Too Much Information . . . .

According to family lore our ancestor, John Malcolm Andrews came to Northern Ireland from Stirling, in Scotland early in the 1700s. He settled to the west of Belfast near Andersonstown and worked in the linen industry. Most of those Scottish immigrants were Presbyterian and they suffered the same discrimination as their Catholic neighbors because they were not members of the "established" Church of Ireland. In fact, many Ulster Presbyterians joined with Catholic Irish to form the United Irishmen and were leaders in the 1798 rebellion. That uprising, like so many Irish rebellions failed. Again, family gossip whispers that one almost forgotten ancestor was hanged as a rebel near Carrickfergus. The "respectable" side of the family stayed close to west Belfast and the linen industry. The 1911 Census of Ireland tells the story of the end of one branch the Andrews family line. This heir had no sons and the Andrews name ended when his six daughters married or died.

(Larger version: http://picasaweb.google.com/plummerspixels/PlummersPixels?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7Wpdygp6OvUA#5404859596594892370 )

On the evening of Sunday, April 2, 1911 Malcolm Andrews, his second wife Jane, and two of his unmarried daughters were at home in Braemar Street, Belfast. Georgina, his third unmarried daughter was visiting her married twin-sister Elizabeth Scott for the night. She is recorded on that family's census form. His other two married daughters Margaret Shanks and Mary Glencross are listed with their families under their married names. Those census forms tell more than who lived where that night almost 100 years ago. That census also records the jobs they held. John Malcolm Andrews' descendents were still tied to the linen industry in 1911. According to the form my grandmother Sarah was a linen weaver. Aunt Georgie was a damask weaver. Aunt Edie was a machinist (she was a "spoke stitcher"), and the majority of Aunt Mary's family also worked in the linen mills. That's not too surprising as almost ten percent of Belfast's population was engaged in the textile industry, people didn't venture too far from home and very, very few had the opportunity to advance from manual labor to a profession.

Those old census forms also show that some things don't change. Great grandfather Malcolm recorded his daughters' jobs simply as Weaver and Machinist. He also recorded that his wife was 62 years old. It took bureaucracy, in the form of Constable Robert Lynch to provide the additional information that Sarah was a linen weaver and Edith was a blouse machinist. And, I am sure that Constable Lynch received a frosty farewell from Great grandma Jane and a cold welcome thereafter when he changed her age from 62 to 65.

Learning to love The Bomb

For the past few days we have been bombarded by a revelation from our “intelligence” agency that Iran has another facility that can be used to develop a nuclear weapon. As expected, Iran has denied this facility has aggressive intents and claiming is has only peaceful purposes. Coupled with this denial is an almost schoolboy attitude from Teheran suggesting, “So what; we’re a free country; you can’t tell us what to do”. On the other side we have “experts” suggesting that a military option to destroy this facility might be a reasonable response to this “provocation”. Coming from nations who already have nuclear weapons our schoolboys are in effect saying, “You are not like us. We can be trusted with this power – you can’t.” Some older folks with long memories might find certain hypocrisy in this position.

There is a very good reason why we call nuclear bombs “weapons of mass destruction”. Other military actions can kill more people (for example, mass firebombing a city) but a nuclear bomb concentrates that force in a single package. A few such bombs can change the course of history. A few bombs change the way nations must treat each other. We see this in the relations between the West and Russia during the 50 years of “Cold War”. We see it in the delicate relations between India and Pakistan even in the face of the recent massacre in Mumbai by terrorists based in Pakistan. At the heart of this delicacy is a belief that nuclear weapons bring the potential for Mutual Assured Destruction – if you destroy me then rest assured that I will also destroy you.

We conveniently forget that Israel already has The Bomb. Israel neither admits nor denies that it has nuclear weapons but their possession is a generally regarded “public secret”. The US has declassified documents indicating it was convinced Israel had nuclear weapons as early as 1975. There are no public records stating how many warheads Israel has now but it is likely to be a significant number. Israel also has a viable delivery system. The Israeli air force is justifiably considered one of the best in the world. Dropping a nuclear bomb in the general vicinity of Teheran, Qom, Shiraz or any other large Iranian town is definitely within their capabilities. I have no doubt that this simple fact has not escaped the attention of Iran’s president, its religious leaders and the majority of its people.

It was widely reported that Nikita Khrushchev threatened to “bury the US”. We cleverly recognized this as hyperbole and continued diplomatic relations with the Russian Premier. We seem incapable of recognizing hyperbole in speeches by Middle Eastern leaders. This is unfortunate because hyperbole is common in those cultures – surely we have not forgotten the “mother of all battles”?

Is Iran seeking a bomb? I expect it is; not because it wants to obliterate Israel but because they probably believe it will bring a level of security and new respect. Both of these are likely to be illusory but if the only policy we have is to isolate Iran then it is not too surprising that they continue act like defiant schoolboys. As for Israel’s security, perhaps they need to recall a key concept from the movie Dr. Strangelove. The whole point - of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret! WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD?!

Pandora's Box - 2009

In Greek mythology we are told that Zeus gave Pandora a large jar with instructions not to open it. But, Pandora had also been given the gift of curiosity. Pandora opened the jar. When she did, all of the evils, ills, diseases, and burdensome labor that mankind had not known previously, escaped from the jar. No one has ever been able to put those afflictions back in the box. As I listen to the disclosures about the torture and interrogation techniques that my government has done in my name, supposedly to keep me safe, I am reminded of the story of Pandora.

Since records began they tell the appalling story of torture. A tour of the Tower of London is incomplete without an inspection of the instruments used in Medieval England to obtain information. Similar establishments can be visited in most European capitals and the Spanish Inquisition is synonymous with use of horrific techniques to encourage reluctant suspects to confirm their accusers’ suspicions – regardless of the veracity of those suspicions. For a time, it seemed that human civilization might be advancing because many states, USA included, denounced the use of torture. This hope was reinforced when State sponsored oppression by those of the Gestapo and the Kempi Tai were tried for war crimes after World War II. But the belief that torture is an effective technique in getting information seems impossible to rebut. Torture was as widespread among the right-wing regimes in South America as it was among the left wing governments in Eastern Europe. Now, the contagion has spread into the policies of our democracy.

Of course, we Americans don’t torture. We secure prisoners in “stress positions” – maybe like those in the engraving here that I copied from an early 18th century book on Christian martyrs. We “simulate” drowning and threaten prisoners’ mothers or children. We do this all in the name of protecting democracy, freedom of speech and the American dream. But does it bring any security?

Torture is often justified by the “ticking bomb” scenario. This supposes that the authorities know that a prisoner possesses information that can save large numbers of innocent people from imminent destruction. This is the ultimate “end justifies the means” situation: a situation that can be used by every petty bureaucrat (and even our recent Vice President.) It is also a justification that can turn torture into a normal and accepted procedure. We now face a real danger that bureaucrats will see torture as just another interrogation technique to be routinely used to make sure that “nothing is missed”. It could even lead to a situation where bureaucrats who fail to order torture might be accused of failing to use all reasonable methods to safeguard the public.

There was one good gift in Pandora's Box - hope. I hope we might have a way to banish the evil of torture from our nation. That way is to repudiate the evil that has been done in our name and to deny that the “end can ever justify the means” especially when those means are the antithesis of everything we hold valuable. We need to apply the same legal standards to those who participated in these violations of civilized behavior as we did in 1945. We need to guarantee that authorizing or using torture will end the career of ay bureaucrat who even considers it.

Granddaughters

During the past four years we have watched our grandson grow from a tiny baby into an inquisitive, intelligent and confident little boy. Almost a year ago his sister came into the world and again we watched in amazement as a totally different character formed. Then, just three months ago, we were blessed with another granddaughter. Daphne lives closer so we can marvel at the almost daily development of her little personality. Maybe the presence of these young ladies in my life has made me more sensitive to reports of violence against women. Whatever the reason, these reports are a common theme recently.

The first report to catch my ear was on the radio as I was driving to work. The commentator explained that current economic turmoil is increasing the stresses inside many US families. A sign of this stress is an increase in the number of reports of domestic violence and assaults against women. The second nudge was from a totally different source – a photography magazine. There is a reference to Joyce Tenneson in the current issue of Shutterbug. It is illustrated by some posters from her portraits each with the slogan, “When violence against women stops, I will . . . . . .” The subjects’ hopes are usually something most men take for granted, like “I will be able to walk alone”. The latest nudge was a television program about the Taliban restrictions on women in Pakistan. Two little girls showed their school – or rather what remained of their school after those “students of religious knowledge” destroyed it. The father of one girl observed that the goal of this destruction was to chain his daughter’s mind. That statement seared my consciousness because just a few days earlier I took this photograph of one of my favorite bookworms. She may be sitting on the ground but there are no chains on her mind or imagination. They are off with the story in that book. She is flying totally free from the grey world around.

Sadly, even in the USA not everything is wonderful. This bookworm and my granddaughters will face dangers close to home as they get older. It is estimated that domestic partners assault between 2 million and 4 million US women every year. About 25 percent of the female population will be abused in their lifetime. Violence against women is a serious crime in most countries. Yet even in the US there is a perverted belief in some circles that it can be acceptable and even understandable male behavior. I don’t have an answer to that stupidity except more education – especially fathers educating their sons that violence towards women is always a sign of an impotent coward. Maybe we also need to add a dose of public ridicule to the criminal punishment of abusers. The fear of ridicule by one’s friends and neighbors is a great deterrent and a powerful force for changing male conduct. Ridicule might even highlight the moral bankruptcy of the Taliban and lead to faster changes in their behavior than current political policies (which only seem to bring them more recruits).

I also admit I just do not understand how any person who beats women can claim to be a “man”. It is certainly not Christian conduct. Regardless of religion, at a fundamental level, it is simply uncivilized. Maybe that is the answer. Those who abuse women are just not civilized and certainly not honorable. I have no difficulty accepting that description for the Taliban. Honesty also forces me to accept the same description for many of my countrymen. That realization means I, and anyone else reading this, must always be vigilant to make sure all our daughters and granddaughters can grow in freedom so that violence is never a part of their lives.

Changing attitudes – or just changing words??

I always enjoy going to church at Christmastime. The familiar Bible stories bring a lump to my throat and I love to sing the carols that I learnt when I was a child. Nobody has ever accused me of being a tuneful singer but that doesn’t stop me from belting out those familiar words – and therein lies a problem. Those familiar words just aren’t familiar any longer. The language in some of my favorite hymns has been rendered “gender neutral”. Last Sunday, we sang that old favorite “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”. I haven’t needed to refer to a hymnal for those words since I was about eight years old. So, there I was, singing “pleased as man with man to dwell” while the choir and most of the congregation sang “pleased with us in flesh to dwell”. At least we both agreed that Jesus was “our Emmanuel”.

Another of my favorite hymns is the old Irish classic, “Be Thou my Vision”. Again, I learnt the words of that hymn many, many years ago and in today’s material world the original phrase “Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise” always make me stop and think about the motivation for my actions. Nowadays, the hymnal reads, “Riches I heed not, nor vain empty praise”. Removing the focus from the source of that empty praise has, in my humble opinion, dramatically weakened that stanza – and the struggle for the right motive for service.

As I formulated my usual silent tirade about people who see problems where none exist and change what is not broken I started to wonder if maybe I was the one who was insensitive. Are there women who see mainstream Christianity as inherently sexist, dominated by the masculine gender and discriminating against anything feminine? Is my attitude to these changes an example that “I don’t get it?” If so, maybe I am equally insensitive to other forms of discrimination. I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I am over 6 foot 3 inches tall. I was blessed with reasonable intelligence, was brought up by loving parents, went to collage, got married and have been reasonably successful in careers. All these attributes and experiences must tinge my attitudes. Can I really understand the situation of people of color, short people, Roman Catholics in Ireland, those without education or a job? There are lots of “shoes” I have not walked in and I suppose lots of attitudes and opinions that I don't (or can’t?) really understand.

So, as 2009 starts, my first resolution is to try not to react when change comes - especially to those things I consider should be carved in stone. I admit that I will have a hard time un-learning some of that "sexist" language in those old hymns. But, if any of my readers suspect that maybe my opinions or attitude in other areas might also be due for a change, just drop a gentle hint into the conversation – maybe a code word - like “Luddite”