Nothing Can Convey the Horror More Effectively Than the Actual Horror

In America, our movies can be as violent as possible, but real violence is sanitized for our protection. Our peace of mind. Things in real life that are violent--like, oh, war, for one--should upset our peace of mind, because if they don't, we continue to live in a land of make-believe where the only threats to our safety we fear are the ones that are manipulated for the benefit of others and control over us. In reality, we are most of us pretty safe and comfortable. Do we appreciate that?

Wonkette took a break from the snark today to give some very graphic perspective. All over the news today we are seeing reaction shots from the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the associated deaths of a number of her followers--photos of angst, ash, maybe a little blood. Wonkette posted the graphic, horrifying, uncropped photos of the carnage.

[T]he news tonight will likely focus on the implications for us as a country and on the campaign and blah blah blah, yes, it’s all really important. But, also, a lot of regular people died today, too. Some of them were poor, some were old, and they died taking advantage of their (current) right of free assembly, which most of us probably take for granted. They died and were horrifically injured participating in the political process of their country, even knowing that in the end it might not make any difference because they might still end up under the thumb of a dictator. And every single person in the pictures below is brown, and likely all of them are Muslim. These are the people that some people would like to send back “to their caves”, these are some of the people we mock as poor cab drivers or accuse of taking “our” jobs or simply overlook even when they are in front of us. They had families and lives and probably jobs when they left their houses this morning to see a political candidate speak who probably half-suspected she wouldn’t make it to the election alive but ran anyway. And it makes all the backstabbing and machinations of our candidates trying to plant stupid rumors about drug use and out-of-wedlock babies and all the rest of it seem that much more nauseating and petty to me today.

If nothing else, the photos will make it clear why the number of dead has been given as anywhere from 12 to 20; counting the dead is not a simple matter when they are blown to bits. These dozen or two dozen, added to the hundred-plus killed in an earlier attempt on Bhutto's life. Nothing like that happened in Iowa today.

A few days ago, my friend Laurie Kahn died (suddenly, but not through violence) so she's been much on my mind. Laurie was a great and vocal champion of civil liberties. She often expressed frustration that Americans could so easily sit by and let their hard-won freedoms be taken away. As a nation, the U.S. touts itself as the great champion of democracy. Yet many of us have, as Laurie said, let fear govern us and given up freedoms in return for that peace of mind I mentioned. Meantime, in Pakistan, people want their freedom badly enough that thousands of them went out to campaign for it, knowing full well that someone's gunning for them and scores before them have been blown up for doing just what they're doing. They knew that they could come to the horrific end you saw if you clicked through the photos (go ahead, do it now if you haven't), but they went anyway. They were regular people who didn't shrug off responsibility for their rights as someone more important's job, they didn't stay home and cower in fear. We don't face these kind of risks in the exercise of our rights. We have our peace of mind. If we want to be the real champions of democracy, we will honor the sacrifice of the people in Pakistan, help them in their fight for their rights, and above all treat our own rights and our own democracy with more of the respect it deserves.

Value

There's an article in the New York Times about recent discoveries in DNA research and how those might be applied and misapplied:

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.

At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

DNA markers and racial difference came up a few weeks ago when James Watson, co-Nobel laureate for the identification of the structure of DNA, was interviewed by the UK's Sunday Times:

[Watson] says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours-–whereas all the testing says not really," and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level." He writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

Watson's conclusions about intelligence were soundly debunked by researchers in the field of intelligence (nice summary with links here), who point out that, unlike pale skin or the presence of specific diseases, native intelligence is difficult to measure, and most of our attempts are hindered by socioeconomic and environmental factors; when these are controlled for, racial differences dissipate. Shortly after these remarks, Watson retired from his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Lab on Long Island. Watson's remarks were a (characteristically, for him--more below) extreme response, but the New York Times article goes on to suggest that there is still reason for concern:

Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.

But it's a not question of racial difference (or ethnic, or whatever), but of our fundamental values as a people. We may want, as Watson says, to value everyone equally in our society--and why shouldn't we? The fact of genetic and biological difference, if it exists (and it does--men and women are biologically distinct, and no one would argue otherwise, but the fact that certain of my genes and working parts differ from a man's has little to do with my test scores or aspirations or how good I am at my job), doesn't matter unless we decide it does.

Come on, we all know stupid people. And some of them are people we value and love. Does lack of academic ability or of the facility to quickly reason and resolve a complex problem (the kind of things we tend to think of when we use the nebulous term "intelligence") make a person inherently worthless? Of course not. Someone who can't get a decent score on a standardized test may be a hard worker or a compassionate person, may have many other skills and talents, and can contribute to the society and the community just as much as the "smart" people. If we drew an IQ line--even if that measure as it exists today weren't so fatally flawed--what would we as a society lose by excluding those below it? A great deal. That's why we don't do it. We have acknowledged that the constellation of valuable things in a person is varied, complex, and possible infinite, and the way to recognize that is to value all persons.

Those who point at the possibility of racial differences in the measure of intelligence are just looking for support for a prejudice they already harbor, an easy excuse to exclude by race; if they weren't, they'd be lobbying instead to exclude all people below a certain IQ line, regardless of race. (As an aside, Watson in earlier comments also suggested breeding out stupidity. To my mind, it's pretty stupid to cull people based on a single measure, as though no other thing had value. He also suggested genetic selection to make all women beautiful--I guess he gets to decide what constitutes beauty, and bad news for you if you're not his type--and giving mothers the option of aborting fetuses that carried a hypothetical genetic marker for homosexuality. Because apparently being pretty and straight and doing well on IQ tests is what you really need to get every job done.) The debate would be about where exactly that dividing line should rest, not the color of the people on one side or the other.

Here's a measure that is not genetic but is clearly and unequivocally linked with better health and survival, higher standardized test scores, greater access to education and other resources, and a more prominent and influential role in the society: money. Many societies through history have recognized this marker, and explicitly valued those born into better economic circumstances above those born into poverty: for example, societies in which a vote or other political influence is tied to ownership of property.

But we as Americans have chosen to value individuals in our political system without regard to the economic circumstances of their birth: everyone gets the same vote. We believe in access to education for all, and that the opportunity to gain money shouldn't be restricted by how much you're born with--you should have the chance to rise from poverty, you should have the chance even to become rich. But why? After all, it's proven that people born into a higher socioeconomic class are likely to do better overall . . .

It's a matter of what we choose to value, how we have chosen to define justice.

We've made the choice to value more than one thing in a person, in fact to value many things, by attempting to treat everyone equally. (In practice, this needs some work. But that's several other conversations.) In that scenario, what DNA research may show about racial difference in any particular respect is immaterial.

And that is something I value very highly.

War Heroes

About a week ago, a group of veterans of World War II got together. These were the men who, in so much secret that few have spoken of their work in the half-century since, interrogated Nazi prisoners. They were able to obtain the secrets that were critical to our victory over Hitler. Bound to have useful advice for our current leaders about how to wrench information from prisoners in our current war, one would think. But clearly, they've not been asked. Because at their reunion, here's the kind of thing they had to say:

"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."

Our current interrogators can't say the same, a fact that did not go unremarked by these men:

Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss.

What's to be learned from these veterans? Of course, that the methods of torture that our current government has claimed are the only way to prise information out of prisoners--well, they aren't the only ways. These guys managed to do a pretty good job without waterboarding anybody. The values that they fought to preserve were the values they managed to retain even in the interrogation of the enemy.

These men are heroes. By sacrificing the values that these men stood for and continue to hold dear, by taking instead the course that the Nazis themselves took, the Bush administration is betraying them and betraying us.

Today, Which Is Tuesday

It is good that it is raining today. There have been five other 9/11s since the one that counts, but this is the first one to fall on a Tuesday. Stephen King wrote a story for an anthology a couple years ago in which his entire plot hinged on the attacks having occurred on a sunny--that part was right--Monday; as the copy editor I flagged it, marveling as I did how anyone could fail to remember that it had been a Tuesday, that the sky was a perfect shade of blue, what shoes they were wearing and what they held in their hands or passed in the street, what words were being spoken at the moment a building collapsed to dust--it seemed ludicrous, implausible, impossible that something so simple as that it was Tuesday might not be seared in the memory as deeply as every other detail of the day, and the ones that followed. This is what I wrote at the time.

People will be born today, others will die--from violence, war, sickness, injury, old age. Some will marry, divorce, get new jobs, win prizes, lose money. This date will carry a different meaning for them and their loved ones than it does in the larger American mind.

The question has arisen at what point do we let go. The short answer is never: memory may fade, but the changes wrought by the events are immutable and, like all of history, what we fail to recall we are doomed to relive. So rather than looking back at what happened in those 102 minutes of a sunny Tuesday morning in September six years ago, let us look instead at where we are today as a result.

More than 3000 people perished on this date six years ago as a result of the attacks; since then nearer to 4000 American servicepeople, and untold thousands of Iraqi people, have died in a war that was launched under false pretenses that revolve around the events of this date. On the train on which I am writing this, they make an announcement every day that our bags and
packages are subject to random--i.e., without showing due cause, as the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution calls for--search. We routinely submit to searches when entering buildings and ballparks and to games of TSA freeze tag; when asked, the majority say its for our own safety--they admit they are so terrified that they are willing to yield the rights that the founders fought and died for. Our government claims we are not patriotic if we protest this abrogation of our fundamental freedoms, and Rudy Giuliani, the fearmongers' heir apparent, is basing a presidential campaign on reminding people to look back and be afraid. If the purpose of terrorism is to spread terror among the populace so that actions are ruled by fear rather than reason . . . well, they did a good job of it. And we helped.

But you know all that.

How has my life changed in the microcosm? I never leave home without a flashlight and radio, and comfortable walking shoes. I never cross the 59th Street bridge without looking across at the animated advertising billboard over near the Long Island Expressway and being grateful to the wise person who changed it that day to read, simply, "Peace." I always leave my cats too much food, so they won't go hungry before someone comes for them if I don't make it home one day, and I prefer to travel before or after the height of rush hour. On my way to work as I pass the ribbons that wave from the Marble Church railings--yellow ones tagged with the names and ages of American soldiers dead in this war; blue and green for the uncounted Iraqi dead and the equally innumerable prayers for peace--I say my own silent prayer and wonder if we all had fought harder at the outset whether we might have slowed or stopped the juggernaut toward quagmire. (We didn't, I think, because we never believed it would happen so easily.) And I think how good our lives are by comparison to those who live with the daily reality of car bombs or starvation or painful death, and wonder how they find the strength.

It is well and good and necessary to build a memorial to what happened six years ago today, and to mark the anniversary, lest we forget this turning point in our history. Have we learned from it? I'm not sure we have. Maybe too little time has passed. Even six years later, the wounds are still open, at least here in New York. But if we're ever to heal, we must begin to examine what and whom we as a nation and individuals have become, and use that knowledge to serve the greater good.

Perfect Irony

Wonder if Alberto Gonzales knows that September 17, the day his resignation takes effect, is Constitution Day. Nahh; that would presuppose him paying actual attention to that document.

Unconscionable

I received mail the other day from Planned Parenthood asking me to sign petitions/letters to the CEOs of Target, Winn-Dixie, and Safeway about their policies about filling prescriptions for contraceptives. (Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill is the hot button here, but that's not the way Planned Parenthood discusses it, nor is it the way the initiators of this action--those who don't want pharmacists to fill certain prescriptions--have framed it. They both know it's a slippery slope, and the latter like it that way.) Specifically, policies that may permit a pharmacist to decide he or she doesn't approve of a prescription and decline to fill it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to act upon their views. If one has a moral objection to contraception, one shouldn't have to fill the prescription.

But one shouldn't be working as a pharmacist, where filling prescriptions is one's job, and judging prescriptions is not.

Do the companies that permit pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions for contraceptives have similar policies for other viewpoints pharmacists might hold? A Scientologist pharmacist might then decline to fill prescriptions for medications prescribed by a psychiatrist. A Christian Scientist might be hired, and then decline to fill all prescriptions, directing customers to trust in God. Wildly implausible, sure, but just as reasonable as permitting a pharmacist to decide that a woman should not receive a physician-prescribed contraceptive.

The only reason for a person to take a job as a pharmacist if he or she is unwilling to dispense medications as prescribed is with the goal of wielding a moral hammer against some person, group, or issue. A vegetarian/animal-rights activist doesn't sign on to be a butcher except to exercise his or her views in opposition to butchering, and a pharmacist who takes a job and then decides his (or her, but mostly his) conscience doesn't permit filling certain prescriptions is no different; s/he didn't have this crisis of conscience suddenly last night. The butcher shop isn't going to keep the animal rights activist on the payroll; they're going to replace that person with someone who does the job of butchering. Pharmacies should be no different.

The only reason that pharmacies and the companies that own them aren't operating in accord with that basic bit of common sense is the cudgel wielded by those intent on enforcing their version of morality on everyone. They can't win the day through reason; instead they threaten corporations that they will be seen as un-Christian or anti-religious if they don't yield to one view of religion.

In the meantime, they threaten the health and the freedom of everyone else. And that I find unconscionable.