ISIS & Ebola Inspire Revisit of Camus' The Plague

President Obama has asked the world to unite in stopping menaces as different as Ebola and ISIS. Leaving ISIS aside for the moment, Ebola is not really a threat to the U.S. Yes, it's a scary disease with no preventive vaccine and a high mortality rate (over 50% in the current outbreak), but Ebola is not easy to contract since the virus is passed along in bodily fluids, not airborne, so special hygiene, medical support, and good water/sewer systems can prevent contagion (basics lacking in poor African areas). Other diseases pose greater threats to the homeland; setting aside defunct menaces like smallpox, there's influenza (a perennial problem, with the specter of the 1918 Spanish flu's 50 million to 70 million world death toll) and AIDS (over 36 million dead worldwide since 1981), for example. Why lead a mobilization against Ebola? Altruistically, we are making a humanitarian appeal to prevent further suffering and loss. There is also political self-interest in preventing the epidemic from causing political/social collapse in Africa, perhaps opening the door to more forces inimical to Western interests. On both the Ebola and ISIS issues, I am reminded of a classic book: The Plague by Albert Camus. In the novel, published in 1947, the North African city of Oran is swept by a plague, causing the city to be sealed off. Various characters -- from doctor, bureaucrat and criminal to priest -- face a world where mass death visits guilty, innocent, young and old indiscriminately; where relationships are broken by quarantine, exile and fear; and where individual decisions on communal resistance vs. fatalistic acceptance vs. self-interest/self-protection move from metaphysical questions to daily choices. The novel certainly provides a paradigm of society facing existential, environmental threats, from Ebola to climate change. But the book also works as an allegory with political and ethical implications, which brings us right back round to ISIS. Originally, The Plague was seen as an allegory of the French Resistance (Camus was a member) to Nazi occupation, but I think it could be read today as an allegory of resistance to ISIS or any other deadly, insidious political movement. To put Ebola in perspective, check out the Al Jazeera infographic: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/08/infographic-deadly-ebola-epidemic-west-africa-20148248162913356.html

What Do Celebrity Icons Show About Our Times?

My children follow the ups and downs of numerous "celebrity" lives: The whole Kardashian clan, of course; pop music divas and abrasive rappers; movie stars in love and sports figures in trouble; and reality "stars" from blushing bachelorettes to rich housewives. Who are these people and why should we care about them? What does it say about our society that Beyoncé has more ardent fans than any political leader or innovative thinker? An interesting book about the fame phenomenon came out in the late 1990s: The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History, by Leo Braudy. Reviewing the lifestyles of the rich and famous over 2,000 years of Western culture, Braudy concludes that fame is actually a symptom of something deeper: our "ideas of what an individual is." Famous people as diverse as Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman and P.T. Barnum embody definitions, in sometimes quite revolutionary ways, of how an individual exists and expresses himself or herself in the world of the time. For example, contemporaries Augustus Caesar, notable during his life, and Jesus, more notable after his death, provided very different models for self-definition in their public vs. transcendental paths. But what about contemporary celebrity? Braudy sees modern American self-definition torn between our wish to embrace transcendence, uniqueness and private truths and our desire for public expression and performance that win general acclaim and acceptance. Now that's a troubling notion. Champions of "inner truth" are notably absent from the popular pantheon, I think. And consider the exemplars of public performances awarded fame today--namely "celebrities" who put glam and self-interest ahead of emotional depth and communal well-being. Are we missing more inspiring role models to crown with renown, or are we ignoring them in favor of shallow symbols of wealth, looks and pleasure? Let's hope new varieties of celebrity arise. I shudder to think of Kim Kardashian as the defining icon of the times! For Braudy's book, go to http://www.amazon.com/The-Frenzy-Renown-Fame-History/dp/0679776303

Is the Heat Index Linked to Crime Rates?

It was a sweltering day in Southern California, and I found myself banging the phone down on yet another solar energy solicitation, secretly imagining I was bludgeoning to death this almost daily annoyance. How many times do I tell the same companies I already have solar? Blame it on the heat, shocked telemarketer. But if I can blame my temper on the heat, what about real violence? Do rising temperatures increase the violent crime rate? Back in August of 2013, a group of academics published a piece in The New York Times contending that, yes, higher temperatures make people more violent. Their conclusion was based on what they saw as 60 of the best studies on the relationship between extreme climate and human conflict -- whether interpersonal aggression such as murder or large-scale mayhem such as wars. Studies consistently found higher temperatures associated with more violence, claimed the academics, warning of dire implications given global warming. Certainly, problems with water, food and arable land due to global warming can be catalysts for large-scale conflict, but the link between temperature and interpersonal crime is less supported, even refuted by some data. Frankly, to blame violent crimes on the sun makes as much sense as blaming the moon to me. Yet it's an old and still popular belief that the full moon leads to an increase in violent, irrational acts. It's also an idea not backed by data, except that a 2005 study found over 80% of mental health professionals link lunar cycles to behavior anyway. I guess it's comforting to blame an external force, like the blazing sun or the glowing moon, rather than deal with the fault in our characters or our society. When it comes to crime and climate, I would paraphrase Shakespeare: The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. For the article on weather and violence, see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/opinion/sunday/weather-and-violence.html?_r=0

'Stranger' Fear Ignores Real Threats to Children

According to the news headlines, America is a dangerous place for children as soon as they step out of their homes and into the potential clutches of evil strangers. Armed maniacs spray bullets in elementary schools; deviant killers abduct tots from playgrounds; the Internet allows disguised pedophiles to lure gullible innocents; and don't forget possible terrorist attacks. Are the risks real or just media hype? FBI crime statistics actually show that violent crime rates overall have declined significantly from the 1990s. But Americans don't believe it; a 2013 Pew Research study found that while the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010 than in 1993 and other firearm crimes (such as robbery and rape) were 75% lower, 56% of Americans believed gun crime was higher than 20 years ago. So what about those scary stories of crimes against children? The crime data reveal a surprising fact: Children are in more danger before they step outside the home rather than afterward. Looking at just child abductions and murders, a 2013 Discovery.com report stressed the rarity of stranger abductions, citing data that the majority of missing children are taken by a parent or caregiver, and many other abduction reports are hoaxes or false alarms. As a 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs noted, more than three-fourths of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child -- and, more shocking, children abducted by strangers actually were harmed less frequently than those taken by acquaintances! Indeed, of all children under age 5 murdered between 1980 and 2008, Department of Justice figures show that 63% were killed by a parent, 23% were killed by male acquaintances, 5% were killed by female acquaintances, 7% were killed by other relatives, and just 3% were killed by strangers. Yes, children need to be taught about "stranger danger," and schools need better security, and Internet threats (from pedophiles to cyberbullying) must be policed. But those actions won't address the greatest dangers to our children. To quote W.H. Auden, "Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table." How do we protect children from those closest to them, from familiar faces? The challenge of keeping our children safe is a lot more complex than criminals, madmen and terrorists. For more data and links to articles on children and crime, check out http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/