Thin Blue Lifeline.

I saw one of those uplifting, good news type stories in my news feed today:

Police officer picks up tab for the groceries a desperate mother tried to STEAL to feed her struggling family

I re-shared it for a couple reasons.

First, it's awfully popular to hate on the police. I understand that what they do is often unpopular, and very few of us ever have or take the opportunity to have a pleasant encounter with the thin blue line. In a larger sense, this is true of everything we do. We can be model employees, but a single fuckup is what our bosses will tend to remember. So it is important that we take time to remember that these individuals have taken a job that they know is unpopular, that doesn't pay well, and is dangerous, almost universally out of a sense of service. It is also important to remember that most of them retain that sense of service and community; and to remind ourselves in positive ways why it is that such a profession exists. The watchman doesn't just repel dangers, but checks in to ensure our well being. Which leads to my second reason:

This is exactly what the police ought to do.

I'm not saying buy groceries for folk, that was an act of charity above and beyond the duties of an officer. But it is an indicator of how the officer ought to view their role and act within that role, and that role is as a member of the community.

I've heard people wax nostalgic about the days when the cops that walked a beat in your neighborhood knew your name. I am wary of nostalgia, but this is a worthwhile goal. It fosters a sense of connection between the officers and their charges. It enhances community appreciation of the police. It means that there are enough police to have them walking about and knowing their areas and the people within them.

I'm writing about this news item here for a third reason. A while ago I opined on nullification, and made the point that while the police ought not to have de jure powers of nullification, the realities of law enforcement give them such powers de facto. This good news story is an example of this de facto nullification: the law requires that the woman, a thief, should be arrested and punished; in most cases the law is perfectly logical and therefore should remain standing. However, the officer took the time to consider the situation and chose not to enforce the law, because in this specific situation the effect of doing so would have been beyond negative. This officer, rather than act without imagination, did the right thing without the waste of time, money, and paper that would go into legislating every conceivable exception that can or ought to be made to the law.

We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone (and TSA Agents)

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet. The following comments are in reply to the support a certain establishment had garnered with its refusal to serve TSA Agents.

---

"If policy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?"

Granted, my condition is quite a bit different than that of a TSA agent, but as a soldier, the answer is "Yes". You can't refuse a dangerous order or a lawful order, and the kicker... is that the definition of "lawful" is up to a military tribunal. I repeat, it's a different situation, but it does render your argument somewhat invalid.

"no one is forcing the tsa agent to grope me before i get on an airplane"

Yes they are. It's their job vs. your comfort. In the same situation, I know what I'd pick. Similarly, do you have any idea what would happen to the TSA agent who lets a bomb through because s/he was squeamish about a pat down? The public, once so adamantly against the screenings, would then be calling for strict enforcement of the rule and the immediate, severe and preferably public castigation of the negligent agent. It's a Catch-22, and one that puts severe pressure on the agents. You act as though they have a choice, when really, they do not.

"harming people even though you know its unethical for a paycheck"

"Harming" is hyperbole and you know it. As for the paycheck, you are certainly aware that there is a recession on. It's not just that "this job is as good as any other", it's that if they don't have this job, it is extremely likely that they won't have ANY. In case you ain't noticed, we're not talking about highly trained and educated people when we talk about TSA. And when I walk into a Waffle House and get served by a waitress trainee who used to be a realtor, as I did this last December in Tucson, you begin to realize that when it comes to a roof over your head and food in your stomach, and the same for your family, you don't get to be choosy about your employment anymore. These folks are NOT going to put their jobs at risk for some mouthy stranger who knew what was likely to happen and decided to fly anyway. Especially when it won't accomplish anything, since the instant they walk out the door there will be ten people clamoring to replace them. Ten people who will either do their jobs or likewise get canned until TSA finds someone who will.

So is it really such a pain to get a little felt up? Ask yourself honestly. TSA's job is certainly important, if a little overinflated, and the "groping" is less invasive as a rule than a trip to the doctor, the locker room at the gym, or one of those men's restrooms with a trough urinal. The same search is performed by police officers regularly and people take it as a matter of course.

Consider it from another viewpoint: Let's say you have a job towing cars. Your bread and butter is impounding cars parked by red curbs, across two parking spaces, or in private lots. It's not a pleasant job, because every single time you take a car in, it means you probably have to deal with that car's owner later on. An owner which, by the way, is now having a bad day thanks in no small part to people like you.

You do your job because it's a paycheck. You went to school to learn acupuncture, but in this economy there's no work because people don't have money to waste on medicine that doesn't work. But you do your job honestly, by the book, and you try to make the process as painless for everyone involved as you can, because you understand: getting your car towed sucks. But its a part of life, and you don't make the laws.

At the end of one day you walk into a bar, still wearing your coveralls, and the barkeep has you shown out. "We don't serve your kind here," the bouncer sneers, "We don't appreciate what you do." You try to protest, but they'll hear none of it. "You didn't have to take that job, and you don't have to do that work. You're just as evil as the gummint that says I can't double park across the handicapped spaces. And I'll hear none of that Nazi talk about orders" he concludes as the door slams coldly in your face.

The barkeep doesn't know about your mortgage, your car payment, and your three kids. Apparently he doesn't understand that if your boss didn't send you out on these City jobs he wouldn't have enough revenue to run the business. More than that, he and his bouncer simply don't care. You slink away across the cold, dark parking lot and drive home, rejected, ostracised, alone, and dead sober.

From what you know about human nature, how do you think you would react when, early the next week, you respond to a call requesting that you tow a car carelessly sprawled between a red curb and an expired parking meter. As you are filling out some forms, preparing to leave, a flustered looking man comes running out, yelling the usual obscentities you almost always hear from the owners of towed vehicles coming across you in the commission of your duties. As the red-faced man's visage resolves, you slowly recognize him as the bartender. That mean bartender who cares not a jot or tittle for you as a human because you took a job he doesn't like. That jerk who doesn't understand the demands of having a house and a family, who doesn't even care to understand what it is to be bound to something beyond yourself. Look at him, screaming and flailing his arms, knowing full well what conversations will ensue, here, and later at the impound lot, and ask yourself, "Do I have any sympathy and mercy for this man? I know that my job visits unpleasantness upon people, but does this man deserve my cooperation and professional insight and aid? Will I, perhaps, cut him a deal so he can get his car home just a little faster or cheaper, at a detriment to my boss but at a benefit to overall goodwill? Or will I make his life just a little more difficult in kind?"

THAT'S why refusing to serve TSA agents is a bad idea.

---

The following comment was made later in the conversation.

---

"i also cant agree with the economic argument. so if the economy is... strong and opportunity is rampant, than its ok to oppose unethical behavior in the name of a paycheck?"

That's not the argument we're making. It's that things aren't all... black and white, and sometimes you actually DO have to weigh one evil against another. When the choice comes down to the wellbeing of my family and the comfort of strangers, then you can't really hold it against people for making certain decisions. When the economy improves and people are again able to choose their employment, then the paradigm will have changed.

In any case, I'm glad most of us are agreed that punishing the workers is not the way to be creating the changes we want. If anything, we should be finding ways to get TSA agents on our side.

It reminds me of my experience at MEPS (er ...don't know how many vets are here. That's "Military Entrance Processing Station") which is a generally unpleasant experience for everyone involved. I felt especially sorry for the doctors there, whose jobs, despite a decade of medical school, consisted of checking an endless parade of men for hernias and hemorhoids. I figure that the folks at TSA aren't (as a rule) much happier about having to look at the Backscatter Images or feel people up. Especially when you think back on all the times you've flown and the truly, um, "aesthetically unfortunate" people that are on every flight. I think that a sympathetic rather than hostile approach would be more fruitful.

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."

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.

"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.

Subjectivism, Judgement, and You

In a discussion the other night revolving around an unsavory character of mutual acquaintance, a couple of my fellow conversants attempted to make an argument on the characters behalf rooted in subjectivism. Namely, that it is impossible to ethically, accurately, and surely pass judgement on anyone because "you don't know everything about everyone, so how can you judge? Everyone's different." I can not think of a more ridiculous conclusion. Surely the premises that we do not know "everything" about any individual, and that each individual is different, will stand to reason. But the conclusion rests on some rather more dubious unstated premises: namely that a judgement must be ideal, that it is unjust to make an assumption on imperfect information, and that because there are exceptions (to borrow from a colloquial expression on the nature of absolutism), we must disregard the rule. It is these premises which are faulty.

It is in our best interest to make judgement of people on the available information. While it should not be necessary, I will state that we do not live in a perfect world, and there is no perfect information, and even if there were, it is not available to anyone. Therefore, we must make these judgments on incomplete information, even to make assumptions on little more than gut feelings. In the least extreme cases, it saves time by employing what are called heuristics. In the most, these assumptions can save your life. We do it every day in situations that are less likely to raise a hyper-sensitive eyebrow - on the freeway, as you watch someone come speeding up, weaving through traffic, it is reasonable to assume that this person will not think twice to cut you off. Or with even less warning: A car that seems to sidle over to the edge of the lane, no blinker on - any astute driver can read another's "body language" and predict a person who will change lanes without signalling. Some can even determine the second that the decision is made. Martial artists are trained to recognize these shifts in people, to know when the decision to strike has been made and how it will be thrown. They are not reacting to the movement of a fist - they already know the fist is coming.

But what do we base these decisions on? The information is hardly perfect. It comes from experience, observations which inform rules of thumb that guide us. We do not cater to the exception UNLESS caution demands it - where there is a small, but significant, probability of danger that must be acknowledged. And even that exception is a rule of thumb employed to make decisions based on the most of imperfect information. We do not know, with ANY certainty, that the spiky-haired teen in the lifted pickup truck speeding through traffic will ride your bumper, shine his brights in your mirror, pass you on the right and cut you off - but we assume he will, not just because you just watched him do it to 50 other people, but because you've seen it before.

We don't know everything, we don't know him, he is a different person from every other, and maybe, just maybe, he will suddenly have a moment of clarity and start driving responsibly. None of us, however will stake our lives, or our cars, on such a happenstance, though, will we?

Let us examine another example. You are alone and unarmed in a less-reputable area of a big city at night when this person steps into your path and asks if you can spare a cigarette or a light, or some change, or help him with something:

No need to tell me what you'd do. I know you wouldn't. Nobody with any sense would take a risk like that, because it IS a risk, one with horrifying ramifications. We don't know anything about this person, save that they claim to be in need of something. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that they honestly want a cigarette, or that sofa really isn't going to move itself. But it is easier to maintain your safety, and so extend your life, by understanding that such actions will distract your attention, move your hands away and occupy them, and otherwise make you weaker and easier to victimize.

There is a growing idea in this country that such judgements constitute an unjust "prejudice" and should be avoided. We should look for, expect, and assume, the best in people. The advocates of this idea lay guilt upon those who act on their own instincts, instincts which exist for a reason, instincts that have been carefully honed over the millenia to alert us to danger. There are near universal reactions to certain crimes - cold-blooded murder, crimes against children, sexual predation - that are similar in that they make complete sense when viewed in an evolutionary light. There is nothing more deplorable to us than that which threatens our lives, and the future of our pack and species. Why would it make any sense to act counter to these instincts?

So at this juncture we can return to our unsavory associate. This is a person who was convicted some years ago of a heinous crime, but recieved remarkable leniency on a plea bargain and has not, so far as we know, re-offended. However, the disposition of the crime is such that it is inherent in his nature - there is no amount of punishment, repentance, rehabilitation, or treatment that will purge the will to commit the crime - it can only be deterred. While available information indicates that he has not re-offended, it is extreme foolishness to act on the assumption that he is no longer dangerous. While it is entirely possible that he has gained the discipline and remorse necessary to avoid indulgence, or even achieved a miraculous cure, there is absolutely nothing to gain by taking that risk, and an immeasurable harm if mercy and compassion should prove unwarranted, and at some level we all understand and implement this measure of self-preservation. Trust must be earned, mercy must be deserved, and altruism must be undertaken with careful calculation, lest we let ourselves be destroyed in an attempt to appease a monster.

On Pedophilia and Redemption

There are some types of evil in this world for which there is no redemption.

What I mean by this is the following: Some crimes, some misfortunes, some evils, are not inherent. A person can commit a crime without forethought, perhaps in the heat of passion, that is not inherent in the persons nature. A bar fight, a mugging, even most murders, can happen without forethought, even without malice. For these crimes, a person will serve their punishment and be truly remorseful.

Some crimes are not as justifiable.

There is, on occasion, a crime committed because such malevolence is inherent in a persons character. Sometimes, a person is simply morally wrong. Permanently.

Take for example, the crime of murder. We will take as granted at this time, that murder, defined as the unjustified taking of a life, is wrong. It is fairly common that a person commits a murder in the heat of the moment. There are many inspirations to such an act - witnessing your partner in the act of adultery is common, being cut off on the freeway another - but oftentimes it happens that a person is driven to an irrational rage that culminates in their taking of a life. It also often happens that this person soon regrets their actions, that they are so burdened with guilt that we can safely expect that they will check their behavior and that they will never commit such an act again.

There are those for whom such expectations, such leniency, is unmerited.

If we were to continue with our example of murder with an act outside of a crime of passsion, if we were to consider a compulsive killer, then we would have a different case. I am referring, specifically, to serial killers. These are individuals who have no control over their actions at any point in time. These are individuals who we can expect to commit murder over and over and over again, until the situation becomes such that they can murder no more. Would such a person ever truly repent? Even if they did, would such a person be trustworthy in society? COULD you trust such a person to never murder again after having "served their time"?

There is a similar case when we consider the sexual criminal. Surely, there are sex crimes of passion, wherein a person rapes in the heat of the moment, but much more common is the habitual offender, the serial rapist, or more commonly (as an inquiry to your local Megan's Law webpage will show), the child molester.

Pedophilia is not treatable. The assumption that one can be cured of pedophilia is exactly as ludicrous as the idea that one can be cured of homosexuality or of their race. It is inherent in that persons nature to be sexually attracted to children, as it is for the homosexual to be attracted to those of their own sex or for the masochist to derive pleasure from pain. It is the very definition of the condition. There is no "cure".

Where pedophilia differs from, say, homosexuality, is in the nature of the relationship. Sexual relationships, no matter how enlightened we attempt to be in our approaches thereto, always have an aspect of territorialism to them. A pedophile cannot help but be sexually attracted to those who have, by definition, no concept of the ramifications of a sexual relationship. They are not even remotely intellectually capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship. Therefore, there is no possible way in which a pedophile could engage in their preffered relationship without victimization. The child does not understand what is happening, and cannot say yes or no. Most often the child is AFRAID to say no.

This is why pedophilia is wrong. Where a sadist can engage in a relationship with a masochist, or homosexuals or heterosexuals can find their gender of choice, a pedophile has no option but to convince a person incapable of making such decisions to engage in a sexual relationship.

I will digress, at this point, to discuss the ancient Greeks, who will no doubt constitute a great portion of the debate.

It was considered ordinary for a boy and an older man to engage in a sexual relationship in that culture. What many people fail to recognize is that the ramifications of the relationship were made clear to the boy, and to the man, before it even began - before either was even prepared to initiate the relationship. It is further worth noting that the sexual relationship was secondary to the true purpose at hand. The older man was to serve as a mentor to the boy, to teach him the meaning of what it was to be a citizen and an adult. I will not pass judgement on the psychological health of such an institution. I do not believe it was entirely healthy as an institution, but a society develops ways in which to perpetuate itself, and such was the method of the Greeks. The relevant points are as follows: The relationship was primarily that of Teacher and Student; AND the ramifications and expectations of such a relationship were made clear to both parties well ahead of time. Further, there is little to be said of pederasty as an ORIENTATION in ancient Greece as opposed to it being an INSTITUTION.

This is NOT the case in the modern era.

The modern pederast is a predator. We take care in our modern society to educate our youth through different means. We create safe avenues for exploration. We do not place the stress of sexual relationships on our children. They are dangerous things. You would not teach a child to operate a firearm before you were certain of their maturity - as such do we appreciate the psychogical implications of sex.

A pedophile breaks these rules. A pedophile subjugates children to whims that they do not understand. A pedophile uses their superior knowledge of society to pressure children. A pedophile IS a predator, just as much as a serial killer is, above all else, a chronic taker of life.

We have created avenues in our society in which to discourage these acts, but it is my opinion they are not harsh enough. There are tendencies which surface occasionally in the human psyche which are undesirable, even detrimental, to the continuation of our species and culture. Had I my druthers, such persons would be executed publicly, without opportunity of appeal.

The American justice system, at least, is more lenient than I.

However, the American justice system and I agree on one point. There are certain types of danger which never fade, for which there is no repentance, redemption, or rehabilitation. The system would not, in theory, release Jeffrey Dahmer without informing those nearby that a person with such proclivities was nearby. Such is the justification for Megan's Law, which makes available to the public the image, address, and crime of those who have committed acts of sexual predation. These are individuals who are dangerous, and it behooves those aware of them to warn those at risk.

That such individuals are given the opportunity to squelch their abominable appetites and to reintegrate with society, I suppose, is the mark of a liberal and forward thinking society. That they are given leave to pursue ambition, free reign of their environments, to exercise their perverse desire for power ...such trust is beyond me. To trust such, knowing their nature is to victimize, galls me. The system says one is innocent until proven guilty, and these people have been proven guilty of such massive defects that any sort of freedom, even that of life, seems a mercy most undeserved.