I owe that line to Robin Hanson. Here is the latest:
Six weeks after Bruce E. Ivins
killed himself, the cremated remains of Mr. Ivins, the Army scientist
and anthrax suspect, are stored at a funeral home here, awaiting the
outcome of an unusual probate court proceeding.…Dr. Ivins wrote of his wish to be cremated and have his ashes
scattered. But fearing that his wife, Diane, and their two children
might not honor the request, he came up with a novel way to enforce his
demand: threatening to make a bequest to an organization he knew his
wife opposed, Planned Parenthood.“If
my remains are not cremated and my ashes are not scattered or spread on
the ground, I give to Planned Parenthood of Maryland” $50,000, Dr.
Ivins wrote in the will. Court records value the estate at $143,000.Ms. Ivins is a former president of Frederick County Right to Life, according to F.B.I. records.
The NYT article concludes (do they ever write contingent contracts?):
The will adds another stroke to the portrait that has emerged from
F.B.I. records of Dr. Ivins, an anthrax specialist at the Army’s
biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick, in Maryland, as quirky and
mentally troubled.
His wife, at least, says he is innocent. What would you think of a man who wrote such a contract?
About the same as what I would think of a man who wrote a pre-nuptial contract: sometimes it’s just common sense.
If people can get away with ignoring your wishes, they very often will, and that is often especially true of the people closest to you. A professional engaged to fulfill the terms of a posthumous contract would simply shrug and do it; a family member might think that he or she knows better and should decide what’s best for you. They often interfere in ways that they wouldn’t dare to do if they were dealing with a stranger, even while you’re still alive and able to object.
Anyone who specialises in the military uses of anthrax is likely to be a bit unusual. But this will provision looks like a side product of a long standing and probbly cherished arguement with his wife. It does not begin to be evidence in the case.
It’s not just spouses. Look at Nabokov.
Sounds to me like a man who hedges his bets.
He should run for President.
I think the question is comparable to “what would you think of a man who wrote ‘Megan uses the word policy but mostly her post is about personal obligation’.” It is a question that is slyly suggestive of “bad things” in a very gossipy way. I _will_ suggest that my respect for this blog has been diminished by this post.
What contract?
No man trusts his wife. The real question is should we trust a man who claims to trust his wife–he is clearly a liar. Perhaps another question is why the hell he cares what happens to his body once he dies.
Well, when you phrase it *that* prejudicially…
Yes, when you phrase it that prejudicially I have to wonder what a man is doing committing his life to someone whom he cannot trust. It suggests either that his judgment about people had been very wrong at some point, or that his notion of marriage encompasses distrust and deceit. If the former, he may well have improved; this raises complex questions about why he is still married, but there are answers to those questions which would not imply I should distrust him. If the latter, I don’t care whether I trust him or not, because I find him despicable.
I’m just wondering where that $50,000 to Planned Parenthood goes if he gets cremated. I am assuming his wife and kids? I am looking at it from the glass-half-full perspective. Ivins says: “If you cremate me, you’ll get another 50,000. If you don’t, you lose it, and it goes to Planned Parenthood.”
At any rate I think of course you can trust a man who doesn’t trust his wife to echo what Jason said. There are plenty of reasons other than love/trust/affection that people get married and stay married. Who are we to say Ivins was being irrational by getting married/staying married to her? Might have made monetary and economic sense to do so. Or maybe he settled. Or had the herp. Or maybe she did something to break his trust.
I defer to Jason’s particular knowledge of the murderer mind.
Maybe he’s worried future investigators will find specific antibodies to a specific strain of anthrax or something. As they say, don’t get the ball to the one yard line and let someone else fumble it. In other words, when things get critical, trust no one. On the other hand, why would he care about his reputation after he commits suicide?
Maybe I am just naive but, without any other knowledge of the man, I would think that someone who wrote a will like that had a great sense of humour.
I like your blog and the way you think and talk! Really a nice blog. Thanks for your nice work and wish you have a nice day! Bestwishes to you!
Comments on this entry are closed.