Staff Sergeant Robert Bales and the price of life.

In America, money buys everything – even forgiveness, it seems. At least, that is the implicit view of the American armed forces.

Staff Sergeant Robert Bales is being charged with the murders of 17 Afghan civilians, he shot to death in their homes, at night. There were four men, four women and nine children in the tally. He also attempted to kill six others. He faces a potential death sentence and a minimum life sentence with the possibility of parole, under military law. These facts are well known. What struck me as somewhat bizarre was what America has done in response to these killings. It has attempted to bribe the affections of the deceased’s families. The US has paid 50,000 USD to the families of those killed, per victim and 11,000 USD to the families of those wounded, per victim. Think about that for a moment. America imagines that it can buy the goodwill of the families of those it has murdered. In doing so, it is implicitly stating that it believes there is some exchangeable equivalence between money and life. There is no such equivalence, in their hearts. It is certain that not a one of the survivors would rather have the money than their loved ones back, alive, with them.

Then there is another curious fact about this. The international mass media are expressing amazement at the size of the sums the Americans have offered in compensation. They seem to be saying that these are large sums of money. Now, by comparison to past payments to those killed or injured by Americans in Afghanistan, they are. Typical prior payments have been 2,000 USD for a death; 400 USD for a serious injury and 200 USD for a non-serious injury. So, by that scale these are significant payments. Yet, there is another comparison to be made. America has placed a value on human life, called the “statistical value of human life”. Different agencies place different values on life. The Environmental Protection Agency values a life at 6.9 million USD. The Food and Drug Administration values life at 7.9 million USD. This leads to a sobering conclusion: an Afghan life is worth up to 158 times less than an American life, according to the actions of the American government, in compensating the Afghan families, whose members were murdered by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

Should the Afghan people ever come to understand this discrepancy between the value of an American life and the value of Afghan life, they might be mightily insulted at the compensation offered. It should be noted that the Afghans have a blood money culture in which compensation for the loss of life is expected – yet, Afghan commentators have remarked, in tune with my words, that no compensation is enough to make amends for these crimes – for it won’t bring back their loved ones.

If America really wants to play this game, of buying off the hatred of the people who have every reason to hate them, then really they should pay the same value for an Afghan life that they notionally ascribe to an American life. Each Afghan victim should have been compensated to the tune of 7.9 million USD. This would have another effect. It might make the Americans more cautious about whom they kill in Afghanistan. It could soon become very expensive to send young, anger prone, gun happy, American soldiers into a combat environment – for reasons altogether unrelated to their pay and support. Were every civilian death to require almost 8 million USD in compensation, there would, I am sure, be suddenly a whole lot fewer of them – and this could only be described as a good thing.

I shall patiently wait for the American government to pay out the balance of the 7.9 million USD payments for each victim. Until then, the US government hasn’t shown that it values Afghan life as much as it values American life – and that is a very grave insult, to this long suffering people. A life is a life – and it should be valued as much from a distant land, as from our own. That is a lesson the Americans have yet to imbibe.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The monster within the USA.

Monsters come in great variety. There are many ways to be evil. One way, is simply not to care whether one’s fellow men live or die – for that way leads to very dark worlds indeed.

In a CNN Tea Party debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer, recently, the audience glimpsed the true nature of some modern Americans.

Wolf Blitzer asked Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is a doctor, oddly enough, how society should respond if an uninsured 30 year old has an accident and goes into a coma and needs intensive care for six months. Ron Paul was blunt and rather brutal. He argued strongly that the government should not be responsible. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks,” Paul said. His voice was overwhelmed by the uproarious audience applause. He continued, “this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody...”.

“Are you saying that society should just let him die?”, pursued Blitzer.

At that point, the audience gave its answer. They were shouts of “Yeah!”, from those who watched, attended by, rather unbelievably, LAUGHTER.

To my mind, those shouts were horrifying. They signalled that, in some quarters, Americans harbour attitudes to life which would have blended well with the Nazi administration of World War II. They hold life in such low value, that they LAUGH at the idea it should be allowed to slip away, unopposed. Truly, they are monsters. Yet, these monsters, would just call themselves “true Americans”...and have no real knowledge of the callousness of their own position. If this is what the Tea Party is all about, then America has some serious issues to worry about. How would it be, were people who so little value life, to come to power? What kind of society would they build, founded on the celebration of death, as if it were a humorous matter?

Modern America can, at times, seem like a study in heartlessness. At some point, in its history, a wrong turning was taken, such that it is, now, in some quarters, so concerned with “me”, that no-one else matters – even if they die unnecessarily and avoidably. America has become a nation of individuals who care for nothing and no-one but the self. Unfortunately, however, a society cannot be built on universal selfishness. The kind of society that emerges when no-one cares for anyone else, is so heartless, so cruel, so aggressive, so cold and so unremittingly mean, that no-one would ever wish a life there, upon anyone. Yet, that is precisely the kind of society that America promises to come, guided by “thinkers” who believe that the state should not intervene to save a life and that it is “every man for himself”.

There is merit in the European ideal of nationalized medicine. At least, in Europe, the state would not stand by, whilst such a hypothetical 30 year old, died. European healthcare systems would intervene to preserve that life, believing it to have great value and be worthy of great efforts to save. That is a more humane outlook. In America, however, if you are uninsured – and basic insurance for an average family runs to well over a thousand US dollars a month, I am told, if independent of a company plan – then some people would prefer to let you die, than require the state to intervene and try to save you, should you fall catastrophically ill.

It is interesting to consider the different varieties of human society and see the values on which they are built. Europe is built on a regard for human life that seems quite clear – and on a wish to achieve equality of some kind. America, on the other hand, is built not on the value of human life in general, but human life in particular: one’s own life, at the expense, even, of all others. I am not sure that any society following the American model of outlook on life, is a sustainable society. Life should be cherished, wherever it is found and whatever its condition. None of us have any more valuable a possession than our own lives. What kind of world is it, therefore, where society would stand by and let a young man die, without attempting to intervene, for the want of a rather expensive insurance policy? Surely the fault here is in constructing a society which does not provide universal healthcare for all, regardless of wealth. The fault, here, in this imaginary scenario is in America itself. It is not the failing of the young man that he lacks health insurance he probably could not afford – but it is the fault of America for requiring that he be insured in the first place. Healthcare should be a universal right – not the privilege of those with the wealth to afford it. If this is not so, societies constructed on the basis of wealth, determining health care access, become very inhumane, indeed. They are not societies at all – but simply life long scrambles for supremacy over others. They are latter day jungles. Is that the kind of society modern man should choose to live in? Should not care for the lives of all, be at the root of our civilizations? If it is not, is it possible for human beings to thrive in such cold conditions? Can a happy and moral life be found in such circumstances?

The audience of the Tea Party debate placed no value on human life. Might I suggest that American readers, in turn, place no value on the Tea Party? This position would seem the rational response to a political movement informed by a denial of the value of life, at least in this example.

Let us build a world in which all human life has value. All the alternative worlds, that do not, are nothing but varieties of horror. Mankind had enough of such horror in the 20^th Century. Let not Man be visited again, by such horrors, in the 21^st Century – at least no more than we already have.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Baroness Warnock, the unethical "ethics expert".

Baroness Warnock wants you to die. More specifically, if you become ill with dementia she wants people to be "licensed" to put you down - just like an old dog. Baroness Warnock is, I contend, a far from ethical medical ethics expert.

Let us a take a closer look at what she believes. She thinks that an old person should be killed for the sake of their loved ones or society in general. She believes that such ill people are a burden on society and their loved ones and should be put down, like animals, to save others the burden of caring for them. This is, she considers, the "ethical" thing to do. I am left to wonder if she is quite sane. I think not.

Baroness Warnock thinks that if one burdens others, one should die. She is putting the convenience of society as a whole as a higher value than individual human life. I have seen this kind of thinking before: the Nazis were particularly enamoured of it, putting down whole swathes of people for violating the convenience of society as a whole, as they defined convenience. The convenience of society is NOT and can never be a higher value than human life itself. There is no higher value than human life - and one who does not place human life as the highest of values is not and can never be considered an ethical authority.

Baroness Warnock has revealed herself as a monster. I use the word deliberately, for she shares the outlook on human life (that its value is contingent on what others want) with the Nazis and other monstrous people before them. Human life is of the highest value - and is never and can never be considered contingent on what others want, in any civilized, ethical society. Baroness Warnock's reasoning is monstrous - or perhaps she is, herself, showing signs of dementia (she is 84). By her own reasoning, Baroness Warnock should be put down, therefore, for the demented nature of her own utterances. I don't see her being too quick to volunteer, however - perhaps she places a high value on her own life, but a low value on the life of others (another definite sign of a monstrous personality).

Baroness Warnock says that old people in mental decline are "wasting people's lives", due to the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if not in pain. She insisted that there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of loved ones or society. She has previously been recorded as saying that old people, who did not want to become a burden, should be helped to die. Now, she wants people to be licensed to do just that: go around killing old people. To my mind, she seems quite mad, in holding such views.

Baroness Warnock holds the kinds of views typical of despots and tyrants and monsters through the ages. Yet, she is supposedly a "medical ethics expert" who has been an adviser to the British government. I am puzzled as to how someone with so little grasp of what constitutes an ethical position could ever have been considered an ethics expert - or allowed to be an adviser on it. Her remarks show her to be most unethical - profoundly so - for she places no value on individual human life, but values the convenience of others above it.

It seems to me that more careful vetting is needed of candidates for the position of ethical adviser. Clearly, the British made a serious error in ever allowing Baroness Warnock any influence on ethical matters at all. Her influence can only be highly dangerous. Just think of what kind of world would come into being if Baroness Warnock were heeded on this matter: a world in which any human who fell sick and therefore inconvenienced others, would be put down. It is a world in which Stephen Hawking would have been killed off in his twenties when his motor disease overcame him. It is a world in which no-one would be allowed to live who troubled others. It is a world in which the handicapped would be executed at birth. It is world in which the stupid would be eliminated. For is not a mentally impaired person a burden on others? It is a world in which all would be relatively young, because the old would be consistently eliminated. It is a world that has been tried before. It is the world of the Third Reich.

Baroness Warnock is clearly impaired mentally, herself. She is clearly not thinking of the broader implications of advocating the death of one inconvenient class of people. Before long ALL inconvenient classes of people would be executed. Then again, what does "inconvenient" mean? Would it be extended, in some countries, to mean all those who don't support a particular political viewpoint? Would it extend to homosexuals? Or holders of another religion other than the official one? You may say that I am extending her argument too much - but I am most assuredly not. Once the idea that society has the right to execute one class of inconvenient people has become entrenched, it will soon be generalized. The taboo against taking human life would have been broken and this would open the way for all kinds of people to be ruled against as "inconvenient". Before long the few classes of people who survive will be living in a much duller, sanitized world - the world of Baroness Warnock "ethical expert".

Baroness Warnock is not a very intelligent woman. That much is clear. Her contribution to the world is not a positive one. What she advocates would destroy the civility of the modern world as we know it. Far from being a burden that must be killed, sick old people should be the focus of a duty of care: it is our responsibility, as fellow humans, to ensure that their lives are as comfortable as possible. In fact, I will go further than this: it is our duty as fellow humans to TREAT their illness and make them better if we can. Our ethical duty is not to kill them, to spare ourselves the trouble of bothering with them, as "ethical", oops, monstrous Baroness Warnock contends, but to cure them of their illnesses. A civilized culture would invest greater funds in research on dementing illnesses so as to cure them. They would not invest in the apparatus of death which Baroness Warnock would like to see brought into being.

The ethical thing to do, in this situation, would be to ensure that Baroness Warnock's plan is never implemented. Furthermore, to safeguard the future of society, the ethical thing to do would be to ensure that Baroness Warnock has no further influence over ethical matters. The ethical thing to do would be to review ALL of Baroness Warnock's past "ethical" decisions and check them for ethical content, against a more humanistic view of the world.

Baroness Warnock, by advocating the early deaths of millions of people, has become an inconvenience to society - for there could be no greater inconvenience to members of that society than wholesale deaths. Therefore, by her own reasoning, it is time for Baroness Warnock to say goodbye to the world. Perhaps she would like to try to establish the wisdom of her own reasoning by providing an example to the world of how a "sick old person" can benefit society by their own euthanasia.

I very much doubt whether she will take her own advice - which just goes to show how valueless it is.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)