Fresno Bee columnist Bill McEwen came out in favor of the Sheriff’s policy of freely granting concealed weapon permits to qualified citizens in his piece published December 10, 2009. The incident that triggered his column was the murder of a delivery truck driver who was shot while doing his early morning rounds.
These tragedies always raise the question of what could have prevented them. Mr. McEwen suggests that more armed citizens of good character could deter at least some of these crimes. Others have the same thought, airline pilots included, so it is worth examining the research available to see if there is a correlation between more guns in the hands of good people and less violent crime.
In the interests of full disclosure, I grew up with guns and am a pretty good shot. As a Vietnam-era Air Force officer I qualified with a sidearm, putting fifty shots in an area the size of my fist. I have also worked around the world in places where order has broken down and have eaten dinner with people carrying automatic weapons.
The goal of research in this area of inquiry is to compare violent crime rates in areas with lots of guns and areas with few guns to see if there are differences. Brandon S. Centerwall did a study of homicide rates from 1976-80 in adjoining states and Canadian provinces. The provinces had one tenth as many handguns per capita as the states. Centerwall states: “No consistent differences were observed; criminal homicide rates were sometimes higher in the Canadian province, and sometimes higher in the adjoining US state.”
Mauser and Kates studied international data and summed up their study in 2006: “Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.”
Lott and Mustard examined a large data set of all US counties and determined that easing carry laws to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens did decrease violent crime. These findings were widely celebrated and resulted in passage of carry laws in a number of states.
Ayres and Donohue examined Lott and Mustard’s data set and added in data from states where eased concealed weapons rules made firearms more common. Their conclusion published in the 2003 Stanford Law Review was: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.”
Scholars continue to study this issue which has large implications for our society. At present there are studies which seem to show less crime where citizens are armed, but these results do not hold up well to scrutiny. Those places which freely grant concealed weapons permits are the test beds where theories meet data. Fresno, with ten percent of the state’s concealed carry permits, is one of those test beds.
The practical question is whether the citizens of Fresno are better off being a test bed for the proposition that more armed citizens deter crime. Ayres and Donohue go on to state that: “While we do not want to overstate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the extremely variable results emerging from the statistical analysis, if anything, there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it.”
Social experiments are a necessary part of governing any society. The only way to find out whether a theory works is to try it. The more data you have from places that have already tested the theory the better your decision whether or not to try it yourself. Where the test results are as equivocal as they are in the area of arming private citizens, how does one decide which path to follow? Scholars will be glad to receive the data from the Fresno experiment.
(a version of this blog post was published by Fresno Pacific University as part of its Scholars Speak series of faculty writing in January 2010)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Hacking Google
Who hacked Google? Gmail accounts were the targets, as far as public press releases show. Google says the hackers were Chinese, as does the US government. China responds that its government had nothing to do with it, and how dare you say it did?
We only know that Google was hacked because it says so. Google also says that Chinese dissidents were the ones targeted. Let's assume that they are telling the truth as far as they know it. Do governments have teams of computer hackers busily preparing for cyber-war and testing their abilities in the meantime? One assumes that they do, and Americans would be dismayed to learn that their government wasn't doing just that. The way you learn to break into computer networks is by breaking into computer networks, the tougher the better.
Internet security companies are also busily probing for security holes, as are fascinated amateurs, professional sleuths and criminal gangs. The complexity of modern software and the worldwide distribution of its creation and manufacture pretty much guarantee that there will always be security holes. Any computer network is as secure as its weakest link, and one unpatched computer is all it takes to let in the bad guys.
So who hacked Google? Writers have been pointing out that there are many people and groups who could benefit from successfully hacking those Gmail accounts. Google's competitors in China would certainly benefit if Gmail seemed insecure, and for that matter Google's competitors outside China would also benefit. Google has been getting steadily bigger and its reach into new markets and technologies is astounding. As it moves more people into the cloud computing realm the market for free-standing individual software goes down.
Already anyone with a decent internet connection can avoid buying any software and still be productive. Google even has a free operating system for you, and it isn't alone. How do you stop the Google juggernaut? If people's faith in the security and stability of Google's applications is compromised, what will happen?
Google has a lot to lose in this whole hacking scandal, and many people and groups benefit from its loss. For us end-users the moral of the story is simple: no electronic communication is safe from prying eyes. Even strong encryption is only as secure as its password, which can be obtained by cleverness, deception or stealth in many cases. We can only be secure from casual trespassers, not unlike a locked house. As with a locked house, our online financial transactions can be burgled. We have insurance for both since neither can ever be completely secure.
I take reasonable precautions, patching my software and keeping my anti-virus software up to date. I also don't wander around in bad internet neighborhoods. I have still been a victim of cyber theft, which I only discovered by checking my credit card statements. I know that the IT staff can read my mail, so I don't send anything I don't want read. My greatest risk is an unplanned "reply all." We are probably better off thinking of the internet as a party-line phone, and using it accordingly.
So who hacked Google? It doesn't matter, and no one can ever know for sure anyway. If Google decides not to compete in China that is their business decision. Some people got a wake-up call from the event, and that may be a good thing for all of us.
We only know that Google was hacked because it says so. Google also says that Chinese dissidents were the ones targeted. Let's assume that they are telling the truth as far as they know it. Do governments have teams of computer hackers busily preparing for cyber-war and testing their abilities in the meantime? One assumes that they do, and Americans would be dismayed to learn that their government wasn't doing just that. The way you learn to break into computer networks is by breaking into computer networks, the tougher the better.
Internet security companies are also busily probing for security holes, as are fascinated amateurs, professional sleuths and criminal gangs. The complexity of modern software and the worldwide distribution of its creation and manufacture pretty much guarantee that there will always be security holes. Any computer network is as secure as its weakest link, and one unpatched computer is all it takes to let in the bad guys.
So who hacked Google? Writers have been pointing out that there are many people and groups who could benefit from successfully hacking those Gmail accounts. Google's competitors in China would certainly benefit if Gmail seemed insecure, and for that matter Google's competitors outside China would also benefit. Google has been getting steadily bigger and its reach into new markets and technologies is astounding. As it moves more people into the cloud computing realm the market for free-standing individual software goes down.
Already anyone with a decent internet connection can avoid buying any software and still be productive. Google even has a free operating system for you, and it isn't alone. How do you stop the Google juggernaut? If people's faith in the security and stability of Google's applications is compromised, what will happen?
Google has a lot to lose in this whole hacking scandal, and many people and groups benefit from its loss. For us end-users the moral of the story is simple: no electronic communication is safe from prying eyes. Even strong encryption is only as secure as its password, which can be obtained by cleverness, deception or stealth in many cases. We can only be secure from casual trespassers, not unlike a locked house. As with a locked house, our online financial transactions can be burgled. We have insurance for both since neither can ever be completely secure.
I take reasonable precautions, patching my software and keeping my anti-virus software up to date. I also don't wander around in bad internet neighborhoods. I have still been a victim of cyber theft, which I only discovered by checking my credit card statements. I know that the IT staff can read my mail, so I don't send anything I don't want read. My greatest risk is an unplanned "reply all." We are probably better off thinking of the internet as a party-line phone, and using it accordingly.
So who hacked Google? It doesn't matter, and no one can ever know for sure anyway. If Google decides not to compete in China that is their business decision. Some people got a wake-up call from the event, and that may be a good thing for all of us.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Divorce without war
Divorce is pretty common these days. Each year half as many people divorce as marry. While that creates a lot of marriages that last, it also means that many fail. Attorneys whose clients are contemplating marriage school them in divorce planning, just as attorneys whose clients are starting a business get assistance with bankruptcy planning as part of the package.
The vast majority of divorces in California, something like 85 percent, are untouched by attorneys. Not surprisingly, people who do not have a lot of assets look to other alternatives. One of the services I provide at the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University is divorce mediation, and most of my clients are hoping to save money by being cooperative. It usually works, and they also learn through the process how to cooperatively parent their children and deal with future financial issues. Having handled over 1,000 divorces as an attorney and mediator, I can help people avoid known pitfalls.
Divorces involving attorneys usually have two features in common: lots of assets and lots of conflict. Mediation is also just right for some of these folks, but many of them are so seriously conflicted that they feel the need for an advocate who will protect them. Some are not so conflicted, but one partner has a lot more information than the other, and the playing field is not level. Attorneys can play an important role in both types of cases, with or without mediation.
As hard as it may be to believe, attorneys do not enjoy working with highly conflicted, emotionally enmeshed divorce cases. Clients in these cases are often out to cause pain to the other party at any cost. In my own practice I decided my life would not include hurting people for money, and I moved into mediation and dropped litigation. Other lawyers are similarly motivated.
The result is a new field for attorneys: collaborative law. In collaborative law the lawyers and clients work together to find the best solution to the disputants' problems. Family law is a large area for collaborative lawyers, but it can be applied to any area of conflict. Rather than each lawyer/client team sneaking up on the other side, all business is done in a four-way conference where both clients and both attorneys are present. While helping their own client understand the situation, both attorneys are committed to crafting the best overall response to the problem. Win-lose is not an option. In each situation the result must be a win-win for the parties, and both attorneys are committed to it.
If a client decides that cooperation isn't working and that litigation is required, both collaborative attorneys are dismissed, along with any joint experts (accountants, appraisers, parenting coaches), and the clients must begin from scratch. This is part of the collaborative agreement, and is a powerful disincentive to refusing to cooperate.
Collaborative law can be a great money-saver, but that isn't the main motivation. The main motivation is going through the divorce process in a way that leaves both parties satisfied with the outcome, and able to collaborate in their relationships with the children.
There are many collaborative law groups around the country. In central California, Central Valley Collaborative Law Affiliates (http://collaborativelawyers.org) provides family law support and is expanding beyond that. The International Academy of Collaborative Practice (http://collaborativepractice.com/) brings all the collaborative law groups together. There is a way to handle divorce, or other legal issues, without war. As a mediator and member of Central Valley Collaborative Law Affiliates, I support these groups, and wish them well in the cases appropriate for their services.
(This article first appeared in Fresno Pacific University's "Scholars Speak" at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/02_12_2007.asp )
The vast majority of divorces in California, something like 85 percent, are untouched by attorneys. Not surprisingly, people who do not have a lot of assets look to other alternatives. One of the services I provide at the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University is divorce mediation, and most of my clients are hoping to save money by being cooperative. It usually works, and they also learn through the process how to cooperatively parent their children and deal with future financial issues. Having handled over 1,000 divorces as an attorney and mediator, I can help people avoid known pitfalls.
Divorces involving attorneys usually have two features in common: lots of assets and lots of conflict. Mediation is also just right for some of these folks, but many of them are so seriously conflicted that they feel the need for an advocate who will protect them. Some are not so conflicted, but one partner has a lot more information than the other, and the playing field is not level. Attorneys can play an important role in both types of cases, with or without mediation.
As hard as it may be to believe, attorneys do not enjoy working with highly conflicted, emotionally enmeshed divorce cases. Clients in these cases are often out to cause pain to the other party at any cost. In my own practice I decided my life would not include hurting people for money, and I moved into mediation and dropped litigation. Other lawyers are similarly motivated.
The result is a new field for attorneys: collaborative law. In collaborative law the lawyers and clients work together to find the best solution to the disputants' problems. Family law is a large area for collaborative lawyers, but it can be applied to any area of conflict. Rather than each lawyer/client team sneaking up on the other side, all business is done in a four-way conference where both clients and both attorneys are present. While helping their own client understand the situation, both attorneys are committed to crafting the best overall response to the problem. Win-lose is not an option. In each situation the result must be a win-win for the parties, and both attorneys are committed to it.
If a client decides that cooperation isn't working and that litigation is required, both collaborative attorneys are dismissed, along with any joint experts (accountants, appraisers, parenting coaches), and the clients must begin from scratch. This is part of the collaborative agreement, and is a powerful disincentive to refusing to cooperate.
Collaborative law can be a great money-saver, but that isn't the main motivation. The main motivation is going through the divorce process in a way that leaves both parties satisfied with the outcome, and able to collaborate in their relationships with the children.
There are many collaborative law groups around the country. In central California, Central Valley Collaborative Law Affiliates (http://collaborativelawyers.org) provides family law support and is expanding beyond that. The International Academy of Collaborative Practice (http://collaborativepractice.com/) brings all the collaborative law groups together. There is a way to handle divorce, or other legal issues, without war. As a mediator and member of Central Valley Collaborative Law Affiliates, I support these groups, and wish them well in the cases appropriate for their services.
(This article first appeared in Fresno Pacific University's "Scholars Speak" at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/02_12_2007.asp )
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Listening to art
Last night Chris Janzen the tactile artist/musician and Jesse Nathan the poet performed their piece “Dinner” at Mennonite Community Church. The venue was suitable for family and friends and it was a good couple of hours.
The piece is a mix of Chris’s experimental music made with various synthesizers, a guitar and string base, Chris’s collages, and Jesse’s poetry. All of it comes at you at once. I liked the overall effect and everyone in the audience, including our not quite eleven year-old granddaughter, stayed engaged. But how to describe a gallery display/poetry reading/concert?
Neuroscientists have studied the ability to multi-task, and it appears that there is no such thing as focusing on more than one thing at a time. Those who multi-task well are those adept at switching their attention among several things in rapid succession. The receptionist with a typing project would be an example of someone quickly shifting from typing to answering the phone to greeting a guest. A teenager texting while listening to music, watching television and doing homework could be another example.
“Dinner” demanded multi-tasking by the audience unusual for a performance. An orchestra asks the listener to hear the overall sonic experience while focusing on a theme in different instrumental sections sequentially. A rock concert creates a soundscape with moving focus and visual elements that don’t require any focus. An art display lets you look at a work in totality and then to move your focus around the piece. Looking at one of Chris’s collages on the web is like that. You can see the whole piece or magnify a portion.
At “Dinner” the visual focus moves from the projected collage image to the performers’ actions while the poetry, which requires continual focus, happens with simultaneous sounds that are difficult to predict and constantly grab away the listener’s focus. Paying attention to my body I became aware that the sounds created a good deal of anxiety which resulted in hearing the poetry and seeing the collages as more menacing than when I view the collages at leisure, or read the poems. Listening to the sounds in the safety of my bedroom does not generate the same anxiety as watching Chris produce them. The somewhat frenzied and unpredictable behavior that goes into producing the sounds creates an edge not there when they are simply heard.
My guess is that reading the poetry while the recorded sounds were played would be a completely different experience, and that the brain would simply sideline the sounds so that it could focus on the words. If Chris was making the sounds live while a recorded poet was played, I doubt that the poetry would make it through to the listener.
All this to say that the work was a worthwhile experience that has kept me thinking about it since. You can view, listen to and read the various bits at http://chrisjanzen.startlogic.com/.
The piece is a mix of Chris’s experimental music made with various synthesizers, a guitar and string base, Chris’s collages, and Jesse’s poetry. All of it comes at you at once. I liked the overall effect and everyone in the audience, including our not quite eleven year-old granddaughter, stayed engaged. But how to describe a gallery display/poetry reading/concert?
Neuroscientists have studied the ability to multi-task, and it appears that there is no such thing as focusing on more than one thing at a time. Those who multi-task well are those adept at switching their attention among several things in rapid succession. The receptionist with a typing project would be an example of someone quickly shifting from typing to answering the phone to greeting a guest. A teenager texting while listening to music, watching television and doing homework could be another example.
“Dinner” demanded multi-tasking by the audience unusual for a performance. An orchestra asks the listener to hear the overall sonic experience while focusing on a theme in different instrumental sections sequentially. A rock concert creates a soundscape with moving focus and visual elements that don’t require any focus. An art display lets you look at a work in totality and then to move your focus around the piece. Looking at one of Chris’s collages on the web is like that. You can see the whole piece or magnify a portion.
At “Dinner” the visual focus moves from the projected collage image to the performers’ actions while the poetry, which requires continual focus, happens with simultaneous sounds that are difficult to predict and constantly grab away the listener’s focus. Paying attention to my body I became aware that the sounds created a good deal of anxiety which resulted in hearing the poetry and seeing the collages as more menacing than when I view the collages at leisure, or read the poems. Listening to the sounds in the safety of my bedroom does not generate the same anxiety as watching Chris produce them. The somewhat frenzied and unpredictable behavior that goes into producing the sounds creates an edge not there when they are simply heard.
My guess is that reading the poetry while the recorded sounds were played would be a completely different experience, and that the brain would simply sideline the sounds so that it could focus on the words. If Chris was making the sounds live while a recorded poet was played, I doubt that the poetry would make it through to the listener.
All this to say that the work was a worthwhile experience that has kept me thinking about it since. You can view, listen to and read the various bits at http://chrisjanzen.startlogic.com/.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Punishment without redemption
Teaching is not just a two way street. Not only do students learn from the professor and the professor from the students, the professor also learns by hearing him or herself say things out loud. That is particularly true for extraverts who process information out in the open where everyone gets to play.
My class was working on the concept of restorative justice and how it is different from retributive justice. Retributive justice assigns guilt and punishes. Restorative justice identifies needs and responsibilities, and then provides an opportunity for those responsible to meet the needs.
The students were looking at the specific question of how an offender finds redemption, and which style of justice seeking would work best for that purpose. It was obvious that offenders who take responsibility for the harm they have caused and do what they can to meet the needs that result are more likely to find redemption.
I heard myself say “punishment without redemption is a waste of time.” As I have thought more about it that saying continues to sound true. What is the purpose of punishment if not to let a person pay their debt to society and be let back in? That is not how it works. These days a person who is punished carries that burden of guilt for the rest of their lives. A fortunate few are able to reintegrate with society and live productive lives. Our system creates a permanent underclass of the formerly incarcerated.
Punishment without redemption is not only a waste of time, but of valuable human resources which are permanently set aside. Since 1 out of every 100 adult Americans is currently incarcerated, and at present rates, according to the US Department of Justice, one in fifteen Americans will serve time in prison, this wasteful way of doing things is unsupportable.
We need to re-connect punishment and redemption. Without including a path to redemption, punishment is a waste.
_______________
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower teaches in the criminology and restorative justice studies program at Fresno Pacific University.
My class was working on the concept of restorative justice and how it is different from retributive justice. Retributive justice assigns guilt and punishes. Restorative justice identifies needs and responsibilities, and then provides an opportunity for those responsible to meet the needs.
The students were looking at the specific question of how an offender finds redemption, and which style of justice seeking would work best for that purpose. It was obvious that offenders who take responsibility for the harm they have caused and do what they can to meet the needs that result are more likely to find redemption.
I heard myself say “punishment without redemption is a waste of time.” As I have thought more about it that saying continues to sound true. What is the purpose of punishment if not to let a person pay their debt to society and be let back in? That is not how it works. These days a person who is punished carries that burden of guilt for the rest of their lives. A fortunate few are able to reintegrate with society and live productive lives. Our system creates a permanent underclass of the formerly incarcerated.
Punishment without redemption is not only a waste of time, but of valuable human resources which are permanently set aside. Since 1 out of every 100 adult Americans is currently incarcerated, and at present rates, according to the US Department of Justice, one in fifteen Americans will serve time in prison, this wasteful way of doing things is unsupportable.
We need to re-connect punishment and redemption. Without including a path to redemption, punishment is a waste.
_______________
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower teaches in the criminology and restorative justice studies program at Fresno Pacific University.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
I thought about it
Jimmy Carter confessed to an interviewer that he had committed adultery in his heart. Fortunately for Pres. Carter that is not a crime. Be careful what you think in this post 9/11 world. Sometimes the difference between thinking and doing is less than you expect. December 22, 2008 five Muslim men were convicted of conspiracy to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, an army base near Philadelphia. They could be sentenced to life in prison.
The evidence in the case consisted mostly of recorded conversations and testimony by two informants who were paid to infiltrate this terrorist cell and gather evidence. The main informant was a legal immigrant who had served time for bank fraud, been arrested for fighting with a neighbor and had filed bankruptcy.
A conviction for conspiracy requires more than just talk, of course. You have to do something in furtherance of the plan. Two actions were alleged in this case. The men purchased assault weapons through the informants, who got them from the FBI, and practiced shooting them in the Pocono Mountains. The other action was scouting nearby military bases. Fort Dix was the preferred target since the father of one of the conspirators owned a business that delivered pizza to the base.
Talking about an attack, acquiring weapons and checking out targets sounds pretty dangerous. That is what you would do if you were going on a suicide mission to kill soldiers on their own base. The jury deliberated 38 hours and rejected counts of attempted murder. It sounds like the FBI did a good job following up on the lead they received from a Circuit City clerk who called after one of the men had him transfer video of a shooting session by men shouting jihadist slogans to DVD. Heads-up police work saved the day.
The problem here is what the evidence did not show. The prosecution conceded that the men had no plan for carrying out the attack. They were unhappy about the actions of the US government, talked about it with their friends, and shot assault rifles at a range in the woods. A lot of patriotic Americans do the same. The second amendment right to bear arms is partly in furtherance of the claim of the Declaration of Independence that “. . .whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .”
The other big thing the evidence did not show was that these men were willing to die in the process of killing soldiers. The defendants included a cab driver, a convenience store clerk and three brothers who owned a roofing business. One thing we have learned about suicide jihadists is that they don’t go to work every day while they are planning their attack. The norm, to the extent one can determine such a thing, seems to be that suicide jihadists come from financially better off families and are recruited, trained and equipped by organizations. In the Fort Dix case there was no evidence of connection to any organization. The only help they had was the two informants. There was no one to celebrate their martyrdom.
The question here is whether or not we want our government to protect us by recruiting, equipping and training jihadists using informants who have nothing to lose and much to gain by producing defendants. It would have been terrible if these men had succeeded in entering Fort Dix and committing mass murder. Maybe it is worth wrongly imprisoning some big-mouthed malcontents to avoid atrocities like that.
The FBI ended the investigation and arrested the defendants after the purchase of automatic weapons. There was no plan for the attack yet, but one can assume that the FBI did not want to risk having weapons it provided used in any criminal activity, causing them to wrap the case up.
When I teach conspiracy law my students are always amazed at how little it takes to make a case. Talk and an action in support of the talk will do it. Cases usually come down to who the jury believes, not whether the necessary legal elements are present.
Had any murderous thoughts lately? Be careful who you share them with, particularly if your friend offers to get you a deal on the weapons.
_________________________________________________________
This post has been published by Fresno Pacific University as a Scholars Speak article at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/01_07_09.asp
The evidence in the case consisted mostly of recorded conversations and testimony by two informants who were paid to infiltrate this terrorist cell and gather evidence. The main informant was a legal immigrant who had served time for bank fraud, been arrested for fighting with a neighbor and had filed bankruptcy.
A conviction for conspiracy requires more than just talk, of course. You have to do something in furtherance of the plan. Two actions were alleged in this case. The men purchased assault weapons through the informants, who got them from the FBI, and practiced shooting them in the Pocono Mountains. The other action was scouting nearby military bases. Fort Dix was the preferred target since the father of one of the conspirators owned a business that delivered pizza to the base.
Talking about an attack, acquiring weapons and checking out targets sounds pretty dangerous. That is what you would do if you were going on a suicide mission to kill soldiers on their own base. The jury deliberated 38 hours and rejected counts of attempted murder. It sounds like the FBI did a good job following up on the lead they received from a Circuit City clerk who called after one of the men had him transfer video of a shooting session by men shouting jihadist slogans to DVD. Heads-up police work saved the day.
The problem here is what the evidence did not show. The prosecution conceded that the men had no plan for carrying out the attack. They were unhappy about the actions of the US government, talked about it with their friends, and shot assault rifles at a range in the woods. A lot of patriotic Americans do the same. The second amendment right to bear arms is partly in furtherance of the claim of the Declaration of Independence that “. . .whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .”
The other big thing the evidence did not show was that these men were willing to die in the process of killing soldiers. The defendants included a cab driver, a convenience store clerk and three brothers who owned a roofing business. One thing we have learned about suicide jihadists is that they don’t go to work every day while they are planning their attack. The norm, to the extent one can determine such a thing, seems to be that suicide jihadists come from financially better off families and are recruited, trained and equipped by organizations. In the Fort Dix case there was no evidence of connection to any organization. The only help they had was the two informants. There was no one to celebrate their martyrdom.
The question here is whether or not we want our government to protect us by recruiting, equipping and training jihadists using informants who have nothing to lose and much to gain by producing defendants. It would have been terrible if these men had succeeded in entering Fort Dix and committing mass murder. Maybe it is worth wrongly imprisoning some big-mouthed malcontents to avoid atrocities like that.
The FBI ended the investigation and arrested the defendants after the purchase of automatic weapons. There was no plan for the attack yet, but one can assume that the FBI did not want to risk having weapons it provided used in any criminal activity, causing them to wrap the case up.
When I teach conspiracy law my students are always amazed at how little it takes to make a case. Talk and an action in support of the talk will do it. Cases usually come down to who the jury believes, not whether the necessary legal elements are present.
Had any murderous thoughts lately? Be careful who you share them with, particularly if your friend offers to get you a deal on the weapons.
_________________________________________________________
This post has been published by Fresno Pacific University as a Scholars Speak article at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/01_07_09.asp
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Peacemaking
Papua Gospel celebration
152 years ago the Gospel came to Papua through Dutch missionaries. They came from a small island to the Texas-sized island of New Guinea. If you look at the island on a map it looks like a large bird sitting on the ground facing west. The west half is Indonesia and the east half is the independent Papua New Guinea. The missionaries came to what is commonly called the Bird’s Head, to what is now the city of Manokwari. Mennonite Central Committee has had a presence there for most of the last fifty years, and I have spent a lot of time there.
Papuans fall into two religious categories, Christian and animist. The Christians, of course, retain many animist ways of understanding their world since many live in stone age conditions.
Each year Manokwari has a celebration of the coming of the Gospel. This requires two white men to row a boat ashore wearing 1855 outfits. For most of the last fifty years Mennonite Central Committee workers have been the only white men available, so they have participated regularly.
The Dutch missionaries row to the shore, debark, and walk to their designated spots. Speeches are made, then a tribal chief in native costume consisting mostly of Bird of Paradise feathers runs toward the Dutch missionaries with traditional weapons of war, a bow and arrows. The island was a cannibalistic culture where every stranger who entered a tribe’s domain was killed. This culture resulted in one sixth of the world’s ethnic diversity occurring on one island. Of the 6,000 languages on earth, 1,000 are on the island of New Guinea.
The tribal chief runs to the missionaries, kneels before them, and breaks his arrows. This demonstrates that the coming of the Gospel ended inter-tribal warfare on the island.
The Prince of Peace is our peace, and has brought peace all over the world. What if Christians made a simple pact not to kill each other? The world would be a very different place. At the name of Jesus, let every knee bow.
152 years ago the Gospel came to Papua through Dutch missionaries. They came from a small island to the Texas-sized island of New Guinea. If you look at the island on a map it looks like a large bird sitting on the ground facing west. The west half is Indonesia and the east half is the independent Papua New Guinea. The missionaries came to what is commonly called the Bird’s Head, to what is now the city of Manokwari. Mennonite Central Committee has had a presence there for most of the last fifty years, and I have spent a lot of time there.
Papuans fall into two religious categories, Christian and animist. The Christians, of course, retain many animist ways of understanding their world since many live in stone age conditions.
Each year Manokwari has a celebration of the coming of the Gospel. This requires two white men to row a boat ashore wearing 1855 outfits. For most of the last fifty years Mennonite Central Committee workers have been the only white men available, so they have participated regularly.
The Dutch missionaries row to the shore, debark, and walk to their designated spots. Speeches are made, then a tribal chief in native costume consisting mostly of Bird of Paradise feathers runs toward the Dutch missionaries with traditional weapons of war, a bow and arrows. The island was a cannibalistic culture where every stranger who entered a tribe’s domain was killed. This culture resulted in one sixth of the world’s ethnic diversity occurring on one island. Of the 6,000 languages on earth, 1,000 are on the island of New Guinea.
The tribal chief runs to the missionaries, kneels before them, and breaks his arrows. This demonstrates that the coming of the Gospel ended inter-tribal warfare on the island.
The Prince of Peace is our peace, and has brought peace all over the world. What if Christians made a simple pact not to kill each other? The world would be a very different place. At the name of Jesus, let every knee bow.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Peacemaking
Peacemaking
When is it time to leave Iraq?
Since the invasion of Iraq four years ago I have believed that it is improper to destroy a country’s ability to police itself then leave. That is no longer my view of the situation in Iraq. Despite the efforts of US and coalition forces, the country has devolved into civil war. It is a rare day when less than 100 civilians are killed and many more wounded. If that is not a civil war I would hate to see one.
Sunnis seem to be better armed and organized, but they are a small minority with a history of oppressing their more numerous neighbors. When the tables are turned that is a recipe for genocide. The United States is not in a position to prevent whatever happens. It can influence the course of events in the short term, but everyone has always known that the Americans will go home. The only question is when. That leaves American troops in the unenviable position of giving their mental health, body parts and lives for no ultimate purpose. This is unconscionable.
It is time to acknowledge that the Iraqis must make their own political settlement, and that Iran will have significant influence. When we brought down Saddam we guaranteed that ultimate result. We are witnessing the definition of the limits of American military power, and the end of America’s imperialist agenda. The new era has begun, and it is time for America’s political leaders to accept the change.
When is it time to leave Iraq?
Since the invasion of Iraq four years ago I have believed that it is improper to destroy a country’s ability to police itself then leave. That is no longer my view of the situation in Iraq. Despite the efforts of US and coalition forces, the country has devolved into civil war. It is a rare day when less than 100 civilians are killed and many more wounded. If that is not a civil war I would hate to see one.
Sunnis seem to be better armed and organized, but they are a small minority with a history of oppressing their more numerous neighbors. When the tables are turned that is a recipe for genocide. The United States is not in a position to prevent whatever happens. It can influence the course of events in the short term, but everyone has always known that the Americans will go home. The only question is when. That leaves American troops in the unenviable position of giving their mental health, body parts and lives for no ultimate purpose. This is unconscionable.
It is time to acknowledge that the Iraqis must make their own political settlement, and that Iran will have significant influence. When we brought down Saddam we guaranteed that ultimate result. We are witnessing the definition of the limits of American military power, and the end of America’s imperialist agenda. The new era has begun, and it is time for America’s political leaders to accept the change.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
regime change
The elections just concluded have changed the American political landscape. For someone involved in peacemaking the big news is that the elections are being seen by everyone, in retrospect, as a referendum on the Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld has resigned, indicating that the administration understands the vote count in that way. The President is now a lame duck with a hostile legislative branch. That is quite a change in two days.
What does it all mean for issues of war and peace?
Being the opposition party allows one to complain and cast aspersions on the character of those one opposes. What happens when the opposition suddenly becomes the majority and has to govern? Speaker to be Pelosi ran against the war, but never did offer a plan for ending it. What is the right thing to do in a situation like this? The United States military destroyed Iraq's ability to police itself, let alone defend itself from attack. If we were to simply leave now the incipient civil war and the adventurism of neighboring countries would have free reign. Those areas of Iraq with strong ethnic majorities would seek to create their own states. All that prevents those things now is the US military presence.
The question remains whether the US should be the decisionmaker in this case. That area of the world has been a rough place for millennia. Empires have come and gone. Tribal warfare has continued through all that time. The US invasion is little more than a blip on a very long chart, and that chart only includes the idea of democracy in the last couple of years, scarcely noticeable on the chart. The US military is playing the role of a guest in the country now that there is a democratically elected government.
The basic question is whether there ought to be an Iraq. It is a recent invention, and one that was never accepted by all its citizens. If it is US policy to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, we will be there for a long time. If we are comfortable with the Balkanization of Iraq, we can leave. It will be interesting to see how America's new rulers choose between those two.
What does it all mean for issues of war and peace?
Being the opposition party allows one to complain and cast aspersions on the character of those one opposes. What happens when the opposition suddenly becomes the majority and has to govern? Speaker to be Pelosi ran against the war, but never did offer a plan for ending it. What is the right thing to do in a situation like this? The United States military destroyed Iraq's ability to police itself, let alone defend itself from attack. If we were to simply leave now the incipient civil war and the adventurism of neighboring countries would have free reign. Those areas of Iraq with strong ethnic majorities would seek to create their own states. All that prevents those things now is the US military presence.
The question remains whether the US should be the decisionmaker in this case. That area of the world has been a rough place for millennia. Empires have come and gone. Tribal warfare has continued through all that time. The US invasion is little more than a blip on a very long chart, and that chart only includes the idea of democracy in the last couple of years, scarcely noticeable on the chart. The US military is playing the role of a guest in the country now that there is a democratically elected government.
The basic question is whether there ought to be an Iraq. It is a recent invention, and one that was never accepted by all its citizens. If it is US policy to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, we will be there for a long time. If we are comfortable with the Balkanization of Iraq, we can leave. It will be interesting to see how America's new rulers choose between those two.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Hostages and executions
Hostages and executions
Today we are waiting to see what happens to the four Christian Peacemaker Teams workers who were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors said they would kill them yesterday if thousands of Iraqis were not release from prison. There has been no word since the deadline passed. An outpouring of support from Muslim clerics and many others around the world for these peace activists is wonderful to see. Their good work in Iraq and other places is well known. Still, we wait.
At the same time we are waiting to see whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the death sentence on Stanley “Tookie” Williams to be carried out. His is the last word. There has been an outpouring of support for clemency in this case. Questions linger about the propriety of this conviction for crimes Williams still denies committing, and his good anti-gang work from death row has caught the attention of many.
These cases are completely different in one way, but in others they are the same. An elected government is deciding whether to execute Williams, while a self-appointed militia is deciding the fate of the peacemakers in Iraq. Each has the power to execute, however that power was gained, and in both cases the choice is both arbitrary and political. The persons wielding the power of life and death will put a lot of thought into how their choice will affect themselves and those close to them. If the governor decides to let the sentence be carried out and riots erupt, how will that affect his political future? If he decides to commute the sentence and his conservative base deserts him, what happens then? In Iraq the hostage takers need to weigh how difficult it will be to survive if they carry out the execution. Will they be hunted down by all factions? Would they be better off bowing to the clear will of Sunni and Shia leaders and accepting that these peacemakers deserve to live?
The choice in either case is political, not about law. Is it any wonder that many in the world have trouble telling the difference between the actions of Islamist extremists and the American government? Both kill many innocent people in the name of their cause in an effort to serve their interests. Both execute wrongdoers. Both claim high moral values. Both claim to be in the right. Both believe the other to be in league with Satan.
Jesus suggested that we not try to take the splinter out of another’s eye until we have removed the log from our own. Scottish poet Robert Burns put it this way: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” The more energy we put into seeing ourselves as others see us, the better able we will be to make the changes in our own behavior that encourage others to make changes as well.
Today we are waiting to see what happens to the four Christian Peacemaker Teams workers who were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors said they would kill them yesterday if thousands of Iraqis were not release from prison. There has been no word since the deadline passed. An outpouring of support from Muslim clerics and many others around the world for these peace activists is wonderful to see. Their good work in Iraq and other places is well known. Still, we wait.
At the same time we are waiting to see whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the death sentence on Stanley “Tookie” Williams to be carried out. His is the last word. There has been an outpouring of support for clemency in this case. Questions linger about the propriety of this conviction for crimes Williams still denies committing, and his good anti-gang work from death row has caught the attention of many.
These cases are completely different in one way, but in others they are the same. An elected government is deciding whether to execute Williams, while a self-appointed militia is deciding the fate of the peacemakers in Iraq. Each has the power to execute, however that power was gained, and in both cases the choice is both arbitrary and political. The persons wielding the power of life and death will put a lot of thought into how their choice will affect themselves and those close to them. If the governor decides to let the sentence be carried out and riots erupt, how will that affect his political future? If he decides to commute the sentence and his conservative base deserts him, what happens then? In Iraq the hostage takers need to weigh how difficult it will be to survive if they carry out the execution. Will they be hunted down by all factions? Would they be better off bowing to the clear will of Sunni and Shia leaders and accepting that these peacemakers deserve to live?
The choice in either case is political, not about law. Is it any wonder that many in the world have trouble telling the difference between the actions of Islamist extremists and the American government? Both kill many innocent people in the name of their cause in an effort to serve their interests. Both execute wrongdoers. Both claim high moral values. Both claim to be in the right. Both believe the other to be in league with Satan.
Jesus suggested that we not try to take the splinter out of another’s eye until we have removed the log from our own. Scottish poet Robert Burns put it this way: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” The more energy we put into seeing ourselves as others see us, the better able we will be to make the changes in our own behavior that encourage others to make changes as well.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Redemption
Execution ends the chance for redemptionVictims cannot heal
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
Sunday, October 23, 2005
A belated thanks
A belated thanks –
In December 2003 I traveled from California to Peshawar, Pakistan. I carried onto the plane my usual travel rig of a carry-on roller and my Lands' End double-sided computer attaché. The PowerPoint presentation I had ready for the conference in Peshawar was in my computer. This rig has served me through many states and countries. It was a good thing I had only carry-on luggage since I missed flights in Dubai and Karachi. When the plane landed in Islamabad it was dark, and they rolled up front and rear staircases for debarking. I went down the back stairs in nearly complete darkness, holding my carry-on in one hand and the Lands' End attaché in the other. In the dark I missed the last step and both pieces of luggage went flying. My pants tore, my knee was a bloody mess, the scar lasting to this day, and people gathered up my luggage. This was awkward since a red-carpet welcome was planned by my hosts. I was a bit too red. After treatment by paramedics I arrived at my hotel and booted up the computer. It was fine. The knee was still a mess a week later as we traveled up the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan and took several weeks to heal. I continue to use the same computer and the same travel rig two years later. We leave again in two days. Thank you, Lands' End!
In December 2003 I traveled from California to Peshawar, Pakistan. I carried onto the plane my usual travel rig of a carry-on roller and my Lands' End double-sided computer attaché. The PowerPoint presentation I had ready for the conference in Peshawar was in my computer. This rig has served me through many states and countries. It was a good thing I had only carry-on luggage since I missed flights in Dubai and Karachi. When the plane landed in Islamabad it was dark, and they rolled up front and rear staircases for debarking. I went down the back stairs in nearly complete darkness, holding my carry-on in one hand and the Lands' End attaché in the other. In the dark I missed the last step and both pieces of luggage went flying. My pants tore, my knee was a bloody mess, the scar lasting to this day, and people gathered up my luggage. This was awkward since a red-carpet welcome was planned by my hosts. I was a bit too red. After treatment by paramedics I arrived at my hotel and booted up the computer. It was fine. The knee was still a mess a week later as we traveled up the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan and took several weeks to heal. I continue to use the same computer and the same travel rig two years later. We leave again in two days. Thank you, Lands' End!
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Finding your bunny
How to find your bunny
A few months back we acquired a rabbit. It is a show rabbit not meant to be eaten, and is pretty cute. Our granddaughter likes it a lot. We let it run around our yard, and its white fur with brown spots makes it look a lot like a living soccer ball as it bounces around. Unfortunately, a bored bunny can be a bad bunny, and last week it found a spot where it could escape the fence. So the rabbit is gone and the 7 year-old is distraught. It took us a week to get to the stage of putting up signs on light poles. Granddaughter and I went around taping them to the poles. As we were walking along a neighbor who had seen one of the first signs drove up and asked if we were looking for a rabbit. He had seen it in the yard across the street from him, two doors down from us. He had stopped pruning his trees and come looking for us to tell us. We searched and found nothing.
About dusk, rabbit active time, we went looking again and there she was in the next door front yard. The three of us surrounded the bush and she was reclaimed. Hooray! A neighbor whose name I still don’t know went out of his way to reunite us with our rabbit. That is really special these days, and makes me long for the days growing up in Kansas when I knew everyone in a two-block radius from my house.
The rabbit is back in her hutch scarfing pellets and Timothy hay. The hole under the gate is blocked, and all’s right with the world, at least right here. It takes me back to simpler times before central air conditioning, when we knew the people around us. If it weren’t for the lost rabbit, and the lost kitten before, I would have no idea who lived in the nearby houses. Maybe that should change.
A few months back we acquired a rabbit. It is a show rabbit not meant to be eaten, and is pretty cute. Our granddaughter likes it a lot. We let it run around our yard, and its white fur with brown spots makes it look a lot like a living soccer ball as it bounces around. Unfortunately, a bored bunny can be a bad bunny, and last week it found a spot where it could escape the fence. So the rabbit is gone and the 7 year-old is distraught. It took us a week to get to the stage of putting up signs on light poles. Granddaughter and I went around taping them to the poles. As we were walking along a neighbor who had seen one of the first signs drove up and asked if we were looking for a rabbit. He had seen it in the yard across the street from him, two doors down from us. He had stopped pruning his trees and come looking for us to tell us. We searched and found nothing.
About dusk, rabbit active time, we went looking again and there she was in the next door front yard. The three of us surrounded the bush and she was reclaimed. Hooray! A neighbor whose name I still don’t know went out of his way to reunite us with our rabbit. That is really special these days, and makes me long for the days growing up in Kansas when I knew everyone in a two-block radius from my house.
The rabbit is back in her hutch scarfing pellets and Timothy hay. The hole under the gate is blocked, and all’s right with the world, at least right here. It takes me back to simpler times before central air conditioning, when we knew the people around us. If it weren’t for the lost rabbit, and the lost kitten before, I would have no idea who lived in the nearby houses. Maybe that should change.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
far from perfect storm
A busy summer and forgotten password make for bigger than usual blank spots in a blog. This being September 11 thoughts automatically turn to the events of four years ago, but also turn unbidden to Hurricane Katrina and the events of the last couple of weeks. People don't make hurricanes, at least not directly, so we don't blame the storm for the trouble it causes. The 9-11-01 events were caused directly by people, so we do blame them and those who helped them for the trouble they caused. After that, the two events start to look more alike. In both events the news was all about the failure of the government at all levels to deal with an unprecedented catastrophe, and how that incompetence resulted in people dying. I certainly don't disagree. What I disagree with is the notion that any government should be prepared to deal with an unprecedented catastrophe.
When Joseph (the biblical one) interpreted Pharaoh's dream to say that 7 fat years would be followed by 7 lean years the government of Egypt took it seriously and heavily taxed the people so that enough grain would be available for 7 years of drought. The result was the government owning the whole country by the time the drought broke. This works well in a monarchy, but would not be well received in a democratic republic. If the government of New Orleans had taxed the people sufficiently to build defenses against a category 5 hurricane they would have been hooted and booted out of office. If the air transportation system had been designed to prevent the 9-11-01 attacks, no one would be flying and Amtrack would be flush.
It's all well and good to try assessing blame and rooting out failures after an unprecedented catastrophe, but we need to remember that it was unprecedented. No politician would have been able to sell the necessary cost of preventing it.
The response afterwards is a different story. There we can identify all sorts of failures that were the result of bad planning. Relying on cell phones for communication after a disaster that will surely wipe out the cell system is probably unwise. Banks in New Orleans are now trying to figure out how to contact customers who have no phone or forwarding address. The forms people fill out don't usually include an out-of-area contact since people don't expect their city to disappear. That will probably change. We learn from these things, and the next big hurricane to hit a major American city will probably see a better response.
We are always reacting to unprecedented events since, by definition, no one ever thought they would happen or couldn't muster the political will to prepare for them. The now discredited arms race with the Soviet Union was an example of building defenses against something that never came. People in the information age are a lot less willing to buy such a response if they don't believe the danger is imminent. Let's not demand a response from government or anyone if we aren't willing to pay the price of preparedness. I am probably a lot like you, I don't want to pay for a response that may never be needed. Just before criticizing the government's response, try to imagine having paid for the preparation necessary to respond better. Would you have been willing to pay?
Are you willing to pay to fortify all gulf coast and Atlantic seaboard cities against a category 5 hurricane? How about paying for preparing all California cities for an 8.3 earthquake like the one that destroyed San Francisco in 1906? Tornadoes are a terrible problem in the Midwest; shouldn’t we have hardened facilities able to resist them? Are you willing to pay for securing all transportation systems from a terrorist attack? Of course not. I, too, like to eat in addition to paying taxes.
It is time to learn what we can from these disasters, and to avoid using them as a platform for inappropriate attacks on those charged with preventing or responding to them when we did not provide the necessary resources. No government ever has the resources to respond promptly and unerringly to an unprecedented catastrophe. Let’s not pretend that they should.
When Joseph (the biblical one) interpreted Pharaoh's dream to say that 7 fat years would be followed by 7 lean years the government of Egypt took it seriously and heavily taxed the people so that enough grain would be available for 7 years of drought. The result was the government owning the whole country by the time the drought broke. This works well in a monarchy, but would not be well received in a democratic republic. If the government of New Orleans had taxed the people sufficiently to build defenses against a category 5 hurricane they would have been hooted and booted out of office. If the air transportation system had been designed to prevent the 9-11-01 attacks, no one would be flying and Amtrack would be flush.
It's all well and good to try assessing blame and rooting out failures after an unprecedented catastrophe, but we need to remember that it was unprecedented. No politician would have been able to sell the necessary cost of preventing it.
The response afterwards is a different story. There we can identify all sorts of failures that were the result of bad planning. Relying on cell phones for communication after a disaster that will surely wipe out the cell system is probably unwise. Banks in New Orleans are now trying to figure out how to contact customers who have no phone or forwarding address. The forms people fill out don't usually include an out-of-area contact since people don't expect their city to disappear. That will probably change. We learn from these things, and the next big hurricane to hit a major American city will probably see a better response.
We are always reacting to unprecedented events since, by definition, no one ever thought they would happen or couldn't muster the political will to prepare for them. The now discredited arms race with the Soviet Union was an example of building defenses against something that never came. People in the information age are a lot less willing to buy such a response if they don't believe the danger is imminent. Let's not demand a response from government or anyone if we aren't willing to pay the price of preparedness. I am probably a lot like you, I don't want to pay for a response that may never be needed. Just before criticizing the government's response, try to imagine having paid for the preparation necessary to respond better. Would you have been willing to pay?
Are you willing to pay to fortify all gulf coast and Atlantic seaboard cities against a category 5 hurricane? How about paying for preparing all California cities for an 8.3 earthquake like the one that destroyed San Francisco in 1906? Tornadoes are a terrible problem in the Midwest; shouldn’t we have hardened facilities able to resist them? Are you willing to pay for securing all transportation systems from a terrorist attack? Of course not. I, too, like to eat in addition to paying taxes.
It is time to learn what we can from these disasters, and to avoid using them as a platform for inappropriate attacks on those charged with preventing or responding to them when we did not provide the necessary resources. No government ever has the resources to respond promptly and unerringly to an unprecedented catastrophe. Let’s not pretend that they should.
Monday, May 30, 2005
the United States doesn't invade other countries
I was doing a workshop on conflict for 60 or so teachers at a Jr. College/trade school the other day. We were talking about how one can dispel fear in the other party that prevents them from being cooperative. After all, if I am afraid of you, it will be difficult for me to cooperate with you in any meaningful way. The example of North Korea and its quest for nuclear weapons came up. "So why do you suppose they want nukes?" I asked. The responses tended toward "they want to be big stuff in the world." "Has the United States ever invaded a country that had nuclear weapons?" I asked. Consternation blossomed in the room. Everyone knew the US has never invaded a country with nuclear weapons. "Do you think they might be afraid of us?" I asked. The general response was "No way, the United States never invades anyone. How can they not see that?"
These teachers haven't been paying much attention to all the little invasions that don't spend much time on the front page, not to mention the big ones that do. They seem to have missed Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Panama, Grenada and a host of others. Those who haven't kept track might want to pick up the book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.
Yes, they might be afraid of us.
These teachers haven't been paying much attention to all the little invasions that don't spend much time on the front page, not to mention the big ones that do. They seem to have missed Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Panama, Grenada and a host of others. Those who haven't kept track might want to pick up the book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.
Yes, they might be afraid of us.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Peacemaking
It's our granddaughter's 7th birthday. That makes one think. How dare she be so old? The life of human beings goes in cycles. One of the problems we have had lately is in messing up those cycles. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage. How often does that happen these days?
Not to be a curmudgeon, but people who get the sequence out of order are making a mess of American society. Children who don't know their father, or know their father and that he is not the fellow sleeping with mom, are confused. If we want successful children, we have to show them successful parents. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
As I work with young offenders and their families, the overriding issue is that the family forgot the poem: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
Not to be a curmudgeon, but people who get the sequence out of order are making a mess of American society. Children who don't know their father, or know their father and that he is not the fellow sleeping with mom, are confused. If we want successful children, we have to show them successful parents. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
As I work with young offenders and their families, the overriding issue is that the family forgot the poem: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Valentine's Day bombings
One of the beauties of travel is becoming familiar with new places and people. This age of bombings changes how it feels to know so many places. First thing this morning was the news of a bombing that killed the former prime minister of Lebanon, and an email from our friends in Beirut whose doors were blown open by the blast saying they were ok. Then the news of the three explosions in the Philippines. The bombing site in Manila looked familiar, and so it was. I was there not long ago. Likewise the site in Davao. I have not been to the bombing site in General Santos City because the workshop I was to lead there moved to Davao after threats from Abu Sayyaf, the group claiming responsibility for these latest bombings. The world is a much smaller place than we sometimes realize. The danger of relationships around the world is that the world news suddenly becomes local. Yesterday we had email with pictures from Jeff, our former Indonesia colleague, letting us know how it is going in Banda Aceh recreating water systems and latrines after the tsunami. We are tied together by our relationships in ways that make complacency impossible, and which tug at our hearts in ways the world news didn't 30 years ago. After a day like this one, ignorance is tempting.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The latest in Iraq
When one invades a country, overthrows its rulers and then disbands its police force, obligations are created. As a pacifist I would like nothing better than to have the US immediately withdraw from Iraq, but to do so would be cowardly at best. What we destroyed must be replaced, and this specifically includes a police force. The elections are a step in the right direction, moving repsonsibility and authority to Iraq's citizens, but until a proper police force can be recruited and trained it would be irresponsible for the US to leave. Mennonites remember vividly what happened after the Russian revolution when bandit gangs controlled the country. For the US to visit that on Iraq would be terrible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
