that the killer will never be on the street again and have the possibility of killing someone else.ⁱ

It's a neat package. If only matters were so simple.

We make mistakes. There's no denying that. Fortunately, especially as pertains to our legal system, we're right far more often than we're wrong. By itself that doesn't justify errors, but it is important to look at all the implications of those mistakes. As opponents of the death penalty point out, the conviction of an innocent person leading to his execution is an irrevocable error.

Suppose an individual is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Should that sentence be changed to life in prison without parole because the conviction may have been erroneous and thus the sentence unwarranted? After all, after the execution there will be no way to address the grievance.

Perhaps, but some who are imprisoned escape. And not all murderers are sentenced to death. Some receive short sentences or are paroled from life sentences. However it has occurred though, the freedom of someone guilty of killing is also a mistake that may have lethal consequences.ⁱⁱ According to the Department of Justice,ⁱⁱⁱ within three years after release of an individual who had been imprisoned for “homicide,” 1.2% were re-arrested for a new homicide.^iv There are no separate statistics for those who commit premeditated murder – a more serious crime than homicide – but it is likely to be higher.^v The statistic doesn't help us understand how often convicted murderers escape from prison, often killing guards to attain their liberty. And it certainly doesn't include information on the frequency of release and subsequent homicide by accused murderers who were acquitted because evidence was excluded, or who were found not guilty because of insanity or duress or (real or claimed) self-defense. These statistics don't excuse the execution of an innocent person, but they bring a little perspective to the question. What is the risk of an error in the other direction, and how might we avoid that? How many deaths result from our failure to put murderers to death?

Suppose a jury convicts an individual of murder and the judge sentences him to a period of imprisonment. Suppose that following his release he kills someone else. In view of the known rate of recidivism, should he not have been released because of the possibility he would kill again and that the death of new victim would be permanent, and there would be no way to address the grievance after it occurred? Should all those convicted of murder of homicide get "life without parole" sentences?

The same questions – could there have been an error, and will the convicted criminal strike again after his release – may be asked about any crime and any trial. A mistake may be made, and even if there is not a death penalty the emotional, fiscal, and time loss effects will be permanent. They cannot be addressed in retrospect.^vi For this reason, should we end the idea of trial for any individual accused of a crime? Should the whole question of judicial decisions – not just the death penalty for murder – be rethought because we are not perfect? The idea that mistakes are made is one that society as a whole must consider, and thought given to the extent to which we are willing to accept mistakes to prevent an even worse outcome.

And that is a question which is not limited to the legal system. There is a predictable death rate caused by automobile accidents. Deaths and disease are sure to result from legal use of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. Mining deaths are common. Even construction – whether of high rise buildings, bridges, tunnels or highways – will predictably result in deaths and injuries. We know it will happen and the results will not be reversible. They are irrevocable. We could make all these activities illegal but we won't, even though those who die won't be murderers. Not only do we make mistakes, but we are ready to accept death^vii

However we only protest when the death penalty is involved, since we may make an error and since we must not allow the government to kill – in this case to execute those convicted of a capital offense by our own citizens. Is there any way to avoid errors, and, if not, are we better off not making any decisions so we can prevent mistaken ones? Or is this an error as well?

But even these considerations leave questions unanswered.

Suppose another country invades us. Should we surrender immediately to avoid the need to kill others and and to prevent the deaths of our own sons and daughters? Is killing ever a justified act by a government?

In terms of the justifiability of killing, there are differences of opinion. She was speaking of war, but Golda Meir said, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." She recognized the reality of death in war, but, like death penalty opponents, she questioned the morality of taking the lives of others.

On the other hand, in a release dated March 14, 2004, al-Qaeda stated "You love life and we love death."^viii Different versions of this statement have been made by Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, Adis Medunjanin, the jihadist who crashed while fleeing police, and many others. Martyrdom is an ideal in some countries. It is inculcated in children – often by their own parents or clerics – before they are old enough to form independent opinions. For them death is not something to be avoided because of its finality. It's a preferred outcome. And they're not alone. Indeed, some convicted of murder would choose the death penalty over a life sentence with no possibility of release. Should they – especially if they admit to the act – be given the choice? Should they be permitted suicide?^ix Or might this be too easy for "martyrs," as well as too tempting for innocent persons who fear a life in prison? The two major objections to the death penalty – the possibility of error and killing sanctioned by the state – are not as clear as they may seem.

According to the Bible, the death penalty is warranted for a number of crimes including intentional murder.^x That, however, is not a satisfactory justification in the eyes of many. We don't even agree on the definition of murder. So what should be done? I don't know the answer. I'm not smart enough. But I do know that the debate is not as black and white as it's often painted. And that's a start.

Next episode: "Politics As Usual" – Sadly that's the case.

i     Their approach is not complicated. Death penalty opponents see this as a way around those who raise an objection with which they may disagree but which they cannot defeat in argument. It's the lesser of evils. "Life isn't fair, it's just fairer than death, that's all." — William Golding, The Princess Bride. (Of course that's not what Golding meant, but life isn't fair.)

ii     The pain suffered by the murdered party and his family is not considered in the statistics.

iii    “Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994” Ojp.usdoj.gov. 2002-06-02. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm. Cited in Wikipedia.

iv    Or multiple homicides.

v      One additional action would be the establishment of a registry of those convicted of homicide comparable to that for convicted sex-crime offenders. The recidivism rate for rape is 2.5%, which is higher than that for homicide, but statistics don't seem to be the determining factor. The rearrest rate for car theft is 78.8%, for larceny 74.6%, and for robbery 70.2% , but they don't get a registry. It's hard not to conclude that there's a political component, or one inflamed by the media. In any case, the establishment of such a registry for released murderers might be useful. That's a life sentence.

vi    Actually the fiscal effects can be addressed at the cost of the time and money involved in a countersuit. But this is not always possible when the government is the opponent. And it is not always wise to invest the time, money, and emotion in a new trial even if it is.

vii    At least the death of others, as long as it makes our own lives more enjoyable..

viii    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/03/14/you_love_life_and_we_love_death/

ix   After all, suicide is now accepted, and abortion is morally and legally sanctioned.

x     But not accidental killing or necessary killing as in time of war.