A True Hero

“Code-Breaker” by Jim Holt is, in my opinion, a fascinating account of Alan Turing’s accomplishments.  The attention grabbing first paragraph mentions death and suicide, military secrets and crimes of homosexuality. A reader can hardly get through all of that without dying to find out what comes next. As a former Computer Science student, I recognized Turning’s name immediately. He is well known in the IT world as a forefather of the present day computer. What I didn’t know was all of his other accomplishments, including the code breaking done during the war. Alan Turing appears to be a brilliant and likeable man, happy with his lot in life. So, why would he commit suicide?

The opening paragraph states that two years prior to his death, Turing was “exposed” for being gay, “when he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ for having a homosexual affair” (Holt 337). This is cleverly worded to invoke interest and keep the audience reading. Later it comes out that Turing wasn’t actually “exposed”, in fact, he simply told the police of his homosexual affair in order to explain how he knew of the identity of an intruder to his home. It appears that a big deal was not made out of it, with only probation and hormonal therapy being his punishment. Hi s mother still loved him, his colleagues accepted him and not only was his job safe, he was given a pay raise along with freedom to continue his work and enjoy his notoriety for the “Turing machines” (345).

It is too bad that the apple he ate shortly before bed the night before he died, was not ever tested for cyanide.  It is too bad that we will never know if Turing indeed committed suicide, or whether he was killed by someone afraid of what he might discover. To me, he sounds like a truly lovely man and his death was a great loss. If he hadn’t died, I wonder what other fascinating contributions he would have made. Was it really suicide, what do you think?

A Need for Confrontation of Another Kind

“Women Confronting War” by Jennifer Turpin is an eye-opening look at the latent effects that war has on women. It is an informed looked by someone who is well qualified to speak on the issue, based on her background, most especially her position with the European University Centre for Peace Studies. It is a commonly held perception that women are not a large portion of the casualties of war, because of the small numbers that are in active service (325).This perception couldn’t be more wrong. Women and children suffer immensely in the form of death, sexual assaults, violence and the loss of homes and loved ones during and after war. (325).

I found this essay to be deeply disturbing in its content. Mainly because I have been lucky as to never have experienced war first hand. I have always held the belief that those soldiers that are fighting are fighting for a cause and with good intentions. Further, I have always felt that the countries involved in war supported my belief that war is an unfortunate side effect of ‘doing the right thing’. My belief was that in the unfortunate event that some rogue soldier behaved in a way that crossed the line between what is necessary and what is appalling, he would be disciplined harshly by military organization that he represented. If this failed, there was a backup, the UN would step in. I was not expecting the cavalier attitude of those in charge of these organizations, when questioned about such horrific events. “When the head of the U.N. mission in Cambodia was questioned about the sexual abuse of women and girls by U.N. troops, he responded that he was ‘not a puritan; eighteen year-old, hot-blooded soldiers had a right to drink a few beers and chase after young beautiful things of the opposite sex’”(327). Are you kidding me? These are the words of someone in such a position as the HEAD of the U.N. mission? Even more shocking was the response of the commander of the United States Pacific Command when he was asked about the assault and rape by three of his soldiers against a 12-year-old girl. He felt that there stupidity lay in resorting to rape rather than using the money spent on renting a car to purchase sex (327). Is the fact that this girl was 12-years-old, the age of a seventh grader, completely lost on this man? I wonder if this fact would still be lost if it happened to be his 12-year-old daughter.

I am bewildered by the fact that nowhere does there seem to be a point where someone steps in to say, enough IS enough. How can the populations, mainly women and children, of underdeveloped countries continue to be killed, raped, brutalized and chased from their homes? What purpose is this serving? What is the greater good that will come from this? How can this be helping them? I think that something needs to be done to protect these people from the salvation offered by “primarily . . . former colonial powers” of the developed nations in the world. What can be done, and who can do it?

It is what it is...or is it?

“There are no lessons to be learned from Littleton” by Gary Kleck reflects exactly what the title suggests. In contrast, I feel that there is a very large lesson to be learned from Gary Kleck. This essay appears to be a clear-headed, insightful explanation of how we, the intended audience are manipulated in times of turmoil. Kleck explains how we are guided by the media sensation and the reactions of politicians into believing that they are trying to learn from these acts, and to use this knowledge to protect us from seeing this type of violence again in the future.  He explains that this is impossible and will never happen. Even worse, the attention given to these types of rare events is likely taking away from less extraordinary issues such as bullying and teen dating violence.

To begin with Kleck reminds us that the people that we are counting on to give us “the diagnoses and solutions” (211) immediately following these massacres are the news media. A group that is largely untrained in the area of crime analysis. These people are not only unqualified, but the causes and solutions offered by them in the “aftermath of such events are especially likely to be irrelevant or even counterproductive” (211).

Of course, when something as tragic as a mass killing at a school occurs, we can hardly be unaffected emotionally. We send our kids to school each day, we think they are safe, and for the most part, they are. So when the unusual does happen, we can’t help but think...this could be any school, our school. When the government steps forward and ‘does’ something, such as “making murder on school property a capital offence” (213), we feel as though they are looking out for our kids. But are they? What difference will this law make if “premeditated murder, regardless of location” (213) is already a capital offence? It makes no difference to the safety of our kids, but in the emotional glow, we feel as though they really care.

I wonder how it is that politicians can ‘use’ these tragedies to “crack down” (213) on the irrelevant issue of selling guns to our children.  Kleck points out that none of these children bought the guns used at the school shootings. They were stolen, bought legitimately and given as gifts by their parents. So what is the purpose of the “crack down”? It does make the politician look good. It does make us feel safer. But it doesn’t stop the problem.

One of the most important points that Kleck makes is that while we are busy focusing on the “freakish events” (215) that the news media provides to us, we are missing good opportunities to study “ordinary crime and violence” (215). As long as this continues, we will see actions that make us feel better and can be quickly implemented, rather than those that will actually make us safer (215). I feel that because of Kleck’s essay, I will be a more critical thinker.  I for one will pay more attention to the details when the next media sensation hits.  Will you?

A case of mistaken identity

“Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence” by Sissela Bok is a case of mistaken identity. Based on the title, I had assumed that Bok would make a clear argument towards the need for media to curtail the violence that it presents. After reading through the piece the first time, I felt that although she didn’t appear to take a clear stand, she did side with this assumption.  However, after several careful readings, I think she is saying something altogether different. I believe she is suggesting that society points a finger at the media contribution to aggressive behaviour, but is unsubstantiated in doing so. Maybe the real fight against aggression lies within us, and how we teach our children.

Bok states that public perception of media violence is “that it glamorizes aggressive conduct” therefore “curbing aggression has priority over alleviating subtler psychological and moral damage.” Could we be focusing so much attention on the violence in the media that we are missing the real issues? She points out that although crime rates have been dropping since 1992, media coverage of violence has escalated. Even so, in 1995, 21 percent of the public blamed television for teenage violence. She goes on to say that “no reputable scholar” accepts this view. Since when does a negative correlation become proof that an issue exists? More violence on TV should not equal a lower crime rate, if violence on TV is the cause of violence in society.

No real proof has been given creating the link between media violence and aggression in society. There is no consensus on how much TV violence affects the violence in society. Only “probabilistic causation” is used to debate the need to curtail TV violence, as it has worked against the “glamorization of smoking and drunk driving” on TV programs, even with the “lack of conclusive documentation of the correlation between TV viewing and higher incidence of such conduct.” In all fairness, this isn’t right. Perhaps what we should do is address violence without blaming an unsubstantiated cause.

Bok suggests that the public is giving too much credit to the media in terms of responsibility for violence in society.  She suggests that children should be taught to make decisions on their own about violence and aggression and “to strive, instead, for greater resilience, empathy and self control.” This is not aimed only at violence but at all risk factors that our children will face. We should give our children a chance to mature and grow early on. Although TV violence has not been concretely linked to violence in society, it is a distraction. Maybe we should turn off the TV and encourage a focus on something more productive, in order to foster a well rounded childhood, where a child can become a clear thinker and develop good judgement. It can’t hurt, can it?