Make War, Not Love

                                                                                  

It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”ⁱ Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ⁱⁱ

War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.

War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,ⁱⁱⁱ sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.

An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,^iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.

People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”^v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.^vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?

People didn't invent war but they did invent

1. Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
2. Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.

Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.

There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.

On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.

And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?

Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.^vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.

It's better to win than to lose.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.

Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.

i      Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.

ii     Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”

iii    Nowadays that's oil.

iv     Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.

v     As noble as that sounds.

vi    However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.

vii  Actually, that's redundant. All “Utopias” are non-existent. That's the definition.

Remembrance Of Things Yet To Come

 

                                                                                        
The older you get, the more funerals you attend. I've been to two in the past week, and though I was told of another death, I didn't attend the service. There have been many others in recent years and I'm impressed with how wonderful all the deceased were. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anything negative about the center of attraction. Even when there is a less than completely desirable featured mentioned by one of those giving a eulogy, it's mentioned using a euphemismⁱ or noted with a positive spin.ⁱⁱ Some in attendance – those who knew the individual being described – may giggle, but no one will contradict the speaker.

Some of those being eulogized are unfamiliar to me; I'm there because of a friendship with one of the mourners. And in some instances, the deceased wasn't even known to the clergyman (or clergywoman or someone else) conducting the service.ⁱⁱⁱ His loving description during this obligatory ritual is a hodge-podge of (some of) the recollections of those grieving.^iv But, he's paid to be nice. Sometimes the service is for someone loved and respected by all, and the clergyman, friends, and family deliver honest and loving tributes. They may last longer, but there's less impatience, squirming, and resentment. Funerals are for the living, not the dead. They're to show respect for those who have died – whether because we knew and respected them personally, or as a way of demonstrating our concern for the mourners.

For better or worse, my mind wanders during funerals. I wonder about my own. Who will be there? Who will speak? What will be said? And please G-d, don't let there be too many giggles. That, of course, is up to me. I have to live in a way that (rightly or wrongly) people will agree with what will be, by convention, laudatory rhetoric.

But then I ask myself, “Who cares?” I can't tell you anything about my great-grandmothers on my mother's side. I don't remember them? In fact I never knew them. And I'm not sure if my mother knew them either. Although my children will remember their grandmothers, when they themselves die the memories will be lost. And my time will come too. As the saying goes, who will remember me (or care about me) a hundred years from now? And that raises other questions. Theological questions. Questions we've all thought about but none of us can answer because they're matters of belief rather than knowledge.^v

So I wonder. And so do you. Is death the end?

I can think of several different scenarios that might pertain: one, the sentiment likely to be expressed in a Hallmark card or a comic strip, is that death is a continuation of life – you're reunited with those who have passed before, and together you look “down” on those who are living. You'll have the opportunity to see how the lives of your descendants play out. Nice. But hard to imagine as anything other than an idyllic hope.

At the other end of the spectrum is the view – nothing^vi follows death. You'll have no consciousness of anything, including the fact that you are no more. It's kind of a “Whiffenpoof Song” conception: “you'll pass and be forgotten with the rest.” Poof. Or, if you prefer, it's akin to Ethel Barrymore's famous “That's all there is, there isn't any more.” However you package it though, it's final. That's cold and scientific. If you can't prove it experimentally, it's not true. Many view scientists and their knowledge, or lack of it, with belief and a kind of god-like reverence, even if they disavow any belief in G-d or in belief itself.

Dante had a different formulation, but besides his there are many views that after our physical lives are over there is the time of reward or punishment, with possibly a period of cleansing of our sins interposed somewhere along the line. In western religion, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and the Garden of Eden are some of the terms used to portray the “locations” to which we will be transported in the “Afterlife.” A “Messianic Age” and resurrection of the dead are also believed by some to be part of this formulation. Some consider reincarnation to be our fate.

But apart from the “Hallmark Scenario” which I mentioned above, our relationship to our life on earth, and our recognition of those we knew and loved here, are unlikely to play a part. Whatever our fate in the Afterlife, it will be based on our^vii own deeds and not those of our predecessors or descendants. We probably will be unaware of others and their deeds. Being reunited with those we love, however much we may wish it, does not seem to be in the cards. The ideas of Reward and Punishment are difficult to integrate into our thinking.^viii

So if there's a future at all, we can't prepare for it. We can only work in the present and for me this means trying to help others, and to observe G-d's commandments. I may not be rewarded in the future for it, but it's rewarding to me now. I don't know what's to come so all I can do is what I find satisfying today.

Actually I can prepare for the future. I'll write a speech overflowing with praise for me. It's important that everyone knows how wonderful I was. All I have to do is find someone who will read it. With a straight face. No giggling.

Next episode: “You Don't Say” -- But it's ok f u do.

i      For example, someone who was obstinate and pigheaded is described as “single-minded” and “focused.”

ii     It won't surprise you to learn that the same person “held dear some principles with which we might not all fully agree.”

iii    He may not even know the mourners and read their names from a piece of paper (mispronouncing some of them) during his boilerplate oratory.

iv    The favorable ones. The ones they're willing to disclose. There's nothing to be gained by washing their dirty linen in public.

v     I'm aware that some “know” what others only believe or hope, but I'm not fortunate – or unfortunate – enough to be one of them.

vi    Literally.

vii    Hallmark, Norcross, or otherwise.

viii   Jewish philosophy – the corpus with which I'm most familiar – contains a variety of concepts on the subject. Perhaps the most familiar is the eleventh of Maimonides's Thirteen Articles of Faith, which declares that we'll be rewarded or punished based on the level of our adherence to G-d's commandments, but there is also the advice of Antigonus ,(Avot 1:3) that cautions against accepting G-d's commandments for the sake of any reward. And numerous others, from the Bible forward, have weighed in on the subject. The bottom line is that while Reward and Punishment will eventually take place, what we do should be independent of the promises and based on our desire to obey Halakhah – Jewish law.

It's Official!!

Extra! Extra!

There is a G-d!

I know because the Democrats said so yesterday. And they decided by democratic vote.  And, of course, no politician would lie to us or say something he didn't truly believe.

Well. I'm not really sure of the last few points. There was a voice vote on the subject and there are many who think that the motion to put that revelation in the platform was defeated, but those who favored it were in charge, and they declared that the motion had passed. Anyway, the President wanted it. There was a loud outcry from the Republicans and from voters when the party's platform, which presumably he had dictated and which had been accepted, was seen to have failed to affirm it. Rather than risk the negative reaction of voters offended by the omission, a vote was held to add the declaration to the platform. There apparently was fear that the Republicans would get the G-d vote, which was fine with many Democrats, but that was unacceptable to party leaders. As hard as it is to admit, belief was irrelevant – it was purely a matter of politics.

Oh. And Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Although this fact (just ask the Israeli government) has been previously acknowledged in the party's platforms (though never acted upon) it was left out this year, until the reaction to its omission (and the need for funds and votes) became apparent to the President. In line with that political reality, the party quickly and “democratically” corrected that oversight. Of course Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We knew that.  Of course some negotiations are necessary, but they're for another time.

Will this statement change policy? Of course not. A platform is a political document and in no way an indicator of future policies but, rather, past performance is the most reliable basis for any conclusion about likely actions in the future. Not the platform declarations – even if they had been reached democratically. In this instance what comes to mind is the hostility the President and his staff have shown to Israel as they talk interminably with Iran about our misgivings regarding the nuclear bomb it is building. While they take no real action in relation to the latter, they give loud and public warnings to the former, and put great pressure on Israel, whose existence, unlike our own, is threatened by the bomb that the United States, by its inaction, will permit to be built despite contrary protestations. It's hard to believe that there will be any real change in these views or actions whatever the platform says.

So if the President is reelected we can anticipate that Iran will build its bombs and bury them deep underground, and that it will force a democratic Israel to take actions that it would prefer not to take. And Iran will take control of the entire non-democratic Arab world, including countries that we view (with our usual unwarranted optimism) as allies.

But, as the Democrats have now told us, “G-d's in His Heaven and all's right with the world.”

Politics, Leadership, Polls And Language

              

 

According to Merriam-Webster, “cliché” originated from the French word “clicher” (its past participle) meaning “stereotype,” and we know it as a word indicating some overused expression.ⁱ The term is expansive and may relate to a proverb or other “truism” as well as to a short phrase or description. Clichés are reliable. They're “tried and true.” People use them all the time. After all, “it's better to be safe than sorry.”

But more than that, clichés (and I'm most interested in the expressions and proverbs) are so obviously true that they sum up all that we need to know about something. They're the received wisdom – “words to the wise.” They encapsulate someone's thoughts. They're argument-enders. It's difficult to respond to some banal statement, whether true or false, when you know that the one who said it is smug and impressed with his own brilliance, and has no interest in a rebuttal. He'll simply smirk and turn away.

That's not to say that all proverbs deserve disposal. Their history and popularity attest to the fact that they “strike a chord” in speakers and listeners, and at one time they were fresh and original. Now, though, they seem more useful as substitutes for thought. They're comfortable and familiar. And, to a significant degree, they're political. Perhaps not intentionally so, but that's the way many may be understood. When someone advises you to “look before you leap,”ⁱⁱ to “think it through” and remember that “what can go wrong will go wrong,”ⁱⁱⁱ so you must be cautions in order to avoid “unintended consequences,” and “never [to] burn your bridges before you cross them,”^iv he is expressing a very conservative position, and many proverbs are little more than cautionary tales reduced to a few words. And they're likely to be wrong.

But those of a more liberal bent have their own bromides. They're quick to remind anyone who will listen that “the early bird gets the worm”^v and “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”^vi And if they perceive a problem they can't “just stand there,”^vii they have to “do something.” And quickly. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” and “a stitch in time saves nine.”^viii And their quick thinking and bias toward rapid action often leads them to “think outside the box” and to “push the envelope.” But they're wrong, too.

Still, there are “cooler heads.” Following Aristotle, they favor a middle path – compromise. After all, “there are two sides to every story.” What they never consider is that at least one of those sides is wrong. Whatever their private thoughts, they never concede that a compromise between right and wrong is wrong, and “the lesser of two evils” is evil.^ix And such an attitude gives credence and a platform to that “lesser,” as well as to the two evils between which it is a compromise. As I'm sure you've guessed, “half a loaf is [not always] better than none,” and because of their lack of sincerity, the compromisers are even more wrong than the “extremists” who actually believe the clichés they repeat.

But their words sound fair. And in modern-day politics, that's what counts. It's better to sound moderate – to be willing to compromise. And since the voters aren't always sophisticated, for many of them a middle ground seems like the best solution, one between the “extremes” rather than on one side.

And that's “where the money is.” Those are the voters who will decide most of the elections. “Dyed-in-the-wool” conservatives and liberals will vote for their own candidates irrespective of issues and positions, leaving the real decisions to those in “the middle of the road” in “swing states.” So our leaders conduct extensive polls to find out what those “independent” voters want and move toward those positions. It's much easier to lead when you know what the followers want. People are not interested in what is right but in what sounds right. So our representatives find out what sounds right to the voters and then courageously proclaim that position. A politician who actually says and defends what he believes is sure to be punished for it.^x (He who lives by the word, dies by it.) The one who repeats the truisms on which we have all been raised will fare much better. He^xi will be received by the voters with a much higher degree of comfort, irrespective of true beliefs or ability.

So the best thing a politician can do is to soothe the voters with words of comfort and wisdom – “the wisdom of the ages.” Clichés may be wrong or, at best, insipid, but we respond to them.  As William Claude Dukenfield said, “Never give a sucker an even break.” That's a turn of phrase dear to every “leader's” heart.

Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Yet To Come” -- Death and the mad man.

 

i     We also use it to refer to anything else that is hackneyed and almost meaningless, like clothing styles, an idea, someone's reaction or life, etc.

ii    Perhaps we should sometimes be cautioned not to leap.

iii    Some believe that Murphy was an optimist.

iv    Of course some of those bridges shouldn't be crossed in the first place.

v    Chestnut: “Early to bed and early to rise, and your girl goes out with other guys.” But chestnuts are tastier than worms.

vi    Nor lost. Actually something may be lost. Especially if you expect prices to go down and you sell everything only to see them rise.

vii    We'd often be better off if our politicians did nothing and just stood there.

viii   If it's the right stitch. Otherwise it may require adding future stitches rather than saving some.

ix    Compromise is too often viewed as the first step in getting your way. It is the starting point for the next debate – one you expect to carry you further toward your goal. But, of course, that's exactly what your opponent thinks.

x     In 1964, Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency, proclaimed “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With a war going on in Viet Nam, and many voters doubting their country's position, such a statement was viewed with suspicion, as the view of a dangerous superpatriot. Senator Goldwater only received 52 electoral votes to President Johnson's 486.

xi    Or she.

Bentham, Dirksen, And The Mars Rover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii       $3.796 trillion in Fiscal 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Olympic Spirit

                                                                              

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii     Specifically 776 BCE.

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

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

v     As stated in the Olympic Charter.

vi    Ibid. “Fundamental Principles, Number 6.

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

viii   European Sports Charter, Article 2, 1a.

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

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

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

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

Bang, Bang, Bang

                                                                                 

First things first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii       Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2012

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

v      And various limitations are placed by individual states.

vi      Not to mention the NRA and its members.

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

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

ix      United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

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

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

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