The happiness pyramid--A recent study shows
that happiness comes from making other people happy. Apparently Jimmy Durante had it right: "Make someone happy/Make just one someone happy/And you will be happy too." No
doubt all of us have found that when we give to others (love, assistance, material goods, sometimes even just simple attention), we gain happiness from the happiness they have gained from us. Making others happy is good for all concerned. It's win-win. But what's all
this then? While granting that making someone happy can help to overcome the angst of being sleepless in Seattle, we might raise a couple of slightly unnerving questions
about that dictum. For one thing, it implies that everyone is sitting around unhappily waiting to be made happy, and that at least one of those is waiting to be made happy
by you. And yet, if the sentiment of the song be true, those people should be not sitting around unhappily but actively
working to make someone else happy in order to make themselves happy, not relying on you to do that for them. Further, if the sentiment of the song be true, you yourself should be sitting around unhappily, simultaneously waiting for an unhappy person to come along and make you happy while yet working to make an unhappy person happy yourself. The concept of making someone happy in order to make yourself happy while someone else is making you happy in order to make him/herself happy not only dizzies the brain but smacks of
a pyramid scheme or chain letter wherein the promise of emotional reward depends on ever-increasing investments of solicitousness and vulnerability, lest the whole thing break down and the participants be left happiness-bereft and forced to start the make-someone-happy
cycle all over again. Surely happiness can be pursued in ways that don't depend on making someone else happy, like experiencing sensual pleasure, avoiding physical pain,
accumulating wealth, achieving professional success, acquiring knowledge, and exercising one's physical, intellectual, and creative talents. Yes, I will concede that each of those avenues has its limitations as well. So what do you want me to say? That the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation? That the make-someone-happy cycle, despite its flaws, is as good as it gets? Okay, I said
it. Happy now?
*****
Audience participation--Recent killings of black men by white police officers have caused storms of public protest. Some
St. Louis Rams football players made their feelings clear to a national TV audience by repeating the "Hands up, don't shoot" catch phrase prior to their game with Oakland. Some
NBA players wore T shirts with the lettering "I can't breathe" during warm ups. This injection of politics into the sanctuary of sports arenas was condemned by many who fear
making our streets and our entertainment venues into forums. But what's all this, then? Within
limits, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. We can't slander, incite to riot, advocate treason or the violent overthrow of government, lie under
oath, or violate institutional rules by speaking out of turn at a governmental meeting or in court, but we can certainly make political statements in speech or in writing, which includes wearing articles of clothing with messages on them as well as symbolic
items of clothing like hoodies, wearing tattoos, making gang signs, uttering shouts and chants, and carrying posters. There is a risk that such statements may lead to conflict
and violence, but that is a risk that a free society must run. The answer to free speech is more speech, as the Supreme Court said in a slightly different context. At athletic events, concerts, parades, and the like, we need to allow both participants and spectators to express themselves. Players should be free to make the sign of the cross, point to the heavens, Tebow, and display names and symbols on their shoes, provided they do not disrupt or delay the game in doing so. Spectators should be allowed to wear crucifixes, yamakas, hijabs, burkas, or display posters that say "John 3:16," "There is no God but Allah," "God is dead," "No new taxes," "Choose life," "Give a hoot, don't pollute," "Save the
sage grouse," or "Build the pipeline," even ones that depict a Confederate flag or a swastika, provided they do not interfere with anyone else's view of the game.
*****
Having our cake and eating it too--The conclusion of the recent Senate report that the CIA's use of torture and "enhanced interrogation"
methods on captured suspected terrorists was both inhumane and ineffective was heartily endorsed by two parties that seldom share a bed, the NY Times and Senator John
McCain. A Times editorial stated: "But 'at no time' did the CIA's torture program
produce intelligence that averted a terrorism threat, the report said. All of the information that the CIA attributed to its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' was obtained
before the brutal interrogations took place, actually came from another source, or was a lie invented by the torture victims--a prospect that the CIA had determined long ago was the likely result of torture." Said McCain: "I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best
interests of justice nor our security nor our ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend....we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us." What's all this, then? How much of our safety post-9/11 comes from what the CIA learned from torturing prisoners? No one really knows. The Senate says none; the CIA says some. Both are operating out of prejudice, as is John McCain, as are we all. It does seem reasonable to the man on the street (that is to say, me) that
under torture prisoners will sometimes lie to avoid pain; but it also seems reasonable that they will sometimes tell the truth to avoid pain. What doesn't seem reasonable
is that they will never give up information useful to their interrogators in order to avoid pain. That's a too-convenient conclusion. I can certainly believe that psychological techniques (becoming the prisoner's friend or mentor, inducing identification and
transference, bringing about the Stockholm syndrome) are effective. But I can also believe that brutality is at times equally effective.
I think McCain is right when he says that Americans should be "different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us." But
we should also be honest and acknowledge the risk that such a moral stance entails. We must be willing to say that although we might be able to wring useful, security-enhancing
information out of prisoners by torturing them, we won't do so because that is wrong. We realize that such a policy may lead to death and destruction in America, but our
values require that we bear that risk. The notion that torture is not just morally wrong but also always ineffective and counter-productive defies belief.
*****
A night at the movies--Numerous
commentators have weighed in on the waffling of Sony Pictures Entertainment in regard to the distribution of The Interview, a satiric film that aroused the ire of North
Korea and provoked it to hack Sony's computers. Most blasted Sony--as well as any theaters that chose not to screen the film--for cowardice. The consensus was that Sony should release the film, theaters should show the film, and filmgoers should attend the film. A
headline for a column by Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic film critic, was typical: "Buy some popcorn, defy the terrorists."
What's all this then? Most of us favor defying terrorism but few of us are willing to defy it when there is serious risk to ourselves
in doing so. Americans can attend The Interview knowing that the chance of a terrorist
attack taking place in their theater of choice is infinitesimal. Even further hacktivity by the North Koreans in retaliation for showings of the film would probably affect
relatively few Americans, and in any case would not be a matter of life and limb. It's easy to defy terrorism when the odds are overwhelmingly on your side. If suddenly terrorists
undertook random bombings of just five per cent of the theaters in America, movie attendance would plummet. If terrorists were somehow able to explode five per cent of America's
passenger planes on any given day, air travel would become almost non-existent. Rationally speaking, we should feel confident when the odds are 95 to 5 that no problem will
occur--but it's the rare individual who can be as rational as that. By all means, let's defy terrorism. But let's not give ourselves too much credit for easy victories.
*****
Diverse types of stereotyping--We
are often warned about the dangers of stereotyping and categorizing people, because not all women-men-bis-TGs-blacks-whites-Latinos-Asians-Arabs-Jews-Indonesians-Native Americans-South Pacific islanders-Republicans-Democrats-Christians-Jews-Muslims-Buddhists-Shintoists-Taoists-Zoroastrians-Wiccans-satanists-et al are alike. But what's all this then? Many of those who condemn stereotyping praise the concept of diversity, yet the concept of diversity, ironically enough, is actually based on stereotyping. It is often argued that a diverse representation of races, genders, ethnicities, and religions in schools and colleges, courts, law enforcement, political office, and executive board rooms allows a variety of views to be expressed or represented. However, such an argument implies that there is a female, say, or a black, say, point of view and flies in the face of the notion that stereotyping is wrong. In
regard to the shooting by a policeman of Michael Brown, an African American, a huge number of commentators pointed out that, whereas two-thirds of the population of Ferguson, MO, is black, five of the six City Council members, the police chief, and 50 of the
53 members of the police department are white. An overwhelming number of those commentators concluded that such a disparity was wrong.
I support diversity--but I also support admitting that diversity is based on stereotyping and that stereotyping is often a necessary good.