1) Solve world peace.
2) Fix problems in Africa.
3) Reclaim OPACY from the Red Sox fans.

Three is looking challenging, but I’m optimistic that one and two are within reach. We’ve already figured out why smart people believe dumb things. Check. Now, if I can figure out why people turn toward evil deeds, maybe I can tackle all three goals at once.

I’ll spare you the heartbreaking bit of the introduction about Rwanda that made me wish I believed in hell, that is in terms of an afterlife, because there’s plenty of hell on earth. I will share a few passages about the power elite that reminded me of Pierre Bordieu’s work, Language and Symbolic Power, a tough, but interesting read if you can get through the page long sentences. I’m not kidding. How in the hell anyone managed to translate the original French is beyond me, but I guess that explains why I’m in a dead-end job and not a smart capable type who is making gobs of money translating French books, sipping cafe in a cafe, manging Napoleons and fraises-stuffed crepes. But I’ve digressed.

Think about this.

The Power to Create “The Enemy”

The Powerful don’t usually do the dirtiest work themselves, just as Mafia dons leave the “whackings” to underlings. Systems create hierarchies of dominance with influence and communication going down–rarely up–the line. When a power elite wants to destroy an enemy nation, it tuns to propaganda experts to fashion a program of hate. What does it take for the citizens of one society to hate the citizens of another society to the degree that they want to segregate them, torment them, even kill them? It requires a “hostile imagination,” a psychological construction embedded deeply in their minds by propaganda that transforms those others into “The Enemy.” That image is a soldier’s most powerful motive, one that loads his rifle with ammunition of hate and fear. The image of a dreaded enemy threatening one’s personal well-being and the society’s national security emboldens mothers and fathers to send sons to war and empowers governments to rearrange priorities to turn plowshares into swords of destruction.

It is all done with words and images…The process begins with creating stereotyped conceptions of the other, dehumanized perceptions of the other, the other as worthless, the other as all-powerful, the other as demonic, the other as an abstract monster, the other as a fundamental threat to our cherished values and beliefs. With public fear notched up and the enemy threat imminent, reasonable people act irrationally, independent people act in mindless conformity, and peaceful people act as warriors. Dramatic visual images of the enemy on posters, television, magazine covers, movies, and the Internet imprint on the recesses of the limbic system, the primitive brain, with the powerful emotions of fear and hate.”

Zimbardo promises to answer these questions:

How do ordinary people adapt to such an institutional setting? How do the power differentials between guards and prisoners play out in their daily interactions? If you put good people in a bad place, do the people triumph or does the place corrupt them? Would the violence that is endemic to most real prisons be absent in a prison filled with good middle-class boys?”

My hope is that if we have the language to articulate and a cognitive knowledge of how we’re manipulated, we’ll be resistant to it. As Zimbardo states,

“…how we can resist unwanted social influence, how to build resistance to the seductive lures of influen[tial] professionals…how to combat mind control tactics used to compromise our freedom of choice to the tyranny of conformity, compliance, obedience, and self-doubting fears…By understanding how social influence operates and by realizing that any of us can be vulnerable to its subtle and pervasive powers, we can become wise and wily consumers instead of being easily influenced by authorities, group dynamics, persuasive appeals, and compliance strategies.”

We are capable of great evil, but we are also capable of being heroes.

I’ll end this post with a link to this picture of Rosa Parks, which my friend Chris just coincidentally sent to me because he was fascinated with her eyes. Look at what they say: “I’m strong. I’m disgusted. I am not intimidated.”

I found myself nodding vigorously with the author and expected the book to be interesting, but wasn’t expecting information that is actually useful to stock market investors as well. Turns out that we employ magical thinking in many realms of our lives, not just in spirituality or when watching the Orioles.

I’ll provide more info on the book later, but there is so much good information and so many great quotes that bear sharing, it will take a long time to type it all up.

Please just read the book, and if you choose to believe in ideas presented as science despite being unrepeatable and untestable, I beg that if you refuse to admit the truth to yourself, at least don’t present junk science to an audience of twenty-three million viewers who might respect you and even though they should be able to think for themselves, might think that you’re credible and give weight to believing in fanciful things and then preaching them to other people, who honestly don’t want to hear one more crackpot theory, because some of us have a need to believe that there are still some rational people left in this world.

Read the book. You’ll love it.

Life in Africa predictably proves to be a stark contrast to that lead on a continent with abundant, easily obtained food and modern conveniences. The early hardships worsen when the Congo decides to become independent and evict the Belgians. Despite the urging and advice from everyone that the Price family return to America, the stubborn Nathan decides to stay, without consideration for the wishes of his family, nor the consequences for how he is imperiling their lives. The preacher’s decision isn’t motivated by courage, but, as we later learn in more detail, from cowardice and ego. It’s clear from the first chapters, that despite Nathan’s familiarity with scripture, he has no intrinsic understanding of the finer and more respectable points of Christianity and the words that he means to bring to others he has never fully understood in any meaningful way, except where they serve his needs for punishment or humiliation. Nathan proves to be the shallowest and most soulless of any of the characters in Kingsolver’s book. It’s no surprise that his inability to respect or love anyone, even his own family, results in further repelling the community from Jesus and, eventually leads to the family’s personal tragedy.

The book is beautifully written and poetic. The unusal style in which each character writes a separate chapter doesn’t just tell the story from a different perspective, but provides insight into the character’s personality and depth while still allowing the reader to draw her own conclusions about the inner workings of each of the novel’s protagonists. My favorite part of the Poisonwood Bible is that it also provides important historical context about the struggles that Africa has faced in creating stable governments, through the eyes of someone living through the experience, instead of as an apologist for the superpowers who in so many ways created and continue to perpetuate the suffering that is so large and widespread it sometimes seems impossible to fix.

Here is your final installment of identifying a murderous spouse. For a fun game at your next dinner party you can ask your guests, “Which killer are you?”

Fine, reject my suggestion. See if I care.

Here’s the complete list:
1. The Betrayal/Abandoment Killer
2. The Control Killer
3. The Sociopathic Killer
4. The Black Widow/Profit Killer
5. The Narcississtic Killer–See Rabbi Neulander or Pamela Smart
6. The Temper Tantrum Killer–See Orioles fan after promised Opening Day tickets do not go on sale.
7. The Transference Killer–Spouse reminds him/her of someone else, for example an abusive father.
8. The Revenge Killer–See me again.
9. The Pregnancy Killer–See Rae Carruth
10. The Caregiver Killer–The spouse who cares for an ill or disabled spouse kills, sometimes at the request of the ill spouse, as an act of mercy.

Here’s the bad news. It seems that you could, at this very moment, be married to someone, who is coldly calculating how to off you for your money, or merely because you’ve grown tiresome. Here are direct quotes from the authors:

Men commit about 85 percent of all murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the United States. Between 1976 and 2002, nearly 11 percent of all murders were committed by an intimate partner. Today nearly a third of all female murder victims are killed by a spouse or lover…Women kill seven men for every ten women killed by a man…Since women are viewed as less dangerous than men, the language used to explain their aggression is much more forgiving and limited. On the other hand, men can’t rely on this strategy. For example, you won’t hear a man say, “You know, I did murder that woman, but it was because I was having a very bad testosterone-level day.”

Men and women tend to kill for very different reasons. Men tend to kill over sexual struggles and choices, while women tend to point to abuse as the precipitating cause for killing a spouse. An equal number of men and women admit to killing their partner for financial gain…Men tend to kill their wives using more aggressive means…Women, too, will use guns, but they more often utilize blunt instruments, poison, or hired hit men.

Here comes the scary part:

The traditional male killer or male-on-male killer is more likely to come from a dysfunctional background. Often this killer comes from a broken family or had a father who abused drugs, had a criminal record, or was violent toward his mother. Additionally in many cases, the killer has had three or more primary caretakers in childhood and has, for varying reasons, been admitted to an institution prior to age sixteen. The intimate-partner killer however, has more often had a reasonably normal background. Although many had some problems during childhood, overall, this killer has had a fairly traditional family and childhood. It is also of note that a high percentage of male spousal killers tend to have more education and are more likely to be gainfully employed. In effect, the male spousal killer is harder to detect. Still, there are some signs. One common characteristic of the intimate-partner killer is that he appears to specialize in showing and exhibiting violence towards women. Additionally, this killer is more likely to have a history of problematic relationships with females, including a string of broken relationships. Most intimate-partner homicides have involved some kind of ongoing dispute associated with the relationship.

Women who kill their husbands, on the whole, have the least extensive criminal records. Typical motives for women who kill are jealousy, rage, response to battering, self-defense, and financial gain.

The reality is, we all have psychological circuits that direct our brains to contemplate murder, which is why so many of us have thoughts about killing someone at one time or another…We think about murder, and often. Murder fascinates us, in part because the desire to kill another comes from the deepest part of us, our unconscious.

…Some of the frequent questions I have been asked on television are, “Can anyone become murderous? What is the difference between couples who just get angry with each other and those who actually kill? Why not divorce? Are people born killers? Is there any way to know if you are in danger of marrying someone capable of killing you?” [Yes, yes, that’s what I want to know.]

The scary thing is that anyone can become a victim of marital homicide because anyone can become violent. Dr. Phyllis Sharp, an associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins, believes marital homicide is less about anger and more about control and an imbalance of power. Sometimes the abuse in a relationship is more subtle, like a partner being unfaithful or a spouse knowing how to make his partner feel bad about herself, and hence powerless.

Joseph Scalia, a psychoanalyst and author of the book “Intimate Violence,” offers a provocative idea–that there is little difference between the spouse who cheats and the person who kills, as opposed to the person who won’t cheat at all. The person who doesn’t cheat has some understanding of the realities of relationships and has come to terms with his inner demons. He accepts the difficulties of life without needing to always meet his needs and have his way and is in relatively little danger of acting impulsively. People who cheat want their needs met. They have a more egocentric approach to the world, and sometimes murder can seem like the fastest way to meeting their needs.

Have to interject, “Baloney!” here. There are plenty of spouses who are indifferent to the relationship and deaf to the pleas of their partner, and just because they don’t cheat doesn’t mean that they’re any more mature, or less self-absorbed and self-centered. I know of plenty of marriages where one is holding the other hostage emotionally, completely apathetic to the needs of their spouse, self-consumed, but too self-righteous to either open up to hearing their spouse or divorce. It seems to me that those with addictive behaviors are more impulsive and concerned with having their needs met, but I’m not a psychologist, so what do I know?

Of particular interest is that many of the spousal killers addressed throughout this book were loved by their in-laws prior to the crime…Spousal killers can be quite lovable. The non-homicidal aspect of their personalities can be charming and very pleasant. They can successfully split off the unlovable, dangerous parts when they are not feeling enraged or entitled. In the more psychopathic cases, the homicidal spousal killer deliberately manipulates people in order to be seductive, lovable, and to get his or her own way. Perhaps even more striking is that a spouse can love his or her partner and kill them at the same time. In some cases such individuals do not necessarily want to kill their partner, they just want to get rid of the unlovable part of their spouse and keep the rest.

This again is from “Till Death Do Us Part.” I’ve omitted descriptions of the impassioned killers. They’re boring. But this one guys, will make you sit up in your chair. Here’s a quote that describes the Black Widow killer:

The Black Widow killer is a woman who systematically murders a single or multiple spouses, partners, other family members, or individuals outside of the family with whom she has developed a personal and usually intimate relationship. However, the Black Widow overwhelmingly prefers to kill a trusted spouse or intimate partner.

This type of killer typically begins her criminal career after the age of twenty-five and may go on actively killing victims for a period of ten years and/or until she gets caught…They tend to be more “Plain Jane-ish,” which makes their diabolical abilities particularly intriguing to the outside world. The typical American Black Widow relies on her ability to win the confidence and trust of those whom she will ultimately murder, with gaining that trust an essential prerequisite to her attacks. The Black Widow’s perceived role as confidante to her eventual victims often provides her the perfect alibi, and she is able to attack her victims with great precision. Poison is often her lethal weapon of choice; the death is slow and usually requires a long period of time.

This type of murderer usually has only one motive: profit. She tends to murder for life insurance proceeds or to receive her victim’s financial assets. On rare occasions, rage and revenge also factor into her motive. She has an insatiable appetite for money; no amount can ever be enough. When she needs more cash, her murderous impulses strike again, usually in a quiet, careful, and often undetected manner.

Here’s the story of Julia Lynn Turner and this one too. Kimberly Hricko is a black widow killer, but I can’t seem to find any decent links for you.

How do you know if you’re married to a Black Widow killer before it’s too late? I wish I could tell you. Just to be safe, maybe you should look at this information: Yahoo Answers. Just remember, none of the guys that died suspected their wives either.

Just for kicks, I asked my husband if I’m the beneficiary on his accounts. If looks could kill…is there a name for murder by looks? If only he thought I am as funny as I think I am.

Posted in Books | Print | No Comments »