Manhattan: Old Scientists, Modern-Liberal Attitudes

I've just started watching the series "Manhattan" on Hulu Plus. As something of a science nerd, I was drawn in by the chance to learn a bit more about the development of the first atomic bomb, the conditions at the base, and the people who performed the work. I found the first episode riveting, and quickly added the program to my favorites. Now, having made it through episode five, I am beginning to rethink that decision.

Any historical drama is going to be limited in just how authentic it can be. That's a given. No one was following people around during historical moments, transcribing or recording each and every word for posterity. In the case of circumstances such as those surrounding the development of the first atomic bomb, no such records would have been permitted anyway. So we are instead given a script based occasionally on notes or tapes, a few historical records, and a whole lot of "best guesses" by whoever happens to be writing the script, and therein lies the problem: It is very easy for the show to become less about what the actual people involved thought and felt, and more about what the writers and the people paying for the show want to express.

In the land of Manhattan, that viewpoint takes us into a realm of dark places and shadowy immortals. Instead of gods, we have scientists, yet they regard that difference as trivial. They believe you should, too. And like the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, they possess all of the flaws and weaknesses of the mortals they dominate, only more so. They brood, bully, punish, and suffer, far beyond the limits of human measure.

And they blackmail. Mustn't forget the blackmail.

While each of the group members are joined together by a series of oaths, whether to God (as in marriage) or the government (for security purposes), few of the characters consider these as having any real authority over them. Solemn pledges or promises are simply tools to obtain what they desire, or, more often, obstacles to be overcome. Time and time again it is demonstrated to us how wise and wonderful these beings are, how foolish to ever think their genius should be constrained by something as foolish as security, procedure, marriage, loyalty, or any of the concerns of lesser creatures. It makes me wish I had a TV script writer doing my biography. Then, all of the people who ever got in my way or tried to slow me down long enough to actually think about a situation would realize just how small they were being. Anyway...

To this end, even personnel enemies among the scientists will join together to thwart the common enemies: The government and the military. While they may thoroughly dislike or even hate each other, the idea of others imposing consequences on their number is too repugnant to bear. They band together in such instances, grudgingly, to ensure members of their enclave are protected from the wrath of mortals. Or rather, mortals are prevented from acting against the scientists for mortal concerns.

They will seldom hesitate to use government security or the military against each other to achieve their own ends, and it is in this regard that the modern-liberal viewpoint of the show becomes clear. While the principals are contemptuous of the idea of central authority, they have no qualms about using it against those who challenge or disagree. At the same time, they consider themselves to be the highest moral authority, subject to no will or law above their own conscience or judgment. People being people, I'm sure that there probably was a fair amount of that sentiment, even in 1943. However, I also tend to think that there was a good deal more patriotism, more unity, more willingness to sacrifice the desires of self for the good of the nation and the world. Had that same war been waged against an America holding the majority views of today, I doubt that I would be free to write any commentary about the pursuit of an American atomic bomb, and what I did write would probably be in German.

Deaf to Military Requirements

The roles of grievance and diversity mongers has grown so lengthy in the past decade that from time to time I am tempted to think that the ranks of the discontent must surely have been satisfied by now, that there is no group left undenied to complain. I am tempted to believe, and then reality slaps me once again, and the foolishness begins anew.

The target in this instance is the U.S. Air Force. It seems in their fervor to maintain something resembling a "fighting" force, the USAF has been acting in a discriminatory fashion. As amazing at it may sound (definite pun intended) the hearing impaired are prevented from becoming officers. (I have not researched as of yet whether the sister services are behaving in a similarly deplorable fashion.) According to Civics teacher David Bird, deaf people should have the "right" to serve in non-combat roles, that it's a matter of treating deaf people "equally." Annie Sullivan wept...

Such stirring words remind me of my own first days in Navy basic training. I, and several hundred of my newly-closest friends, were informed point blank that there was no "right" to enlist. Period. Military service, it was explained, was a privilege for those who qualified. In our modern, more enlightened society, these words of 35 years ago sound like despotic prattling, just one step removed (or perhaps half a step) from screaming for the wife to have dinner on the table, or taking a mint-julep out on the porch to watch the evening beatings. Nevertheless, that was the prevailing law at the time, and the government seemed to take the principle seriously. Of course, a lot has happened since then with regards to the services, and I find little of the change appealing. It's not that I am opposed to social progress. It's just that I can't tolerate enforced fiction.

The call for such changes in policy often begins with an appeal for "equality." Sadly, it seldom ends there. If it did, these matters could be dispensed with quickly, and with a minimum of disturbance. In fact, few groups desire, or are willing, to join such organizations on an equal footing. Women said they just wanted an equal chance, but they did not want the chance to pass the same physical tests or participate equally in selective service or combat. Some, mind you, complained until they had the right to "choose" combat roles (a right no man gets, by the way), but that was as far as it went.

What was desired was the right to pursue a position and gain the full prestige and advantages without shouldering the full responsibilities. It's a pattern that has been repeated lots of times in numerous venues. A group yells for equality as a method of getting into an organization, and things proceed from there. I suppose the hearing impaired community deserves some measure of credit. At least they are stating up front that they are only interested in non-combat roles. Just what the service needs, another group to take up the non-combat roles that people use for lower stress and rotation out of combat roles...

Anger at the situation solves little. The precedent is well established, so they'll probably get most of what they want. Where the hearing impaired will fall short, however, is in the area of what some of them crave the most: Respect. The service can make their fellow airmen train them, salute them, report to them, but they can't make the rank and file respect them. For that, they would need to be able to serve in an equal capacity. They aren't. What they are is another group demanding what they don't merit. It's a large group, and carries no real honor, but at least they meet the requirements for that one.

The Barbarians are Well Beyond the Gates...

John Adams is credited with first characterizing the United States as a "nation of laws, not men." It was always something of an optimistic assessment. To my knowledge, no system yet has been devised for restraining men in positions of power from bending the rule of law to suit their preferences or patrons. Nor do I believe any such system possible in this world. Still, it was an ideal, something to be lauded and strived for. Was. With each new passing day, it becomes more and more evident that much of the country has abandoned any pretense of this fine standard, with "legal" actions now determined based on the whims of officials or pressure from "the mob."

The most obvious examples of mob mentality can be found in the aftermath of the recent shooting in Ferguson, Mo. Before any finding of fact, much less responsibility, the angry crowd began calling for the arrest of the police officer at the scene. As the investigation made it seem likely that official charges would be filed, the response was violence, property damage, and the promise of more to come if their demands were not met.

Contributing to this toxic atmosphere were visitors from out of state, some appearing to take great pains to stoke the fires of unrest and disharmony for their own reasons. Now, the Federal Department of "Justice" is responding with its own investigation. Based on its record under Attorney General Holder, one can only speculate how much a desire for justice will play a part in any actions finally taken.

In other locales, retributive actions are taking place. Roving gangs of African Americans are taking "revenge" through severe beatings of white citizens. In contrast to the media circus staged in Ferguson, most news outlets are studiously ignoring the trend. Knowledge of the attacks stays local and compartmentalized, but the underlying anger at officials, no longer even giving a pretense of "color-blind" law enforcement, builds to critical levels.

I had hoped that the nation and the press would have taken some lessons from the case of Trayvon Martin. It was an excellent example of how misrepresentation of facts and selective coverage could turn an already volatile situation into a disaster. Sadly, the publicity provided, and the public interest, only seemed to whet the nation's appetite for more. Well, "more" is here, and is likely to be around for quite some time.

How will the cycle end, or will it end? These questions remain open for the time being. Inspired by leaders of little talent or integrity, lawlessness is tolerated, and thus increases. With no deterrent, the accusations and demands for mob justice are likely to increase as well, with violence and property damage growing apace. And the perpetrators, for the most part, will rest snug in their beds, secure in the knowledge that their violence and destruction is justified. No matter how obese or out of shape a nation becomes, it seems we never tire of rushing to judgment.

The Mysterious National Syndrome

I was hearkening back to my early college courses a few days ago. The field was psychology. It was a Freshman course, the basic stuff. It was more interesting than a lot of my other classes, but I knew from the start that I had neither the temperament for psychology as a profession, nor the resources to carry on through graduate course work. In my case, the course work was almost entirely academic (pun intended). Like most electives, at least those in a decent curriculum, there were some informative bits that carry value to other fields or daily life.

Consider the medical term "diagnosis." As defined in the course that I took (again, quite basic) the term simply meant "naming the disease." A remarkably simple definition, something even those who could never dream of entering Med School (except perhaps to deliver pizza) would have little trouble understanding. And yet, as simple as the definition is, it remains a powerful tool in medicine. Think of the difficulties that would arise without it. How much time would be lost in servicing and treating the patient if at every turn, every consultation, the doctor was forced to relate an on-going list of symptoms, real and imagined. Certainly each physician would have a grasp of the condition, assuming that information was not lost along the way, but standardized care would be either impossible or greatly restricted as each doctor tried to treat the symptoms according to his own experience. In the long run, I believe that missing this one, simple concept, would mean an incalculable increase in suffering and mortality across the nation and the globe.

The concept does not only apply to physical ailments. Though not generally referred to as a "diagnosis," solving a problem in most any field usually requires that the conditions be identified, the problem named. The diagnosis is the focus for action, the rallying point for the players, the identifier that allows prioritizing resources. For a problem of any scale at all, you have to name it to have any chance of solving it. And if you want to have a decent chance, you had better be correct. It's common sense, as simple as pie, and rapidly becoming as scarce as jobs for the fifteen to twenty-four demographic.

We see the symptoms: unemployment, economic stagnation, political corruption, loss of national borders. Yet our leaders, and many who still express some kind of faith in them, cannot or will not name the problems. They won't call terrorism "terrorism." I heard that "man-made disaster" is the currently approved term. Militant Islam, what's that? There is no flooding of illegal immigrants. It's simply an influx of  "undocumented workers." There are no problems, at least none that the current administration is willing to tackle. And since there are no problems, there are no need for solutions. All it takes is a quick address, and then off to tee for quick round on the back nine. Meanwhile, the nation continues to succumb.

Will the patient live? Probably. Nation states are hardy. While they do pass from time to time, it's a lengthy process. We still have a long way to go. I wonder, though: Is that more time to recover, or simply more time to experience the fall, waiting hopefully, prayerfully, desperately. Waiting for our leaders to have enough courage to name the disease.