tfdl

The Impact of Time and Place on Our Understanding of Child Sexual Abuse
Philadelphia, PA

Last week I happened to find myself sitting in the audience listening to the closing arguments in the case involving Charles Bennison, the Episcopal bishop who is before a tribunal investigating allegations that he did nothing to intervene when his brother (a youth minister at the time) was sexually involved with a fourteen-year old girl. I decided to attend because I was intrigued to see what it is like for a bishop, rather than a priest, to be in this situation. Curiosity perhaps. To see what it is like for one with so much power to be humbled. At least that is what I thought as I sat there waiting for the tribunal to begin the afternoon session.

The judges processed in - all in purple robes - and walked up the steps of the dais at the front of the room. They sat in their assigned seats and settled themselves, as the one presiding called on the church's attorney to begin his closing arguments. It occurred to me that the bishop was probably more accustomed to that view from above than he was from his seat at the defense table. I tried to get a good look at him, but he only allowed a partial view of his face as he sat with his gaze fixed a bit to one side. I did get a clear enough view to see a rather unremarkable face. Grandfatherly perhaps. Not a particularly wise face. Ordinary actually.

The attorney representing the church began his summation with studied precision. This was well within his comfort zone. No doubt he had seen many a courtroom, and has delivered more than his share of closing arguments. I sat amazed at the sight of a lawyer for the church actually prosecuting a bishop for "acts unbecoming a member of the clergy". I thought such lawyers were the ones who defended bishops like him. In any event he seemed skilled enough as he began to summarize his case by revisiting previous testimony. I didn't pay close attention until he began to speak about the woman - now fifty - who was the target of those sexual acts thirty-six years ago.

He quoted a portion of her testimony in which she said, When you are not protected, you begin to believe that you are not worth protecting. The simple and profound truth of that statement, of that universal belief of children who are abused, hit me with the force of a hammer on an anvil. It was so clear, and so precise. It is just the way it is for children.

So why, I began to wonder, is it so difficult for some adults to really understand the horrifying impact that such abuse had on children when it happened years ago, an impact that may last for their entire lives. And the answer immediately seemed obvious from the very context of this tribunal. It is all about faces and voices.

The faces and voices in the room were the wrong ones. The faces were too old. Too many lines creased with the cares of the world. The voices too muted - unable to articulate the unvoiced screams that have lingered for so long in the corners of memory. Yet not muted enough, too practiced in the ways of the law to capture the child's psyche frozen with terror in those moments when the images, the sounds and the voices all return uninvited, as they are want to do.

Abusing children is a secretive business, and children often get caught up in the secrecy. Years later, when they are well into adulthood, they are finally able to give voice to those traumatic experiences. But the voice they give is their adult one - the child's voice long ago silenced. And the face they present also is their adult one.

The same is true of the predator (or in this case the enabler). When the violence occurred, he was a man in his prime, not the wizened grandfatherly type at the defense table staring off into space. Not the old, retired priests so often pictured in stories about such abuse. Then he was a man with both physical power and positional authority - a corporate player tending to his career ladder, as he keeps the violence to the level of a whisper, no more than a vague rumor about possible sexual indiscretions.

The antidote to this unfortunate reality lies in the imagination. The next time you hear of such abuse that occurred decades ago, picture a child you know - either a boy or girl. Imagine the smooth face, the sheen of the hair, the slightly pitched voice, the eyes wide open and inviting to the world. And then imagine a man in his thirties or forties with soft hands and a seeming gentle manner, dark hair perhaps, a soothing - even pastoral - voice.

Those were the people present when the crimes occurred. And they are only present again in the tribunal for a few fleeting moments.

They are present when the bishop once again becomes the corporate suit worried about advancing his career, and how the truth of this violence, how the revelations of these illicit and illegal acts on a child, might dash his hopes for that coveted promotion.

But more than that, those who were really present at the crime scene emerge when the child's voice returns with one simple, direct and irrefutable truth: When you are not protected, you begin to believe that you are not worth protecting.

It is just as true today as it was forty years ago.

Posted by Edd at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is a delightful story in the annals of developmental psychology in which the psychologist, Jean Piaget, gave a series of high-level seminars in France. In each of these seminars America was duly represented. None of the Americans knew each other, and each of them enrolled in different seminars at different times during the year. Yet each one posed the same question to Professor Piaget, worded in almost the exact same way.

When the question finally arrived in each seminar, Piaget and his colleagues laughed good-naturedly as he said, "Aahh, the American Question!"

Continue reading "The American Question" »

Posted by Edd at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Only when the last tree has died; only when the last river been poisoned; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb

Posted by Edd at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And the question is:
How many children are in prison for life without the possibility of parole in the US?

A truly remarkable number… and there are only two countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of Children – the US and Somalia. This and other unsettling data was published by Amnesty International’s Human Rights Watch in their 2005 report, The Rest of Their Lives.

Somalia - there is something dreadfully wrong about being in such company. There is also something dreadfully wrong about the lack of imagination that seems so prevalent in our culture today, the lack of imagining the possibility that these young offenders could ever rejoin society.

Other cultures have figured out ways to reconcile reprehensible acts of children, and have found ways to reconnect them to families and villages. What is it about our society that creates such insurmountable chasms, and the impossibility of reconciliation?

What is it costing us? If we consider some of our children irredeemable, where is our redemption?

Posted by Edd at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) is an outstanding film in its own right. Every film buff (i.e., all of us who don’t mind reading sub-titles) might see it on its artistic merits alone. The writing is top notch, tight, and extremely economical. The photography is as stark as the landscape – East Berlin before the wall came down. And the acting is superb. The plot on one level is a straightforward story of betrayal and redemption. On a deeper level, however, the story delves into the fierce interplay between the personal and the political in a state that “wants to know everything”.

The East German government was built on a tyranny of secrecy. It became impossible to know who to trust, and who was listening in. Even the secrets were secret. The film did a masterful job portraying the cost – emotional, physical, and spiritual – of living in and sustaining such a society. And ultimately it showed just how unsustainable this world of secrets within secrets really is.

The film also is important for Americans to see and discuss. The abuses of the Patriot ACT recently disclosed by the Justice Department has an eerie STASI feel to it. In fact it can happen here. The question now is whether or not it is already happening here, whether or not there are thousands of agents listening in, not on the lives of others, but in on our lives.

The film suggests that we have met the others, and they are us.

Check the trailer out here.

Posted by Edd at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are only four commonwealths in the Union. Three - Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia - were part of the original thirteen colonies, and Kentucky was the fifteenth member of the Confederation, as it was called back then.

This bit of historical trivia seems important today in light of what is occurring in one of those commonwealths, notably Pennsylvania, concerning the issue of transportation.

So let’s review. A commonwealth is a state governed for the common good, literally for the common weal, or common well-being.

Now let’s look at what is occurring in the commonwealth’s capital with regard to the transportation issue. In an article in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer the governor’s office has said that there will be no “patch” this time to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). No federal highway funds “diverted” to cover the cost overruns in the southeast corner of the state.

But here is the key paragraph:

Legislators representing rural areas of the state, such as Rep. Fred McIlhattan (R., Clarion), said their constituents were reluctant to contribute more money for mass transit, which they saw as benefiting only metropolitan areas.

And to me this is indicative of much that is happening not just in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but also in the nation as a whole. If the “wifum question” (What’s in it for me?) does not have an immediate and concrete answer, many of us Americans just say no. Rural is more and more pitted against urban, with suburbanites squeezed in the middle.

Unless we return to conversations about the common good, the common well being of all our citizens – urban, rural, rich, poor and middle-class, children and seniors – then there is little hope that either our standards of living or the quality of our lives will stay the same let alone improve.

Right now "well-being in common" seems less like a platitude, and more like a good way to live, and perhaps the only way we will survive.

Posted by Edd at 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At first the topic – child soldiers in Sierra Leone’s civil war – seemed eerily out of place in this beautiful, yet simple, Berkeley church with its vaulted ceiling and muted walls. A few moments after Ishmael began to speak about his experiences, though, it seemed like the perfect setting for such a conversation. We would all be trying to make sense of the incomprehensible, and where better than in a setting where the incomprehensible is commonplace?

Ishmael Beah, the author of his recent book, A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, seemed ill at ease for a moment as he sat down in a rather grand chair on the raised sanctuary to begin the interview with several hundred people sitting quietly in the pews below him. He smiled self-consciously and immediately connected with his audience. This was a young man who is quickly learning how to work a room – a good thing to know if you want to make a difference in the world.

He looks much younger than his twenty-six years with his slight build and boyish smile. Perhaps it was his diet as a boy. Maybe it was the "brown brown", a concoction of cocaine and gunpowder that he snorted as a boy soldier. Perhaps he just seems young for his age. All these thoughts and more ran through my mind as I watched him center himself, become more grounded, and begin reading a passage from his memoir.

The passage he read was a lovely vignette about being with his brother at his grandmother’s house and how the boys tussled a bit to gain control of a hammock, and how one brother tricked the other into getting his way. It was all so mundane, so touchingly ordinary.

I could not help but think about the fact that not long after that day with his family, Ishmael was carrying an AK-47 and killing rebels in villages across his country – many of whom were boy soldiers like himself getting high and watching Rambo films when they were not being Rambos themselves.

Ishmael spoke sparingly about his time in the army, coyly urging the audience to buy his book to learn more about that. At one point he spoke about a meeting he had a few hours before the reading. This really got my attention because he told of his time that afternoon with some boys in the Alameda County Juvenile Detention Center in San Leandro just south of Oakland. He described his meeting with “these children” in very loving terms. The publisher of his book had sent copies to the youth there, and they had read about Ishmael before he met them. Because of his experiences with violence he was/is able to see past what they have done, and could still see the childish innocence that is buried deep beneath the wounds that come with being a boy soldier – be it in Freetown or Oaktown. In a strangely compelling way, for perhaps the first time I could see that it is all the same.

During the interview that was being conducted by Ishmael’s mentor, Priscilla Hayner, Co-founder of The International Center for Transitional Justice, they spoke about the Truth and Reconciliation process that was occurring in Sierra Leone. Again, just as I did when I heard how the South Africans are doing it, as I listened to them describe how it works, I was in awe of the Africans’ capacity for forgiveness and for their resilience. If we ever did in the past, we in the United States today have no structures now in our culture to reclaim and redeem these young soldiers. We just see them as criminals, as gangbangers. Nothing more. We want them to disappear. We say, Lock them up and throw away the key. But we are not throwing away keys. We are throwing away our children. The Africans have figured that out, and they are reclaiming as many of them as they can.

As fate would have it, when I returned from the reading that evening, I came across a story about three boys who killed a homeless man in Milwaukee a few years ago. They had asked him to buy them beer, and while drinking the beer with him the boys began to beat him, kick him, and eventually kill him. In a taped interview the youngest of the boys (who was 15 at the time of the killing) spoke about it in ways that seemed so similar to what Ishmael spoke of. It all happened so fast... We smoked some marijuana... We hadn't slept all night... I didn’t think about what I was doing... I just joined in... It all happened so fast…

That boy is now serving a fifteen-year prison sentence. He is a few years older now, but still thinks and talks much like a fifteen year old. I’ll grow up here in prison... I’ve never driven a car... I’ve never had a job... He doesn’t say it in a self-pitying way. Just matter of factly. As if he is speaking about someone else at an incomprehensible time and an incomprehensible place.

Sort of like Ishmael.

Posted by Edd at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last May I went way out on a limb and predicted that Al Gore would run for president in ’08. I’ll go out on the thinker end this time and say that it is even more likely. So, far my prognostications are holding up well. I didn’t see the Allen “macaca meltdown”, of course, but I suspected he would falter in some way. The Senate win was a surprise. There was no way to predict then just how much the corruption, and the Foleygate mess would impact the already faltering Republicans.

I am now thinking more and more that he will run and that he will ask Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania to run with him (instead of the governor of Kansas, who I thought might join the ticket back then.)

Gore will win an Academy Award in April, a Nobel Peace Prize in November and then the Democratic nomination. He will enter the primaries late in the game, but he will be well financed this time, and Obama and Clinton will have had at each other (and the media will have had at them) long enough that Democrats across the spectrum will be eager for him to take the nomination and win the election.

Gore is right on the war – and he can end it swiftly. He will have the wind at his back in Europe – he can engage in a regional conversation about the Middle East that Bush cannot do. He is of course right on global warming – he can create the necessary momentum to get business behind going green because they will actually get more greenbacks when they do. And he will be right with the media who are increasingly aware that Bush hoodwinked them in 2000, and that Gore may not be the two by four that they had created.

It’s his time.

Posted by Edd at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Again go wild, go wiki and check out pecuniary externality.

Now then. I’ve been giving some thought to this idea and what impact it has on all of us. The wiki definition got me thinking…how do we pay attention to this economic principle as it plays out over time? And how do we assess the positive and/or negative outcomes? And positive and/or negative for whom?
One externality I thought of was...

Continue reading "More Thoughts on Pecuniary Externality" »

Posted by Edd at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Buddhist tradition Kuan Yin is the bodhisattva of compassion. She is said to share many of the same attributes as The Virgin Mary in Christianity, including boundless compassion and mercy.

Here is Kuan Yin’s prayer. Good thoughts and intentions for the new year…

Kuan Yin's Prayer for the Abuser

To those who withhold refuge,
I cradle you in safety at the core of my Being.
To those that cause a child to cry out,
I grant you the freedom to express your own choked agony.
To those that inflict terror,
I remind you that you shine with the purity of a thousand suns.
To those who would confine, suppress, or deny,
I offer the limitless expanse of the sky.
To those who need to cut, slash, or burn,
I remind you of the invincibility of Spring.
To those who cling and grasp,
I promise more abundance than you could ever hold onto.
To those who vent their rage on small children,
I return to you your deepest innocence.
To those who must frighten into submission,
I hold you in the bosom of your original mother.
To those who cause agony to others,
I give the gift of free flowing tears.
To those that deny another's right to be,
I remind you that the angels sang in celebration of you on the day of your
birth.
To those who see only division and separateness,
I remind you that a part is born only by bisecting a whole.
For those who have forgotten the tender mercy of a mother's embrace,
I send a gentle breeze to caress your brow.
To those who still feel somehow incomplete,
I offer the perfect sanctity of this very moment.

Posted by Edd at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As some may recall from their bible studies, today is the Feast of St Stephen, the first martyr according to Catholic tradition.
Thinking of this brought to mind the secular martyr, John Lennon, and his song, Happy Christmas (War Is Over). He wrote that song during another war - the one in Vietnam. That year was 1971 and it felt as if the war would never end. John and Yoko bought space on billboards that said ‘The War Is Over! If You Want It”. Later he wrote a Christmas song asserting those same sentiments.
Perhaps it's time to resurrect those billboards.

And so Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one without any fear

You can hear the song with photos and videos from the recording session here.

Posted by Edd at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

t4c (formerly known as think4change) is back in action after a few weeks’ hiatus. We have changed the name of this HigherPortal blog to avoid confusion between this one and a new one soon to be publishing regularly by The Whitman Institute. During the time this site was in quiet mode, I have been working on that new blog which will be up and running within the next week or so. In the meantime I’ve been thinking…

Continue reading "We’re Back" »

Posted by Edd at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lots of silicon will be etched today on the anniversary of 9-11, so no need for us to do that here. It may be a good thing to take a minute and reflect on the fact that there was not one tragedy involving three thousand individuals that day, but three thousand individual tragedies all happening simultaneously. And while we are doing that, it may not hurt to reflect for a moment more on the many thousands more individual tragedies that have occurred in response.

Posted by Edd at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Parenting is one of the few human activities in which one human being can control the behavior of another human being without having to demonstrate any skill or proficiency whatsoever. Our society regulates beautician and taxidermists, but not parents. It may be a bit if a stretch to have people take a number like they do at the DMV for their driving test, to demonstrate their ability to be parents before the fact, but at least we might, as a society, set some minimum standards of parental behavior, like outlawing assault and battery. Here is a case in point from Cincinnati, where a former city official beat his 14 year-old son with a belt. A judge ruled that he committed no crime. It certainly begs the question just where is the line? Details here.

Posted by Edd at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By: Edd Conboy

What are the elements that comprise great work? There are many (teamwork, a sense of urgency, the right tools and so forth), but I want to focus on three such elements that I believe are fundamental at least at the level of the individual. The three are: a great idea wedded to curiosity, a great design wedded to relentlessness, and a great eye for detail that is divorced from the constraints of perfectionism. A more succinct way of saying this might be that three crucial elements of great work involve: creative imagination, constant learning and critical thinking.

Continue reading "What Makes for Great Work?" »

Posted by Edd at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Noted graphic designer, Michael Bierut, weighs in on the controversy surrounding “Kaavya Viswanathan, a Harvard undergraduate who landed a two-book deal for $500,000 from Little, Brown while still in high school…” and was later found to have plagiarized passages of her book from another popular author.

Mr. Bierut describes a poster he designed that had an uncanny resemblance to one he saw thirty years before. Did he steal it? Fascinating questions emerge: who owns this idea? how do I know that this thought is really mine?

Check his posting (and poster) out here.

Posted by Edd at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rarely can we find a simpler way to make fools of ourselves than to predict so far into the future that we are just doomed to be proved wrong. And no better place to do that than in a blog that others can read, and then remind us of when the bill comes due. So in that spirit, and with that expectation, here is my take on the future political scene.

Continue reading "Reading Tea Leaves: The ’08 Election" »

Posted by Edd at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The public service announcement on the radio said that the movie, Loose Change, a film about 9-11 would begin at 7 pm at the Grand Lake Theater. Fool that I am, I believed that announcement.

It must be that I have been out of the loop for a while. Away from all the various progressive assemblages. It is now 7:20. And just like days of old – those pre-digital, pre SurroundSound, pre THX, someone went to the front of this massive theater sans microphone, and said two decibels lower than audible… something. I couldn’t quite make it out. And right on cue a number of those in attendance shouted out, “I can’t hear you!” Then he left. Of course he had no need for a microphone; everyone knew what he said. He was letting us know that the film would in fact not be starting at 7 pm.

It is now 7:25. I must have missed the next cue because the chanting began, and the clapping…

Ah, the film might actually begin. No. Not yet. First we will have a few speakers…
More later.

Posted by Edd at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Came across this piece, Dispatch 2.0 that I wrote just as the war was beginning. I was staying with friends in the Midlands of England when the war broke out and watched the bombing of Baghdad on TV there. When I returned home and began to speak with friends about it, I realized that we had seen two entirely different events.

Posted by Edd at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From time to time we will create some space to look at religion in America – how it is being expressed in the public square, and how it is being used or misused by various political persuasions. The editorial bias here (that hopefully will shift with more education!) is that religion and religious expression has become the exclusive prevue of the political right over the last thirty years.

While there was a decidedly secular quality to the Civil Rights Movement, and to the early sit-ins and the bus boycott, it is easy for some of us to forget that the impact of this movement as a potent political force in this country was due largely to a progressive coalition of Christian denominations (along with a number of secular folks as well).

Also, it is easy to forget that many priests, rabbis and ministers were in the forefront of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam Era, and that their churches and synagogues were touchstones for those protesting in the streets.

Those were heady times – times full of controversy and questions about war and peace, about environmental justice, racism and stuff like that. Nowadays, we have conservative religious leaders dealing with issues as noteworthy as altar girls at a Catholic Mass. We have come a long way - not.

So, with that mildly depressing send up, here is a link to a well-written piece by one “Maura in VA” about altar girls in Alexandria and also about something even more compelling – about being both a progressive and a practicing Catholic in one of the most conservative diocese in the country.

Again a good read here.

Posted by Edd at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Not sure how to think about this. Maybe some of you out in the blogosphere can help me think through this ethical "mindfield".

Here is the situation:

I am on the board of a biotech firm that develops a vaccine for bird flu.
I leave that position to return to government service (at a very high level) where I have a voice in how our government responds to this possible pandemic including whether or not to stockpile vaccine, and perhaps any plans to ration that vaccine.
I retain a significant number of shares in the company I left.
I sell some of those shares after several years reaping a capital gain of $5 million still keeping a large number of shares (about $25 million).
The stock price in that company has soared in the past year, so that position has improved significantly.
By the very nature of my position, I still can have an indirect influence on government policy about purchasing these vaccines, even though I recuse myself from “participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect [my] financial interest [in the company]".

Here are a few questions for you to help address my situation (feel free to add your own):

When I decided to enter into government service, should I have placed all such assets in a blind trust to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest?

If there is an outbreak of bird flu such that I receive an unimaginably larger windfall from my investment in the company, should I keep those profits, or should I give them to charitable organizations that are chartered with serving those who might have been harmed by this epidemic? Or is it just a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and willing to risk capital to garner reward?

Here are a few questions for you, the readers:

Does it matter how much wealth I have not counting my holdings in this company?
Does it matter what my name is?

Here is a link to the article that stirred this inquiry.

Posted by Edd at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The other day I happened to see a brief news clip of President Bush coming out of the helicopter, Marine One. It was a scene we have see many times. He walked down the steps with his small dog in left hand. With his other hand he returns the salute of the Marine standing next to the steps. This seemingly small gesture caused me to think about how little things can amplify over time – especially when performed by a Chief Executive.

Yet this action is actually no small thing. It is an essential element in the everyday lives of those in the military, a vital part of the military tradition. And it is especially troubling to see our elected federal officials violate that tradition and return salutes. Again s small thing, one might say, but often it is these small things that take on greater import as time goes by.

No one knows where this greeting between two persons in uniform began. Some say it came from the days of chivalry when knights would lift their visors to show their faces, and thereby show that they were friend, rather than foe. And they raised their visors with their right hands, the same as the modern day salute. Others believe it came from the French or the English servicemen. They salute with their palms outward – probably to show that they are unarmed.

The important point here is that saluting is done between two uniformed personnel – usually between an officer and an enlisted person, or between two officers of different rank. Soldiers do salute civilians in certain circumstances, but the civilian should not return that salute because… well because the civilian is not in uniform. Seems simple enough. Worked for a long time in this country… until Ronald Reagan took office, that is. That’s when the lines began to get a bit blurry.

Could it be that President Reagan, following on the heels of Jimmy Carter, a distinguished naval officer, needed to “butch up” his image? Perhaps it was to downplay his own military service in Hollywood during the war. Not sure. But for some reason he began to return salutes from soldiers when he walked by.

And unfortunately, presidents have been doing it ever since. Republican, Democrat, don’t make no never mind. Even Bush I started saluting when he took office. Remember when Clinton, who enjoyed a well-publiczed deferment after college and had no experience with matters military, was ridiculed because he did not have a snappy salute when he first came to office? My sense is he practiced in front of the mirror for a while. It sure got snappy by the end of his second term.

Now we come to Bush II, and we begin to see the salute-creep wend its way into every day presidential behavior. Mr. Bush, as we all know, protected the good people of Texas flying patrols as a reservist. No dishonor there. (Although we also all know that he seemed to have ended his military career in some rather unique ways – the record being sketchy at best. No more on that. He served, and if there is a skunk in the woodpile, no one has managed to pull it out.)

But then as my gestalt friends say, one thing leads to another. After four presidents in succession breaking with tradition in a seemingly small way, the current occupant of the Oval Office has stretched it further and in some troubling ways.

Much was made at the time (and for a short time) of the aircraft carrier “Mission Accomplished” photo op several years back at which Mr. Bush wore a pilot jumpsuit that came very close to looking like a military uniform. Too close for my comfort, anyway. But that did not bother me nearly as much as what I saw stenciled on the plane behind him. There it was “George Bush” on the first line right below the canopy, and “Commander-in-Chief” just below that.

That got me to thinking about the importance of small symbols, of the every day rituals designed to reinforce identity, to acknowledge power, as well as to accept limits to that power.

“Commander-in-Chief” is not a rank in our military. It is a civilian designation for the elected leader of the republic. Why is this important?
Because here is how it had worked before 1980:
There is a civilian in charge of the military, who could demand the resignation of even a five star general. He usually wore a suit. He did not return salutes. Think Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman…

This is how is has worked since 1980:
There is a civilian in charge of the military. He defers a fair amount to the military, even to the point of having a young Marine officer pretty much run amok in Central America. He returns salutes.
Then we have a civilian in charge of the military who pretty much maintains the same tenor as his predecessor. He also salutes.
Next, we have a civilian in charge of the military who is clearly uncomfortable around such men and women, at least initially. He could order his generals and admirals to end discrimination in the ranks, but chooses not to and accepts half a loaf. He also salutes.
Finally, we have a blended character – at times he seems like a civilian businessman. Then there are other times when he seems to be wearing a uniform. He seems to defer completely to the military, saying that they can have whatever they want. (We have come a long way from Lincoln’s day.) His salute has been snappy since his first day in office.

As the saying goes, the military does two things extremely well – they break things and kill people. They, of course, do more than that, but they are trained to do those two things at the behest of their civilian masters. And there is no miltary in histiry that could do it with greater skill and might than this one. And we have a republic that survives because of three essential characteristics: a (relatively) independent judiciary, a (relatively) representative legislature, and a military completely under civilian authority. If any leg of this tripod that supports our freedom is missing, then there goes the neighborhood.

The president of the United States is not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States; he (or she) is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States – a big difference.

And it all started with a salute.

Posted by Edd at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Feeling safe” is a thought.
Am I safe? Is this airport secure? Is this person next to me a threat?
All of these are thoughts, and unfortunately they are thoughts that all too many of us have been having all too frequently these days.

Although I am getting more and more intolerant of the constant 9-11 reference that seems to be in most political speeches and pieces of writing, I will make just one here. When flights resumed the week after, I was on one of the first flights leaving Philadelphia heading back to San Francisco. There were about a dozen of us on that flight. The entire flight crew was on the jetway (minus the co-pilot who was pulling levers and switching switches in the cockpit). They shook our hands and thanked each of us personally for flying. I “felt” safe.

And then I began to fly regularly again across country. The flights were not quite as empty after that, but it took a while for them to fill up. One thing I noticed, though, was that every time I boarded a plane, I found myself looking around at the passengers, especially the men. How fit are they? Do they appear strong enough to overpower someone on the plane? Are they sitting on the aisle, or near the window? Lots of these questions came to mind.

One day I was speaking with a friend, a woman, who also travels regularly. She said that she noticed the same thing. She would scan the plane for men who seemed strong and maybe even tough. And then she would find herself worrying the whole time that maybe some of these men might try to overpower the flight crew and take over the plane.

I told her I did the same sort of scan, only for me it was a matter of looking for who I could count on if something happened. And as often as not, I found those same men looking at me, and giving a quick nod, as if to say, I know where you are in case I need help. She responded, I never thought of it that way.

Two inquiries that seem the same on the surface, yet led to completely different ways of thinking.

To me thinking about security is different than feeling safe. I “feel safe” in airplanes because I know that they are designed to fly and that it takes extraordinary effort to keep them from flying. Planes don’t fall out of the sky. I “feel at risk” when I am alone walking in a darkened part of a strange city because predators very often do come out of the shadows. In the dark alley scenario “likelihood” becomes an intervening thought that can generate an emotion (like fear) that can lead to effective action (like running). In the flying scenario the “likelihood” intervening thought can generate an emotion (like boredom) that can lead to an effective action (like adjusting the volume on my CD player).

Extrapolating this kind of thinking/feeling disconnect to more global situations we can begin to see just how ineffective many of the government’s security procedures and initiatives actually are. And it may well be that the highly controversial data mining protocols that the NSA is apparently using may be the most ineffective of them all. Not only because they take so many much needed human resources off-line, but also because they just flat out don’t work.

Bruce Schneier, in a recent article originally in Wired magazine, Data Mining for Terrorists, presents one of the most cogent explanations for why this won’t work as a deterrent to terrorism, and why it may actually increase the likelihood of another attack. It is well worth a read.

I recall once hearing an interview with a terrorist expert in the UK (back when it was “their problem”). He said something that is probably more important today than when he first mentioned it. He said, When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, the first thing you have to do is create the smallest possible haystack.

This leads me to my final question here: If we have leaders who are becoming more paranoid each day – as they appear to be - can these very thoughts (e.g., danger is everywhere”) generate emotions (e.g. panic, feeling very vulnerable, etc) that lead to ineffective actions (creating larger needlestacks instead of smaller haystacks)? Obviously, I think the answer is yes.

We humans can “feel safe” in a dangerous world. We have been doing it since we showed up on the planet and began to think.

Posted by Edd at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)