Thursday, August 23, 2012

Campaign Slime

            The 2012 presidential campaign is in full bloom.  Hooray for us!  Actually, the fun began from both sides more than a few months ago when it became apparent that Mitt Romney would be the Republican candidate choice:  the name calling, the contrived scandals, the personality attacks, the placing of personal blame for world poverty and global warming.  We no longer wait until after the conventions for the ink to splatter against the wall.  Now we know months beforehand whose seats will be the dunking cage targets.  I think it is safe to say that the name-calling began right after the last election, and now a catch-up game is being played on Romney’s behalf.  The same amount of invective name calling spews from both parties.  Both are just as guilty.  Even at its best, a presidential campaign is covered with a thick film of sludge.

It might be worthwhile to remind ourselves that negative campaigning is not a new phenomenon.  Political mud has been slung for hundreds of years.  To perhaps gain a better perspective, let’s take a look at past mud fights, starting with our more recent history, working our way back in time:

During the 2004 George W. Bush vs. John Kerry campaign, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" produced a commercial, "Any Questions?" (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/any-questions/) which cast doubt on Kerry’s Viet Nam War experience claims.  “He is lying about his record.”  “John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star.”  “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.”

Also in that 2004 campaign, the subject of gay marriage was brought up at one of the debates.  Kerry raised the issue of the sexual orientation of one of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughters.  He thought he was making a point to criticize the Bush administration, but it backfired and the reaction was furious.  The outrage that Kerry would bring up a family member was so harsh that it led to him sinking in the polls.

George H. W. Bush’s campaign in 1988 used what is referred to as “The Revolving Door” commercial against Michael Dukakis (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988).  While Governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis had supported a prison furlough program under which a murderer was released who committed a rape and an assault after being furloughed.  In the commercial, which follows prison guards, the announcer states, "His revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first-degree murderers not eligible for parole."  Then a revolving door formed by bars rotates as men in prison clothing walk in and back out the door in a long line.  "While out, many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape."  "And many are still at large."  "Now Michael Dukakis says he wants to do for America what he's done for Massachusetts."

In September 1964, Lyndon Johnson’s campaign ran a television commercial (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy), what is referred to as:  "Peace, Little Girl/Daisy," to make a point about his opponent, Barry Goldwater.  From watching it, it seems that the point was that a vote for Barry Goldwater was a vote for nuclear annihilation.  A cute little girl plucks petals from a daisy while counting from one to nine, messing up her numbers a bit as she does so; a male announcer counts down from ten.  At zero, a nuclear blast fills the screen, and Johnson speaks:  "These are the stakes–to make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark.  We must either love each other, or we must die."  This ad was so incendiary (no pun intended) and controversial, it was only aired once.

1912 must have been a fun year with its four-way contest between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Eugene V. Debs.  Taft called the previous president, the third-party candidate Theodore Roosevelt, a “dangerous egotist” and a “demagogue.”  Roosevelt called his formerly hand-picked successor (Taft) a “fathead” with the brain of a “guinea pig” and a “flubdub with a streak of the second rate and the common in him.”  Wilson labeled Roosevelt “the most dangerous man of the age.”  Roosevelt countered that Wilson was “a damned presbyterian hypocrite and a Byzantine logothete,” “an infernal skunk in the White House.”

During the 1884 race between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine, Cleveland was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, which led Blaine supporters to chant what became a national slogan: “Ma, Ma, Where’s My Pa?”  After Cleveland won the election, his supporters answered: “Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!”  A Presbyterian minister, spoke at a gathering of pro-Blaine clergy in New York City just days before the election: “We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been Rum, Romanism, and Rebellions.”  Accusations of Blaine’s corruption, as well as charges of his own sexual scandals, also dominated the debate.  At campaign rallies, Democrats chanted, “Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blaine! The continental liar from the state of Maine!”

In the 1872 election between Ulysses S. Grant and Horace Greeley, a pamphlet was circulated by Greeley’s supporters calling the Grant Administration the “crowning point of governmental wickedness” and accused Grant of bringing forth a “burning lava of seething corruption, a foul despotism….”

In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln was mocked as being "ape-like" for his tall stature and Kentucky twang.

Stephen Douglas called Abraham Lincoln, “You hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer.”  (Nutmeg dealers were frequently accused of selling fake nutmeg and got the reputation of being frauds.)

In the 1828 race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Adams supporters published a series of "Coffin Handbills" in which Jackson was called an adulterer, his mother a prostitute, his wife an adulturess, and stated that Jackson had executed deserters during the War of 1812 and The Creek War.

The campaign of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was a particularly nasty one:

 Jefferson was accused of being a misogynist and of having an affair with a black lady (which would have been quite a scandal at the time and which, it turns out, was true).

Fliers pictured Adams as “a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who wants to start a war with France while he’s not busy importing mistresses from Europe he’s trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George.  Haven’t we had enough monarchy in America?”

From Thomas Jefferson:  “John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

“Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes.”  (Adams re Jefferson)

“Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated?  Children writhing on the pike?” (Adams re Jefferson)

“Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on hoe-cakes.”  “Hamilton is a Creole bastard brat of a Scotch peddler.” (Again from Adams)

            As we can see, compared to the past, modern-day mudslinging is more like throwing buckets of water slightly tinged with the color of dreck.

            I guess we should be pleased with ourselves that our politicians and their supporters have come so far in elevating the quality of their invectives.  I guess.



            Until the next time, LLAP!



References







 

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Turban

            After the Sikh massacre by a white supremacist in Wisconsin which resulted in the death of six and injuring of four, I was more than a bit disturbed with comments made by callers to talk radio.  The recurring thoughts expressed by these callers reflected an ambivalence because “the Sikhs are so different” from us (whomever that assumed “us” might be).  The Amish conduct an atypical way of life and dress unlike most of us, but yet we all were horrified by the 2006 massacre in Pennsylvania.  So why this apparent ambivalence towards the Sikhs?  Shauna Singh Baldwin, in her August 11th column for CNN News quoted a young man:

"They're saying we're an obscure religion. How can 23 million people be obscure?"

          The word “Sikh” comes from the Sanskrit shishya for “learner” or “disciple” or “seeker of truth,” and Sikhs consider themselves life-long students.  Due to the religious requirement that they refrain from cutting their hair, turbans are worn to cover their long hair.

            Sikhism is a religion which originated in the Punjab region of India.  It goes back to the 15th Century, when Guru Nanak expressed the vision that humanity is one, rejecting social inequalities, caste hierarchies, gender discrimination, and religious persecution.  Nanak called for devotion to the One Divine, justice and equality, and a commitment to divinely-inspired service. He taught that each person has the potential to develop his or her own relationship with the Divine.  When a Sikh leader was beheaded for defending the right of all communities to freely practice religion, his head was brought to his son who asked if there were any Sikhs in the crowd to stand up to the injustice.  He declared that from thence on, the Sikhs would never hide.

That son grew up to be the next Sikh leader, and he formalized the standard identity. He gave Sikhs their articles of faith, and declared that the lasting teacher would be the sacred scriptures, their religious text called “Guru Granth Sahib.”  All were required to drop their surnames to avoid any reference to social status and embrace a shared surname: women adopted the last name "Kaur" and men took the last name "Singh."  Sikhism integrates Hindu ideas about karma with Muslim monotheism, and their scriptures include writings from the gurus, along with testimony from Muslim and Hindu prophets.

        Sikhs have 5 symbols known as the Five Ks: 

Kanga:  a special comb that represents cleanliness.

Kesh:  uncut hair which symbolizes spiritual power.  All practicing Sikhs wear the turban out of love and as a mark of commitment to the faith.

Kirpan:  a religious sword that encapsulates an initiated Sikh’s solemn obligation of courage and self-defense. It denotes dignity and self-reliance, the capacity and readiness to always defend the weak and the oppressed.  It is symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on an individual as well as social level.  Some people a necklace which has a miniature kirpan on it.

Kachera:  an undergarment which is a reminder of the need for self-restrain over passions and desires.

Kara:  a bracelet which is a reminder that he or she is a servant of the Guru and should not do anything that may bring shame or disgrace. It is round and seamless, the sign of eternity.  God is one and has no end.

The Sikh legacy infuses the turban with deep meaning.  It embodies a commitment to devotion, honor, and service to all. Sikhs are the only community for whom the turban is religious, and nearly every person who wears the turban in the United States. is Sikh.

            The Khanda is the symbol of the Sikhs and reflects some of the fundamental concepts of Sikhism. (see http://www.sikh-studies.co.uk/khanda.htm)  The symbol derives its name from the double-edged sword which appears at the center of the logo and is a metaphor of Divine Knowledge, its sharp edges cleaving Truth from Falsehood.  The circle is the Chakar, a circle without a beginning or an end symbolizing the perfection of God who is eternal.  The Chakar is surrounded by two curved swords called Kirpans, which symbolize the twin concepts of Temporal and Spiritual authority.  They stress the equal emphasis that a Sikh must place on spiritual aspirations as well as obligations to society.

Through the 18th century, Sikhs were captured, tortured and executed before giving up their turbans or their faith.  The Sikh ideal became the warrior-saint: to live a life devoted to God and fiercely committed to fighting injustice in all forms.  Through the centuries, thousands of Sikhs died fighting alongside people of many faiths against political oppression.  When India was conquered by the British, Sikhs joined fellow Hindus and Muslims to fight for independence.  In recent history, Sikhs have continued to struggle for rights in India, and many Sikhs fled religious persecution in the 1980s to settle in the United States.

One of the fundamental ideas of Sikhism is the idea that all people are equal, regardless to race, class, creed, or cultural origin. Sikhs also believe that they have a duty to protect people who are poor or in need, whether or not they are fellow Sikhs.  The saint-soldier precept of Sikhism states that Sikhs should devote their lives to prayer, contemplation, and modest living, but that they should also be prepared to fight or even lay down their lives for those in need.  As a result, many Sikhs have military training, and they are in fact heavily represented in the Indian military.  They are also directed to integrate charity and service into their lives and they practice tolerance and love for all mankind, praying for all mankind as part of their daily prayers.

Sikhs belong to the fifth-largest organized religion in the world and are more than half a million strong in the United States.  However, Sikhs continue to encounter racism and religious bigotry.  In the aftermath of 9/11, Sikhs have been bullied in schools, profiled at airports, barred from workplaces like the military, and targeted in hate violence.

Sikhs do not proselytize, but their temples are open to all, and they are happy to talk to curious people about their religious faith.  In communities with a large Sikh population, it is also common to see Sikhs active in various charity efforts, and many Sikh temples host regular vegetarian dinners which are open to the entire community.

Bigotry should be an anathema to us all, and massacre that arises out bigotry should leave us not only outraged with the loss of life and the aftermath, but also enraged with the injustice of executed judgment based on perverse perceptions.  No bigoted massacre should be considered “lesser” because of a lack of understanding of the victims.


         Until the next time, LLAP!


  



References



Thursday, August 9, 2012

In the Words of the Supremes

After the Supreme Court recent ruling with regard to Obamacare, I started to wonder about the Justices of the Supreme Court.  Who are these people . . . not, their educational or professional backgrounds.  That information is readily available on the Supreme Court website.  But who are they, really?

To clarify the basic job description: the Supreme Court is empowered by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (exact wording at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii/).  The Court consists of the Chief Justice and a number of Associate Justices determined by Congress.  That number is currently eight.  The President nominates the Justices, and appointments are confirmed by the Senate.

Briefly, the Court functions as the interpreter of the Constitution with the authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in its judgment, conflict with the Constitution.  The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction in cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.  The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.  Judicial Review assures individual rights and maintains a "living Constitution" whose provisions are continually applied to new situations.  When the Court rules on a Constitutional issue, its decision can be altered only by a Constitutional amendment or by a new Court ruling. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

            Again, though, who are these nine individuals that have such final authority and must be all things to all of “The People”?  I thought that we might learn more about who they are from their own words, so here are a few direct quotes.

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice – Took his seat in 2005; nominated by President George W. Bush.

         What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
         (Note: this was regarding gun possession.)

         The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
         discriminating on the basis of race.

         I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to
         determine when recusal is warranted.  They are jurists of
         exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness
         have been examined through a rigorous appointment and
         confirmation process.
             
         If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's
         going to win in court before me, ... But if the Constitution says that
         the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win.

If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration.


Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1986; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

         Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death
         sentence properly reached.

         There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes
         insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us
         all.

         A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?

Our task is to clarify the law -- not to muddy the waters, and not to exact overcompliance by intimidation. The States and the Federal Government are entitled to know before they act the standard to which they will be held, rather than be compelled to guess about the outcome of Supreme Court peek-a-boo.


Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1988; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

The case for freedom, the case for our constitutional principles the case for our heritage has to be made anew in each generation.  The work of freedom is never done.

When Congress alters the federal balance, it must carefully consider the consequences of doing so.

In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation
becomes the excuse.

The federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward.  By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences.  In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.

We can't just throw away our Constitution, can we?


Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1991; nominated by President George H. W. Bush.

The job of a judge is to figure out what the law says, not what he wants it to say. There is a difference between the role of a judge and that of a policy maker.... Judging requires a certain impartiality.

Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot.

Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country.  It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.

There is some misunderstanding.  We do not look any place.  We do not recruit.  We are passive.  We look at what comes to us.

Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country.  It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 1993; nominated by President William Clinton.

All respect for the office of the presidency aside, I assumed that the obvious and unadulterated decline of freedom and constitutional sovereignty, not to mention the efforts to curb the power of judicial review, spoke for itself.

When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, we hold, it is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight.

But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view.

Everyone on this court assumed that assisted suicide was a matter for
the states.

We live in an age in which the fundamental principles to which we subscribe -- liberty, equality and justice for all -- are encountering extraordinary challenges.  But it is also an age in which we can join hands with others who hold to those principles and face similar challenges.


Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1994; nominated by President William Clinton.

The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.

But the wonderful thing about human memory is, it forgets, ... And so you always have another chance.  People don't remember after a time. The computer remembers forever.  There it is: picture recorded.

Speed in reaching a final decision may help create legal certainty.

Consequences are highly relevant, ... Not just any consequences but consequences in light of a constitutional value. . . . You can be wooden and mechanical, and the price you'll pay is a law that won't fulfill the basic principles of the Constitution, which is to help people live together in a democratic society.

This [Texas] display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations.  That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive.


Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice – Took his seat in 2006; nominated by President George W. Bush.

There's been general agreement ... to support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency, when there is not time for Congress to react.

Private religious speech can't be discriminated against.  It has to be treated equally with secular speech.

If 'settled' means that it can't be re-examined, that's one thing.  If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect then it is a precedent that is protected.

One of the most solemn responsibilities of the president--and it's set out expressly in the Constitution--is that the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and that means the Constitution. It means statutes.  It means treaties.  It means all of the laws of the United States.

I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 2009; nominated by President Barack Obama.

I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart.  They don't determine the law.  Congress makes the law.  The job of a judge is to apply the law.

It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

We apply law to facts.  We don't apply feelings to facts.

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 2010; nominated by President Barack Obama.

I have no regrets.  I don't believe in looking back.  What I am proudest of?  Working really hard... and achieving as much as I could.

I've led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system.  And what I've learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom.  I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.

The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals.  But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter.

I think that if there are positions that you can't argue... then the responsibility is probably to resign.  If one's own conscience is opposed to the requirements and responsibilities of the job, then it's time to leave the job.

        Even though, ideally, the Justices are supposed to be apolitical, the reality is that we have been able to pretty much determine a Justice’s political leanings and sympathies at the very least by the party of the President making the appointment.  I am not so sure that is any longer a given.

Take what Elena Kagan said, nominated by President Obama, and therefore assumed, by past popular standards at least, to have Democrat leanings:

I do not espouse the unitarian position.  President Clinton's assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan's assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.

On the other side, we all know that Chief Justice Roberts, nominated by President Bush and therefore again of assumed Republican leanings, joined the liberal wing in upholding Obamacare.


            Most decisions made by the Supreme Court have ramifications that affect the lives of millions for generations.  How does one, how can one, consistently maintain the levels of moral responsibility and integrity required for such a job?

If presented with the opportunity, I would ask each member of the Supreme Court “Since they are completely two different concepts and practices, how do you reconcile the moral responsibility of justice with the written precepts of the law?”

Until the next time, LLAP!



References:

Thursday, August 2, 2012

LIMITS

Recently, a San Francisco radio host interviewed Brooklyn Federal District Court Judge Frederic Block who was plugging his memoir.  During the course of the interview, the current mandatory prison sentences for viewing child pornography were discussed.  In the judge’s opinion, the act of viewing child pornography did not warrant the mandated minimum of five years in prison, and he added that other judges were of the same thought.

You cannot imagine how incensed I became.  The hideous fact is that those who view child pornography are willing participants in the continued assault of the victim.  How have we de-evolved to the point where the judiciary considers such willing participation to be a lesser crime?  They claim that viewing child pornography, while reprehensible, does not guarantee actual physical contact or even attempted physical contact with a child in the future.  I guess the constant re-victimization of these assaulted children is meaningless to them.

I began to think about other crimes, once universally deemed heinous, that have apparently regressed into less than serious offenses, with less than seemingly equitable sentences.  For example, to cite only a very few:

John Hinkley first came to mind.  In 1981 Hinkley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.  During that attempt, President Reagan was hit, James Brady was very seriously injured by a bullet to his head, and a Secret Service Officer and a policeman were shot.  Found not guilty by reason of insanity, Hinkley was confined at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington DC.  Over the course of his hospitalization, he has enjoyed frequent visits home, now as long as ten days.  In November 2011 his attorney maintained that Hinkley is “flawed” but “fundamentally decent.”  Hinkley attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, and he is now considered “fundamentally decent”?  When did it become a lesser crime to attempt to assassinate the President of the United States, lesser to such an extent that the perpetrator gets frequent extended visits home?

Richard Speck systematically tortured, raped, and murdered eight student nurses in July 1966.  Found guilty, he initially was given the death penalty, but in 1972 the Supreme Court declared his sentence unconstitutional, and he was resentenced to life imprisonment.  In the late 1980s Chicago newsman Bill Kurtis anonymously received video tapes of Speck in prison showing explicit scenes of sex, drug use, and money being passed around by prisoners.  In the video Speck, when asked why he killed the nurses, joked, "It just wasn't their night."  He even says:  "If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose."  I saw this video when it was first televised and, it is so disgusting, I will not provide a URL for it.  If you decide to look for it, be sure to have a vomit bucket handy.  This was Richard Speck’s life in prison.

Bernie Madoff today is certainly not living the luxurious life-style he had grown accustomed to.  Considering the misery he created, though, does anyone believe that his current multiple sentences, as they stand now, are equitable?  My recommended sentencing for Bernie Madoff:  that he spend every day for the rest of his life cleaning the toilets and floors of homeless shelters, that every night he should sleep on the floor of a homeless shelter, that he should only wear dirty ragged cast-off clothing.

Now we have James Holmes, the Aurora CO mass murderer, charged with twenty-four counts of first degree murder (two counts for each victim murdered), 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of an explosive device, and sentence enhancement for the violence of the crimes.  When he is convicted, if he is convicted, what will his life in prison be like?  (Let us not even discuss the option of execution because, even if he is so sentenced, it is more likely than not that it will be commuted to life.)

Make no mistake; I am not a “hang-‘em-high-Dirty-Harry” sort of individual.  I am not an advocate of knee-jerk justice.  I am an advocate of justice.

From what I have learned, a typical day in prison consists of:  meals, personal hygiene time, exercises, leisure time, limited telephone calls, school, participation in work or study programs, and treatment programs as needed.  At the end of the day, time is spent cleaning the cell, reading, writing letters, working out, socializing with other inmates, sometimes playing cards or watching TV.  Some prisoners can have monitored access to the internet.  For most people, for most crimes, this is punishment enough.  (I said I wasn’t a “hang ‘em high” person.)

However, for the more heinous crimes, for the James Holmes of the world, for the Richard Specks of the world, for the John Hinkleys of the world, for the child abusers of the world, there has to be an alternative to the current quality of life that a prison life sentence offers.  I would suggest the following prison life for those who commit heinous crimes:

Solitary confinement; one window in the cell to mark the passage of time; three meals; no TV; no radio; no visitors; no phone calls; no time outside; guard contact only.  Let’s add to that perhaps two books: a spiritual book of their choice and one other, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare (without footnotes).  To insure that due processes were followed, one, and only one, appeal.

            Please note that I have not suggested the death penalty, and I will be clear about that:  while I do not believe the John Wayne Gacys, the Ted Bundys, the Richard Specks, the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world merit the privilege of breathing the air, I do think that my system of incarceration would be far worse than the death penalty.

Something is terribly wrong when our judiciary has come to the conclusion that the continued participation in the assault upon children is considered less than a heinous crime.  Something is terribly wrong when a political assassin gets released for visits home.  Something is terribly wrong when a convicted mass murderer can pursue any and all interests and activities while serving out his life sentence. 

Something is terribly wrong when we are hesitant and afraid to insure that there are equitable consequences to the commission of heinous crimes.

Until next time, LLAP!








References

Thursday, July 26, 2012

THE GOD PARTICLE

(a/k/a THE HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE)


I don't know about you, but it certainly didn't take more than a tenth of a second for the headlines proclaiming “The God Particle Found” to grab my attention and twist my imagination with fantastic scenarios.  “What?  They found a particle of God?”  Remember, those headlines did not say “evidence of God” (which is another subject entirely), but rather “particle of God.”  My mind raced with now-absurd questions.  “How on earth did they find a particle of God?  How do they know for certain this is a particle of God?  Will they put it on display?”  I would fly anywhere at any time to see an actual “particle of God,” and I am sure I would not be alone.

            Anyway, sanity won out after those first few minutes of crazed speculation, and I read the articles.  Okay, they were not talking about an actual “particle of God,” but rather a particle of physics.  While logically, on the face of it, that sounded more grounded in reality, as I struggled to understand the obscure physics-speak, my eyes crossed and tangled with the remaining strands of my brain.  I thought that maybe, if I could find a way to simplify this little bit of particle physics, I might be able to make some sense of it all.  There are no doubt nonphysicists who can  understand particle physics, how to put the details together in some sort of cohesive thought process, and my hats off to them.  My mind does not travel the trails of obscure technical lingo quite that smoothly.

            Here is my attempt to explain what this “God particle” business is all about.  To get to it, though, we need to start with the basics to insure that we are all on the same page of understanding.

            First and foremost, “The God Particle” is the catchy epithet given to a physics phenomenon more correctly known as the “Higgs Boson Particle” – a name not quite as dramatic nor destined to grab headline attention in today’s tabloid world.

            Let us begin with a basic explanation of particle physics:  It is that branch of physics which deals with the properties, relationships, and interactions of subatomic particles.  Particle physics is interested in finding out what subatomic particles are made of, with the aim to study the basic building blocks of matter and the forces they exert on each other, to see how they interact to make the universe look and behave the way it does.  It is the study of the fundamental constituents of matter and the forces of nature.  It attempts to re-create the universe just after the Big Bang with the hope of answering those eternal mysteries: “Where do we come from?” and “What are we made of?”

Right now we know of twelve fundamental particles: six quarks and six leptons.  Currently there are hundreds of identified particles made from combinations of these twelve fundamental particles, and scientists are still finding more.  Quarks combine to form larger particles, such as protons and neutrons, most of the matter in the universe.  There are two main classes of leptons: charged and neutral.  Charged leptons combine with other particles to form other particles such as atoms, while neutral leptons rarely interact with anything and are rarely observed.

What specifically is a boson?  A boson is a fundamental force by which leptons and quarks are transmitted.  Bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space.  A boson has no “spin,” which is the rotation around a particle’s axis that sets up a magnetic field.
           
Let’s pause for a quick second to talk about the difference between particle physics and quantum physics.  While they overlap, as we now know particle physics is the study of the fundamental particles (those quarks and leptons).  Quantum physics studies interactions, not just of those fundamental particles, but anywhere that quantum theory is appropriate, such as atomic physics, lasers, nuclear physics, etc.

Who is Higgs?  Peter Higgs is the guy behind all this brouhaha.  He is a British theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh.  Higgs first suggested his boson theory in 1964 as a “missing link” in standard physics, a missing link which explains how particles acquire mass.  While other theorists may have proposed such a hypothesis, Higgs was the only one to explicitly predict the particle and identify some of its theoretical properties.  Aptly named “Higgs Boson,” it has often been described as "the most sought-after particle in modern physics."

Without the Higgs Boson, our elementary particles would flit past each other at the speed of light.  Those elementary particles that make up the visible universe would, consequently, have no mass.  The Higgs Boson slows down the elementary particles.  Such slowing down is interpreted as “inertia,” and since Galileo, inertia has been identified as a property of things with mass.  So we have a mass (the Higgs Boson) slowing down the elementary particles which make up the universe to make up the visible universe.

Scientists found the Higgs Boson by using the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva.  Until July 2012 there were only hypotheses and compelling theoretical structures.  Now, facts can be gathered.  Further work is needed to analyze Higgs Boson properties to determine if it has all the properties expected.  Again, the Higgs Boson particularly is important because, without it, we would have no visible universe.

Remember, my explanation is a simplistic one.  It is not meant to explain the detailed properties of quarks, leptons, inertia, fields, etc., or to explain the intricate details of the research.  If you are interested in the mind-twisting world of particle physics, I encourage you to learn more.

Finally, the term “The God Particle” was coined for Leon Lederman's 1993 popular science book on particle physics, “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?  Lederman gave the Higgs Boson the nickname "The God Particle" because “This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle.”

            Until the next time, LLAP!





References