Page 9
E S S A Y S
By The Number
O M N I S C I E N T
All Knowing
O M N I P O T E N T
All Powerful
O M I N P R E S E N T
All Places
e40
Hubble not Hubris
All the world's scientists got together and decided that, since humans could now control the weather, create life, and solve most of the great mysteries of the universe, God was no longer needed. The scientists then entreated the world's religious leaders to tell God that He was unnecessary, that He should go about His business and leave the rest of us to be about our own.
God replied that He would agree to the scientists' demand, but only if humankind could win a contest that He wished to propose. The challenge was a rather simple matter of whether the scientists could create a human being equal to that made by God Himself.
Confident in their abilities, the great scholars of science eagerly accepted the test.
A moment later, God reached down and grabbed a handful of dirt.
The scientists, also, then reached down and grabbed up their own handfuls of dirt, ready to use their mighty machines to alter the molecular structure of the soil.
"Just a second," God said, interrupting the others' efforts. "Sorry, but you're going to have to get your own dirt."
God replied that He would agree to the scientists' demand, but only if humankind could win a contest that He wished to propose. The challenge was a rather simple matter of whether the scientists could create a human being equal to that made by God Himself.
Confident in their abilities, the great scholars of science eagerly accepted the test.
A moment later, God reached down and grabbed a handful of dirt.
The scientists, also, then reached down and grabbed up their own handfuls of dirt, ready to use their mighty machines to alter the molecular structure of the soil.
"Just a second," God said, interrupting the others' efforts. "Sorry, but you're going to have to get your own dirt."
e41
The POLITICS of FRIENDSHIP
The enemy of my enemy
Is my friend (but not always)
The enemy of my friend
Is my enemy. (but not always)
The friend of my enemy
Is my enemy. (but not always)
The friend of my friend
Is my friend. (but not always)
Is my friend (but not always)
The enemy of my friend
Is my enemy. (but not always)
The friend of my enemy
Is my enemy. (but not always)
The friend of my friend
Is my friend. (but not always)
The traditional interplay among friends and enemies may take on new meaning in light of modern politics. When expanded to include political committees, parties, and even movements, our relationships with those who identify with one group or another can become strained and tested as never before. The philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives has become such that I am reminded of Civil War America when former friends might well have been divided by their differing positions with regard to slavery. I often wonder how long such friends can remain so, based on mutual denial.
e42
SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE
If Adolph Hitler had not been an imperialist, but everything else remained the same, would the world have allowed him to purge Germany of its “undesirable” citizenry provided the slaughter remained an internal affair? Probably, given the prevailing social standards of the 1930’s and 1940’s.
If Saddam Hussein had not been an imperialist, but everything else remained the same, would the world have allowed him to purge Iraq of its undesirable citizenry provided the slaughter remained strictly an internal affair?
Some might suggest that social standards have not changed much, indeed little, since the 1930’s and 1940’s.
If Saddam Hussein had not been an imperialist, but everything else remained the same, would the world have allowed him to purge Iraq of its undesirable citizenry provided the slaughter remained strictly an internal affair?
Some might suggest that social standards have not changed much, indeed little, since the 1930’s and 1940’s.
e43
EPIPHANOMICON
Revelations & Epiphanies
The Inestimable Powers of the Awakening Mind
Revelation defined:
a. An act of revealing or communicating divine truth.
b. An act of revealing to view, or making known.
c. Something that is revealed; especially an enlightening or astonishing (shocking) disclosure.
Epiphany defined:
a. An appearance or manifestation esp. of a divine being.
b. A sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something.
c. An intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) that is both simple and life-changing.
d. An illuminating discovery.
e. A revealing scene or moment.
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary / Tenth Edition
Probably best exemplified in the movie, The Rainmaker, when a young, deaf-mute Helen Keller makes the connection between speech and the physical world, epiphanies represent those all-too-rare moments when we gain insights into ourselves, the outside world, and the intimate relationship between the two, which is to say, a realization that no real division exists as it seems. Epiphanies can only result when we surrender ourselves to our own ignorance and inadequacies. Great humility mixed with intense curiosity is a strong combination that must invariably lead to powerful epiphanies. Unfortunately not all life-changing revelations improve the individual or make the world a better place. As with all things, even epiphanies have their down side. But in general, we want to experience such events as often as possible. They enrich our lives and give meaning to the what was previously misunderstood or incomprehensible. They are the very embodiment of what it means to possess human intelligence.
a. An act of revealing or communicating divine truth.
b. An act of revealing to view, or making known.
c. Something that is revealed; especially an enlightening or astonishing (shocking) disclosure.
Epiphany defined:
a. An appearance or manifestation esp. of a divine being.
b. A sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something.
c. An intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) that is both simple and life-changing.
d. An illuminating discovery.
e. A revealing scene or moment.
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary / Tenth Edition
Probably best exemplified in the movie, The Rainmaker, when a young, deaf-mute Helen Keller makes the connection between speech and the physical world, epiphanies represent those all-too-rare moments when we gain insights into ourselves, the outside world, and the intimate relationship between the two, which is to say, a realization that no real division exists as it seems. Epiphanies can only result when we surrender ourselves to our own ignorance and inadequacies. Great humility mixed with intense curiosity is a strong combination that must invariably lead to powerful epiphanies. Unfortunately not all life-changing revelations improve the individual or make the world a better place. As with all things, even epiphanies have their down side. But in general, we want to experience such events as often as possible. They enrich our lives and give meaning to the what was previously misunderstood or incomprehensible. They are the very embodiment of what it means to possess human intelligence.
They were a quintet until Joey left with some fly-by-night rockers.
Fig. 1.
e44
The JURASSIC JUKEBOX
I found the topic in question so romantic, even poetic, I succumbed to framing my observation more as a "you-are-there" narrative and less a purely academic, speculative exercise. The subject addressed is, I believe, provocative, fascinating, and too infrequently examined as an interesting proposition.
Were the forests and jungles of prehistoric times, namely the Jurassic and Cretaceous, filled with a cacophonous din of animal sounds, calls, and songs? Or was there a general quietude only occasionally punctuated by the purposeful or incidental voices, here or there, of one creature or another?
Modern birds are a noisy lot. Everywhere, whether downtown in a bustling city or strolling about a pastoral woodland setting, we humans are surrounded by sounds both subtle and sublime, as birds of all sizes, shapes, and dispositions chatter among themselves.
Who of us has not at one time or another, listened to the melodious song of a bird, often unseen, as it throats some kind of message into the morning or early evening air? When populations are plentiful and varieties of species abundant, the listener is often bombarded by all manner of chirping, peeping, warbling, cawing, screeching and whooping and honking. It's an experience most of us take for granted. We rarely spend more than a moment or two (if that much) in serious contemplation as to the source from whence such sounds, so pure and elegant (sometimes not), should originate.
Exactly where and when did the ancestors of birds, both common and exotic, take their voice and music lessons? And from whom were they learned? Fortunately we know part of the answer. Generally speaking, modern-day birds evolved from dinosaurs and mostly from predatory raptors at that. Most dinosaurs were small, being largely overshadowed by the popular, but fewer-in-number behemoths with which most of us are familiar.
It does not necessarily follow, because a majority of today's birds are loud, talkative, and full of song, that their dinosaur ancestors genetically shared and imparted a proclivity for similar whoops and hollers. Birds live mainly in trees and, of course, possess a highly developed ability to fly, to navigate Earthly skies, and migrate to all corners of the globe.
The origin of flight itself is well beyond the scope or intent of this minor essay. More to the point is the fascinating question of whether birds evolved their intricate array of sounds, plus the desire to utter them, independent of their dinosaur ancestry. Or as seems far more probable, inherited both the attitude and aptitude for audibility from those same prehistoric predecessors.
The need for safety within a forest or under the jungle canopy should not be underestimated. We certainly believe such a lifestyle played a critical role in human evolution. The gabby birds who today nest atop high branches, may indeed have ancient and traceable, flightless relatives who could ill afford to announce their vulnerable presence to every predator within earshot.
Predators can themselves be the prey of mightier, fiercer carnivores. In a whole world of numberless predators and prey, a line is not easily drawn that separates one from the other. If we imagine a somewhat stereotypical, but not altogether inaccurate image of a prehistoric jungle or forest, only insects sport true wings and travel the airways. Except for certain winged cousins (pteranodons) who soar among the clouds, flightless dinosaurs -- both predators and prey alike -- are forced to scurry, run, jump, waddle, or plod their way along. But did they do so audibly, belting out every conceivable octave and pitch and tone? Did they announce to everyone within range, their noisy presence? Or in a situation where at any moment, fangs and claws might leap from behind the nearest bush or tree, was it better, safer, if you tended to keep your mouth, beak, or jaws shut?
All the fine camouflage in the world, the whole idea of blending in with your surroundings, might amount to nothing if you went about sounding like an air horn. So which was it? Could we have heard a tree fall in the forest because no one peeped a warble, or was the air choked with overlapping cries and exclamations of every range and frequency? Among Emperor penguins who congregate by the thousands while raising their young, it is thought that parents and offspring -- when separated -- can recognize and identify their unique "cries" from the thousands of other voices filling the cold, polar air. In like fashion, was the prehistoric wilderness a cacophonous jumble of ten-thousand different calls and cries, where parents constantly monitored the location and condition of their chicks and fledglings -- via their own unique sounds? And if so, what a wondrously noisy place that must have been.
As opposed to a cautionary need for silence, it may well have been the case that a forest (or elsewhere) brimming with the loud exclamations of hundreds of different animals, all belting out their own tunes, should have possessed its own defense mechanism, by which predators could become easily confused by the myriad sounds that surrounded them -- that bombarded them from every direction. Carnivores with stereoscopic hearing would have necessarily learned what noises came from unreachable prey not worth their time, and which were nearby meals offering themselves up as "today's special".
Paleontologists know, by virtue of the fossil record, that the skulls of many dinosaurs contain nasal air chambers capable of producing loud and forceful outbursts. But did they, and how often dare they? Part of the solution, surely, is found amid matters of size and vulnerability. Any dinosaur big enough, with few enemies, could afford to roar their hearts out with little fear of drawing undue attention to themselves. Large predators, however, when hunting and not scavenging, would have undoubtedly exercised a more stealthy approach. Silence is, of course, a chief component of surprise.
So what was it? Were the woods routinely full of sound and fury, or were they mostly quiet as cat paws on soft sand? Among the wealth of new and ever updated documentaries about prehistoric life, dinosaurs in particular, we don't hear much (pun intended) about the overall decibel levels one might have heard emanating from among the trees, behind fronds and ferns, and within the deepest shadows of the forest understory.
Much is made over the physical appearance of the dinosaurs, their coloration and musculature. Yet little is mentioned or theorized, comparatively, as to the grand and glorious, perhaps deafening tones that could have issued from multi-ton bodies, huge chests and lungs, plus heads (like giant resonating chambers) measuring one or more meters in length.
If the smallish birds of today, weighing mere grams, can pierce the air with calls covering acres, even kilometers of distance, how deep and powerful, shrill or blaring, might have been the voices of the great beasts of prehistory? The question also arises as regards single individuals versus small groups or large herds. Numbers of animals grouped together would have provided an additional margin of safety and just as Canada geese frequently "honk" as a clamorous flock, it's easy to imagine leaves falling and branches shaken loose by the deafening blasts of sound reverberating among the trees. Or fading among the open plains.
One can only marvel as to how awesome such auditory exaltations might have truly been. Or rather, how silent breezes were interrupted only rarely by the brief cry, screech or scream of some jungle resident eager to fade once more into a backdrop of lush, protective foliage.
Were the forests and jungles of prehistoric times, namely the Jurassic and Cretaceous, filled with a cacophonous din of animal sounds, calls, and songs? Or was there a general quietude only occasionally punctuated by the purposeful or incidental voices, here or there, of one creature or another?
Modern birds are a noisy lot. Everywhere, whether downtown in a bustling city or strolling about a pastoral woodland setting, we humans are surrounded by sounds both subtle and sublime, as birds of all sizes, shapes, and dispositions chatter among themselves.
Who of us has not at one time or another, listened to the melodious song of a bird, often unseen, as it throats some kind of message into the morning or early evening air? When populations are plentiful and varieties of species abundant, the listener is often bombarded by all manner of chirping, peeping, warbling, cawing, screeching and whooping and honking. It's an experience most of us take for granted. We rarely spend more than a moment or two (if that much) in serious contemplation as to the source from whence such sounds, so pure and elegant (sometimes not), should originate.
Exactly where and when did the ancestors of birds, both common and exotic, take their voice and music lessons? And from whom were they learned? Fortunately we know part of the answer. Generally speaking, modern-day birds evolved from dinosaurs and mostly from predatory raptors at that. Most dinosaurs were small, being largely overshadowed by the popular, but fewer-in-number behemoths with which most of us are familiar.
It does not necessarily follow, because a majority of today's birds are loud, talkative, and full of song, that their dinosaur ancestors genetically shared and imparted a proclivity for similar whoops and hollers. Birds live mainly in trees and, of course, possess a highly developed ability to fly, to navigate Earthly skies, and migrate to all corners of the globe.
The origin of flight itself is well beyond the scope or intent of this minor essay. More to the point is the fascinating question of whether birds evolved their intricate array of sounds, plus the desire to utter them, independent of their dinosaur ancestry. Or as seems far more probable, inherited both the attitude and aptitude for audibility from those same prehistoric predecessors.
The need for safety within a forest or under the jungle canopy should not be underestimated. We certainly believe such a lifestyle played a critical role in human evolution. The gabby birds who today nest atop high branches, may indeed have ancient and traceable, flightless relatives who could ill afford to announce their vulnerable presence to every predator within earshot.
Predators can themselves be the prey of mightier, fiercer carnivores. In a whole world of numberless predators and prey, a line is not easily drawn that separates one from the other. If we imagine a somewhat stereotypical, but not altogether inaccurate image of a prehistoric jungle or forest, only insects sport true wings and travel the airways. Except for certain winged cousins (pteranodons) who soar among the clouds, flightless dinosaurs -- both predators and prey alike -- are forced to scurry, run, jump, waddle, or plod their way along. But did they do so audibly, belting out every conceivable octave and pitch and tone? Did they announce to everyone within range, their noisy presence? Or in a situation where at any moment, fangs and claws might leap from behind the nearest bush or tree, was it better, safer, if you tended to keep your mouth, beak, or jaws shut?
All the fine camouflage in the world, the whole idea of blending in with your surroundings, might amount to nothing if you went about sounding like an air horn. So which was it? Could we have heard a tree fall in the forest because no one peeped a warble, or was the air choked with overlapping cries and exclamations of every range and frequency? Among Emperor penguins who congregate by the thousands while raising their young, it is thought that parents and offspring -- when separated -- can recognize and identify their unique "cries" from the thousands of other voices filling the cold, polar air. In like fashion, was the prehistoric wilderness a cacophonous jumble of ten-thousand different calls and cries, where parents constantly monitored the location and condition of their chicks and fledglings -- via their own unique sounds? And if so, what a wondrously noisy place that must have been.
As opposed to a cautionary need for silence, it may well have been the case that a forest (or elsewhere) brimming with the loud exclamations of hundreds of different animals, all belting out their own tunes, should have possessed its own defense mechanism, by which predators could become easily confused by the myriad sounds that surrounded them -- that bombarded them from every direction. Carnivores with stereoscopic hearing would have necessarily learned what noises came from unreachable prey not worth their time, and which were nearby meals offering themselves up as "today's special".
Paleontologists know, by virtue of the fossil record, that the skulls of many dinosaurs contain nasal air chambers capable of producing loud and forceful outbursts. But did they, and how often dare they? Part of the solution, surely, is found amid matters of size and vulnerability. Any dinosaur big enough, with few enemies, could afford to roar their hearts out with little fear of drawing undue attention to themselves. Large predators, however, when hunting and not scavenging, would have undoubtedly exercised a more stealthy approach. Silence is, of course, a chief component of surprise.
So what was it? Were the woods routinely full of sound and fury, or were they mostly quiet as cat paws on soft sand? Among the wealth of new and ever updated documentaries about prehistoric life, dinosaurs in particular, we don't hear much (pun intended) about the overall decibel levels one might have heard emanating from among the trees, behind fronds and ferns, and within the deepest shadows of the forest understory.
Much is made over the physical appearance of the dinosaurs, their coloration and musculature. Yet little is mentioned or theorized, comparatively, as to the grand and glorious, perhaps deafening tones that could have issued from multi-ton bodies, huge chests and lungs, plus heads (like giant resonating chambers) measuring one or more meters in length.
If the smallish birds of today, weighing mere grams, can pierce the air with calls covering acres, even kilometers of distance, how deep and powerful, shrill or blaring, might have been the voices of the great beasts of prehistory? The question also arises as regards single individuals versus small groups or large herds. Numbers of animals grouped together would have provided an additional margin of safety and just as Canada geese frequently "honk" as a clamorous flock, it's easy to imagine leaves falling and branches shaken loose by the deafening blasts of sound reverberating among the trees. Or fading among the open plains.
One can only marvel as to how awesome such auditory exaltations might have truly been. Or rather, how silent breezes were interrupted only rarely by the brief cry, screech or scream of some jungle resident eager to fade once more into a backdrop of lush, protective foliage.
Joey of The Fly-By-Nites
Credit: www.aseantourism.travel
e45
A PARADOX of RATIONALIZATION
The late Michael Jackson likely believed that Alejandro Avila, the man guilty of young Samatha Runnion's senseless murder, was a despicable monster. Society, it seems, has yet to come to terms with how many pedophiles -- if not most -- likely justify their actions based on the contrasts between themselves and those who brutalize and often kill the children they molest. Meanwhile Jackson, if guilty of his alleged transgressions, represents a different breed of monster who wraps himself in rallying flags of caring and generosity. Such individuals which probably include abusive Catholic priests among others, may well be utterly oblivious to the psychological damage they inflict on kids. Completely unaware and disbelieving that any harm could ever result from expressions of tenderness, compassion, kindness and love. They are the anti-sociopaths who scourge souls rather than bodies, whose flamboyant guise of altruism, of their own childlike innocence, engenders sympathy and praise from impassioned supporters and bystanders alike.
The following axiom captures, I think, the essence of the problem in question:
"Gentle acts of inappropriate kindness and affection are not made virtuous solely by comparisons with their most horrific opposites. Rather the value of loving behavior should be weighed against deeds that exemplify the highest of moral ideals."
The following axiom captures, I think, the essence of the problem in question:
"Gentle acts of inappropriate kindness and affection are not made virtuous solely by comparisons with their most horrific opposites. Rather the value of loving behavior should be weighed against deeds that exemplify the highest of moral ideals."
Fig. 2. Leave it to the Europeans to improve on scalping.
e46
Peace on Earth, Good Will towards all . . . others of Good Will.
In a world where so many have so little, why should so few have so much?
In a world where so many suffer so little, why should so many others suffer so much?
This whole capital punishment discussion has got my steam blowing and I need to vent, so forgive me, but here goes. First a quick disclaimer, which is to say that it is not my intention to sound smart; it is, however, my intention to sound off.
For those who care about this issue, here is one person's opinion, take it or leave it. This particular subject is a good example of where opinion overlaps precariously close to becoming a belief. I discuss the differences between the two in a separate essay. Suffice it to say that opinions are still negotiable whereas beliefs are no longer up for debate. My inspiration for this specific essay was mostly derived from the comments by relatives of victims, many of whom are widely quoted as saying how they often wait for decades anticipating the execution of those who murdered their loved ones. Only to be frustrated by frequent, maddening delays which deny them the justice and closure possible only via the state-sanctioned death of those responsible.
For the purposes of this essay, the oft-used word, "closure" refers to a general reconciling of the untimely death of a loved one. Where the survivors move on with their lives, never forgetting, but once having grieved and healed, moved past the pain and no longer define their lives according to the loss both they and the victim have suffered.
In a perfect world, the following thoughts might be conveyed to survivors who could consider each and take them all to heart.
There exists a Hierarchy of Justice; some forms of it are superior to others, especially with respect to that granted (or denied) to friends and family of both the victim and the criminal. The least amount of justice for the victim is, of course, when no one is held accountable. The least amount of justice for a perpetrator is to be denied what is called "due process" such as a mob lynching, whether or not the person hanged was guilty or innocent.
All of this is never more true than in a case of "premeditated" murder. Using only this specific type of crime as an example, where justice is available in several different forms, we can make a list that reflects both the quality of "closure" for the victim's surviving family and friends, and the levels of punishment meted out to the murderer.
The list is hierarchical because it is conditional and qualitative. It contains optimal results and also indicates minimal outcomes. In the real world, such matters translate to varying degrees of satisfaction felt by family and friends of the victim when the killer is punished, versus the endless grief and anxiety when the victim's death goes unresolved (unsolved) and unpunished. While this is all very vague at the moment, the list that follows will quickly bring the situation into crystal clear focus.
01. The least amount of justice (closure) for friends, family, and society, is when a victim remains missing, is presumed dead, the killer or killers unknown. Forever. A worst case scenario that creates multiple victims from a single crime.
02. A next level of justice is when a body is recovered, but the circumstances surrounding the death are unclear, muddled, and an obvious murder remains unsolved. A so-called Cold Case. Usually a suspect exists who may or may not be arrested, or despite a conviction, whose guilt still remains in doubt.
03. A level of improved justice that reveals "how" the murder took place, "where", and "what" was done to the victim. At this level, a known suspect is not necessarily arrested or imprisoned. A motive for the crime or other details may remain forever unknown. Some closure, more or less, for survivors.
04. The level where a suspect possesses clearly defined "motives". Where the "why" of the crime, why the murder was committed, is largely understood. This in combination with the known how, where, and what of the act. Again the perpetrator is not necessarily convicted or imprisoned. Ever. An enhanced state of closure for survivors, but healing retains some anger and frustration.
05. The superior level at which a murderer is caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But also where the punishment may not fit the crime. Where the victim's relatives and friends feel the sentence was too lenient. The minimum level of "true" closure for many but not all. A level at which friends and family of the criminal will suffer some minor form of mutual torment with the killer. At this stage, not a relevant issue, but a factor nonetheless.
06. An optimal level of justice. The killer is found, convicted, and imprisoned for life, usually without the possibility of parole. A high level of closure for most relatives and friends. The level at which friends and family of the criminal endure a major impact on their own lives. Such concerns still remain irrelevant to all but those directly affected.
07. The Death Penalty. Unambiguous, maximized justice for the victim. Alleged maximum closure for victim's family and friends. The ultimate extension of the "social contract" between citizens and government. The rationalization that government kills instead of, for the sake of, the wronged but unruly mob and in so doing, circumvents chaos and anarchy. Life-changing affect on friends and family of the murderer, many of whom will suffer equal or greater torment to that of the perpetrator him or herself. The level at which the degree of injury and serious impact on a murderer's relatives and friends become important to society. Where such concerns are significant, relevant, and worthy of consideration, especially in very colloquial terms of peripheral or collateral damage. Similar, in many ways, to the same anguish suffered by the victim's family and friends.
It is a fact that most murders go unsolved. Exact figures vary widely and are influenced by an emotional investment, one way or the other, on the part of the one touting the numbers. Some say as many as 50% of all murderers get away with their crimes, while others argue that as few as 10% of all the premeditated murders committed, are ever solved, if that many. Such low figures are particularly true with respect to "stranger" killings, where the victim and their killer did not personally know one another.
Most young people under a certain age have never been fingerprinted, nor a sample of their DNA officially recorded. A number of adults for one reason or another, also fall into this same category. With this in mind, it is easy to see how many if not most of the murders of these persons, both young and old, are never satisfactorily resolved. Nor are the criminals responsible ever caught. Add to this mix the large number of murders that for one reason or another, go unsolved despite the known identification of everyone involved, and one begins to see how relatively little justice is meted out to everyone concerned.
A vast and staggering number of children and adults go missing every day of every year, most of whom are never found or heard from again. Many are kidnappings of children by their own estranged mother or father, who succeed in disappearing without a trace. A lot of others are the result of foul play in which the victims are either enslaved in a foreign country, suffer an accidental, undisclosed death, or are murdered outright by either a serial or onetime killer. Regardless of the exact albeit unknown circumstances involved, the families and friends of these victims are never granted the "gift" of closure. Are never allowed the mere and minimal satisfaction of at least knowing what happened to their loved ones. And are never permitted the solace of their loss having been meaningful in any way whatsoever.
A legitimate question is perhaps raised by the foregoing list. How much justice is a victim entitled to, in a world where so little exists for so many? How much justice should be demanded by the family and friends of one victim, when the relatives and friends of another receive none? And never will. Do citizens possess an inalienable "right" to demand the organized and costly death of a murderer? Or is such a high level of justice only a privilege, a luxury denied to most? And one that ought resort solely to an infallible process where no room for error exists. These are important questions for which the answers are increasingly less clear, more vague, and riddled with bizarre incongruities.
One father in particular waited 25 years for justice, only to be thwarted at the last moment. The intense anger heard in his voice, in subsequent interviews, only hints at the tragic absence of closure, the unresolved grief that had languished, had persisted undiminished for a quarter century, for this one individual. And such is the legacy of capital punishment not just for this person, but for society as a whole.
It would be redundant almost, to now list the numerous other arguments that rebut all the other rationales for why our society needs a Death Penalty. It seems foolish somehow to delineate, point for counterpoint, all the claims and counter-claims that pit proponents against opponents of capital punishment.
I think there is some justice, both for father and deceased child. Justice comes in the form of their death having been meaningful. A historic turn of events in which the Death Penalty will be reexamined, revisited, and finally revealed as the disguised misnomer it truly is. For so long as capital punishment is retained, the death toll, both symbolic and real, is spread evenly among victims, murderers, families and friends alike.
That having been said, I, for one -- and with permission -- would be willing to play the role of executioner in any case where I was personally convinced of the other person's guilt. Even then, however, questions of sanity versus insanity (both mine and the perp's) might still inhibit my final decision were it up to me.
For those who care about this issue, here is one person's opinion, take it or leave it. This particular subject is a good example of where opinion overlaps precariously close to becoming a belief. I discuss the differences between the two in a separate essay. Suffice it to say that opinions are still negotiable whereas beliefs are no longer up for debate. My inspiration for this specific essay was mostly derived from the comments by relatives of victims, many of whom are widely quoted as saying how they often wait for decades anticipating the execution of those who murdered their loved ones. Only to be frustrated by frequent, maddening delays which deny them the justice and closure possible only via the state-sanctioned death of those responsible.
For the purposes of this essay, the oft-used word, "closure" refers to a general reconciling of the untimely death of a loved one. Where the survivors move on with their lives, never forgetting, but once having grieved and healed, moved past the pain and no longer define their lives according to the loss both they and the victim have suffered.
In a perfect world, the following thoughts might be conveyed to survivors who could consider each and take them all to heart.
There exists a Hierarchy of Justice; some forms of it are superior to others, especially with respect to that granted (or denied) to friends and family of both the victim and the criminal. The least amount of justice for the victim is, of course, when no one is held accountable. The least amount of justice for a perpetrator is to be denied what is called "due process" such as a mob lynching, whether or not the person hanged was guilty or innocent.
All of this is never more true than in a case of "premeditated" murder. Using only this specific type of crime as an example, where justice is available in several different forms, we can make a list that reflects both the quality of "closure" for the victim's surviving family and friends, and the levels of punishment meted out to the murderer.
The list is hierarchical because it is conditional and qualitative. It contains optimal results and also indicates minimal outcomes. In the real world, such matters translate to varying degrees of satisfaction felt by family and friends of the victim when the killer is punished, versus the endless grief and anxiety when the victim's death goes unresolved (unsolved) and unpunished. While this is all very vague at the moment, the list that follows will quickly bring the situation into crystal clear focus.
01. The least amount of justice (closure) for friends, family, and society, is when a victim remains missing, is presumed dead, the killer or killers unknown. Forever. A worst case scenario that creates multiple victims from a single crime.
02. A next level of justice is when a body is recovered, but the circumstances surrounding the death are unclear, muddled, and an obvious murder remains unsolved. A so-called Cold Case. Usually a suspect exists who may or may not be arrested, or despite a conviction, whose guilt still remains in doubt.
03. A level of improved justice that reveals "how" the murder took place, "where", and "what" was done to the victim. At this level, a known suspect is not necessarily arrested or imprisoned. A motive for the crime or other details may remain forever unknown. Some closure, more or less, for survivors.
04. The level where a suspect possesses clearly defined "motives". Where the "why" of the crime, why the murder was committed, is largely understood. This in combination with the known how, where, and what of the act. Again the perpetrator is not necessarily convicted or imprisoned. Ever. An enhanced state of closure for survivors, but healing retains some anger and frustration.
05. The superior level at which a murderer is caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But also where the punishment may not fit the crime. Where the victim's relatives and friends feel the sentence was too lenient. The minimum level of "true" closure for many but not all. A level at which friends and family of the criminal will suffer some minor form of mutual torment with the killer. At this stage, not a relevant issue, but a factor nonetheless.
06. An optimal level of justice. The killer is found, convicted, and imprisoned for life, usually without the possibility of parole. A high level of closure for most relatives and friends. The level at which friends and family of the criminal endure a major impact on their own lives. Such concerns still remain irrelevant to all but those directly affected.
07. The Death Penalty. Unambiguous, maximized justice for the victim. Alleged maximum closure for victim's family and friends. The ultimate extension of the "social contract" between citizens and government. The rationalization that government kills instead of, for the sake of, the wronged but unruly mob and in so doing, circumvents chaos and anarchy. Life-changing affect on friends and family of the murderer, many of whom will suffer equal or greater torment to that of the perpetrator him or herself. The level at which the degree of injury and serious impact on a murderer's relatives and friends become important to society. Where such concerns are significant, relevant, and worthy of consideration, especially in very colloquial terms of peripheral or collateral damage. Similar, in many ways, to the same anguish suffered by the victim's family and friends.
It is a fact that most murders go unsolved. Exact figures vary widely and are influenced by an emotional investment, one way or the other, on the part of the one touting the numbers. Some say as many as 50% of all murderers get away with their crimes, while others argue that as few as 10% of all the premeditated murders committed, are ever solved, if that many. Such low figures are particularly true with respect to "stranger" killings, where the victim and their killer did not personally know one another.
Most young people under a certain age have never been fingerprinted, nor a sample of their DNA officially recorded. A number of adults for one reason or another, also fall into this same category. With this in mind, it is easy to see how many if not most of the murders of these persons, both young and old, are never satisfactorily resolved. Nor are the criminals responsible ever caught. Add to this mix the large number of murders that for one reason or another, go unsolved despite the known identification of everyone involved, and one begins to see how relatively little justice is meted out to everyone concerned.
A vast and staggering number of children and adults go missing every day of every year, most of whom are never found or heard from again. Many are kidnappings of children by their own estranged mother or father, who succeed in disappearing without a trace. A lot of others are the result of foul play in which the victims are either enslaved in a foreign country, suffer an accidental, undisclosed death, or are murdered outright by either a serial or onetime killer. Regardless of the exact albeit unknown circumstances involved, the families and friends of these victims are never granted the "gift" of closure. Are never allowed the mere and minimal satisfaction of at least knowing what happened to their loved ones. And are never permitted the solace of their loss having been meaningful in any way whatsoever.
A legitimate question is perhaps raised by the foregoing list. How much justice is a victim entitled to, in a world where so little exists for so many? How much justice should be demanded by the family and friends of one victim, when the relatives and friends of another receive none? And never will. Do citizens possess an inalienable "right" to demand the organized and costly death of a murderer? Or is such a high level of justice only a privilege, a luxury denied to most? And one that ought resort solely to an infallible process where no room for error exists. These are important questions for which the answers are increasingly less clear, more vague, and riddled with bizarre incongruities.
One father in particular waited 25 years for justice, only to be thwarted at the last moment. The intense anger heard in his voice, in subsequent interviews, only hints at the tragic absence of closure, the unresolved grief that had languished, had persisted undiminished for a quarter century, for this one individual. And such is the legacy of capital punishment not just for this person, but for society as a whole.
It would be redundant almost, to now list the numerous other arguments that rebut all the other rationales for why our society needs a Death Penalty. It seems foolish somehow to delineate, point for counterpoint, all the claims and counter-claims that pit proponents against opponents of capital punishment.
I think there is some justice, both for father and deceased child. Justice comes in the form of their death having been meaningful. A historic turn of events in which the Death Penalty will be reexamined, revisited, and finally revealed as the disguised misnomer it truly is. For so long as capital punishment is retained, the death toll, both symbolic and real, is spread evenly among victims, murderers, families and friends alike.
That having been said, I, for one -- and with permission -- would be willing to play the role of executioner in any case where I was personally convinced of the other person's guilt. Even then, however, questions of sanity versus insanity (both mine and the perp's) might still inhibit my final decision were it up to me.
Fig. 3. The use of vaults says a lot about the human condition.
e47
OPINING OPULENCE
Why is it that the people who behave most like monkeys and gorillas
are the same ones most opposed to the teachings of Evolution?
Never before has my American lifestyle offered so much extravagance and comfort. By international standards, I am spoiled beyond measure. I am overweight and never felt real hunger or thirst. I am often bored, always in search of more interesting, more stimulating forms of entertainment and amusement. I am satiated by almost every luxury imaginable, my intellect satisfied and challenged by advanced technologies of every description. I want for nothing in terms of my physical existence. I am privileged to live better and with less fear, than over ninety percent of my fellow human beings. Hardly a day goes by when I do not, at one moment or another, feel grateful for my advantage-laden life. And appreciative for the relatively good health I enjoy. To great extent, I could not imagine a more fulfilling, fascinating life. One that even with added wealth, could only increase in degree but never quality.
And yet this is a story of supreme irony. A strange and unexpected price tag seems to accompany all the happiness and joy amid all this opulence and gratification. I am angry. More than angry. A constant, just-below-the-surface rage permeates my entire being. My privileged life has granted me the ability to view the world with judgmental eyes. Though individuals can be beautiful, the collective whole of humanity exists as some perverse cesspool of writhing, agonizing, soulless souls. I am a proud misanthrope, prideful because I do not blind myself to the truth of things, the horrible truths that inspire both anger and a quasi-controlled level of insanity. I force myself to see the light, to imagine ends to long tunnels, but the darkness is so pervasive, so obvious, so looming that hope seems reserved for chumps, for the weak-minded who fool themselves into thinking that the 95%-5% split are odds in their favor, rather than a countdown to Armageddon. I hear the ticking clock. I can feel the heavy hands of the clock moving closer to an hour of reckoning.
As beasts both dumb and oblivious, the dinosaurs never saw the doom that fell upon them. We are not so lucky as they. I suffer a road rage of life, of life’s highway, where tailgaters curry my impotent wrath and force me into further reclusiveness, further exile from my fellow travelers. As regards the vital sources for all I hold near and dear, to which I should be forever grateful, I feel only contempt and revulsion. We are a pathetic and pitiful accident of Darwin's law of natural selection, whose brief foray on Earth shall be remembered only for its plasticine byproducts, the empty husks of which litter oceanic landfills and graveyards alike. Yes, I am angry; I’m totally, royally pissed off. And don’t be misled by jovial outbursts of laughter. I'm mad as hell, as we all should be, and none of us should take it anymore. Then again...
And yet this is a story of supreme irony. A strange and unexpected price tag seems to accompany all the happiness and joy amid all this opulence and gratification. I am angry. More than angry. A constant, just-below-the-surface rage permeates my entire being. My privileged life has granted me the ability to view the world with judgmental eyes. Though individuals can be beautiful, the collective whole of humanity exists as some perverse cesspool of writhing, agonizing, soulless souls. I am a proud misanthrope, prideful because I do not blind myself to the truth of things, the horrible truths that inspire both anger and a quasi-controlled level of insanity. I force myself to see the light, to imagine ends to long tunnels, but the darkness is so pervasive, so obvious, so looming that hope seems reserved for chumps, for the weak-minded who fool themselves into thinking that the 95%-5% split are odds in their favor, rather than a countdown to Armageddon. I hear the ticking clock. I can feel the heavy hands of the clock moving closer to an hour of reckoning.
As beasts both dumb and oblivious, the dinosaurs never saw the doom that fell upon them. We are not so lucky as they. I suffer a road rage of life, of life’s highway, where tailgaters curry my impotent wrath and force me into further reclusiveness, further exile from my fellow travelers. As regards the vital sources for all I hold near and dear, to which I should be forever grateful, I feel only contempt and revulsion. We are a pathetic and pitiful accident of Darwin's law of natural selection, whose brief foray on Earth shall be remembered only for its plasticine byproducts, the empty husks of which litter oceanic landfills and graveyards alike. Yes, I am angry; I’m totally, royally pissed off. And don’t be misled by jovial outbursts of laughter. I'm mad as hell, as we all should be, and none of us should take it anymore. Then again...
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU9
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
