From the series: Creating our experience of reality: Agency

I was in the Red River Gorge a few months ago with some friends who had some magic mushrooms.  At some point during our “magic carpet ride” I saw all of the trees and shrubs and other vegetation moving in concert, like those old cartoons from the 1940’s and 50’s where the flowers and trees danced to the background music, bending and swaying with awareness and intent upon some foreground cartoon character.  Psychology and Philosophy have a term for this feeling.  It is called agency.  The feeling of agency is that of sensing that our voluntary actions are being directed by us; that we are in control of something we do. 

The feeling of agency is distinguished from the judgement of agency, where the judgement of agency is a higher level conceptual process that arises in situations where we make explicit attributions of agency to the self or others.  In my mushroom experience I didn't conclude that the forest was acting with  volitional intent.  Rather,  I felt its willful agency.  So, perhaps we can at least in some circumstances, sense the agency of another even if our feeling is illusory or a perceptual error.  I can imagine the utility of this capability.  It has evolutionary significance.  We need to feel the agency of a growling tiger or other predator to direct our attention to an immediate existential threat.  Leaves blowing in the wind would be a distraction if we routinely perceived them as having agency.  Yet, after a storm, a tornado for example, that destroys our house but not our neighbors, we might have some feeling of an agency to nature that selectively targets us (what did we do wrong?)

My experience in the woods, of having a feeling of agency where normally I would not, suggests that this feeling is primal and like fear, anger, love and other feelings becomes more refined as we mature and learn causal relationships, those before-after scenarios that validate or refute our sense of agency for ourselves and others, be they people, animals, plants or another natural phenomenon. 

We recognize that infants, toddlers and small children are frightened by many inanimate things, things responded to as if they were believed  to have agency. The feeling of agency informs the small child that they cannot expect constancy from something, that it is unpredictable.  Paired with fear or other negative emotions, they retreat or are more cautious around such things.  While things that elicit pleasurable affect combined with a feeling of agency draw them closer to someone or something.

I want to be clear that while we may indeed use our cognitive capabilities to make attributions about agency, I believe there is also a feeling of agency that applies to “other” as well as self.   My sense of agency for the forest was manifest in an altered state where the feeling took precedence over a set of learned associations that would otherwise have inhibited the feeling or attenuated it in favor of a more logical interpretation of my surroundings.  But I contend that the feeling represents something more fundamental about our nervous system, something which is present before we experience the world.  Our subsequent experience then creates expectations which allow us to place our feelings within a particular context so that their expression is replaced or subdued by a more cognitive interpretation of our surroundings.    

In this way agency is at the core of our experience of reality.  It is like the grain of sand that is necessary for a pearl to form.  We begin with the feeling of agency for the world around us, it is all one sentient being, and then we validate or refute our sense of agency as we encounter the world around us.  As we build neurological networks that allow us to predict events, our sense of agency is diminished and the pearl of a more causal, logical framework serves as our experience of reality.   Although the logical framework ultimately becomes our most prevalent means of understanding the world, as with the pearl, it is the feeling of agency that forms the seed from which the logical framework is constructed. 

Feelings, including the feeling of agency, determine and direct our earliest perceptions and, over time, and with additional information gleaned from the world around us, we build a probabilistic model of what is likely to occur and what is not.  Our nervous system then adjusts our feelings accordingly, refuting or validating them for either specific or general circumstances. The interplay of feelings and logical and temporal associations determine what we believe about the world around us, and what we believe about reality determines how we experience the world.

Regulations, Trust, Guns

Good regulations promote trust and facilitate our ability to conduct ourselves without being encumbered to think about the risks we face to our very survival every day.  For example, imagine what driving would be like without regulation, without traffic signals or licensing, without speed limits or turn signals.  Imagine cars with sharp protruding dashboards and handles and without seat belts or airbags.  Imagine no car seats for children or laws against drunk driving.

Laws and regulations help to fulfill our constitutional mandate as a people to have a government that, in addition to other mandates is to promote the general welfare.  And our welfare is immeasurably improved by the promotion of trust in one another.  Without regulation our trust would be diminished.  In the case of automobiles, we would inch along every street suspecting that every driver was untrained, unlicensed and under the influence.  We would need to stop at each intersection to be certain that cross traffic was going to give us the right of way, at each bridge to be sure it was strong enough or, if going under it, high enough, and we would require more caution when taking unknown roads with unknown hazards.

The notion that we cannot rely on regulations and laws and societal norms, that we must be constantly prepared to defend ourselves against an imminent threat to our ourselves and our loved ones is, I believe, what drives those who propound having guns at the ready, and who believe that concealed carry and open carry laws will reduce gun violence.  But contrary to the claim that more guns will instill a sense of security, I believe these proposed solutions create a profound mistrust of others and encumbers each of us to assume an unrelenting sense of threat for our survival at every moment.

Laws that promote carrying personal weapons as a daily feature of our lives diminish the capacity of people to trust their surroundings and the people they encounter.  As a society we have professionals, police and private security guards, to establish our security so we don’t have to prepare and monitor for threats to our immediate survival most of the time.  

None of this is to deny the real and present dangers to our lives.  Crime, aging bridges and buildings, automobiles and irresponsible drivers, toxic chemicals, unstable people with access to weapons, terrorists, these dangers, if not addressed, regulated or otherwise mitigated can reduce our lives to that of overriding suspicion and fear.  

In the USA in the year 2016, something on the order of 40,000 people died in vehicular accidents and upwards of 4.5 million were injured, many devastatingly so (see end note).  It is a risk we take to get to and from our work, our friends, our doctors, entertainment and to accomplish the multiple tasks of daily living that we do for ourselves, our family and others.  So regulations have their limitations.  They can only go so far in providing for our safety and general welfare.  Regulations put in place to improve the safety features of automobiles have had some positive impact, to be sure, but we could go further. We could reduce speed limits, for example, especially on interstate highways, which most probably would dramatically reduce accidents, save lives and result in fewer injuries.  But slowing down our expressways will also slow down our commerce.  Fewer medicines will be available in time to save lives, local markets will gain an advantage over national markets, constraining competition, allowing for more scarcity and higher prices. So regulations have their limitations and must be considered in the larger context of what we want as a society. 

Laws and regulations go hand in hand with individual responsibility.  Regulations that allow us to trust one another more don’t obviate the need for caution.  Children must still learn to look both ways before crossing a street.  People in unfamiliar territory should be wary of strangers.  It’s probably a good idea to lock your car and house at night.

To trust is to establish a firm belief in the reliability or truth of someone or something.  Trust is not blind faith, to be maintained in the absence of evidence, but something which is acquired and maintained, or lost, through periodic evaluation of the evidence.

For the most part we trust our societal systems, that police protect us, that doctors cure us, that the waterworks won’t poison us.  Yes, there are exceptions to these expectations and when the exceptions mount in frequency or severity our trust is lost and we seek redress, we seek change, we seek justice.

But the presence of weapons in our daily lives is not a solution that will instill trust or reduce gun violence.  Guns, rifles, semi-automatics must be regulated.  Who can own and use them, where they can be carried or housed, and when they are appropriate are all within the framework of the second amendment and the supreme court rulings that have been made to date. 

Death is certain and life is always on the edge of chaos.  But modern civilization advances through progressive improvements in the quality of human existence. Trust is an essential aspect for living in peace, and the more we can find ways to trust one another, the more likely it will be that peace and tranquility can prevail.  More guns are not the answer.

End Note:  Automobile statistics from Kirsten Korosec, February 15, 2017 638 PM Fortune Autos section. Timeinc.net.

A cold winter day

Looking out on a cold winter day.  The trees bereft of leaves, the ground frozen and seemingly barren.  Winter encourages a comparison with the other seasons and encourages a view of transformation and change that is part and parcel of our existence. We can not have a stable, steady life without change, any more than there can be day without night.

Part of our maturation and growth unfolds from the genetic blueprint encoded in our DNA, a blueprint that is reconstructed anew, changed and transformed from each set of parents to each child. The uniqueness of each physical being, the composition of proteins, the size and shape of each bone and muscle, the neural network of each brain and nervous system is based on a long evolutionary chain of challenge and test.  Of traits that remain and of traits that are removed from the blueprint.

So too is it that our choices lead us toward some possible futures and away from others.  Every choice leading down one path, leaving behind another.  Sometimes our choices are based on decisions that are too exclusionary, too dogmatic, decisions that unnecessarily take us too close to the things we choose to align with, and move us too far away from the things we have purposely or unmindfully excluded from our lives.  Like the forces of tectonic plates which shift and slide among one another, there is a natural tendency for our choices to re-align, for our beliefs to adjust to the past excesses of earlier intentions, those “I’ll nevers”  or “I’ll only’s” that made sense in the heat of a particular passion but which, over time, can be seen in a clearer light.

Transformation allows for a resetting of intentions and, conversely, a resetting of intentions allows for transformation and growth.  Recalibration brings you closer to those things which you’ve pushed away, and allows you to adjust your course to move away from those things that no longer serve you.

12/31/2017

East of the Vietnam War Memorial

I am east of the Vietnam War memorial wall now.  I had walked from F street and 12^th to the Washington monument, then up past the reflecting pool to the Lincoln memorial.  To the south is the Jefferson rotunda and, to the north, the White House.  Behind me is the Capital building. 

Washington, for all its power and corruption is still a spiritual place, steeped in an ideology of justice and freedom. 

People with lofty ideals are never-the-less the product of their times. They are tied to the outright prejudices and lingering doubts of their ancestors.  To allow for something less than the ideal is sometimes seen as hypocrisy.  But ideals are not meant to reflect what is, but what can be.  To voice what you wish to be true, even when your own behavior subverts achieving it, is a step forward to manifesting a better future.

Lincoln presided over a country in civil war.  A war about economics, about what is and is not permissible to buy and sell;  about whether certain people can serve as just another means of production.  It was a war that was meant to define who the we of “we the people” were.  A defining that continues today to establish those differences that can be tolerated among a peolpe who call themselves a nation.

But there comes a time when an idea, like slavery, can no longer coexist with the evolving thought of the times; when a practice deviates from a multitude of other closely held values such that the tectonic plates of a culture shift, and those who persist in their outmoded beliefs are toppled from power.

At any point in time, the prevailing culture of America is always rife with fault lines that demarcate transitions from old to new, from that which was accepted or tolerated to that which is increasingly perceived as undesirable as well as those things that were once undesirable but are now perceived as benign or in some way beneficial.

At the core of our understanding are the notions our founders called out in the preamble to the U.S. constitution:

• To form a more perfect union
• To establish justice
• To insure domestic tranquility
• To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

If these are the ideals we share, if this is the nation we seek to be, then whatever political acrimony of the day must be relegated to a squabble, a spat, a disagreement about how we achieve these loftier goals. 

 (November 7, 2001)

Aside...

Aside:  I’m changing the nature and format of the writings that I’ve published here, but not the overall topic.  Bridging the Divide remains as a fundamental objective.  Divide of what?  Well, that’s what I’m exploring.  What is it that divides us?  Not only from one another but from ourselves?  What keeps us from being our best selves? What keeps our society from being the best society? What keeps us from being the best partner, the best parent, the best of whatever we aspire to?  Not a competitive best, but the best in terms of what heredity and circumstance offer us.  Grace to some, blind dumb luck to others. 

Bridging, what does this mean?  To cross, to integrate, to increase connection to.  So together, Bridging the Divide means to cross over, integrate and increase connection to what keeps us from being our best selves, what keeps our society from being the best society.  And there is no getting around the fact that we are, each of us is, the fundamental unit from which society is made.

In the past I treated this blog, and the writings which preceded it within a formal framework of publication.  My own rules to be sure, and not of sufficient rigor that they were able to produce a product having perfect grammar or spelling or logic or relevance or interest.    Still, it was on the other side of the current continuum of tweets and Facebook posts, on the side of “resistance to make public” until I had edited and revised to a point of resignation – “this is the best I can do.”

I’m going to compromise and allow for more imperfection, more half-baked, ill-conceived ideas to escape the safety of my private world.   Because the times have changed.  Because it appears that we have lost our collective ability to integrate logic and subjective experience into a vision of a collective future.  A future in which the widest breadth of human experience and potential is allowed to evolve into the greatest good.

The will of Zeus: The "Iran Deal" and Nuclear Proliferation

In Greek mythology Zeus withholds fire from mankind, only to have it stolen by Prometheus  who shares this powerful source of energy with humanity.  Enraged, Zeus instructs other gods to create an enchanting  woman, Pandora, who is offered to Prometheus’s brother, Epimetheus.  Prometheus implores his brother to refuse Zeus’s gift, but is rebuffed, and Pandora becomes his brother’s wife.  As a wedding present, Zeus gives Pandora  a large Jar (often characterized as a box) that, in ancient times was used to store grains, wines, oils and other valuable items.  Large enough to hold a human body, the jar was also used to bury the dead.  The jar was decorated and lovely to behold, but the gift was given on one condition, that it not be opened.  Pandora resisted the temptation to see what was in the jar again and again, but eventually her curiosity compelled her to open the jar, and she released the evils and maladies of the world that we know today, among them, death, disease and discord.     

The eternal truth of the Pandora myth is that humanity continues to invent and discover new and powerful tools that can be used for the benefit or destruction of humanity.   Each new secret revealed, from fire, to metal, to dynamite, from airplanes, to missiles and to nuclear energy will ultimately be as much a part of our world as the natural wonders of earth, sky, water and the animals and plants upon which our existence depends.  We can no more withhold these new secrets from one another than we can deny our fellow humans air, water or sustenance.

The reality is that nuclear power, whether for useful or destructive ends, has been released from Pandora’s jar, and is now a part of the world we inhabit.  The only feasible way forward is to share its benefits, and restrain its use as a weapon.  But to do this, there must be a world order in which nations can be held accountable for their management and use of nuclear materials.  This is the direction offered by the nations negotiating with Iran; nations that represent the legacy of victory over the axis powers of World War II (US, Great Brittan, Russia, France, China).  Unfortunately, these very nations are themselves only marginally accountable for their stockpile of weapons.  The very structure and governance of the United Nations, in which these five countries serve as permanent members of the UN Security Council establishes the status quo of what constitutes national prestige and power.  Having nuclear weapons is enshrined as the very epitome of this national prestige, making it all the more likely that other nations will seek to acquire nuclear weapons for themselves.  Thus the list continues to grow, now including India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.  These nations are even less accountable, as some have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and others, such as Israel, do not officially admit to even having nuclear weapons.

It is good policy to negotiate with Iran to allow them to pursue the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy, and good policy to hold them accountable for throttling the development of nuclear weapons.  But until all nations agree to dismantle their nuclear arms, and agree to prevent any nation from having the capability to build them, there will always be the threat of their use, and a desire for other nations to acquire this technology for themselves. 

One of the contents of Pandora’s jar remained at the bottom, it was not released in the world, but was available to it.  That item was, and is, hope.  Hope is needed for us to have the opportunity to share the great abundance of earth’s resources that all of us depend upon.  Hope offers us the opportunity to further our well-being and the well-being of our families, and our descendents.  It is hope and our common humanity that will allow us to achieve a secure and abundant future.  This hope is not blind, but held with a wary eye toward betrayal, with safeguards and a plan to intervene should one nation decide to jeopardize the welfare of others.  The “deal with Iran” is a step in the right direction.  But until other nations destroy their stockpiles of nuclear weapons and agree to the same terms of peaceful use, a lasting solution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons will elude us.

Reflections on the Nuclear Age

Originally posted in October, 2006 but still relevant today....

I was born almost four years after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I had no direct experience of the era leading up to World War II, and my knowledge of its fateful conclusion, like that of most “baby boomers”, was limited to seeing flickering, grainy newsreels as I sat in a school auditorium. Whether newsreel or sci-fi flick, the opening scene was always the same; an image of a surging column of smoke and ash that embroils itself upward in a thick billowing stalk and then ponderously crescendos downward to form the familiar shape, and most notorious symbol of the nuclear age, a mushroom cloud.

Like the twin towers of the World Trade Center, this image was repeated with a frequency and repetition that seared the image into the mind’s eye, and imprinted the soul with something akin to a generational scar; a scar which branded a generation with the knowledge that whatever passed for security before was no longer true.

The official version in news reels was that ‘the bomb’ was a testament to the marvels of science and American technological ingenuity. They gave them ‘cutsie’ names like ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ and quickly changed the topic to the promise of a nuclear future with plenty of cheap, clean energy.

But the rosy spin of government propaganda doesn’t last long in the hands of a popular culture. Science fiction movies quickly saw another future, one that was dark and foreboding, as the earth as we knew it was annihilated. The legacy of the next nuclear event would be stark and decimated landscapes where even the very atmosphere and weather were forever altered and human beings, the few that remained, reverted back to a desperate tenuous survival that was far from assured.

Out of the rubble of WWII, and the spectacle of a nuclear holocaust, came a renewed determination to create a world body that would prevent a repeat of the past. The United Nations was formed to rectify the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, to contain national aggressions and prevent another world war.

The United States of America, much to its shame, never signed on to the League of Nations. Only as one of the victors of WWII would it emerge from its former isolationism. The charter of the UN, like the declaration of independence for the US, proclaims a number of noble ideas about the rights of people and of nations. Yet the structure of the UN was immediately flawed and unbalanced as it established the victorious nations of WWII as permanent members of the Security Council. It was only a matter of time until each of the member nations followed the technological lead of the United States and tested their own nuclear weapons.

Then, ten years after China unveiled their first nuclear test, India too, became a member of the nuclear club. Pakistan, India’s rival, was not to be outdone, and by 1998 had developed nuclear weapons of their own. It was largely through Pakistan that North Korea gained the technological “know-how” for the development of their nuclear program. No one has admitted that Israel has conducted a nuclear test, but most believe that this nation, too, holds an arsenal of nuclear weapons. And Iran is not far behind.

Robert Oppenheimer, on seeing the first US test of a nuclear bomb in the New Mexican desert was reported to have quoted from the Bhagavad Gita:

If the radiance of a thousand suns

were to burst into the sky,

that would be like

the splendor of the Mighty One—

I am become Death, the shatterer of Worlds.

Oppenheimer advocated that no individual nation should hold the power of the atom but that it was necessary for an international body to serve as the sole authority for the management and use of nuclear resources. The United Nations was never given a clear mandate to serve as this authority, but it is clear that the limited role it has played in this effort has failed. We have been on a continued path toward nuclear proliferation, and now the rate of such proliferation is increasing. The ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq have been distractions that have taken our eye “off the ball,” have led to a misguided use of resources and have blinded us to seeing who are our friends and allies and how best we could secure the safety and future of our people and the people’s of the world.

American Terrorists

You awake to the headline “70,000 killed by a new weapon of mass destruction.”  More than 25 times those killed at the world trade center on 9/11.  Horrific.  You read further.  It wasn’t us.  Wasn’t Americans who were killed.  Thank god for that.  But wait, it was Americans who killed the 70,000? How can this be?  Americans killing tens of thousands of civilians, old and young, men, women, boys, girls, infants, indiscriminately?  This can’t be.  You read further.  America, in an effort to end the 14 year war on terror takes a decisive step to terrorize those who terrorize, and their supporters, as well as their communities, their families, their friends and all of those who live and work near them.   ISIS, Al-Qaeda , black robed beheaders, and IED makers, terrorists of all stripes and persuasions, told in no uncertain terms that they and their aggression, their jihad, will not be tolerated.  We will annihilate you!   And if you have any doubts, here is the proof, not only of our resolve, our determination, but of our capability to destroy you.  Surrender or suffer this – we can mass murder better then you.  We can kill 70,000 in a blinding flash of nuclear destruction.  So give it up, now. 

If we could locate the heart and soul of those bent on our destruction, on those terrorists who insist on carrying out  their hellish nightmare of suicide attacks and bombings, would we?  Could we?  What would it take to justify the killing of innocent civilians as we did to end the war with Japan in 1945?

Is there a justification?  Can we, in hindsight continue to say that what we did to end that terrible war was morally justified?  And if we can, then is it not within reason to say that any nation or group that believes their way of life is threatened can take whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones? 

70,000 were killed when the second atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki; a city purported to have little military significance, yet having a civilian population of 250,000.  

Then president of the United States, Harry Truman justified the bombing of Hiroshima, three days earlier saying “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.  That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.”  The military base, which resided in a city of 350,000, had approximately 43,000 troops. By some estimates, over 100,000 died.

Truman said nothing about the bombing of Nagasaki.

We are approaching the 70^th anniversary of the only nuclear bombings of civilians in the history of the human race.  We won the war, and so we control the narrative.  And our narrative has been that the massive destruction to civilians was necessary to end that war.  The allied bombing of the German city of Dresden and the fire bombing of Tokyo that preceded the nuclear attacks might suggest that the precedent was already in place to terrorize civilian populations to win the war.  Only the method and the magnitude of this intention were advanced by the use of atomic weapons.

I am not advocating a massive mei culpa for forgiveness (though I am not opposed to this, either). But I think there is value in reframing our narrative, in looking back and asking how things might have been done differently? Can we reflect on what we did then and ask “is it still within our moral framework now? “ And if the answer is yes, then sadly, I contend that the war on terror will be endless.

Thoughts on social networking

Hmmm. Still trying to get a handle on the notion of social networking. I have a tendency to say the wrong things at the wrong time, or to the wrong people. I've been pretty lucky with email so far, as the line is pretty clear between what's published and what's not. Yet, the fear is there. And once the button is pressed, the deed is done.

And just now, I do believe, I exposed an old blog of mine (this one, in fact). Commentary on news that is too old to be news anymore, but, perhaps, too recent to be history. And thus, a bit embarrassing for me. As it falls between the cracks of relevancy.

Social networking takes a bit of 'getting use to." It's a party where you're suppose to stay on the surface of things. Don't get too deep. And stay away from topics that might be too controversial. Yet, alone with my words, I am usually too vulnerable to my own honesty, or maybe the lies I want to believe. Truth or fiction, the words appear in tangible print. And then what? Erase? Commit to a private journal? or share? Why write them down if they are to be hidden? And yet, words in print help to clarify my thoughts.

Back to social networking then, and the thoughts I want to share. Friends are now acquaintances and co-workers, family and, well, friends. The flip side of networking is privacy, and the control we like to have in sharing information with others. It's a bit much for me to navigate these new waters, to avoid the shoals and coral reefs of social censure, and reach deeper waters where the soul is free.

The Fear of Sexual Predation

Michael Wilbon in his column “Sexuality Disclosed, Ignorance Exposed” (Washington Post, 2/8/07) declares that “Just as it would be a relief to arrive at the place in time when the color of the coaches in the Super Bowl matters not one bit, it would be fabulous to reach the day when a male athlete in a team sport doesn't have to worry about the reaction of declaring his homosexuality.”

I agree with Wilbon’s sentiments, but I take issue with his treatment of the comments of two NBA players, Shavlik Randolph and Steven Hunter, which he called “idiotic.” Responding to the recent “news” that John Amaechi had become the first former NBA player to publicly say he's gay, Wilbon relates:

“For instance, the 76ers' Shavlik Randolph, who likes to throw his religious beliefs in everybody's face, is quoted as telling reporters, "As long as you don't bring your gayness on me, I'm fine." And Steven Hunter of the 76ers said: "As long as he don't make any advances toward me, I'm fine with it. As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself as a good person, I'd be fine with it."

In my view, these players voiced a fear that is common in our culture, that of being sexually preyed upon.

Perhaps the player’s comments do suggest a certain naiveté, for certainly a man who declares his sexual preference, whatever it is, does not make that man rude or predatory. Yet, there is something to the fact that our culture recognizes a need to separate public bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women. Why? In almost every other activity we hold that “separate-but-equal” is not socially or morally justifiable, but separate bath and locker rooms for different genders are not only tolerated, but preferred.

Gays and lesbians challenge us to think about how our social customs help us protect our privacy and manage our need for, and vulnerability to, the sexual desire of others. This makes us all more human. Randolph and Hunter’s fears are unfounded, but they mirror the fears of anyone concerned about protecting their personal space and sexual involvement with others. And that’s not “idiotic.”

Reflections on the Nuclear Age

I was born almost four years after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I had no direct experience of the era leading up to World War II, and my knowledge of its fateful conclusion, like that of most “baby boomers”, was limited to seeing flickering, grainy newsreels as I sat in a school auditorium. Whether newsreel or sci-fi flick, the opening scene was always the same; an image of a surging column of smoke and ash that embroils itself upward in a thick billowing stalk and then ponderously crescendos downward to form the familiar shape, and most notorious symbol of the nuclear age, a mushroom cloud.

Like the twin towers of the World Trade Center, this image was repeated with a frequency and repetition that seared the image into the mind’s eye, and imprinted the soul with something akin to a generational scar; a scar which branded a generation with the knowledge that whatever passed for security before was no longer true.

The official version in news reels was that ‘the bomb’ was a testament to the marvels of science and American technological ingenuity. They gave them ‘cutsie’ names like ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ and quickly changed the topic to the promise of a nuclear future with plenty of cheap, clean energy.

But the rosy spin of government propaganda doesn’t last long in the hands of a popular culture. Science fiction movies quickly saw another future, one that was dark and foreboding, as the earth as we knew it was annihilated. The legacy of the next nuclear event would be stark and decimated landscapes where even the very atmosphere and weather were forever altered and human beings, the few that remained, reverted back to a desperate tenuous survival that was far from assured.

Out of the rubble of WWII, and the spectacle of a nuclear holocaust, came a renewed determination to create a world body that would prevent a repeat of the past. The United Nations was formed to rectify the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, to contain national aggressions and prevent another world war.

The United States of America, much to its shame, never signed on to the League of Nations. Only as one of the victors of WWII would it emerge from its former isolationism. The charter of the UN, like the declaration of independence for the US, proclaims a number of noble ideas about the rights of people and of nations. Yet the structure of the UN was immediately flawed and unbalanced as it established the victorious nations of WWII as permanent members of the Security Council. It was only a matter of time until each of the member nations followed the technological lead of the United States and tested their own nuclear weapons.

Then, ten years after China unveiled their first nuclear test, India too, became a member of the nuclear club. Pakistan, India’s rival, was not to be outdone, and by 1998 had developed nuclear weapons of their own. It was largely through Pakistan that North Korea gained the technological “know-how” for the development of their nuclear program. No one has admitted that Israel has conducted a nuclear test, but most believe that this nation, too, holds an arsenal of nuclear weapons. And Iran is not far behind.

Robert Oppenheimer, on seeing the first US test of a nuclear bomb in the New Mexican desert was reported to have quoted from the Bhagavad Gita:

If the radiance of a thousand suns

were to burst into the sky,

that would be like

the splendor of the Mighty One—

I am become Death, the shatterer of Worlds.

Oppenheimer advocated that no individual nation should hold the power of the atom but that it was necessary for an international body to serve as the sole authority for the management and use of nuclear resources. The United Nations was never given a clear mandate to serve as this authority, but it is clear that the limited role it has played in this effort has failed. We have been on a continued path toward nuclear proliferation, and now the rate of such proliferation is increasing. The ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq have been distractions that have taken our eye “off the ball,” have led to a misguided use of resources and have blinded us to seeing who are our friends and allies and how best we could secure the safety and future of our people and the people’s of the world.

Sometimes, to gain control, you must give up power

10/11/06

In an article in today’s washingtonpost.com entitled McCain Targets Both Clintons Charles Babington documents the recriminations of Senators McCain and Clinton about the degree to which policies of the Clinton or Bush administration could be considered causal to the current situation being played out with North Korea’s recent nuclear test and their belligerence on the world’s stage.

The political context of these accusations belies a larger, more ominous, origin for the current crisis, a deteriorating United Nations. The United Nations, formed after World War II to manage the brave new world ushered in by the use of nuclear weapons is in tatters. The United States, an uncontested superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union, was itself belligerent on the world stage as it marched toward Bagdad 3 years ago. Arguably, the audacity of the United States has been a model for North Korea. But a more cogent model for the actions of the government in Pyongyang is the very structure of power established and legitimatized by the current United Nations.

Russia, France, China, Britain and the US have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Each country can ultimately veto any pronouncements of this world body. It is not trivial to note that all of the permanent members of this council are nuclear powers. Nor is it trivial to note how Pakistan and India, with their acquisition of nuclear weapons, have risen in stature with the United States. Nor is it trivial that Israel has nuclear weapons but some pretend otherwise.

Why shouldn’t countries seek to have nuclear weapons? Did Native Americans with bows and arrows shun European guns and ammunition? Has any society, any culture, any nation not sought out the latest technology in weaponry once it was released from Pandora’s box?

If there is a failure in US policy, it is in decimating and trivializing the one hope we have to control the spread and use of nuclear weapons, a strong and viable United Nations. There is blame to go around. It is not only the collective failure of several presidencies in the US, but the failure of every permanent member nation of the UN Security Counsel. Collectively, they have allowed the UN to devolve into little more than an instrument for manipulation or outright rejection.

Robert Oppenheimer, called by some the father of the nuclear age, was aghast at the destructive force he had helped to unleash. He advocated for an international body to control the production, distribution and use of nuclear resources. His words fell on deaf ears.

Providing privilege and power to those who have nuclear capabilities guarantees that all countries will seek the same privilege. Today it is North Korea, tomorrow, Iran. Who will it be next week, next year? What countries still arm their warriors with bows and arrows?

The United Nations must be an inclusive, fair body for the deliberation of relationships between countries. It won’t matter much whether the next president is a Republican or a Democrat if there is no unity among the nations of the world. We must support the UN, make it stronger and more effective and recognize that sometimes, to gain control, you must give up power.

What does North Korea Want?

North Korea has, it seems with forthright honesty, set forth its agenda to develop and have nuclear weapons. Now they have made a test of one of these, and, though perhaps not a complete success, their boldness provokes us and other nations and makes the world less secure.

The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, has made it clear that North Korea’s nuclear aspirations are directly linked to their fear of the militarily aggressive United States. Why would they fear us? After all, they don’t have anything we want, certainly not oil. Even the raw material which could bolster our own stockpile of weapons-of-mass-destruction, uranium ore, is not, to my knowledge, in great abundance in their region of the world.

Perhaps they are afraid of the United States of America because they have heard our leaders refer to them as one of several countries that form an ‘Axis of Evil’. Perhaps they are afraid of the USA because the current sitting president of this once great nation has proclaimed a jihad of democracy around the world. Perhaps North Korea is afraid of us because the United States seems to be subverting, manipulating and finally directing for their own ends the wholly legitimate grievances of other nations (1).

Where should North Korea look for a model of how to comport with the powerful United States? What could establish its influence, what could assure its own security from the foreign aggression of a ‘superpower’?

North Korea seems to be throwing in its lot with the United Nations, even as it defies the organization’s attempts to control its nuclear ambitions. Why not? The United States and Israel behave similarly, as do many other nations that spurn UN resolutions, only to call for their own. North Korea doesn’t want to just be a member of the general assembly. It is posturing to become a member of that exclusive club, the permanent members of the Security Council. The core of the security council of the United Nations is not an elected body. Contrary to the often repeated proclamations from the current US president that the United States believes in a world run by democracy, no permanent member nation on the UN’s Security Counsel believes in democracy. The one belief held in common by all permanent members of the Security Council is that their possession of nuclear weapons assures their privileged veto power over any and all pronouncements of this world body.

Russia, France, China, Britain and the US have the permanent seats on this council – PERMANENT SEATS. How could any nation without nuclear weaponry hope to achieve even a modicum of parity, of equality, for their opinions and beliefs? What choice is there in the undemocratic United Nations ruled by a junta of nations possessing weapons of mass destruction but to acquire these nihilistic weapons for their own nations? After all, the veto is but a metaphor for the fact that nuclear deterrence, once a superpower game, is now being played by just your ordinary, every day nations as well.

North Korea has surely not been blind to the increased stature of India and Pakistan with their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran, too, is playing the nuclear card, albeit with a bit more finesse, as they proclaim, and rightfully so, their desire for control over their energy needs. Israel, meanwhile, sits quietly out of the nuclear limelight, but holding that nuclear card, none-the-less.

“Do as I say, not as I do” is not a very cogent example for the world to follow. North Korea sees how the game is played and is playing it, as is Iran. We are distracted by the threat of terrorism even as we fuel the fires of nuclear proliferation.

North Korea’s nuclear ambition is only a symptom of a larger threat, the demise of the United Nations. We have seen the chaos and civil strife caused by our ‘removal’ of a government, even a lousy government, for the people of Iraq. What will happen when the United Nations, even a lousy United Nations, dies, in part, from our neglect and failure to institute democratic forms for this world government?

If we, as a democracy, do not promote equality for all nations, rich and poor, how can we expect North Korea, or any other nation, not to pursue nuclear weapons?

It is the right of a people to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive of the self evident truths that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Alter the UN, make it a truly democratic government, or face the fact that the people of the world will abolish it, and god (any and all gods) help us if that happens.

References:

(1) The last sentence in this paragraph is a paraphrase from Robert S. McNamara, ironically, spoken in reference to the communist ambitions of the Soviet Union and China. (Robert S. McNamara: The Essence of Security. Reflections in Office: Haper and Row. 1968),

Various news reports on the nuclear test by N. Korea in media from 10/9 and 10/10/06

The United States Declaration of Independence

10/10/06 in Cincinnati, OH (version as of 10/12/06 at 10:12 am)

Word count: 898

What should we say to them?

A constellation of recent news items deserves comment:

Controversy over cartoons, initially published by the Danish paper Jyllands, that are caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, have sparked a continuing controversy lead by several Muslim leaders and groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673908.stm

• A cartoon by Tom Toles in last Sunday’s Washington post drew protest from several high ranking military officers, including General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The cartoon depicts a bandaged soldier without legs or arms being ministered to by a doctor named Rumsfeld saying, “I’m listing your condition as “battle hardended.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html

• A complaint filed by an Indian actress, Khushboo against the magazine Maxim for publishing a faked photo of her in underwear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4666278.stm

Free Speech? Rude and inconsiderate? Inciting a riot?

Most of us have experienced a situation in which someone says something that, even as we acknowledge to ourselves is inappropriate, we want to laugh. Humor is like that. Laughter, when it is not out of joy is often out of despair. I’ve also seen my share of diversity video’s and sexual harassment training films that are valid; tools to help people understand that humor is often at someone else’s expense. Jokes are fashionable within a very limited range of political correctness, and a funny line that may have been okay to repeat at the office in 1975, may be way out-of-line today.

In all things there is a balance. Freedom of speech, to be sure, is one of the greatest freedoms of all. Yet just because a person can say anything doesn’t mean they should. Every speech that is delivered has an audience, and every speechmaker tailors their speech to their audience. The language, the idiom, the content, and, yes, the jokes, are all orchestrated to be received by a particular group of people, a group that shares an affiliation with the speaker. For exclusive audiences ideas may coincide, or, if they differ, there is still some basis for understanding in which shared humor becomes a bridge to understand one another, to share in that condition of humanity that lets us laugh in spite of our differences.

But take that same speech, devoted to that target audience, and present it to another group and the applause might readily turn to boo’s. Scorn may replace praise. Anger may replace what was previously a happy concurrence of opinion.

On the world stage, in the public forum, the audience is no longer a hand picked group. With the limitless distribution of the internet there is no longer a targeted subscriber audience. For better or worse, it is now as if every speech intended for a select group were bugged, taped and played on loudspeakers on every corner. Our technology no longer allows for the “inside” joke. Just as the promulgation of civil liberties has diminished the exclusivity of race and gender based groups, so too, communications technology has changed the arena of social discourse.

Does this mean that much satire does and will inevitably continue to offend others? I think so. And, if I’m right, then perhaps we need to think a bit more about the results of our efforts to communicate. If we are flippant and disrespectful, are we creating a dialog that wins the hearts and minds of those we want to better understand us? If we want our views to be respected, don’t we, in turn, have to at least try and understand and respect the strongly held views of others?

We are at a crossroads in the world today. Each of us has the capacity to be heard by an audience that never existed before, an audience that can vary in size, ideology, nationality, religious expression, that can be comprised of a receptive few or of an angry mob. Those that want to reach out to us, and those who want to destroy us.

What should we say to them? And when does “us” and “them” become “we?”

Catching up

August, 2005 when I last wrote in this blog, was a long time ago. Since then, Arial Sharon has had a massive stoke and now lays in a coma. Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament. The insurgency in Iraq continues unabated and messages from Al-Qaeda suggest that hatred and fear of the United States are also largely unabated.

In the mean time, Iran moves forward with a nuclear energy program that Europe and the US fear will include the development of nuclear weapons. Exxon amasses the largest profit of any US corporation ever, 36.3 billion dollars in 2005, on an annual net income of 371 billion dollars, more then the entire GNP of Saudi Arabia for the same year.

It is hard not to be cynical. America harbors unfettered capitalism not unlike the harboring of Al-Qaeda by the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is a saying, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. Hamas has become the ruling party in Palestine through democratically held elections. The folly of the United State’s invasion of Iraq becomes more apparent as the civil war of that country continues, Islamic fundamentalists encouraged by the lack of a strong central government. Once Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, was a moderating influence on Iran. But now Iran shuns concerns over it’s bold pursuit of nuclear capability. Iran, of course had received their initial technology and support for nuclear development from the US, France and Germany during the days when the US was its “friend.” The government back in the 70’s, though not a democracy, was amenable to US influence. The Shah was happy to kowtow to a large superpower for the rewards that he could accrue for his country. As the Hamas election victory shows, democracy is not, in itself, something that the US government considers to be sufficient for favorable foreign relations, any more then monarchal governments (such as the late Shah’s) were necessarily bad for US relations. The rhetoric of the current Bush administration belies the truth of record profits by Exxon and what they imply, that our war with Iraq is a war meant to commandeer, cajole and otherwise influence foreign powers that have the raw crude under their soil to keep it available to the US economy.

I have no allegiance to the hateful words of Hamas, or the threats of Al-Qaeda, but I also find the overthrow of the former monarch of Iraq by the US to have been equally hateful and threatening to the people of that country. The Bush administration listens to the Christian fundamentalist beliefs of its base of supporters that say that ending the life of a fetus is never justified, nor is it ever merciful to use drugs to mercifully end the life of a person in constant pain. Yet the killing of Iraqis is tolerated, promoted, continued – without any moral outrage. In fact, it is justified as the moral thing to do.

Issues of abortion, euthanasia, war, and the wide distance between poverty and wealth in income and medical care are deserving of debate and discussion. The answers to questions posed are, perhaps, less important then that discussions are held. But such discussions will never have credibility until we cease to blame others and look at ourselves.

Civil Disobedience in Gaza

Watching the drama as Israeli settlers are forced to move from their homes I am struck by the poignancy of their sacrifice and heartfelt emotions. What is most memoriable to me, though, is the incredible restraint and humanity that is evident between the government instruments of authority, the soldiers and police, and the angry, frustrated settlement members. They were asked, then forced to leave behind, not just houses and beach front property, but the remains of their loved ones buried in the sand and the memorials to loved ones who died at the hands of terrorists.

The settlers did not fight with guns and bombs, but with sand and oil and paint thinner – thought, at first, to be acid. The police, too, used, not guns, but water. Again, what struck me the most were the pictures of police and soldiers, not in stances of militaristic rigidity and resolve to fight, but face to face with the settlers; their postures reflecting some understanding for the plight of those who were being asked to leave their homes. They were talking with their charges, their countrymen, with what looked like empathy and compassion. The pictures and stories emerging from the pullout from Gaza tell a story as much about compassion and humanity as of civil disobedience. The settlement “hold-outs” are mostly young and idealistic and unable to fully grasp that their sacrifice, and that of their country’s, is a significant gesture toward peace with their Palestinian neighbors. Striking, too, is the obvious disparity in economic circumstance between the well apportioned homes of the Israeli settlers and the minimalist adobe-like abodes of the Palestinians. One irony of the Gaza pullout is that the fine houses and synagogues that have been abandoned will be destroyed. Palestinians will not be able to have more than they have now, except some land on the other side of a historic political boundary. True, some of the infrastructure of streets and plumbing and electricity will remain, a better scenario than that which occurred in the aftermath of America’s occupation of Iraq. But the essential circumstances of economic disparities between Palestinians and Israelis are unlikely to change by this shift of people from one place to another.

The pullout from Gaza is yet another gambit for peace and a valuable demonstration of the sincerity of Ariel Sharon and his country that they want peace. The compassion and humanity shown by the Israeli’s for one another, police and soldiers for the settlers and vice versa is another demonstration of the sincerity of these people for peaceful resolution to their differences. I wish this could be the standard by which Palestinians and Israelis treated each other and the standard by which we, all of us, will one day treat one another.