I hope Trump fails.
I know it's the popular, banal wisdom of the masses to say that they hope, despite everything, that he turns out to be a good President.
Some of these people say that it's too early to tell and we should just give him a chance, that maybe he'll surprise us.
Some of these people say that they don't want the ills of a failed presidency to be borne by the people.
Some of these people say that it's for patriotic reasons, that they don't want to root against America, regardless of who her leader is.
Most of these people are inclined to regurgitate any weak-hearted, feeble-minded ecumenical bullshit that neatly dodges any responsibility, accountability, or critical thought.
Not I.
First, let's be perfectly clear. Donald Trump is not going to be a good President. The people who elected Donald Trump do not want a good President. Nothing Donald Trump has said or done has given the slightest indication to the contrary. If your plan is to just give him a chance and hope for the best, instead of getting a passport and moving your investments overseas, then you're well behind the curve already and his administration is going to hit you like a gold-plated slab of marble.
These low expectations are, in large part, what propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP ticket in 2016. Every other candidate from both major parties was compared against a Presidential standard. If Trump, however, could make it an hour without using a racial slur or literally throwing his feces at his opponents, he was considered to have "done well" in the debates.
And that's the problem, here.
Nobody expects Donald Trump to be a good President. Nobody voted for him because he is Presidential. They voted for him, to borrow a metaphor, as a Molotov cocktail thrown through the window of the establishment. He will not surprise anyone except by virtue of the increasing obscenity of each successive scandal.
Because Donald Trump is a punishment, his administration is not going to be held up to a standard fitting the leadership of one of the world's most powerful and influential nations. The standard for a "successful" Donald Trump presidency is much, much lower: If there is still a country in four years, the conservative idiots on Breitbart and company will decry "liberal doomsaying" as "overblown", and we can fully expect Americans to shrug and pull the lever for four more years.
Anything better than an absolute disaster is not a success. Yet this is the handicap Donald Trump plays with.
Trump's policies are going to gut our industry, the dollar, our education, our health, our foreign standing, and our alliances, and he is guaranteed two years in which to work basically unobstructed. If this plan is fully enacted, America will lose her superpower status by the end and, given what the state of our workers and our education will be, it may be generations before we can dream of recovering it. NATO, the EU and possibly even the UN will be on their way to joining the League of Nations in the history books. America's enemies will be strengthened and emboldened by the decline of American and western power. We will be baited, by virtue of our thin-skinned and short-tempered and myopic Commander in Chief into unwinnable and unpopular conflicts across the globe. Trump and his cronies will walk away richer, the office of President will be forever disgraced, and the people of America will be greatly impoverished in nearly every way.
The real kicker is that these policies are going to hurt worst those people in the areas that voted overwhelmingly for Trump - which is to say, that there is only justice in the world if Trump does what any thinking person expects him to attempt.
This is the essential accountability to which the American voter must be held. As the rural south and the blue collar rust belt suffer disproportionately to the modest discomforts experienced by the liberal urban strongholds, the mantra must be "You asked for this. You wanted punishment." This must be internalized by the voters because it was the apathy of the voters that led to the failure of our institutions which installed this incompetent, unqualified, puppet of a leader. If we are to impress upon Americans the importance of voting and voting well, it is essential that Americans feel the full impact of their decision to vote out of spite, or out of ignorance, or with their gut, or to not vote at all.
The Constitution, the Electoral College, and the Congress which all contain measures to prevent people like Trump from achieving office failed, and these are deep flaws which must be corrected. They would not have had the opportunity to fail, however, had the voters themselves not failed in their civic duties.
Simply put, if you are throwing support behind Trump in the name of "unity" and "patriotism" you are mistaken. You cannot be both for the strength, security and welfare of this nation and your fellow citizens, and be for what Trump advances. There is no patriotism in hoping for a Trump success.
And so, in order to avoid eight years of the incredible and possibly irreversible damage even partial success will create, America needs a wake-up call. She needs the worst two years in living memory to get voters to remove the GOP from the legislature and thereby muzzle Trump. Given the high likelihood of outright, flagrant criminal activity from this administration, we must be prepared for the anguish of an impeachment.
Trump must fail. It is not unpatriotic to root against him, it is not unjust to expect the people to bear the weight of this failure, and it is not unrealistic to expect that he will fail though he has been President less than a day.
Trump's failure is the penance that must be paid to preserve this nation and her place in the world.
Friday, January 20, 2017
The Unexpected Virtue of Punishment
Friday, December 23, 2016
Trump and the Punishment of America
 |
| Emphasis added. "It's time for things to suck for you" is the message here. |
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Aborting Jesus
In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt makes one of the most controversial claims I've ever seen: that legal and accessible abortion makes a better world. The data makes a compelling argument and if you would like to examine it and his arguments I urge you to pick up a copy of his incredibly interesting book.
The pro-life contingent is fond of asking "What if the baby was the cure for cancer?" or other such inane questions. It is inane because any problem has a solution which may be derived by anyone with the proper intelligence. New problems, on the other hand ...well, let's just say that the drop in crime rates observed two decades after Roe v. Wade wasn't attributable to the "cure for crime" being allowed to come to term.
Jesus is a great example of just such a situation. Imagine how much better the world might be if Joseph had done what he was supposed to do? (Hint: Deuteronomy 22:20-21; Numbers 5:11-31) There would be only one basic cult of Jehovah on the planet. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia ...and likewise, the reactions to those forces: communism, the French Reign of Terror, the Holocaust, Pogroms. Lesser banes like Intelligent Design would also be absent from the world today.
In the void left by Jesus' absence there would be new atrocities, for sure. Humans are atrocious, and religions are made by humans. But what if three quarters of the world's population wasn't all devoting their bloodshed to the same God, whose cults have written into their texts the world's most reassuring excuses for horror yet devised? Mind that even the religious wars in Hindu and Buddhist areas in the modern day are fought against one sect of the cult of Jehova.
Perhaps this is the key to Christopher Hitchens' note of the correlation between Women's Rights (and reproductive freedom) and the quality of life and freedom of an area. Perhaps the causal relationship is not only direct; but it is as Hitchens suggest, that women's rights and reproductive freedom create conditions for a better world.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The Mad Jack Takes On Michael Shanklin
Collected from elsewhere on the internet, these were my comments to Mr. Shanklin regarding his naïve anarchistic beliefs. All anarchism is unrealistic, but his ideas regarding every person being subject to no law other than that which they choose for themselves was especially appalling in its sheer, blind idiocy.
"So what you are saying is that you are someone who would gladly force your will on others, murder for profit, and ensure that NO ONE is free just as long as you are getting something in return?" etc, etc, ad nauseam ...
I love how good you anarchists are at making stuff up. It must be wonderful to have such active imaginations and such a detailed fantasy world to live in.
In fact, I believe quite the opposite. Which is why I am no anarchist and I do not support a stateless society. Anarchy and Statelessness are only possible in a world filled with a type of person that is actually so rare in reality that it is almost fair to say that the advocates of such "systems" are experiencing an almost total disconnect from reality. The truly amusing thing is that for everyone to be "free" absent a state, all ambition, striving and competition will have to be somehow culled from the race: in reality, an anarchist or stateless society would collapse as soon as the first punch is thrown.
That is, anarchy is more dependent on "sheeple" for "success" (for what success is there to be had without striving and ambition?) than any other government concept in the history of man.
Until sociopathy is cured, until there are no jerks left in the world, until a way of imbuing each generation with a total and homogenous sense of morality is accomplished, anarchy and/or statelessness is impossible. And as the proud and rather arrogant owner of certain qualities, such as ambition and a general disregard for useless people; it makes me happy to say that there will be no anarchy or statelessness within my lifetime.
"Once people take the time to research dispute resolution organizations and competing law, they will realize how it is the future ..."
A person who attends Berkeley is more likely to have liberal ideas, a person who attends Georgetown more likely to have conservative ideas. I suppose if you spend all your time reading fantasies, you're more likely to be an anarchist.
Your arguments aren't arguments at all, Shanklin. Simply declarations. "It will NOT be as you say! It will be GLORIOUS!" and waiting for your choir to shout "Amen! Preach it Brother!" behind you. Which I suppose might be construed as an argument to popularity, but I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and not invent things whole cloth the way your friends, such as Mr. Mathewson, have been doing.
You say we need education? Educate us. But I don't believe your system has what it takes to suffer dissent and come out ahead. It takes a society full of anarchists to make an anarchist society, and that sounds like the very antithesis of freedom of thought to me.
Especially given what I've seen of anarchists and their intolerance and hysterical decrial of anything that's NOT anarchy ...since I support some form of a state, I must constitute a threat to your freedom, no? Does that or does that not make me a target for any "freedom fighter" out there who wishes to silence my voice? If it does not, what law will avenge me when cooler heads do not prevail?
If I and people like me are allowed to live, your statelessness will collapse. If we are murdered for the sake of your precious homogeny of thought, then statelessness never was.
The following was my next post in the discussion.
"Murderers would be sought much harder in a free society"
By what law or right? You simply declare it to be so when in fact you have no support for your declaration. They may be pursued harder, but will they be pursued fairly? Who is to guarantee that the right person is pursued? Who is to prevent the phrase "Dead or Alive" (or simply "Dead") from preventing a person seeing trial?
What happens when Posse X, hired by Grieving Widow A, encounters Posse Y, hired to protect Suspect B? With no law, there is nothing illegal about it. It might be immoral, but that hasn't stopped anyone's dollars from buying force, violence, and coercion, which will be valuable and highly sought commodities on an open market. What happens when Posse X is a group of folks who hunt as their day job and take bounties for the general welfare; but Posse Y is a company by the name of Blackwater? After the shootout, has justice been served?
By what law or right does the killing finally stop?
I'm a fan of Westerns, too, but I understand why the people of Texas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, etc, were glad to have real law come about at the turn of the century.
"Government is coercion, and unneeded."
More declarations. I've got one of my own:
Any reasonable study of human history and nature will reveal that total freedom and lawlessness are unsupportable systems. What then arises is the pragmatic issue of What and How Much freedom it is necessary to sacrifice in order for everyone to maximize the amount enjoyed by the largest number of people.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
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.
Monday, March 29, 2010
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."
Monday, March 22, 2010
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"
Saturday, February 20, 2010
"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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
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.
