A flashbulb memory is a memory so powerful that it is forever burned into your brain. Where were you when JFK was assassinated? When Pearl Harbor was attacked? On 9/11?

Flashbulb memories are caused by flashbulb events. These events commonly affect a society as a whole. There are many side effects of these events- they tend to bring families closer together, inspire people to follow their dreams, and to start families.

They also have a surprising and long term side effect… They shake people’s faith in their own ability to understand the world so deeply that people tend to actively seek authority figures in whom to place near absolute trust and confidence. Because these events affect large societies, they can cause hundreds of millions of people to abandon reason and critical thought for a sense of security. In psychology, it is a phenomenon unlike any other.

When JFK was assassinated, the public assumed that the Federal Government would do the investigating, that it could naturally do a better job than the police. They assumed that the government would naturally have our best interest in mind, and would never abuse the power placed in their hands in a time of emergency. It never crossed anybody’s mind that they might even have been involved in causing it.

The assassination of a president is not a federal crime. This is intentional, to prevent the possibility that the military, or any other branch of the federal government, would assassinate the president and then cover it up.

In times of crisis, people seek opportunities to abandon their judgment to a higher authority. The civilian doctors, who began the autopsy of JFK, did not question the military illegally taking the body and altering their notes. The Dallas police didn’t hesitate when the FBI took over most of the investigation. The media and police remained largely silent when the new president, Lyndon Johnson, had the bullet-riddled limousine completely rebuilt before any forensic analysis could be done on it.

Forty years later, evidence that the government was involved in JFK’s assassination is pretty conclusive. But most people prefer not to investigate or demand answers from the government. They argue that it was 40 years ago, and answers today would be irrelevant. The truth is it is far easier to leave it at “that was then, this is now” than it is to investigate the matter thoroughly, possibly finding both that the assassination wasn’t particularly difficult, and that it could easily be reproduced in modern times.

On September 11, 2001, America suffered another flashbulb event. Immediately after came the assumption that it was both necessary and wise to make drastic changes to our government, that it should be given broad new powers, and would never abuse the power placed in its hands in a time of emergency.

The first thing we lost was perspective.

We were not fighting a new enemy, and they were not suddenly all that powerful. Al-Qaeda has been at war with us for over 20 years. They’ve made dozens of attempts to bring down the World Trade Center. They planned Millennium attacks, to simultaneously blow up 12 passenger planes over the Atlantic, and probably hundreds more attacks the public doesn’t know about.

2001 was not a banner year for them. They didn’t recruit a new evil genius to lead them, they didn’t increase their dedication to our destruction, and they didn’t grow in numbers by any significant amount.

The only difference was that after 20 years, one of their plans finally, unequivocally, worked.

Well, give Ray Charles 200 darts and stick him in front of a dartboard, and even he will eventually hit the bull’s-eye. Doesn’t mean he can see.

They were willing to die to do us some damage. They were bound to succeed eventually. It was a question of time. And as spectacular as their success was, over 35,000 people die every year on our highways, 100,000 people from smoking. After 20 years of passionate hatred of our country, and a total commitment to destroying us, they have had only one major success, taking a total of 2,000 American lives. This suggests to me that they aren’t the threat we think they are.

Yes, there were failures on our end. Yes, the system could be improved. Improving inter-agency communication, reinforcing cockpit doors, and allowing for fuel dumps mid-air would all prevent the same thing from happening again. But an overhaul of a system which by all appearances has been working quite well seems to defy common sense, as did the assumption that we’d have to lose freedoms and weaken our moral positions to protect ourselves.

The Germans honestly believed that they were liberating Poland. Pinochet believed that the best way to protect his country was to silence dissidents who made his job harder, and to attack countries before they could attack him. Just as each murderer in jail believes himself innocent, that his crimes were justified and not as heinous as his cell mate’s, so do nations.

We should understand crime and punishment. Russia, the former record holder for the greatest percentage of its population in prison at 6%, has lost that title. With just over 7% of its population in prison, the US, the “Land of the Free” holds the world record for the percentage of its own people in jail (beating out China).

For the first time in history, we have changed from an enlightened policy of retaliation to the imperial policy of preemptive strikes against countries which might be a threat- acting in self defense by striking first.

We have used White Phosphorus, which we classified as a chemical weapon when used by other countries, in the war in Iraq (and, after using it, re-classified it as a conventional weapon).

We are rounding up suspects in Iraq¹ and Afghanistan²(including known U.S. allies³) who are detained, sometimes for years, tortured⁴ and raped⁵, then released without charges. Human Rights Watch has called Abu Ghraib the “Tip of the Iceberg”⁶, and calls it a fair sampling of treatment which occurs, to this day, in 25 U.S. detention centers⁷ across Iraq. By the Army’s own accounting, a minimum of 28 to 31 detainees⁸ are suspected to have been murdered⁹ by U.S. officials while in custody (only one of them in Abu Ghraib). These murders are routinely listed as deaths by “natural causes”¹⁰. In some cases, prisoners who are released and speak out about what they experienced in U.S. custody have disappeared¹¹.

The Red Cross estimates that 60-90% of the people currently detained by the U.S. are held by mistake.

According to our own military personnel, children as young as 10 are being captured, raped and tortured by the United States¹². Labeled as “Internees”, they are held indefinitely, without notification of their families, and are denied access to the International Red Cross. It has become common practice for the U.S. Military to detain the families of suspects so that they may be used as leverage. In one case, the ACLU believes a tape exists of a 14-year-old boy being raped in front of his father to elicit a confession. Though ordered by a U.S. Court, the government refuses to turn over the tape on the grounds that to do so would humiliate the boy, and thus violate the Geneva Convention¹³.

The United States refuses to cooperate with UNICEF in regard to its child prisoners, and routinely denies medical access to prisoners from the International Red Cross. Amnesty International¹⁴ has called Guantanamo Bay “the gulag of our time”¹⁵.

It should be noted that Iraq does not present a security risk to the United States, nor was it involved in the 9/11 attacks. It should also be noted that the evidence that torture doesn’t work is overwhelming. People being tortured (both guilty and innocent) simply lie- make up stuff, to get the torture to stop.

Vice President Dick Cheney has said that, in the finest American tradition¹⁶, prisoners are being treated better than they would be by “virtually any other government on the face of the earth”¹⁷. He is also currently lobbying congress to legalize human rights abuses¹⁸ by the United States.

We have more classified documents, unreviewed by civilian authorities, than at any other time in history, including the Cold War and the McCarthy Era.

The Patriot Act appears to be being actively being used against U.S. citizens who are not thought to be, or even associated with, terrorists. Of the over 400 convictions brought about by the Patriot Act, only 39 of the people convicted were convicted of terrorism¹⁹, and of those the average sentence was 11 months. The Patriot Act requires judges to grant FBI warrants, with no oversight, if the FBI simply clams that it is part of a foreign intelligence investigation²⁰. It also empowers the government to declare any US citizen a “Material Witness”, a status which allows indefinite detainment, and denies the detainee the right to counsel and a preliminary hearing²¹. It makes no requirement to notify friends, family, or any civilian organization of a person’s detainment.

In at least one case, a newspaper reporting these facts appears to have had it story misrepresented by, and the target of, the Department of Justice²².

We have gone from being a country so bored with our everyday lives that we impeached our own President for possibly lying under oath in a civil suit (a misdemeanor, by the way) based on the testimony of a single person…

… to a country that watches phenomenal amounts of evidence pile up that multiple members of this administration (including the President²³) have lied before congress (a felony, by the way), deliberately violated the Geneva Convention and international law, endorsed and authorized war crimes²⁴, and ruled over a period in which, for the first time in history, America has been denounced by every major human rights organization in the world ²⁵.

All of this is printed every day in newspapers, and that I can tell, few people have noticed.

The difference between the two (investigating a president for possibly lying about sex, and forgiving a president who may be guilty of multiple felonies) is simple. It is a single flashbulb event.

1. Tanner, A. (2005, January 12). Iraqi Victim Says U.S. Torture Worse Than Saddam. Reuters [↩]
2. Sheed, J. (2005, March 21). Guantanamo Abuse ‘Videotaped’. The Australian [↩]
3. Bahrain royal family member tortured at Guantanamo prison camp. (2005, August 10). Associated Press [↩]
4. White, J. (2005, August 3). Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs. Washington Post, p.A01. [↩]
5. Buncombe, A. & Morris, N. (2004, August 4). Shocking prisoner abuses are revealed. The Independent [↩]
6. Simpson, I. (2005, April 17). Rights Group: Abu Ghraib Abuses ‘Tip of Iceberg’. Reuters [↩]
7. Croke, L. A (2004, September 24). Torture and Rape Rampant in Iraq Prisons. The New Standard [↩]
8. Jehi, D. (2005, March 26). Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GI’s Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths. The New York Times [↩]
9. Jehi, D. & Schmitt, E. (2005, March 16). U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide. The New York Times [↩]
10. U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq. (2005, October 24). ACLU [↩]
11. Harding, L. (2004, May 12). Focus shifts to jail abuse of women. The Guardian [↩]
12. http://www.sundayherald.com/43796 [↩]
13. ACLU Blames Gov’t for Abu Ghraib Delay. (2005, July 22). Associated Press [↩]
14. Rights group leader says U.S. has secret jails. (2005, June 6). CNN [↩]
15. Cohn, M. (2005, June 16). Bush Plays Politics with Guantánamo “Gulag”. Truthout [↩]
16. Patterns of Abuse. (2005, May 23). The New York Times Editorial [↩]
17. Lewis, A. (2005, June 21). Guantánamo’s Long Shadow. The New York Times [↩]
18. Vice President for Torture. (2005, October 26). The Washington Post [↩]
19. Myths and Realities About the Patriot Act. ACLU, [↩]
20. See Above [↩]
21. See Above [↩]
22. The Editor, (2005, December 5). Washington Post’s Response to DOJ Patriot Act Letter. The Washington Post [↩]
23. FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques. ACLU [↩]
24. The Pinochet Principle: Bush Defends Torture in the Name of National Security. (2004, June 9). Democracy Now [↩]
25. Lobe, J. (2005, May 26). Give Rumsfeld the Pinochet Treatment, Says US Amnesty Chief. International Press Service [↩]

“I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down”
Bill Bennett (09/28/05)
“We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”
Bill Maher, Politically Incorrect (09/26/01)

A few years ago I met a psychic. Skeptical at first, I was amazed by the overwhelming proof of her ability to predict the future. She had even predicted the assassination of JFK and called the White House days before his trip to Texas, warning him not to go. If only they had listened to her….

She keeps with her a clipping from a newspaper, where her ominous warning to the president was published, as were her credentials as a psychic.

Unfortunately, as impressive as her abilities are, there are a few things she fails to mention to prospective clients. First of all, the White House receives 600 calls a year from “psychics” warning the president of his impending assassination. At nearly two calls a day, a far more surprising event would be if the president was assassinated and someone hadn’t predicted it.

Secondly, she failed to mention that that particular call was the fourth she had made predicting an assassination. The previous three had all been wrong (as were the next 12 she made for future presidents). Further, as impressive as predicting the assassination was, she has not made any other successful predictions in the last 40 years.

It is true, that she accurately predicted, and even attempted to warn of, the Kennedy assassination. But that fact, without a larger context, is extremely misleading.

When Bill Bennett said that one could lower the crime rate by aborting black babies, the media went wild. How could he advocate such a position?

The truth is he didn’t. He stated a fact.

It is far easier (and more self satisfying) to adopt a position of anger and moral outrage, than it is to look at his statement in context, and see if the apparently obvious implication of the statement is in fact what he intended to say. It is a case of Attribution Error, assuming that his motives must have been racist.

A listener had called into Mr. Bennett’s show and argued that the “lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years” would have been enough to save Social Security.

Mr. Bennett was immediately skeptical of that statistic, and argued he did not believe it to be accurate, that it painted an incomplete picture of the economic impact of abortion. The caller claimed the statistic to be completely accurate, to which Mr. Bennett replied that it was also true “that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

His point? That statistics can often only paint half the picture, that such “far-reaching, extensive extrapolations” (as he put it) were meaningless, and that to argue that abortion should be illegal as a means of saving Social Security was as ludicrous as to argue that abortion should be legal as a means of reducing crime, no matter what the statistics said. His called his own statements “ridiculous, and morally reprehensible”, which is of course why he made them.

For his comment about the 9/11 hijackers, Bill Maher was fired from ABC for being to insensitive (despite the fact that he had held an empty seat on his show for a month for conservative commentator Barbara Olson, who died when her plane hit the pentagon while she was on her way to be on his show). What was Bill Maher’s point? That it’s easy to be dismissive of the terrorists, to call them cowards and say that there is no reason that they hate us, but it isn’t the truth, and it greatly underestimates them.

I once announced to a college class that women generally have smaller brains than men, suffering a politically correct backlash that followed me for four years. Somehow I was sexist. Somehow people thought that I must mean that women aren’t as smart as men. The fact that my statement was scientifically accurate had no bearing on the fact that I was obviously sexist, that I obviously meant to say that women weren’t as smart as men. I was in fact attempting to discuss the differences between men and women, in how the hemispheres of the brain communicate through the corpus callosum.

Women do have smaller brains (if you find that offensive, talk to God, I had nothing to do with it). Why anyone thinks this implies a lower intelligence is beyond me. A five foot person has smaller organs (including the brain) than I do, but can easily be smarter. A blue whale has a significantly larger brain than I do, but it can’t calculate a 15% tip. Intelligence is measured, not by the size of the brain, but by the ratio of brain mass to body mass. This fact, which I had assumed would be obvious given the wide range of human body sizes, was not considered by the people who judged my statement, leading to the erroneous conclusion that I necessarily implied that which I hadn’t.

I have never heard of Bill Bennett. He may be a racist – I have made arguments neither for nor against that claim. His declaration was a stupid thing to say, and I can imagine a hundred better ways to prove the point he was trying to make. But this country has (likely out of boredom) concluded that he stated or implied that blacks are the cause of crime, or that they should be aborted, or that blacks are less important than whites. He implied none of those things. What he said was that statistics can, when extrapolated properly, be used to justify positions which are clearly incorrect. And he’s right.

Effective communication is the basis of civilization. It can not exist without an understanding of what one is trying to say. That understanding comes in part through the sharing of a common vocabulary, but language alone is often ineffective at conveying thoughts. As important as language is, of equal importance is learning how to listen. One can attempt to understand offensive speech without condoning it, but one can never truly object to offensive speech unless they know what was said.

Having just defended him, I do hope he’s not a racist.