Rights and Right

In the days leading up to this most inauspicious of anniversaries there was a significant brouhaha over a Florida preacher's declaration of his congregation's intention to make of today the first annual "Burn a Quran Day" and to celebrate accordingly. Fortunately, just a few days ago he changed his mind, albeit in a rather snide and insincere manner by simultaneously demanding that the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" be moved to a new location. The Ground-Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque) and the idiocy surrounding it may warrant discussion another time, but they are not within the scope of todays article.


In a discussion of the planned Quran-burning activities I encountered a meme which I had encountered before. A person in the discussion declared that the church in question was right to burn the Quran, citing the First Amendment as his argument.


Now, I would like to be perfectly clear: there was not a difficulty in his syntax. He was not saying that the people have the right to protest and even to burn something like a book or a flag or an effigy; but rather that these people were granted either moral or factual rectitude by certain Constitutional doctrines.





The First Amendment only secures for people the Right to speak, to write, to gather, and to protest as they will and it only secures people from oppression by the government. It offers no protection from the natural consequences of your actions. Individuals are perfectly and legally capable of shunning and shaming a person who makes idiotic or dangerous statements. To find oneself unable to do business in a town, culturally and socially isolated and ostracized is not an infraction upon or a violation of one's rights. It is the natural consequence of being an ass and is a form of evil bringing about its own punishment.


I'm not sure where the idea that having a Right is equal to being right originated, but I've a sneaking suspicion it's due in large part to the failure of Civics instructors to actually impart an understanding of what a "right" is, what separates it from a "privilege", and what duties and responsibilities come hand in hand with such rights. But I digress. The point is that this idea is factually, semantically, basically, and totally wrong to a degree approaching, including, and probably exceeding absurdity.





And so, to recount for the benefit of those who never learned the full meaning and implications of the word "Citizen", I will offer this declaration: To have a Right is to be permitted to do a thing, no matter what abuses you inflict upon the good graces of the authority granting you this permission in the course of excercising it. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or with moral rectitude. Just because you CAN do something in no way means that you SHOULD, and that is the critical difference.


By way of example, the outrage surrounding our much-too-silly friends in Florida stemmed not so much from a belief that they had no permission to do such a deed, but that such a deed was offensive and could incite retribution and vengeance. The deed expressed ignorance and utter disregard for human thought (as that is what a book burning sybolically destroys, is human thought; as burning a flag symbolically destroys a nation and burning an effigy destroys a person) and there was no concievable benefit to be gleaned from such an act. In short, the act would have been immoral in almost every system of mores and ethics prevalent in the world today, excepting certain fanatical dogmas (which as I have argued before, are immoral in and of themselves anyway).


To put it in terms not so heavily vested with the emotional tinge of recentism, we could stipulate that Freedom of Speech was protected to such a degree that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or "Bomb!" in an airport were not illegal, it would be the height of negligence and recklessness, if not outright immorality (which it would be if done with malice) to do so. Once the proverbial smoke cleared, the performer of such an action would doubtless be ridden out of town on a rail, literally or figuratively. If the ensuing stampede had caused death or grievous injury, such a person might rightly be put to death or imprisoned indefinitely. This course of action would surely not constitute a breach of Constitutional Rights, but rather would be the natural and just consequence of that persons careless, thoughtless, and dangerous actions. That people are thoughtless in such a manner with such frequency that these actions are explicitly illegal is a testament to the enduring and pervasive stupidity which informs such actions.


Still, I must give credit where credit is due, to the Pastor who heard reason (sort of) and called off his plans and encouraged others to follow his lead in abandoning their hateful actions; and to the great majority of Americans who not only refused to engage in Quran burning but openly expressed their disapproval of such abuses of the Rights we all enjoy.

A Short Proclamation of Approval

Circumstances prevented my earlier and more timely commentary on recent events. However, I feel that in light of such a momentous occassion, I cannot but register my overwhelming approval of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8. In addition, he has removed a stay which would have prevented his ruling from taking immediate effect and equality will be restored on August 18, 2010.

There is much to say on the subject, touching on such myriad subjects as the obvious equality and discrimination, to more obscure but nonetheless relevant topics as democracy and social inertia. It would be more fitting to address these in depth at another time and in another post.

For now, all that needs be said is "Bravo, Judge Walker."

Against Compulsory Federal Service

The following was originally posted as a reply to a friend of mine who had just heard of Rep. Charles Rangel's (asshole) bill, H.R. 5741, which would create compulsory Federal service for everyone.

This is the same Rep. Charles Rangel who was recently arrested for "ethics violations". You know it's bad when Congress has a problem with your ethics.

But on with the show.

---

While I am a fan of the concept of service as a requirement for suffrage (a la Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and for many of the same reasons) such service would be meaningless if it were not voluntary (a point which I believe Heinlein also addresses in that novel). Such is a different conversation.

In a more immediate sense, compulsory service is a really bad idea, especially when it becomes understood that the traditional name for such service is a Draft. I have seen the bill, and it is definitely military in focus, the service in "homeland security" being a catch-all for those who are inadmissible for military service.

Why? Take it from a pragmatic standpoint. Today's military is an advanced professional military that uses some rather complicated equipment and tactics and therefore needs people who are capable of using them and motivated to do so. The military needs to be able to refuse people who are not only physically incapable of the demands that would be placed upon them, but also to refuse the mentally and psychologically incapable.

There has also been a cultural shift in our military over the last 20 years to change the image of the military from a bunch of rednecks, dropouts and delinquents to an organization of professionals worthy of respect. Not too long ago, young criminals were often given military service in lieu of jail time. During this same period, the public image of the military was of a group of thugs, a place for people who couldn't get their shit together any other way and who only needed to be smart enough to follow orders and shoot a gun. This is no longer the case.

Military service is now career focused. The vast majority of MOS' are support roles that simultaneously give a soldier real-world skills; and even the lowliest infantry have access to a rather generous college program. On one side of things, more and more soldiers are required to learn various computer and telecommunications-based skills, while on the other squad-based tactics have taught leadership skills to everyone. Unlike 20 years ago, a soldier leaving todays military is a respected member of society. People don't look at their resume and wonder what they did that made them need to join up. In many fields, military training is an advantage and a boon and many employers actively seek out veterans.

By making service mandatory - even if not ALL government service is military, just some of it! - the military loses all these gainss it has worked very hard to achieve over the last two decades. It becomes just another branch of the public school system.

My final point that relates strictly to the military (I will address government service in a broader sense shortly. Whether you take that as a promise or a threat is up to you) is that no soldier in a volunteer army wants a draftee watching his back. Today's military enjoys an unheard of esprit de corps. Unit cohesion is keeping combat casualties at an all time low in general and friendly fire is practically unheard of. Every person in combat today is there because they volunteered for military service AND they took a combat MOS. If you start throwing draftees into the mix, morale goes down, discipline problems rise, desertion becomes a major issue, and friendly fire casualties stop being accidents. I have a lot of friends in the military (including a Captain in the Army) and every single one of them speaks with horror and disdain at the prospect of fighting alongside a draftee. I, for one, will not dishonor our troops by inflicting such horror upon them.

They have enough to deal with.

As for government service being compulsory in general, well, it remains a bad idea. First up are the economics of the idea: Somebody has to pay these people. Now in the rest of the market, a business provides a service or product, people spend money on that product, the business makes more, etc. In this system, things are being produced, wealth is being generated. If enough people want to spend money on a product, the business can pay people to help it create and sell the product. If it hires too many, it can't afford to pay them, and has to fire some. The number of employees a business can have is contingent on the value of the service or products it generates. That value is determined by how much people are willing to spend on it.

Government work, on the other hand, is make-work. The vast majority of government employees are engaged in paperwork and redundant functions. They produce no product or service. If we pour more people into this already bloated system, we alleviate nothing. We would have to pay them, but with what? We can either cut a government program to "free up" funds, which would accomplish nothing because those funds are simply being shifted to another government program. (As Robert Anton Wilson once noted, "Bureaucracies never die, they just change names) The other option is to print more money, but since money is a representation of value, and no additional value is being produced, this simply inflates an already excessively inflated economy. The end result, economically, is either 1990's Russia or 1920's Germany.

Second is the idea of entitlement. We already have enough of a problem with it in this country, and handing people a job doesn't make it any better. A person is generally granted a job based on their own merits. Usually, this job is given to them over several other applicants. Nobody was entitled to a job, they had to work to get it and they have to work to keep it. Being a high school student might qualify someone to work at McDonald's, but telling the manager that they have to hire you is a sure way to remain jobless. The most important thing for people, especially young people, to learn - what working in a place like the grocery store or a burger joing is supposed to teach a person - is a work ethic. The understanding that work sucks, but you still have to do a good job; that at the end of the week your paycheck MEANS something, that you EARNED it, is of paramount importance.

This is not accomplished by handing out do-nothing government work to any schmuck who happens to be over 18 in America. In this compulsory service system, a person IS entitled to a job. Not only can they get the work through no virtue of their own, but they can do a piss-poor job and the government has to keep them. Two years later, these people go to get their first real job, having been "prepared", and find that this "experience" doesn't make it any easier for them to find work. Why? Because EVERYONE ELSE has the exact same experience. Which means that the professional jobs which these people are suppsed to be qualified for (having been working in an office environment for two years) aren't available. They now have to go get that same post-high-school burger flipping job. That same job that barely pays minimum wage, doesn't have a union, and enjoys such high turnover that they can - and will - gladly fire any slacker they catch taking an unauthorized smoke break. Employers, on the other hand, undoubtedly start to notice that a lot of these so-called "experienced" employees don't actually know how to work. They want vacation benefits right away. They call in sick all the damn time. They complain about working overtime. All because they never actually had to work to work before. Sure, some people will excel, get promotions, move on to better jobs, but these are the SAME people who would have done that anyway, the people who know what a work ethic is, and all that has happened in their cases is they wasted two years of their lives in government service rather than getting started on their careers.

The argument that this would create a paradigm of civic duty is also bunk. There is a large amount of evidence that the exact opposite effect would actually be created. Of note is a famous study of day care centers by two economists in the 1990's. The day care centers had a policy that the children had to be picked up by a certain time. As can be expected, some parents would usually be late each day. In a controlled experiment, some of the centers imposed a fine for parents who arrived over 10 minutes late. The result was that late pickups at the centers with the fine SKYROCKETED. The reason for this result is that before the fine, the parents were bound by a sense of duty and respect to the teachers. Those who were late were only a little late. What the fine did was allow the parents to buy off their duty. For a small fee each day, they could no longer feel guilty about being late, because they had already compensated the teachers for that inconvenience. The situation in mandating service cheapens the sense of civic duty in the same way. By making it mandatory for people to serve, we actually DECREASE the likelihood of future public service because, in the minds of these people being enlisted, they have already done their time or met their quota. What is interesting about the study is that it took place in Israel, a country that already has a service requirement. If such mandatory service did indeed create the effect of amplifying a person's sense of civic duty, we would very likely have seen completely different results.

Finally, service is meaningless if it's not voluntary. You cannot imbue someone with a sense of civic duty by forcing them into it. All that creates is resentment. Besides we already have a word for mandatory or involuntary service. That word is slavery, which was, by the way, made illegal and unConstitutional in the United States by the 13th Amendment.

Contempt of Congress

Congress today voted to approve a measure which would extend unemployment benefits to those whose benefits ran out at the six-month mark. The vote was conducted after the swearing in of Senator Carte Goodwin, who cast a vote which broke a "Republican Filibuster" and sent the bill on its merry way.

Those of you who read a previous blog post will know the distaste I have for the manner in which Congress conducts itself, and it is with the new information provided by this most recent abuse of power that allows me to put a finger on what, exactly, disturbs me.

Think back to, say, elementary school. You and ten other students get together on the playground and try to decide what you want to play.

"Hide and Seek!" you shout immediately.
"Red Rover!" another student shouts almost as quickly.

Debate ensues as to which option is more appealing. Being young, the idea of dividing into two groups never occurs to you, or if it did, the idea of a game consisting of only 5 people sounds like no fun. Finally, one student says those fateful words.

"OK, let's vote on it."

The votes come down: five for Hide and Seek, six for Red Rover. Your suggestion was defeated and the group will play Red Rover. This is the nature of the democratic process: A group of people resort to the will of the majority to decide an issue and - and this is truly the most important part of the process - these people agree to be bound by the results of the vote, whether they like the result or not.

A Republic, such as what exists in America, is an interesting twist on Democracy. As a straight Democracy becomes increasingly cumbersome the more people are involved, the people vote democratically on certain, but not all, issues. For the remainder - often, the bulk - of the issues, they select representatives (democratically, of course) who take on the daily business of government and make decisions amongst themselves on behalf of their constituents via the democratic process.

In short, a Republic is a system of government whereby the people engage vicariously in pure Democracy.

Let's return to the playground. In an ideal world populated by honest, mature, and just people, you would accept the outcome of the vote and get on with the game. But what if you refused to accept the outcome, and not only that, but you got your fellow students to vote again and again, until circumstances changed - you bring in other students to vote your way, or players who voted against you leave, or you just bully people into changing their votes - such that you finally got your way? Would that be democracy, or would that be something else entirely?

As it so happens, this latter behavior is the manner in which Congress conducts itself with disgusting regularity. It seems that (through abuses of the rules which govern procedure, which I will discuss topically later in this essay) the Pass/Fail vote which is the hallmark of a real democracy has been usurped by a Pass/Filibuster system. The key difference between the two is that after a vote is taken in a true democracy, the issue is settled. In the latter system, a motion only fails to pass for now.

If a Republic is a government in which those selected to attend to the business of the government conduct themselves democratically, then what else can you call the refusal to be bound by democratically achieved results than a perversion and a failure?

As I said before, the most important detail of this system is not so much the process itself, but the understanding that the participants agree to be bound by the process. In most representative governments, the process is codified well beyond "we vote on stuff". Several such systems of rules exist and are commonly referred to as "Parliamentary Procedure" and they exist in order to organize and expedite efficient discussion and voting. Rules are crafted to determine who may speak, what may be discussed at a given time, what gets voted on when, and numerous other instances which require consistent procedure in order for discussion and the process to be deemed fair.

It is also common within democratically derived systems to set certain rules upon the voting itself. For instance: it is generally understood, but in some cases need be stated explicitly, that a single person may cast a single vote. In a case where a single person may cast multiple votes, information such as how many votes a person may cast and how they may cast them must be delineated. Some rules apply to determining an outcome - certain issues, such as amending the Constitution, are deemed too important to be left to the whims of a simple majority and must be approved by "supermajorities" of two-thirds and sometimes three-quarters of the vote.

In these systems a motion may be made, discussed, and amended; other motions may be substituted; and any or all of these may be tabled, denied consideration, or voted upon. What they have in common is that, once a motion is voted upon, the issue is settled, yea or nay, good or ill. The question cannot be raised again unless significant new developments occur, a pre-determined length of time passes (usually requiring a new term of office or a new session to begin), or the motion changes substantially.

No parliamentary authority recognizes the addition of pork as a "substantial change" unless the subject being discussed is Lunch.

One of the principal difficulties of these parliamentary systems (principal, as anyone who has spent any time in a board room or convention can surely describe the many subtle and nuanced failings of whichever system they experienced) is that the more rules are in place, the greater the opportunity for abuse. These rules are in place to move discussion along, to keep it organized, and to assist in keeping track of what is being voted upon and what happens when it passes or fails. Societies who implement parliamentary procedure are often fond of saying the rules are "intended as a loose-fitting blazer, not as a straitjacket." And while this sentiment is certainly true of the authors' intentions, the "spirit of the law" is often usurped by the "letter of the law" and we find ourselves watching Congress.

The current congressional paradigm of Pass or Filibuster means that there is not a single hare-brained piece of malevolence that can be moved and seconded in those halls that will ever disappear. If it fails to pass on a vote, rather than being eliminated until a better (or at least different) idea comes along, it sits dormant, a victim of "filibustering" until somebody retires, dies, or forgets to show up to a session and the vote can finally swing the other way. Any measure with a chance of passing greater than zero will, given enough time under a "filibuster", be passed and inflicted upon America.

The recent passing of the unemployment measure may have been done technically within the bounds of the parliamentary authority but the manner in which this task was completed was not only contrary to spirit of democracy and the parliamentary authority, but shows open contempt for the fair, open, and enlightened intentions of the processes.

For those of you who doubt me, there is a footnote worthy piece of information: the next step in the process of implementing the measure which inspired todays blog is for the Senate to choose whether to incur more national debt, or to cut funding from other government programs in order to finance their decision.

How fortunate for us.

Bob Kramer Knives

As an actor at Renaissance Faires, I've seen my share of smithys and forges. I've always been impressed by the patience and skill required to produce anything with little more than fire and a hammer. To produce a working blade is an amazing feat in and of itself. Bob Kramer is a Master of such feats.



Mr. Kramer is accessible online via his website, which also showcases some of his work and collaborations: Bob Kramer Knives

While my own tastes and research disincline me from wanting a Damascus blade for culinary work, I would not be opposed to commissioning a razor of that steel, as the constant honing would likely mitigate the unique serrating properties of Damascus steel it wears.

Mr. Kramer is not currently accepting orders, but you can add yourself to his mailing list to be informed of when his schedule opens up. I would also recommend doing a little reading yourself on the properties of blades and steel, since it is always adviseable to have some cursory knowledge of most things, and especially those thing in which we invest or choose to associate or immerse ourselves, and it is fascinating reading anyhow.

Moderate Justice for an Extremist in a Conservative State

Scott Roeder was sentenced to life-imprisonment today for murdering Dr. George Tiller, one of a precious few late-term abortion providers in the country. Dr. Tiller was killed while serving as an usher at his church.

Roeder defended his murder as "justifiable homicide," claiming that, by killing the doctor, he was saving the lives of countless babies. Had his argument succeeded, it would be arguably legal to begin killing hard-line religious extremists, because if they were permitted to live they would no doubt perpetrate many such murders of abortion and birth-control providers and cause even further suffering and death by forcing women to the nightmares of "back alley" services.

The Court and the citizens of Kansas who heard his case are to be lauded for not only rejecting his argument outright, but for handing down the harshest permissible sentence for this dangerous, fanatical zealot. While the issue of abortion is still far from resolved in this country, and especially in the Bible Belt, it is comforting to know that the abhorrent acts advocated and perpetrated by Roeder, the Army of God, and their ilk are unwanted and actively rebuked by their peers.

In the unlikely event that Scott Roeder should survive his sentence and be approved for parole, he will be released from prison at the age of 103, hopefully to a world where his hate and his cause has been wholly abolished and he can die alone, utterly defeated to the last.

Rest in Peace, Dr. George Tiller. Take what comfort there is in the fact that Justice has been served and the bloodshed is done.

A TED-Talk on Moral Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism, and the Religious Monopoly on Ethics.

I came across this Talk at www.ted.com/talks and was pleased to hear that the concept of moral objectivity and the courage to have it are being advocated in the world, and ESPECIALLY in such a prestigious venue as a TED conference.



While Sam at several points betrays a decidedly Liberal bias along with his - laudable - secularism, I agree whole-heartedly with his premise: that in order to advance humanity, we must overcome our irrational and potentially dangerous fear of judging and condemning deleterious behaviors and beliefs. Adherence to subjective morality or moral relativism are cop-outs which permit evil to exist, thrive, and eventually prey upon those around and not just within it.

Sam Harris is the author of 2004's "The End of Faith" and 2007's "Letter To A Christian Nation."

Ethical Survey

Some weeks ago I was invited to partake in a survey of Ethics by a student in a college psychology program. The survey presented many questions without simple answers in a format which required a simple (multiple choice) answer. Because I found the questions intriguing, and because I didn't wish to misrepresent my answers due to semantic vagaries (a phrase, by the way, which I used with some frequency in my answers to the administrator), I wrote out answers and included them in an attachment to the student for her review. Below are the questions and my answers thereto.

---

1. I believe all people can generally be described as either good or evil.

This one suffers a semantic issue: Are ALL people generally good or evil; or does each individual fall to one side of the spectrum or the other, with no neutrality?

The first interpretation is one of the great philosophical questions. What is the nature of man? This question leads to innumerable sub-questions: Is a person who acts in a "Good" way for "Evil" reasons good or evil? Without getting further into these quandaries, and because of them, I will answer your query as though your intention was the second interpretation.

To become an important and meaningful example of good or evil requires a willful effort which most people are simply incapable of. The world is full of people too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to take any meaningful control of their lives and have willful purpose and direction. In an instance where they are provided with an ethical problem, two responses arise: thoughtless expression of obedience to a societal standard of behavior, or stubborn refusal to confront the dillema. This second response becomes more prevalent as the difficulty of the ethical problem increases. For instance, most people SAY they will pull over and help an old lady on the side of the road change a tire. When the opportunity presents itself to actually ACT on that statement these same people suddenly have a hundred and one reasons why it WOULDN'T be a good idea to stop, ranging from "I'm late" to "It's dark and dangerous and I might get hurt". Anyone who has seen a person stranded on the side of the road, even if they are not an old lady, or anyone who has themselves been stranded, has borne witness to this discrepancy.

The fact is, it is always percieved to be easier to avoid these difficult decisions and so most people will do everything possible to avoid them. As such, the circumstances of the world around them color what little morals and ethics they have. Can we call these people good or evil?

In the case of evil, I say yes. In the case of good, I say no. Evil is always easier, and a person can simply float into such behavior without willfulness. Being Good without willfulness arises universally out of fear of punitive action. A person can easily become immersed in the violent and shady world of drug dealing without a second thought. Are they evil? Certainly. Are they willful? No. But good Samaritans, pillars of the community, even students who don't cheat on tests - if the motivation is not pure, or lacks even a touch of an honest desire to do the right thing, then the person is not actually good, they are simply interested in the benefits of being good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


2. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of any type of goodness.

This one warrants a slightly shorter explanation, as I established most of my premises in the previous answer. Good requires thought, honesty, and will, and there are doubtless people in the world without the intelligence to consider an ethical choice, the honesty to appraise the situation accurately, and the will to act upon the conclusions or to follow through with a difficult course of action.

Therefore, I "Agree"


3. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of committing any evil

Evil choices are easier to make because they often provide an immediate benefit directly to a person, even if that benefit is simply a path of least resistance. If it is discovered that a friend is the most reprehensible sort of person (fill in your own blank), is it easier to write that person off or inform his family or the police, risking many of your own friendships in the process, or is it easier to shrug it off, ignore it, make excuses, and continue with life as usual? This is how cults begin, this is why abused spouses often return to the source of their agony, and this is how actively, willfully evil people take power.

Therefore, because of the magnitude of my answer to the previous question, and the militating factors on the other side of the spectrum, I "Strongly Disagree"


4. Each of us must internally struggle with good and evil.

I disagree with the language used in this question because I believe the intention of the question is more to the effect of "Each of us struggles internally with good and evil in the course of determining our lives," or more simply perhaps the intention is "Each of us should internally struggle with good and evil". "Must" is an imperative, it commands, it is absolute. Should each of us struggle? Yes, if it is accepted that being a good person is a desirable thing. Such a quality, as I have stated, does not simply arise through desire, or mere perception of oneself as a "good person". It requires willful action and many, many hard choices. There is a reason such a path is called the "Strait and Narrow"

Obviously, however, nobody is forced to make such a decision, and most people don't. Even when forced to confront a difficult decision, it is not "good and evil" or "right and wrong" that a person struggles with, but the far weaker question of "why me?"

Therefore, due to the language used in the phrasing of this question, and my reluctance to misrepresent my beliefs over an interpretive issue that may not exist, I "Disagree"


5. There are people in the world who are evil

The structure, nature, and order of these questions seems to imply that the goal of this survey is to establish the existence and gestalt of an "objective" morality. To that end, I will simply state that even if there is not an "objective" morality, it is irrelevant. I will not address, at this point, those who do not take time and effort to study ethics. Any person who adopts or crafts a system of ethics and then adheres thereto does not do so in a vacuum. Subjective ideas still have objective effects upon society at large. Ethical behavior is not relevant without society, with occassional exception. A vegan, for instance, still has ethical concerns about the proper treatment of animals regardless of the presence or absence of society. It could be argued that in such systems this ethical concern creates a society of animals, with rights that must be respected, and thus defeats any argument of ethics being a private matter of no consequence to the world at large.

I will discuss this subject further in the next question.

As for the question asked of me, my previous statements make it clear that I will "Strongly agree"


6. There are societies in this world that are evil.

We finally arrive at a question with some substance. Given that the world as a whole can be viewed as the interactions of many societies much as a society can be viewed as the interactions of the people within that society, it is certainly plausible that there are evil societies. Subjectivists will argue that ethical behavior depends on the society in which we live, but these people are fools. Stoning an adulteress is the "Right" thing to do in fundamental Judeo-Christian-Muslim society; mandatory female circumcision is "Right" in parts of Africa and the Middle East; killing Jews was "Right" in Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and many parts of the modern Middle East; yet all of these behaviors are viewed as reprehensible in almost all cultures except those which advocate them. The fact of the matter is that there are societies in the world, just as there are people within those societies, which engage in behaviors which cause inequality of opportunity, unjustly take lives, and endanger those around them. These things are unequivocally evil.

We cannot judge a society by the people within it. To do so is to ignore the structure and tenets of that society as there are always deviants and dissidents. The society, instead, must be judged by its structure and tenets.

Therefore, I "Strongly Agree"


7. There are political leaders in this world who are evil.

Given that a person is more likely to be evil than not, it is reasonable to assume that there are political leaders who are evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


8. Most people have a chance of growing morally in character.

Another question of substance. The world presents us with innumerable opportunities to do the right or wrong thing. At any point a person may begin to take willful action and interest in their own moral and ethical structure and being, and thus begin moral development. This does not automatically mean that a person becomes a good person - moral growth and development of character can easily lead down evil paths, or simply be an understanding of the "Why" of an action - or even that they succeed in continual growth. Regardless, anyone can attempt ethical development and the attempt itself will affect a persons aspect, even if the growth does not continue.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


9. It is difficult for me to imagine good in a person who has done something evil.

This is another semantically clumsy statement. Immediately, to "imagine" something is to state that it does not exist in the first place. Does the administrator refer to empathy? Perhaps the intention is to establish whether or not I can accept that a person who has acted evilly can be or become good. Is the "good" that theoretically exists here an intrinsic "goodness" in a person, a figurative "angel on the shoulder" which engages in - and has here lost - battle with a person's demons? Or is this an allusion to the popular proverb "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"?

In the first instance, we are presented with two options: The evil is willful, or the evil is a result of apathy and inaction. If the evil is willful, then the person has committed themselves to evil action. Even if that person can act well in some other arena of their existence, this willful action to evil once demonstrates a proclivity to such actions. It is dangerous and foolhardy to seek good in such a person. This person can be expected to act evilly again. The burden of proof is upon them should they desire to be seen as good. This is called "atonement" or "penance".

If the evil is the result of apathy and inaction, then it is equally likely that a person will be just as careless again, whether in the same way or in another arena of their lives. It is acceptable, however, to seek good in such a person, and to actively encourage that behavior. Good action must become the path of least resistance. This does not make a good person of the apathist, but it mitigates the danger they would otherwise represent.

In the second instance, where a person commits an evil act with the intention of good, an examination of their definition of good is in order. As illustrated above, there are many reprehensible actions accepted in many societies. If the person is acting in accord with their social sphere, and that society is evil, then the only course of action is conversion. Since many of these dangerous societies encourage and shelter fanatics and simultaneously condemn apostacy or heresy, this course of action is not without risk. No matter what, a conversion cannot occur without atonement - that is, the burden of proving a persons good will and good action falls upon the person.

Therfore, as the statement asked after my capabilities of imagination, and seeing many qualifications for imagining such a happenstance, and I further believe that to "imagine" such a thing is dangerous and foolhardy, I "Somewhat agree"


10. It is impossible to classify people as essentially good or evil.

Once again this suffers from a semantic difficulty in whether we reference people as a whole or as individuals. As I have dealt with people as individuals, I will address them as a whole.

Given that willful people may be actively good or evil, and that the apathetic, stupid, careless, and lazy will tend towards evil, I would classify people as a whole as evil if forced to a binary choice. This, of course, carries many caveats and qualifications: I do not mean life-threatening or reprehensible, clear evil in all cases, in fact, such extreme evil is almost as rare as noble, pure good. Further, a great many people will have an approximately even balance of good and evil acts in their lives. But I repeat that, because being good both requires intelligence, integrity, and will, and because it often forces a person to unpleasant decisions and actions, most people will never be truly good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


11. Even so-called evil people have the potential to be good.

This is essentially the same as the statement about character growth. At any point a person may experience a "change of heart" and make a willful decision to change the course of their lives, their behavior, and their moral being. This is just as true for "evil" persons as it is for "good" persons, though I would expect that it is much rarer for a person who is willfully good or evil to change given the amount of thought and the personal committment that is required. Such circumstances as bring about a change in evil people are likely extraordinary. Disappointment, disillusion, and despair can often weaken a good persons resolve sufficiently to cause them to abandon their strait paths.

Therefore, I "Agree"


12. All of us can act evilly under certain circumstances

This comes across almost as an attempt at apologetics for evil people. To put it simply: as I believe I have established here, the temptation and opportunity to do evil is omnipresent. Even a person who has made an intelligent, thorough committment to right action must constantly re-affirm their course in the face of these temptations. It is always easier to do nothing, and such apathy tends invariably to evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


13. We are morally responsible for eradicating evil by any means necessary

Evil will never be wholly eradicated. The proclivity to avoid effort is too strong in the human condition and this tends to corruption and evil. It is easier to steal than to earn, to rape than seduce, to kill than to show mercy. However, it does behoove a good person to do good things, and when an evil person represents a physical threat, that person must be destroyed to prevent harm.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


14. The use of violence is justified when it allows good to prevail over evil.

The use of violence is only justified to stop further violence. The marginal evil of someone copying a test warrants no violence, the automatic failure of the test is just and appropriate punishment. A mugger may be resisted by any means at ones disposal so long as the mugger is a threat - once the danger is past, the mugger's life is no longer forfeit. In this way, evil people MUST bring their own punishments upon themselves.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


15. An orderly and safe world can only be obtained through the use of morally righteous violence.

The key words here are "morally righteous". An act of violence is only morally righteous if it addresses an immediate threat. However, an "orderly and safe" world is an impossible standard. This actually strengthens the necessity for violence rather than weakening it: A person must be permitted to meet violence with violence and bring immediate retribution upon violent evil. Absent this, evil will always prevail.

Therefore, I "Agree"


16. It is our duty to deal with the evil in the world, even if it means using force and violence.

This is a simple matter. It is not a tenable position to have a murderer arrested, held for years, and then subjected to the violence of execution with no opportunity of defense. The fight against evil must be conducted without undue bloodshed - the death of a murderer is only justified when the only choice is between the murderer and his victim. It is absolutely necessary for a person to be permitted to defend against violence with violence. It must be further understood that once there is no further danger, the violence must cease.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


17. Sometimes violence is necessary in order to get rid of evil leaders and political systems.

Leaders and political systems are only capable of immoral violence if they are permitted by their constituents to be. A society that does nothing to resist an evil leader or system is complicit in that evil. Without action against these violent people and systems it can be expected that the evil will continue. Absent non-violent methods of removal (elections, impeachment), or once they have failed, violence is demanded.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


18. The moral people in this world are responsible for eliminating moral corruption, even if it requires brute force.

All people are responsible for meeting evil and moral corruption with appropriate action, up to and including brute force. The difference in good and evil is in who has initiated that force. Moral people will not initiate force against evil people in the world. Rather, they will meet any force or violence with whatever is necessary to stop the evil action.

Therefore, due to the semantic vagaries, I "Somewhat agree"


19. The use of violence is commendable what its purpose is improved conditions for people.

The use of violence is commendable only when it stops a violent act.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


20. Morally justifiable violence is the natural way for humans to deal with evil in the world

Violence is certainly natural in the human condition. However, such as is the case with lynch mobs, violence initiated, even for an arguable good or if it results in the death of an evil person, the violence is disproportionate. It is imperative that a good person not become the monsters to which they are opposed. All punishment must be appropriate. Violence is only warranted in cases where violence has already been brought into play.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


21. There are adversaries in this world that must be totally annihilated; it would be immoral to negotiate with them.

There are doubtless evils in this world that warrant annihilation - serial killers, sexual predators, militant authoritarian theocracies - but the decision to annihilate must only be made after careful consideration and clear demonstration of the danger posed. Neville Chamberlain did the right thing by attempting to mitigate the German threat and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Once it became clear that the danger was not going to subside, that bloodshed would not be avoided, it was justice to destroy the threat utterly.

If negotiation is an option, it must be explored, even if perfunctorily.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


22. There are people who deserve to die because the world would be a better place without them.

Such an argument is without merit. There are people who deserve to die because they are an otherwise unmitigable danger.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


23. Destruction of evil people is necessary to preserve what is good in the world.

What is good in the world is created by good people. Destruction of evil people is necessary to prevent evil from being meaningful, practical, profitable, or otherwise appealing as a life choice.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


24. On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding over 2 dozen. Military prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for Hasan. Do you support the use of the death penalty in this instance?

Murder is the unjustified taking of human life. It must occur unprovoked, absent any external threat. There is no question that Major Hasan's actions warranted lethal force, but he is no longer engaged in those actions. If violence is to be met with violence, it must be done immediately. Further bloodshed serves no purpose at this point, and is murderous and immoral in and of itself.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


25. There is currently a bill to establish a US Department of Peace. The proposed Department of Peace would supplement our current problem solving system by working to establish non-violent solutions to both international and domestic conflicts. Do you support the creation of a Department of Peace?

It is the purpose of the Secretary of State and the Ambassadors of the State Department to pursue peaceful or non-violent resolutions. Creation of another Department represents an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy, a waste of tax dollars, a redundancy of purpose, and can do nothing but oppose the actions of the Department of Defense. If and when violence becomes necessary in diplomatic conflict, it can only cost lives to delay action.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


26. The US army launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The aims of this ongoing operation are to find and try high ranking Al Qaeda officials, destroy the Al Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban regime from power and spread democracy. Currently, the US government is planning on sending more troops into Afghanistan. Do you support additional US troops being sent to Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda represents a constant and unmitigable threat to our society. Their existence serves no purpose other than to threaten the world at large. As such, lethal force against them in order to prevent the continuation of their agenda.

The Taliban is an evil society dedicated to the subjugation of women and the spreading of an intolerant, violent, fanatic theocracy. They represent an uncompromising threat to the world at large and violence is justified in their removal.

The Taliban has been reduced to little more than a few loyal soldiers. Unless they are able to regain control in Afganistan, continued violence is not necessary.

Al Qaeda is an organization without borders. Its structure permits even a small number of operatives to be effectively dangerous. I do not have the appropriate information to assess whether their activities in Afganistan are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a troop surge, and will defer to the judgement of the higher military officials.

Therefore, I am "Neutral"


27. Some people believe that the US possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to escalated violence and a means of promoting stability in the world. Others argue that because the US is part of not allowing some other nations to possess nuclear arms that it is hypocritical for the US government to maintain their own nuclear weapons. Do you support the US possession and maintenance of nuclear weapons?

Now that the capabilities of nuclear weaponry are known, universal disarmament is impossible. To pursue it is as dangerous as giving your gun to a mugger and then resisting the mugging.

Therefore, I "Strongly support"


28. Guantanamo Bay is a US detainment facility in Cuba which has held many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Interrogation techniques have been used on detainees to obtain information and/or confessions, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, semi-starvation, and exploitation of wounds. Do you support the techniques used at Guantanamo Bay?

The purpose of imprisonment is punitive. These individuals are accused of engaging in hostile actions against our society. Justice demands that they be formally tried and subjected to an appropriate punishment.

Force is only justified when force is being actively employed against us. War creates a different paradigm wherein a person withholding information can, in and of itself, be a dangerous and hostile act.

These individuals are no longer at war. If it is the desire of the US Military to interrogate these individuals, they should do so in the field. Once turned over to the Government, they should enjoy the rights and comforts afforded to all prisoners and be permitted to atone.

Therefore, I "Strongly oppose"

"Setsuninto - Katsujinken" by Ellis Amdur

" ...He deserves death!

"Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all the ends...."

--J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring


"Every minute my joy increased... because I found myself in an extraordinary state of the most complete invulnerability, such as I had never before experienced. Nothing at all could confuse me, annoy me or tire me. Whatever was being thought of by those men, conversing animatedly in another corner of the room, I would regard them calmly, from a distance they could not cross."

--Vera Zasulick, after her assassination of General Trepov, governor of St. Petersburg

The Sword That Takes Life, The Sword That Gives Life

The Japanese sword was never a mere ribbon of polished and sharpened steel. In the juxtaposition of blade and scabbard, there exists an emblem of the dynamic interplay of male and female, penetration and containment, power dependent as much upon its reserve as its expression. The sword itself was the embodiment of the principle of law founded upon hierarchy, the ruling warriors' power rooted in their submission to a web of obligations and loyalties to superiors, their weapons instruments of service rather than of freedom. In religious iconography, the Taoist sword cuts through undifferentiated chaos, introducing delineation into the universe, creating darkness and light, yin and yang, positive and negative and from this duality, the birth of the myriad forms of the universe. The Buddhist sword is the sword that cuts through illusion, the bright cold edge of mindful consciousness which requires one to face reality with open eyes and courageous heart.

Setsuninto (the sword that takes life) and katsujinken (the sword that gives life) are concepts which attempt to differentiate between the use of the sword for murderous ends as opposed to its use to protect people or to preserve the order of society.

These two phrases give rise to a variety of interpretations. At its most naive is the idea that, having power, one can choose to use it either to hurt others or lead them from evil paths. This is sometimes a fantasy of aikido devotees: that when attacked, the skillful practitioner, who could easily annihilate his or her attacker, moves in such a way that not only is the attack neutralized, but the attacker realizes the error of his ways and turns from violence. I call this naive because, even though it is sometimes possible, it presupposes that one's attacker will always be far inferior in skill, and even more unlikely, that being humbled and even shamed by one far superior, an attacker is likely to undergo a profound change of personality.

A second concept is that of surgical violence, one particularly common among the Japanese right wing,whose ideology, in many ways, is closest to those of the warrior class in pre-modern Japan. This is best shown in the phrase, "One life to save a thousand," which is used to explain various political assassinations. In this concept, not only murder, but also inaction which allows war or other disaster to develop, would be setsuninto. Katsujinken would be to "cut the head off the snake" so the war could not start.

Some pseudo-Buddhist scholars of the sword imagine that there is a state of fluid perfection, called "enlightenment," in which one can act at each and every moment without reflection or doubt, the spontaneous act being the only one suitable to that particular moment. The enlightened one, then, could cut down an individual without murderous intention, in their intuitive all-encompassing understanding that the interpenetrating web of universe is best served that this individual die. The slaughtered one's life is culminated and, in fact, "demands" death at this moment to be properly fulfilled.

Whose life is preserved in katusjinken? One's own? The enemy's? Bystanders'? Whose life is taken in setsuninto? Is this a problem only of the moment, of the two individuals in conflict, or does it encompass all whose lives are touched by violence, by apparent evil? Is this a problem only of the present, or does it extend into the past and future? Are the reasons an enemy resorts to violence relevant to how you will resolve it? Are the potential results of alternative ways of resolving violence relevant to considerations of how one must act?

Sometimes I think I know the answers to these questions. At other times, I know that I have no idea.

---

There are houses, in the state of Washington, called Crisis Respite Centers. They are staffed by paraprofessionals skilled in dealing with troubled and aggressive youth. Children, usually teenagers, who are wards of the state and unplaceable in a foster home, are placed in these houses. The Crisis Respite Centers have a no-turn-down policy.

They also have unlocked doors. The six beds might be filled with three violent 16-year-old gang-involved youths from rival "sets," along with a "sexually reactive" developmentally-delayed girl, a chronic runaway 13-year-old, and an enormously irritating chubby 12-year-old boy who taunts the gangbangers and then runs to hide behind a staff member when one of them chases after him to squash him like a mosquito. The demands upon the staff, who have to ensure everyone's safety, are enormous.

I received a phone call early one morning from the director of a Crisis Respite Center. "Ellis, we have this kid here and we don't know what to do with him. He is threatening to staff and has a violent temper. He spent several years in Allister House (a facility for mentally disturbed kids), and it came out that he had been systematically raping the younger children, terrifying them so badly that it is sure that many have never told. He's in the foster-care system. He can't return home to his family, that's impossible; he was horribly abused there when he was young. We're concerned about him being here, and also, what kind of treatment he needs. He is a pretty scary kid, and it's hard to figure out what is intimidation and what is really dangerous. Would you come out and assess him?"

Much has been written over the millennia about the nature of evil. When does a man or woman step over a line, if such a line exists, where we are justified in no longer merely condemning their acts, but the person as well? When, if ever, is an evil act the manifestation of a corrupt soul, a voluntary embrace with evil?

I have met many violent young men and women over the years. They are often lazy. One boy said to me: "Crime is the easiest job there is." They often crave pack acceptance so much that whatever their friends are doing, they will also do, despite misgivings. They often have impaired judgment. They use drugs or alcohol, and their emotions are fueled, then, as much by chemicals as by anything innate to them. They often are people with a low tolerance for any sort of frustration. There is seemingly no space between desire and the act. There is a sense of entitlement: if I want it, then I deserve it. All of these traits, however, are merely an accentuation of one or another of the more venal characteristics of all humanity. Such a person is not someone to trust, or even to like, but they are not incomprehensible. They are of the same breed as we are.

There are some, however, who seem to have set as their life task to extinguish the painful demands of conscience. At the same time, some of these people take sadistic delight in the pain of others. There is some research that suggests a capacity to distance oneself from the trauma of violence, particularly the trauma incurred when inflicting violence, is, in part, hard-wired genetics. There are people born to be comfortable with violence.

There is also research that indicates that severe trauma, particularly early in childhood, leads to unpredictable neurological changes--some children develop into timid and fearful adults, others are resilient and compassionate. Yet others are exploitative, manipulative or even further--feral conscienceless beings who have seemingly disappeared from the community of men and women. For them, other people are objects of use that move in and out of their field of perception. Their capacity to form attachments to others is minimal or even absent. When contact with another human being engenders a feeling of sensitivity or vulnerability, their reaction is often a deep and profound pain, the pain felt by the exile upon tasting the scent of home on the wind, a pain so deep that they may respond by trying to extinguish that which causes the feeling, which is usually the capacity for sensitivity, or even, in the most extreme cases, the human being who evokes the response.

No one really knows how or why some people migrate to that dark star, leaving the world of love and conscience behind. Most criminals have a capacity, to some degree, to turn compassion and empathy on and off. Others can feel it to a limited degree, but only for people within their circle. In the course of a wide-ranging conversation, I once told a young man in jail about the sense of violation I felt in having my house robbed. His brow wrinkled in sympathy, and he said, spontaneously, "Yeah, it's like someone rapes you or something." He was, as best as I could tell, outraged for me--and he was a burglar!

There are, then, a few people, who have schooled themselves to have no openings, no vulnerabilities whatsoever, to respond with detachment to what they feel they have to do or want to do. If that sounds dangerously close to the image we have of the warrior, good! It's food for thought isn't it?

---

I was already sitting in the room, waiting for him when he came in. He was a boy of wire and bone, narrow features with startlingly full, sensual lips and dirty-blonde hair. The moment he saw me, he started whirling and kicking in self-made karate, kicks of surprising precision lashing out towards me. I don't know if this was merely an attempt to show that he was tough and I'd better keep my distance, or if, in the incredible intuition of the feral and predatory, he somehow "knew" that I was trained in martial arts. Predators often have intimate access to their fear as well as their rage and perhaps, in this manner, he intended to frighten me in return, thereby letting us start on "equal" terms.

I didn't move from my chair as his feet cut the air--he was careful not to kick too close. After a minute or two, I gestured towards a sofa, saying, "Why don't you sit down, Jared?"

He threw himself in a chair, slumped down, and said, "I've been training karate for seven years! One of these days, I'm going to tear someone up. Maybe one of these staff bitches," and as if jerked by an electric prod, leapt back to his feet, and shadow-boxed and kicked in the center of the room again. He looked at me with a kind of wired glee, prancing like an imp in the coals of a fire. At my request, he sat down again and slumped, torpid as a lizard on a rock. It was as if his immobility was as much an act of will as his movement--he never could be said to be relaxed.

We talked about the place he was staying, which he did not like, and his family, whom he idealized, despite their abuse and abandonment of him. He told me how tough he was, and how, despite our difference in size, how he was sure he could take me if he wanted to. He was like quicksilver--he never responded to my questions directly, skittering off in one tangent or another, attempting to keep me off balance with threats, complaints and silliness. He didn't care if I liked him or hated him or even if I remained alive for one more minute. I was just this "thing" he had to talk to.

I asked him about the well-substantiated reports of his rapes, and he smirked, and said, "Yeah, I did do that. But I'd never do it again."

"Why not?" I asked.

"Because it's wrong," he said, making not even the slightest effort to place a tone of sincerity in his voice.

"I feel sorry for you, then," I said. This evoked a reaction--a flare of emotion emerging from behind the flat screen of his eyes; a fire banked.

"Why's that?" he asked.

I then said something that is not necessarily true, because sexual deviancy is far more complex, but I wished to find out who he was and hopefully, to evoke some truth from him. "Well, everybody knows that guys who like sex with little children can't have sex with people their own age. They just can't do it. So, if you aren't going to rape kids anymore, I guess you won't ever have sex with anyone your whole life. I feel sorry for you." At the last, my voice softened with compassion, which was real; despite my hatred of what he had done, he was still little more than a child, and I could feel sorry for him the same way I could for a brutalized pit bull, frightening and dangerous though it may be.

He rounded on me, angry. "I can too have sex with people my own age!" He said a few more sentences to "substantiate" this, but as he was talking, he picked up a teddy bear that was lying on the couch of the room, and unconsciously, with almost no visible effort, ripped its arms off. He noticed my eyes drop to his hands, and he looked down and saw what he had done.

He smiled at me, and his voice a lilting tone, said, "Aw, it's broke now." Then, placing the arms back to the body, "All fixed now!" Pulling them away, "Broke again." Back together. "Fixed again. Broke again. Fixed again. Brokeagainfixedagainbrokeagain. . . ." He stopped, and continued to smile as he unconcernedly cast the doll, arms and all, away from him onto the floor.

Our interview concluded soon afterwards. I had touched the core of pain from which he was trying so hard to distance himself. The result. Rage. I was sure that if he could have done so, he would have dismembered me just like the doll.

My recommendation was that he needed to start over somehow--to learn from the beginning how to act as a human being, to be placed in a dependent situation so that he would have to bond to caregivers like a small child. He would have to somehow be placed in a restricted 24-hour setting which would, at least, teach him that his own best interests lay in "acting" like other people. A few such programs exist, and based on this recommendation, he was placed in one.

He lasted six months. As intensive a procedure as it sounds, the person has to have a fundamental desire to return to humanity, in the same way that an addict must have a bone-aching desire to stop using drugs if treatment is to have any effect. "Returning" means to experience all the pain that one shut down in becoming a conscienceless being. Jared did not have the courage for this anymore. He had already embraced the cold reptilian safety of solitary hatred and pure self-interest. He physically assaulted staff and other youth, and was expelled. His parting words were, "I was born to rape, and there's nothing anyone can do about it."

Because of the way the laws are written, by destroying his placement in this secure facility, he was returned to the care of the foster-care system--his "parents," who were not mandated to lock him up. Once again, he went back to the same Crisis Respite Center.

He was there only a week or so when he exploded with rage towards the staff at being required to pick up some clothes. He kicked a hole in the wall, and trashed the furniture. As they called the police, Jared ran out the door with two women staff in hot pursuit. Young and lithe, he left them behind, and entered a school ground, coming upon two young 12-year-old girls. He dove upon one of them, and in broad daylight, in the middle of a sidewalk, began to rape her. Only a few moments later, the staff found him and managed to pull him off.

Aged 16, he was tried as an adult, and will be doing, I believe, 15 years in prison.

Several months later, before his sentencing, I saw him in detention from a distance. Although in the open recreation hall, he was isolated from the other boys, not because of his crime, but due to his demeanor, coiled within himself in bands of hatred. After years in the gladiator schools of our modern penal system, God help us all when he gets out.

The philosopher Derrida refers to the "community of the question." All of us who live in the martial world, either through our profession or through our avocation in combative arts, face similar questions when it comes to the responsibility we incur through our acquisition of power. So I ask the following question, not to get any answers from you, but perhaps to evoke the question within you:

Am I a moral failure in that I did not kill him?

When I interviewed that boy, I knew what he was capable of doing. I had no expectation that treatment would help him, but that was the best suggestion I could come up with. I knew he would, sooner or later, do something horrible to some poor child.

Is it my responsibility merely to offer therapy to those I can, teach as many people as I can how to protect themselves from violence, saving myself to raise my sons, saving myself, therefore, from the consequences of what I knew was going to happen?

I could have saved the child he raped an unimaginable world of pain, and probably other children, too, when he finally gets out of prison. Were you to hear that I had killed him, solely based on my intuition and assessment, what would be your reaction?

My own answer to this question is the choice I made, but I will be haunted until my death at the thought of that child, her flesh ground into a sidewalk, the sun beating down upon her pain, indifferent as the flat, shark eyes of her rapist.

What, then, is the sword that gives life?

---

Copyright ©2000 Ellis Amdur. All rights reserved.

Whatsoever a Man Soweth, That Shall He Also Reap

Evil is easy.

It is easier to steal than to earn, to force than to convince, to rape than to seduce. It is easier to look the other way when you see these things happening. It is hard to stay honest, truthful, and moral. It is hard to have empathy for strangers, a sense of duty to self and society, and integrity in the face of temptation. It is hard to turn and face evil and stop it.

Evil is the path of least resistance, the low road, a gently downward sloping path. Evil does not need proponents, advocates, supporters or proselytizers to thrive. All evil needs is for people to do nothing. Do nothing, and a serial killer can terrorize a neighborhood until he dies of old age. Do nothing, and gangs control whole cities. Do nothing, and corruption consumes the police. Do nothing, and we have Ayatollahs, Pinochets, Pol Pots, Kim Il Sungs, Idi Amins, and Hitlers taking power.

Good requires active dedication. Every day, good is presented challenges and temptations. To be good demands that we choose, consciously, every minute and every second, to do the right thing. It is more than choosing not to do the wrong thing. The right choice is often difficult, unpleasant, and unpopular.

And so, there will always be evil in this world.

Always.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared to deal with evil. A good person will not initiate force against people, but that means nothing to an evil person. It is said that "War is the result of failed diplomacy," and the axiom scales to a personal level, too. What can peaceful measures accomplish when peace is the last thing in your opponents mind? When evil people attempt to threaten us with force to their whims, the only appropriate response is the threat of force. When force is applied, the only appropriate responce is force. When that force is violence, the only appropriate response is violence. When that force is deadly, the only appropriate response is death.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared for violence. A good person will not initiate force against people, but it is a duty of all people to stop force and avoid escalation Violence must be employed to stop violence until the desire to act evilly and violently has been destroyed and not one iota longer. We meet force with force so long as the will to fight exists in our enemies. In this way, evil acts are met immediately with retribution. In this way does evil beget its own punishment.

This is no mean excercise, no abstract experiment. If you are approached by a mugger, surrendering your wallet is only certain of encouraging the activity further. That mugger will rob again. Surrendering your wallet does not even guarantee your safety. This is how inaction permits evil to thrive.

Rather, suppose you met the threat with appropriate force. At the production of whatever weapon accompanies his demand for your wallet, you instead reach for a pistol*. If the mugger's hands go up, call the police. No further violence is needed. If not, the mugger's life is forfeit. The right thing to do is to continue shooting until the mugger no longer has the will or ability to fight - whichever comes first**. It is paramount that you stop shooting once the threat is neutralized: to kill a wounded person in the heat of passion is no more excusable than to steal at gunpoint. On the other hand, at no point should you take dangerous cautions to preserve that criminal's life. If the situation appears at any point that, of the two of you, one will likely die, it is imperative that every effort be made that it is not your life given up.

And what of stumbling across the commission of a crime? We exist in a society, nothing happens in a vacuum. Evil anywhere is a threat everywhere, and it is therefore our duty to address and meet the evil of others, whether by police or vigilante action, where ever it is encountered. Some months ago I wrote of a series of violent episodes wherein I proponed the idea that we must all take a stand to improve the society in which we live. The same is true of evil and violence as it is of ill mannered people: their behavior is only rewarding if it is permitted, and it is permitted so long as nothing is done to stop it. We have a duty to confront evil. The morality of the victim is irrelevant: the commission of violence must be met with instant retribution whenever possible.

Further, there are instances, as I've also said before, of people who are irrevocably evil. Such people constitute a constant and looming threat, even when they are not actively engaged in their predations. Serial killers and rapists, child molesters and pedophiles - who, oddly enough, seem to have considerable overlap within their fields - constitute individuals who can be said to always be a danger. These individuals have no claim to the rights of life, liberty, or happiness: Their actions are a threat, their lives are forfeit. Their presence in society is a bane, they deserve no libety. Their proclivities are anathema to all that is good - their happiness is misery, violence and death. Should they be caught in the commission of one of their acts, summary death is appropriate. Should they be proved guilty of these acts, life imprisonment is the only mercy they should be granted.

Evil and violence will always be a part of the world. It is a foolhardy and dangerous naivete that informs pacifistic approaches to these problems. It is essential that good people are prepared, not only to deal with the personal consequences of their chosen life, but to deal with the darkness to which they have become opposed.

---

*While we are talking in hypotheticals, I feel it is necessary to express that life and death situations should be left to as little chance as possible. Therefore, I provide some small tactical advice, firstly: A pistol should be kept concealed in a location easily mistaken with a place you might keep a wallet whenever possible. To this end, Seecamp provides some excellent concealed carry options.

**It should go without saying that, in the event your opponent is also using a firearm, offering an opportunity to surrender is a foolhardy move almost certain to result in your own injury or death. Shoot first and shoot often.

A Daily Dose of Darwinism

I would like, for a brief interlude, to turn my attentions from the external violence in which we so often here immerse ourselves to a more personal, private contemplation of individual import. This is a matter of seemingly little significance which, I believe, may have far reaching consequence for the society of men at large. This is a matter rarely discussed for it's percieved lack of weight, however, a knowledge of a man's choices in this minute regard of his daily life can inform you more of his character than any gross achievement, failure, or undertaking. Like the universe about us, this seemingly small decision has as much, if not greater, an impact as great spectacles of either man or nature.

I refer here, of course, to shaving.

Of course there is no argument as to the percieved pettiness of the subject. Shaving has been for some time little more than a chore, a necessary evil to be undertaken for to fit with the norms of common hygiene in as quick and simple a manner as possible, that we might continue our day with more purposeful activities.

This is the era of rush hour, freeways and carpools; of drive-through eateries, microwaved dinners and skipped breakfasts; of stylists instead of barbers, electric shavers and disposable triple-bladed razors.


Today is a day where ease is key, where while proper presentation is important, moreso that we are able to achieve such quickly in order to sooner return to work. In a day where it often becomes necessary to be working on your cell phone in traffic on the way to the office, who has time to perform a proper shave - especially when that activity, too, is performed in the car? What possible benefits could such an activity bestow upon a person, much less our high-speed, high-intensity society?

One of the answers is obvious: proper grooming has been a hallmark of desirability in all social fields for centuries. Even bearded men have, with little exception, been expected to keep their facial hair tamed and at a predetermined length. Even at the end of the 19th century, when long - and to our modern sensibilities, unruly - beards were fashionable (see Presidents Ruthorford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield, for instance), there were styling demands upon them that dictated length and shape. All of these dictates demand shaving.


What adherence to certain methods and modes of grooming can indicate, therefore, is a person's mentality, their philosophy or religion, their social status, and even their breeding and etiquette. Whether, what and when a man shaves bespeaks volumes of his character, and rightly so: it is as part of our social presentation that we undergo such grooming. But what of the how of his shave? How can something private, as the act of shaving so often is, create a meaningful effect in and upon society? If the goal is to create a certain appearance, what matter is it the manner in which the effect is achieved?

Herein I propone the practice of straight-razor shaving, a practice which has garnered an interesting reputation in the years since safety and ease overcame what was once a fine and delicate skill common to all groomed men. This reputation - namely, of the use of straight razors as a dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming method delivering the finest shave developed by man - serves both to portray the skill as an archaic and obsolete relic of simpler times as well as to elevate it as a sign of class and luxury that place it, in the communal mind of the common man, well above his reach and station.


That high things - difficult, dangerous, things, things of luxury and class, all such manner of noble things - should be seen as out of reach and above station is, more than any other thing, indicative of the malaise and rot that plagues our so-called modern society. It seems impossible to strive for greatness as a culture when we are not willing to put forth the effort needed to enjoy the best in our daily, personal lives.

There is no doubt that a straight razor is a dangerous implement. Five inches of blade, honed to a nearly microscopic edge, backed by nearly an inch of sturdy steel is perfectly capable of inflicting severe wounds - and when one willingly places this device upon their neck, it is well within the realm of possibility that these wounds could be lethal. Add upon the difficulty of mastering the blade the plethora of other skills necessary to the enjoyment of proper hygiene - honing and stropping the implement yourself, learning to lather and apply real shaving soap, a small understanding of dermatology necessary for to understand the hair and skin you treat - and we have an intimidating amount of knowledge to learn at the risk of almost certain discomfort and possible injury or death.

I argue that these are all good and desirable things.

To begin, I will address the immediate danger of the blade. Of itself, it is harmless. It is safely enclosed in its handle, it neither opens nor moves itself about. The realization of this is a thing which grants a man new insight into his own life, the realization that all tools, all weapons, all skills are merely objects or ideas, that they are worthless and meaningless without his action upon them. To take that razor in his hand and place it upon his neck, he places himself only in as much danger as he allows. Skill dictates whether he can move the blade in the correct way, at the correct angle. In the beginning, we are certain of the occassional nick or cut, which grants the short-term rewards of increasing comfort with increasing skill - nevermind that a stoic (and most important in this regard, unflinching) tolerance of discomfort is a valuable ability and a global signal of masculinity. Skill must be achieved by practice, by dedication to mastery, and what better motivation than the knowledge that a lack of skill in such a case could bring results as disastrous as an untrained driver or marksman?


But, some would say, why must this exercise of mastery over a dangerous implement and a dangerous environment be practiced with a blade upon our flesh? Are there not numerous other dangers to which we may expose ourselves daily, if the goal is to build character through adversity? What of driving and shooting, which you mention?

The reason for shaving as the ideal method is derived from it's privacy. This privacy, first and foremost, prevents the ungentlemanly endangerment of others. In any driving situation the risk of killing another due to a lack of aptitude is at least equal to the risk of killing yourself. In firearms, the risk of endangering another is almost invariably greater, as it takes a remarkable stupidity to unintentionally harm the self by way of a properly functioning bullet and piece, and even when shooting alone in a secluded area, bullets are capable of travelling extreme distances to fall upon more populated locales. Further, expertise in these fields is readily exhibited to society, and there are external influences to motivate the practice and proficiency of them. It can be said that driving or shooting in a responsible, skillful manner is often not motivated by a personal desire for excellence, but rather due to fear of appearing incompetent.

Shaving, on the other hand, takes place within the privacy of the home, within the bedroom or bath, and often without observation by even intimate cohabitants. It grants several minutes of quiet excercise and disciplined activity which is undertaken for no reason other than a personal desire to not only be socially presentable, true, but to do so in the most exacting manner - as it is shown that a straight razor, properly wielded, offers the closest and least irritating shave available. It is also worth noting that the few minutes of meditative activity afforded by the privacy and discipline of a proper shave help to calm and clear the mind, invigorating and honing it for excellence in the day's myriad endeavors.

In a way, the proper shave takes a place akin to meditation or prayer within a day. I do not mean public spectacles masquerading as meditation or prayer, of course, but that intimate piece of calm and reflection that so often accompanies ritual contemplation. In fact, it has many elements in common with such rituals - the shaver first bathes, either in whole or facially, then stands before the basin as an altar arrayed with his blade, his soap, his brush, his strop, and his water. The precise, repetitive act of stropping, the preparation of the brush and soap, careful creation and application of a fine lather, not to mention the practiced movements of the razor itself all have a refreshing, comfortable, yet vivid and intense effect on a person's mind. At the completion of a shave, after the final washing of the face and perhaps even the anointing with colognes we often find ourselves new men, baptised by steel into the mastery of our own small universes.


Then again, many of these contemplations are purely speculative, placed forward by myself as an admitted amateur psychologist and sociologist. To this end, I proffer a more physical, biological, mathematical advantage made by the straight razor upon the institution of our greater society. While my aforementioned conclusions are speculative, the danger posed by a razor in untrained hands is absolute and undeniable. What, then, would the consequence be if all of man woke to his toilet on the morrow to find that all of his modern, electrical or disposable facility were replaced by the blade and brush? Suppose further that to remain completely unshorn were not an option. Surely there would be those who, in their haste and arrogance, and failing to appreciate the nature of their activity, would perish before their basins by their own hands. Silly idealistic notions about the value of human life must be departed with here: what use is a man who cannot master a blade? What use is a man who imagines his endeavors so lofty as not to trouble himself with the very substance of his life and being? While we may mourn the loss of acquantances, those survivors would doubtless be of the magnitude of man who understands and appreciates his abilities, his tools, and his place in and effect upon the world. Doubtless that, even should such qualities not breed true, they would be bestowed upon the following generations as an acknowledged part of the proper rearing of boys into men. True, such a time already once was.


There was a time, and it ended not too long ago, when all shorn men had achieved mastery of these skills. In this time, every man started his day faced with danger, every man looked at the prospect of death in his own reflection and stoicly, skillfully defeated it for no reason other than to take pride in his own appearance. Men with great names marked the tail end of this era, men who were known for gallantry, dignity and valor: men like Ernest Hemingway, Theodore Roosevelt, and Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron. While there were doubtless many factors that went into the production of such greatness, there is a stoutness of character that is granted by a daily brush with death. It is often said that the best meals are those taken after enduring a life-threatening situation. To survive by an act of will is a dose of Darwinism that brings out the best in a man - he knows that it is his skill and mastery of his body, the tools in his hands, and world about him that permits his existence. It imbues him with the confidence to face down adversity and the quiet contemplation to view the world in a more romantic light and with more passionate vigor. It is his daily proof that a thing worth doing, is worth doing well.