Visual source: Newseum
Should we feel guilty about feeling elated if that good feeling comes because someone died? Is there a difference between the jubilation in America over the death of Osama bin Laden, and the celebrations we've seen elsewhere over the death of Americans? In the NYT, psychologist Jonathan Haidt finds justification in evolutionary biology.
In the last few years there’s been a growing recognition that humans, far more than other primates, were shaped by natural selection acting at two different levels simultaneously. There’s the lower level at which individuals compete relentlessly with other individuals within their own groups. This competition rewards selfishness.
But there’s also a higher level at which groups compete with other groups. This competition favors groups that can best come together and act as one. ... Some of those who were disturbed by the celebrations fear that this kind of unity is dangerous because it makes America more warlike and prejudiced against outsiders. When celebrants chanted "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" and sang "God Bless America," were they not displaying a hateful "us versus them" mindset?
Once again, no.
Much as I'd like to hand out a guilt-waiver when it comes to celebrating the death of Osama, Haidt takes such enormous liberties in his application of selective pressures that the argument isn't just worthless, it's dangerous. His argument is neither self-consistent nor consistent with the science, and it's the kind of argument that can be used to justify damn near anything. Celebrating Osama's death may not be ugly, but misusing evolution to justify it certainly is.
In this case, Maureen Dowd has a much more honest take on the matter.
I don’t want closure. There is no closure after tragedy.
I want memory, and justice, and revenge.
When you’re dealing with a mass murderer who bragged about incinerating thousands of Americans and planned to kill countless more, that seems like the only civilized and morally sound response.
Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker refuses to join the chants.
Though I understand society’s need for justice and the individual’s yearning for revenge, it seems we should be on guard. For the sake of civilization, the latter is to be conquered and the former tempered.
Inarguably, Osama bin Laden needed to leave this earth — and perhaps it is just that he did so by the wit, sleuth and sure aim of our bravest men. Even so, discomfort is a necessary companion to any violence we commit, even in the service of good. There is nothing to celebrate in any man’s death, and I wish this had been the sentiment telegraphed to the rest of the world rather than the loutish hoorahs of late-night revelers.
Over at New Scientist, Andrew Silke says Obama is doing the right thing in not releasing the photos.
Psychological research suggests Obama is right to be worried about the impact of these photographs. Gruesome images pack a powerful emotional punch and can deeply affect us psychologically. ... Gruesome pictures lead to increasing emotional arousal in viewers, with the emotions experienced including anger, fear, anxiety and disgust. As the emotional intensity rises it is accompanied by a decline in frontal lobe cognitive functioning. Cooler, objective consideration of the evidence and issues is undermined.
And with that thought, I'm going to step away from this issue.
Sorry mom, didn't mean to make this column such a bummer on your day.
Elsewhere, Thomas Friedman spends his time stretching a single quip about retail vs. wholesale into a column that says exactly nothing about Middle East politics.
What if the GOP had a debate and no serious candidate showed up. Dana Milbank has been to the elephant show and found it really funny.
At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul explained why heroin and prostitution should be legal and why the Department of Homeland Security should be eliminated.
Retired pizza executive Herman Cain explained why the Internal Revenue Service should be abolished and why people who would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest are “pro-choice.”
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson argued for eliminating the minimum wage and corporate taxes and for cutting Medicare nearly in half.
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum attempted to explain why he criticized “radical feminism” for working women and why he said Islam was “stuck in the 7th century.”
Maybe the GOP is going to use 2012 to test the idea that "Generic Republican" really can pull more votes than any actual Republican.
Is it possible to reach a compromise over the future of Medicare that includes the vouchers and private insurance of the Ryan plan, but doesn't leave America's elderly lying out on the tundra? Richard Saltman outlines the Dutch plan in the Washington Post. It involves private insurance and vouchers, but also includes three critical steps.
The first — to ensure equity — involved attaching a risk-adjusted payment to each individual, paid by a national social insurance pool, ensuring that the size of each person’s voucher would make him or her attractive to private insurers.
The second — to ensure competition on price and quality — was to allow people to band together in "collectives" (interest- or Internet-based) to negotiate with insurers over price and extra services (core benefits were fixed by law).
The third element — to ensure that private insurers served the public interest — was heavy regulation of insurers, including requirements that they take all applicants, even at the door of the hospital emergency room.
None of those are part of what the GOP is offering, and the Dutch plan is built on top of a radically different set of benefits and taxes. None of which stops the GOP from using the Dutch as a "see, even the Europeans!" example. Can such a system work? Probably. Can what the GOP is offering work? Absolutely not, and they'd never go for the changes needed to make such a system feasible.
I have to say that Animal Kingdom is probably the best name for a Derby winner in years. Plus that was a heck of a ride by John Velazquez, who was expecting to have a different mount. Darn shame about poor Archarcharch.