Strategic Error

A few year's back, a survey revealed that cabbies held the most potentially fatal job.  It should tell you something, then, that a number of Iranian nuclear scientists have recently applied for jobs driving cabs.

Well, maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

On Wednesday, an Iranian scientist was killed when a bomb was attached magnetically to his car during rush hour.  The killers, who were riding a motorcycle, got away.  This was just the latest such assassination of people involved in Iran's nuclear program.  Most international observers suspect that the United States and Israel have played a role in the attacks, and the slick, high-tech nature of the assaults certainly sounds like the kind of thing the CIA or, more likely, the Mossad would pull off.  The Mossad don't play.

While the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran is slightly less appealing to an Israeli (or to most Americans) than the thought of eating a Madagascar cockroach, I find myself troubled by this particular strategy--if, indeed, Israel is behind it (more on that later).  To disrupt Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons, certain tactics are legal and acceptable--economic sanctions, for example.  Other strategies of questionable legality still fall under the heading of morally acceptable.  Whoever launched the Stuxnet computer virus against Iranian systems (again, most people suspect Israel and/or the United States), violated international law; however, by avoiding violence and "collateral damage," this action meets certain ethical standards.  Once you start assasinating people, however--especially when these people are ostensibly involved in peaceful activities (Iran claims to want nuclear power only for civilian purposes)--you have crossed a line.

I understand that Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, and that the Israeli government will take any steps they can to prevent such an eventuality.  I could even see a case being made for assassinations--even though these obviously violate norms of international law.  But there are "more or less" acceptable targets for such actions.  Military targets, of course: Soldiers and officers have chosen to pursue a career that, by definition, entails a risk of death.  Even politicians may be considered fair game, especially when they engage in apocalyptic rhetoric about wiping other countries off the map, for example; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had an "unfortunate accident."  Scientists, however, are not legitimate targets.  They are civilians.

Beyond being unethical, targeting scientists would seem to be counterproductive.  After all, if Iran feels that its nuclear scientists are being targeted by foreign agents, the government will simply take steps to make sure that these people are under protective custody at all times.  Whereas political figures must make public appearances--and therefore put themselves at risk--scientists are under no such obligations.  Indeed, the fact that scientists continue to die has caused some to speculate that the Iranian government itself is behind the recent assassinations, killing relatively minor figures in the nuclear industry in order to cast blame on its foreign enemies.  That sounds a little far-fetched--Israel has certainly never been shy about violently eradicating perceived threats--but who knows?

Israel has a rough enough time in the court of international opinion.  In many respects, this is a result of fanatical anti-Zionism or, indeed, anti-Semitism.  But Israel does itself no favors by targeting civilians in other countries for assassination.  If the Israelis are doing this, they need to stop.

Regrets, I've Had a Few

When I was a child, I didn't care for baked potatoes.  French fries or nothing!  When I think back, now, on all the baked-potato-ey goodness I missed out on--all those gallons of sour cream and bacon bits and butter--I feel a great sense of loss.  Those are potatoes I will never get back.

Who Would Jesus Fire?

I will accept the argument that religious groups have a right to "discriminate" against job applicants whose lifestyles or religious beliefs go against those of the prospective employer.  Thus, while I in no way agree with the Catholic or fundamentalist evangelical church's intolerance toward homosexuality (nor, to be clear, do I consider homosexuality a "lifestyle choice"), I support the church's right not to hire an openly gay man as a minister.  For that matter, I will even--grudgingly--support these organization's rights to practice such discrimination against such applicants even when they are applying for non-ministerial jobs.  A Catholic university, for example, is within its rights if it chooses not to hire an outspoken advocate of abortion rights for a professorship.  (I think the university might be on shakier ground if it fired someone for expressing such views, but even then, I could accept the argument.)

The Supreme Court, however, has gone too far in its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The plaintiff in this case, Cheryl Perich, was fired when she pursued a disability discrimination lawsuit against her employer.  To be specific, the church did not fire her because of her disability (narcoloepsy), but because she pursued litigation instead of attempting to resolve the issue within the church.  The Supreme Court found in favor of the Church, stating that, in the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts,

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

The Court's reasoning was based primarily on the idea of "ministry"; in other words, the plaintiff was not entitled to legal protection because she was hired to perform "ministerial" duties.  This conclusion itself is debatable, as Perich's job mainly consisted of secular teaching duties.  At any rate, however, Perich's duties are beside the point.  As far as I can tell, this teacher was fired because she felt discriminated against because of a medical disability (which would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act) and then had the effrontery to pursue her legal rights in court.  I fail to see how allowing her the standing to sue her employer, which in this case happens to be a church, somehow infringes upon the church's freedoms.  Certainly, as I mentioned above, the church had the right to fire Perich if she had engaged in activities that went against church doctrine, but I don't think suffering from narcolepsy qualifies.  People who are "called" to ministry may expect a requirement to conform to church law on doctrinal matters, but they do not therefore surrender all their worldly legal rights.

Performance High

I can honestly think of no feeling better than performing.  No, not even THAT.  Standing on stage, receiving applause at the end of a successful show is truly an experience that keeps an actor going--'cause God knows most people don't get a lot of money.  I remembered this today while I was teaching.  I've been fighting off a cold since the weekend, and yesterday my body surrendered.  I couldn't, however, call in sick on account of having scheduled this two-day seminar.  I wasn't sure how I would manage, but I needn't have feared: That performance-adrenaline kicked in right quick, and I basically rode it throughout the day.  Now, of course, I'm dealing with the post-adrenaline crash, and I need to go burrow under a rock.  But if you ever find yourself in need of a quick jolt, may I suggest a little impromptu street theater.  Jump up on the nearest surface that resembles a stage and launch into your favorite Shakespearean monologue.  It's good for what ails you.

An Addiction by Any Other Name. . .

When is an addiction not an addiction?  When it's a cure.

New research suggests that nicotine patches and gum don't increase the likelihood of someone's quitting smoking; indeed, among heavy smokers, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of relapsing than using nothing at all ("Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt").

I've always thought that nicotine patches and other medicinal addiction cures posed a sort of logical quandary: If you need a drug in order to keep from using a drug, aren't you just substituting one addiction for another?  If you get hooked on methadone to keep yourself from using heroin, are you qualtitatively better off?  The answer depends on whether the replacement addiction is better for you--or less harmful--than the addiction of choice.  I suppose nicotine patches are better for one's lungs--and for the lungs of those around one--than smoking.  And rehabilitative drugs like methadone, suboxone, and others certainly provide social benefits if nothing else: Prescribed legally, they provide an imprimatur of social acceptability, suggesting that one has made the decision to improve one's life and battle one's demons.  This is no small thing.

The study cited today, however, reinforces the notion that, ultimately, the only way to kick a habit is, indeed, to kick it.  I don't minimize the difficulties faced by those who battle addictions.  But this study suggests that, when it comes to smoking at least, substitutes for cigarettes don't help one quit, and may simply lead one back to the real thing.  Maybe the problem is inherent in the very purpose of nicotine patches and similar "crutches": to minimize the suffering of those trying to quit an addictive habit.  I am not suggesting that addicts somehow "deserve" to suffer, but maybe suffering strengthens one's resolve to stay away from the addictive substance.  The more pain one has to go through to achieve a goal, the less likely he is to casually relapse--no one wants to suffer needlessly.

Obviously, I'm not a psychiatrist, and I have been lucky enough to avoid addictions.  I can certainly be accused of an "easy for him to say" attitude.  But if scientific studies cast doubt on scientific (pharmacological) solutions, maybe it is time to face the logic of the situation.

Who Says Crime Doesn't Pay?

"As for Mr. Poveda-Ortega, in 2008 he escaped a raid on his mansion outside Mexico City in which the authorities detained 15 of his associates and seized hundreds of thousands of dollars, along with two pet lions" ("U.S. Agents Aided Mexican Drug Trafficker to Infiltrate His Criminal Ring").

Now, I am as opposed to drug-trafficking as the next guy--unless the next guy is Pablo Escobar.  But, look, how am I supposed to resist the siren-song of the narcotics industry, or convince children of its inherent wrongness, when I hear that drug dealers get to have pet lions?!?  That's lionS!  With an 'S'!  As in, more than one lion!

Here I am, a law-abiding citizen, and do I get a lion?  Never mind two lions!  No!  People tell me I can't have a lion.  That it's "dangerous."  That lions are "carnivorous."  That a lion would "eat" my "face."  It's just not fair.

If the powers that be want to make the world of illicit drug trafficking unattractive, then they must offer alternatives.  Children should be issued lions--or perhaps dolphins or giraffes--and told that these pets will be confiscated if they (the children) stray from the path of drug-free righteousness.  Conversely, we can develop a sort of "Scared Straight" type experience, whereby children who glamorize "thug life" are provided with utterly lame pets like goldfish or dachshunds.

We can all make a difference, people, but we have to start today!

What Do Poets Know?

Nobel laureate and ping-pong champion William Butler Yeats once said that "poetry makes nothing happen."  This is incorrect.  I once hurled a Norton Anthology at the head of my cousin Evan.  He was never the same.

Robert Frost, who never won a Nobel Prize (loser!), said that "poetry is what gets lost in translation."  This, too, is, in fact, my cousin Evan.  Perhaps as a result of his poetry-related head injuries, he once engaged in a heated exchange with a group of Maori fishermen.  After saying something--no one in his group understood what--Evan was carried off by the Maori, and he hasn't been seen since.  His family is growing concerned, so, if you have any information on Evan's whereabouts, please leave it in the comments section.