Damn - stepping into really dangerous territory here, but it is time to flesh out a thought that has been a small kernel for a long time. I considered it back when we were going to war in Iraq, justified by a laundry list of reasons, one of which was to "spread democracy", the idea that all people deserve and can function with the right for self-determination. Such thinking has been at the heart of American intervention for a long time, although most often the war cry does not recognize how the enemy has changed, does not benefit from analysis of our previous folly. The thought once more emerges as the "democracy we proudly created" in Iraq falls into disarray and ruin.
Are all cultures really capable of or suited to democracy?
I can only imagine how we look from the outside sometimes, why to oms our nation is at once amazing and perplexing. We are a nation that, now more than ever, has great divides among its people (perhaps later we will ponder how this has happened over time). Yet we all live under a single government and must cope with its incompetence and inefficiency. Thus it amazes to hear the administration's criticisms of the Maliki government in Iraq. Words like "greater inclusiveness" and "tolerance" flow so easily from the lips of those who are our betters, who know what rights we need and don't need, yet want leaders in other countries to surrender a power that they themselves cling to. Still we - Americans - do not rebel, do not rise up, do not kill indiscriminately, terrorize our fellows, or behead those who disagree with us. There is some sort of value, some sort of morals, some cultural element that allows for our displeasure while maintaining some semblance of order.
I would propose that what does that is our Bill of Rights. It seems that, as long as a people are not persecuted, hounded, marginalized and denied their rights as protected by our constitution, then discontent will likely never cross over to armed rebellion. As long as we are, at our core, who we were, we persevere. Of course, this interpretation of things is a cautionary tale to those who are seemingly moving to curtail or infringe upon those rights they do not like, while making up news ones. It is likely our cultural values will not permit those so treated, so denied, to simply accept this mandate unchallenged.
But back to Iraq (well, not literally). Here is where the ice beneath my feet gets thin and I piss people off. I simply do not think that all cultures can exist as democracies. I find no better way to say this than to propose that a certain level of maturity is necessary for a democracy to function - that and a list of inalienable rights that are shared (and protected) by all. Some of it is a cultural commitment to "the common good", which means that culture needs some common center (again our rights). Maybe part of it for our nation emerged from a shared religion and, usually, only symbolic antagonism between sects of it. Perhaps some cultures - indeed some religions - "need" a dictatorial form of government, in the sense that it evolves from the culture naturally). Perhaps some cultures require periodic extermination of large groups of dissidents so as to maintain general order. The example of Iraq surely shows that Saddam, for all his brutality, kept a "cork in the bottle" and that imagining that we would place our culture's governmental template over Iraq, pull that cork is what has lead to a thus far never-ending shedding of blood.
This is indeed a cautionary tale on a number of fronts. First, it suggests that we tread more lightly and stay our big stick when it comes to building the world in our image. This is not a position in which I consider one form or culture superior to another; in fact that is what those wanting to impose democracy are doing - somehow our way is best. What I am suggesting is that cultures be taken as they are and that we not play God by intervening. Second, it speaks to our own modern times. It begs us to remember the glue that holds this plan together. Part of that glue is that our inherent rights are sacrosanct; that they transcend the fools we elect to represent us. If those rights are not transcendent, then we have no reason to cooperate with our leaders.
In addition (out on that ice again), what are the implications of multi-culturalism for our future? Is there a point at which the rights, goals, understandings, values, ad morals are no longer shared? As opposed to our perspective, many cultures are not oriented toward "live and let live". They cannot accept that you are not like they are, do not dress as they do, do not worship as they do, that you have a right to be different, perhaps that God does not run our government. In essence, they do not recognize the rights that bind us, do not recognize a "Common good" beyond what their country can do for them. As our society becomes one of many cultures who vary in acceptance, tolerance, rights, and responsibilities, is there a point at which it is no longer our culture, perhaps better put as "the culture that is was", that adopted our form of government? When does the culture cease being what it was and, when that happens, what follows?
Again, this is not to devalue any culture; it is simply to ponder whether our own dedication to allowing all viewpoints will be our undoing as a nation. Do we fail to recognize how unique, yet tenuous, our social contract has been?
Friday, June 27, 2014
Student debt crisis
The Fiscal Times suggests one approach to reducing student loan defaults; making it a public rather than privately funded matter. Somewhat typical - reminiscent of liberal solutions to "gun violence" - forget the violence, just take away the guns.
In this case, forget the fact that this debt largely emanates from people getting degrees that they should not have. Consider this: We have created a system where the bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, where everyone, capable or not, is expected to go to college after high school. Problem is that college is expensive - even more so with the proliferation of private universities who are in it for profit and subsist on the financial aid debt that is piled on their students. An undergraduate degree has become no more than a box to check on the way to a job that cannot pay enough to support paying back the loans. We have seemingly incompatible positions here: everyone deserves to go to college (whether it and they are functional or not), but they need to go into debt to do so. This is even more true when one considers the fact that many of those attending the most expensive schools are doing so because they could not qualify to attend public universities. I know - I teach and have taught at both and while the quality of the students in both has decreased over time (again due to the fact that "everyone" is supposed to go to college), the private institution consistently draws students who, on average, would not have been accepted into a public university. I should also note that, as competition from private schools has increased, state-run public universities have become less a place for training and learning and more a place where the bottom-line is most important.
As long as universities, great and small, public and private, are measured by their cash reserves, their students are going to emerge with more and more debt while being less and less useful to the job market. This is not a matter of funding sources, it is a failure of culture.
In this case, forget the fact that this debt largely emanates from people getting degrees that they should not have. Consider this: We have created a system where the bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, where everyone, capable or not, is expected to go to college after high school. Problem is that college is expensive - even more so with the proliferation of private universities who are in it for profit and subsist on the financial aid debt that is piled on their students. An undergraduate degree has become no more than a box to check on the way to a job that cannot pay enough to support paying back the loans. We have seemingly incompatible positions here: everyone deserves to go to college (whether it and they are functional or not), but they need to go into debt to do so. This is even more true when one considers the fact that many of those attending the most expensive schools are doing so because they could not qualify to attend public universities. I know - I teach and have taught at both and while the quality of the students in both has decreased over time (again due to the fact that "everyone" is supposed to go to college), the private institution consistently draws students who, on average, would not have been accepted into a public university. I should also note that, as competition from private schools has increased, state-run public universities have become less a place for training and learning and more a place where the bottom-line is most important.
As long as universities, great and small, public and private, are measured by their cash reserves, their students are going to emerge with more and more debt while being less and less useful to the job market. This is not a matter of funding sources, it is a failure of culture.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Violence is violence
Once more anti-gun media works hard to make the words :gun" and "violence" synonymous.
Would this story get this attention if the tragic death of this young man had been by stabbing, choking, bludgeoning, and vehicular homicide? The problem here is that people kill people and they do so with all manner of implements, many of which the vast majority of users handle without hurting anyone.
Such manipulation serves only to minimize the behavior that is the root of this problem. this young man was tragically slain by violence between two gangs at a block party. Gang warfare.
There were guns in the world when I was a teen. I confess as to the fact that I, from time to time, carried them. But we did not engage in shootouts, no one was killed or even shot. So what has changed? I could give a long list of politically unpopular ideas on what it is. And it is the fact that they are politically unpopular that leads such media outlets to focus on the means as opposed to the meaning.
It is hard to speak truth, hard to teach people values and insist that they live by those values. In a world where all have won and must have prizes, where no one is evil they are just disadvantaged, where all approaches to life and values are relative, one is left only with trying to make misbehavior impossible, even if it means denying freedom to those responsible enough to live with it.
There was a time when killing was a moral failing, where we were all entrusted to be able to do the right thing and those who failed were dealt with accordingly. Now we blame the misbehavior on the means, excusing it as expected. We no longer expect appropriate behavior and think we can only eliminate bad actions through limiting freedom.
Would this story get this attention if the tragic death of this young man had been by stabbing, choking, bludgeoning, and vehicular homicide? The problem here is that people kill people and they do so with all manner of implements, many of which the vast majority of users handle without hurting anyone.
Such manipulation serves only to minimize the behavior that is the root of this problem. this young man was tragically slain by violence between two gangs at a block party. Gang warfare.
There were guns in the world when I was a teen. I confess as to the fact that I, from time to time, carried them. But we did not engage in shootouts, no one was killed or even shot. So what has changed? I could give a long list of politically unpopular ideas on what it is. And it is the fact that they are politically unpopular that leads such media outlets to focus on the means as opposed to the meaning.
It is hard to speak truth, hard to teach people values and insist that they live by those values. In a world where all have won and must have prizes, where no one is evil they are just disadvantaged, where all approaches to life and values are relative, one is left only with trying to make misbehavior impossible, even if it means denying freedom to those responsible enough to live with it.
There was a time when killing was a moral failing, where we were all entrusted to be able to do the right thing and those who failed were dealt with accordingly. Now we blame the misbehavior on the means, excusing it as expected. We no longer expect appropriate behavior and think we can only eliminate bad actions through limiting freedom.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Heard it all before
Over night last night 9 people were shot in Liberty City, 2 of whom were killed (Huffpost story here). For those who do not know (ignorance abounds) Liberty City is a dangerous place to be.
Of course this report denies much of the reality we live with but includes the ubiquitous term "gun violence" as a descriptor, as if that is somehow a different animal than violence. When are those of this mindset going to realize that the issue here is violence, the conditions that lead to violence, a culture of people whose answer is violence, who care nothing for human life or others or laws? Those who commit such violence are not people who find a gun in their hand one day and do not know how it got there. These are not people who woke up this morning, decided not to go to their cushy job and instead grab a gun and kill people. The weapon - any weapon, be it car, club, knife, fist, gun, or corkscrew - is the final common pathway for aggression and evil turned to violence.
I understand the polly-anna mentality, even if I cannot tolerate it: In a world where we do not feel we can fix things it is easier to blame the inanimate object, to blame the proximal cause of death instead of the motivating evil. These people were not killed by guns, they were killed by people with evil intent. But in a world where the evil seems unfathomable and uncontrollable, the fairy tale emerges. It is so much easier to believe that these are angels who would never hurt anyone until they a gun wound up in their hand. It is so much easier to excuse the behavior and blame the instrument, to decry gun violence instead of violence. Surely no one would choose to act this way. It is so much more pleasing to those who want to believe a fairy tale conception of the world to think that if only there were no guns there would be no violence, that there are no bad people only bad weapons.
Some who think this way are malicious - they want only to control others in any and every way possible and one way is to use the misbehavior of others. I do not wear a tin foil hat, but for some people it is clear that any step they can make to limiting the freedom of others to do things they themselves do not want to do is one more victory for them in creating the world they think they want. A world where we all turn to them for protection, for guidance. Others are simply deluded in their idealism - the horror repels them, it is incomprehensible, so they have to believe that if we all would just through our weapons into the abyss and sit down together to a group hug and chorus of kumbaya, then things would be okay. Just a little understanding and unconditional positive regard and the gangs, thugs, and jihadists will all put down there weapons and live with us in peace.
It is exactly the fact that there are people out there who would commit violence - any violence - that we cannot sit idly by and let ourselves be forced into the flock of bleating sheep. Where they see gun violence, we see violence, we see threat, we see a need to be ready to defend ourselves.
It is interesting to consider this phenomenon in light of a quote from Colonal Kurtz's monologue in Apocalypse Now:
"Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared."
If we find violence so horrific that we make it an enemy to be feared, to be avoided at all costs - even when the cost is our own victimhood - then we give horror free reign over our lives. We will rush to act in ways that will may make us feel safe, but will make us prey to acts of horror. Some would deny its existence. To defend against horrific violence one must make a friend of horror, not shy away from its reality, not pretend it is not there, wish it away and enact magical solutions, like "If we ban all guns, no violence will ever happen again."
I think Kurtz was presaging Grossman's notion of the "sheep, wolf, and sheep dog".
Sheep find horror an enemy to be feared so strongly that one cannot fully contemplate its existence and the fact that it can flow from the heart of a human. They fear it so much that they cannot contemplate their own ability to act against it - to act violently on their own behalf (that is why the need the sheep dogs, who they hate). They cover their hatred by using words like "hero" when the violence defends themselves, but it drips hate in its lack of ingenuousness.
The wolf thrives on horror, on terror; it knows the sheep will stand transfixed by it, frozen by it, willingly submitting to slaughter in their insistence that it does not exist. Whether the wolf is your local gang member or the jihadist who kills most gruesomely for the camera and you-tube audience, he knows that the sheep has no answer to his actions.
The Sheep Dog wishes for peace, wishes for an end to violence. But the sheep dog also accepts the inevitability of violence, the reality of it and that it cannot be wished away. The sheep dog accepts the horror, knows the horror and has made a friend of it. Thus the sheep dog is willing and able to stand against it.
Today the sheep, outnumbering the sheep dogs, wish to disarm us. We will not let that happen, will not stand by helpless is the face of the horror.
Of course this report denies much of the reality we live with but includes the ubiquitous term "gun violence" as a descriptor, as if that is somehow a different animal than violence. When are those of this mindset going to realize that the issue here is violence, the conditions that lead to violence, a culture of people whose answer is violence, who care nothing for human life or others or laws? Those who commit such violence are not people who find a gun in their hand one day and do not know how it got there. These are not people who woke up this morning, decided not to go to their cushy job and instead grab a gun and kill people. The weapon - any weapon, be it car, club, knife, fist, gun, or corkscrew - is the final common pathway for aggression and evil turned to violence.
I understand the polly-anna mentality, even if I cannot tolerate it: In a world where we do not feel we can fix things it is easier to blame the inanimate object, to blame the proximal cause of death instead of the motivating evil. These people were not killed by guns, they were killed by people with evil intent. But in a world where the evil seems unfathomable and uncontrollable, the fairy tale emerges. It is so much easier to believe that these are angels who would never hurt anyone until they a gun wound up in their hand. It is so much easier to excuse the behavior and blame the instrument, to decry gun violence instead of violence. Surely no one would choose to act this way. It is so much more pleasing to those who want to believe a fairy tale conception of the world to think that if only there were no guns there would be no violence, that there are no bad people only bad weapons.
Some who think this way are malicious - they want only to control others in any and every way possible and one way is to use the misbehavior of others. I do not wear a tin foil hat, but for some people it is clear that any step they can make to limiting the freedom of others to do things they themselves do not want to do is one more victory for them in creating the world they think they want. A world where we all turn to them for protection, for guidance. Others are simply deluded in their idealism - the horror repels them, it is incomprehensible, so they have to believe that if we all would just through our weapons into the abyss and sit down together to a group hug and chorus of kumbaya, then things would be okay. Just a little understanding and unconditional positive regard and the gangs, thugs, and jihadists will all put down there weapons and live with us in peace.
It is exactly the fact that there are people out there who would commit violence - any violence - that we cannot sit idly by and let ourselves be forced into the flock of bleating sheep. Where they see gun violence, we see violence, we see threat, we see a need to be ready to defend ourselves.
It is interesting to consider this phenomenon in light of a quote from Colonal Kurtz's monologue in Apocalypse Now:
"Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared."
If we find violence so horrific that we make it an enemy to be feared, to be avoided at all costs - even when the cost is our own victimhood - then we give horror free reign over our lives. We will rush to act in ways that will may make us feel safe, but will make us prey to acts of horror. Some would deny its existence. To defend against horrific violence one must make a friend of horror, not shy away from its reality, not pretend it is not there, wish it away and enact magical solutions, like "If we ban all guns, no violence will ever happen again."
I think Kurtz was presaging Grossman's notion of the "sheep, wolf, and sheep dog".
Sheep find horror an enemy to be feared so strongly that one cannot fully contemplate its existence and the fact that it can flow from the heart of a human. They fear it so much that they cannot contemplate their own ability to act against it - to act violently on their own behalf (that is why the need the sheep dogs, who they hate). They cover their hatred by using words like "hero" when the violence defends themselves, but it drips hate in its lack of ingenuousness.
The wolf thrives on horror, on terror; it knows the sheep will stand transfixed by it, frozen by it, willingly submitting to slaughter in their insistence that it does not exist. Whether the wolf is your local gang member or the jihadist who kills most gruesomely for the camera and you-tube audience, he knows that the sheep has no answer to his actions.
The Sheep Dog wishes for peace, wishes for an end to violence. But the sheep dog also accepts the inevitability of violence, the reality of it and that it cannot be wished away. The sheep dog accepts the horror, knows the horror and has made a friend of it. Thus the sheep dog is willing and able to stand against it.
Today the sheep, outnumbering the sheep dogs, wish to disarm us. We will not let that happen, will not stand by helpless is the face of the horror.
Monday, June 23, 2014
A world without "ly"
What in the world would Huffington Post do without the "ly". Whether it is "absolutely" or "extremely"... in a world without hyperbole, what would they do?
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Dark Paradise
Ah, California - how's all that disarming working out for you?
Well, one could address crime (e.g., here) or one can continue to make meaningless laws that will disarm those who could defend themselves. Let's just wish away all the trouble, let's just pretend that all those criminals are really good people who commit crimes because law-abiding citizens have access to legal firearms.
In the end, our choices are pretty clear, even if we do not like them: Either address the conditions that lead some people to commit crime or dedicate ourselves to eradicating those who commit crimes. Punishing the law-abiding armed citizen for the failures of a society and culture is disingenuous.
And it will not work. It will not curtail crimes and unlike the sheep of Britain or Australia, Americans will not line up to have their firearms confiscated.
Well, one could address crime (e.g., here) or one can continue to make meaningless laws that will disarm those who could defend themselves. Let's just wish away all the trouble, let's just pretend that all those criminals are really good people who commit crimes because law-abiding citizens have access to legal firearms.
In the end, our choices are pretty clear, even if we do not like them: Either address the conditions that lead some people to commit crime or dedicate ourselves to eradicating those who commit crimes. Punishing the law-abiding armed citizen for the failures of a society and culture is disingenuous.
And it will not work. It will not curtail crimes and unlike the sheep of Britain or Australia, Americans will not line up to have their firearms confiscated.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Run for your lives!
Some folks can't help but create fear and then take advantage of the fear they created.
So, here's the new add, playing off the anti-gun force's desire to create fear by misreporting statistics. It is fear mongering and capitalism at their best.
Problem is, of course, that school shootings are not escalating any more than crimes committed with firearms are escalating. But if we can take every tragic incident and play it for all its worth, if we can mislead the vast majority of people who are either too stupid or busy to learn the facts, then we are well on our way. And, speaking of hype and misinformation, the newest numbers for school-related shootings include any death on school grounds, whether it included students or not or was gang-related. As always, addressing the real social issues would require more effort and less sensitivity than people are willing to accept or acknowledge. So, back to the same old tried and untrue approaches.
Although the correct attribution is unclear, the notion that "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself" is alive and well.
So, here's the new add, playing off the anti-gun force's desire to create fear by misreporting statistics. It is fear mongering and capitalism at their best.
Problem is, of course, that school shootings are not escalating any more than crimes committed with firearms are escalating. But if we can take every tragic incident and play it for all its worth, if we can mislead the vast majority of people who are either too stupid or busy to learn the facts, then we are well on our way. And, speaking of hype and misinformation, the newest numbers for school-related shootings include any death on school grounds, whether it included students or not or was gang-related. As always, addressing the real social issues would require more effort and less sensitivity than people are willing to accept or acknowledge. So, back to the same old tried and untrue approaches.
Although the correct attribution is unclear, the notion that "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself" is alive and well.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Could not agree with her more! Men - you are NOT pregnant!
From Huffington Post:
"Expectant fathers, listen up: Mila Kunis really wants you to stop saying "we are pregnant."
When the actress stopped by "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Tuesday, Kimmel broached the subject of babies. Kunis is expecting her first child with fiance Ashton Kutcher; Kimmel's wife, Molly McNearney, is pregnant with their first child together. But, when Kimmel said "my wife and I are pregnant," Kunis stopped him."Oh, you both are having a baby?" she asked. "You and your wife are pregnant?" No. Future dads of the world, Kunis thinks you should drop the "we" before "are pregnant," because you're not squeezing a watermelon-sized person out of your lady-hole, are you?"
This bit of sensitive bull shit is about as stupid as it gets. We may be expecting a child, but we are not pregnant! Try as this whiny society might, we cannot change the biological facts of this situation.
"Expectant fathers, listen up: Mila Kunis really wants you to stop saying "we are pregnant."
When the actress stopped by "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Tuesday, Kimmel broached the subject of babies. Kunis is expecting her first child with fiance Ashton Kutcher; Kimmel's wife, Molly McNearney, is pregnant with their first child together. But, when Kimmel said "my wife and I are pregnant," Kunis stopped him."Oh, you both are having a baby?" she asked. "You and your wife are pregnant?" No. Future dads of the world, Kunis thinks you should drop the "we" before "are pregnant," because you're not squeezing a watermelon-sized person out of your lady-hole, are you?"
This bit of sensitive bull shit is about as stupid as it gets. We may be expecting a child, but we are not pregnant! Try as this whiny society might, we cannot change the biological facts of this situation.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
See, here's your problem.
So, Chuck Hagel, appearing in front of congress, noted (reported by Huffington Post):
“I would never sign off on any decision that I did not feel was in the best interests of this country,” Mr. Hagel says during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday. “Nor would the President of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.”
But clearly this means that opinions differ on the "best interests of this country". So, it means you may have integrity but stupidity. It is not longer clear to may of us that what you and your president consider the best interests of this country actually are. And that is really the crux of the issue; visions of our best interest vary. Perhaps you and your president are not malevolent, just incompetent and misguided. Either way, time to go.
“I would never sign off on any decision that I did not feel was in the best interests of this country,” Mr. Hagel says during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday. “Nor would the President of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.”
But clearly this means that opinions differ on the "best interests of this country". So, it means you may have integrity but stupidity. It is not longer clear to may of us that what you and your president consider the best interests of this country actually are. And that is really the crux of the issue; visions of our best interest vary. Perhaps you and your president are not malevolent, just incompetent and misguided. Either way, time to go.
Questionable data, wrong prescription
Even if I were to accept your data, which I do not because I know how it can be manipulated (e.g., including suicides as school shootings), do you think taking away my firearms would somehow change this?
Let's be clear - data show that gun-related crime is at all-time lows, even as gun ownership has gone up. Of course, we might all wish it were even lower (just like we wish people would not kill and rape other people). Wish in one hand and shit in the other - see which fills up first.
So why do so many people think it is at record highs? Because we all judge the prevalence of events based on our exposure to information about them - and certain groups have made it their mission to tell us about every instance. They do this for their own purposes. We assume something is frequent because we hear about it more often - and people who want to influence opinion with misleading data know this and use this.
It is probably clear that I am not a religious person - certainly not a fanatic - but let me ask this simple question by way of drawing some comparison: How many abortions were performed in this country since Sandy Hook?
The "What about the children?" crowd only seem to care when it suits their purposes.
Let's be clear - data show that gun-related crime is at all-time lows, even as gun ownership has gone up. Of course, we might all wish it were even lower (just like we wish people would not kill and rape other people). Wish in one hand and shit in the other - see which fills up first.
So why do so many people think it is at record highs? Because we all judge the prevalence of events based on our exposure to information about them - and certain groups have made it their mission to tell us about every instance. They do this for their own purposes. We assume something is frequent because we hear about it more often - and people who want to influence opinion with misleading data know this and use this.
It is probably clear that I am not a religious person - certainly not a fanatic - but let me ask this simple question by way of drawing some comparison: How many abortions were performed in this country since Sandy Hook?
The "What about the children?" crowd only seem to care when it suits their purposes.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Ah, the fairy tale of a liberal worldview
So, the winner of the Miss USA pageant, Miss Nevada, caused quite a bit of hand-wringing and wadded panties over her assertion, in relation to what could be done to stem the tide of sexual assault on college campuses, that "more awareness [of the issue] is very important so that women can learn to protect themselves … You need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. That's something we need to start to implement for a lot of women."
As can be seen in that article, many who think the answer to violence in all its forms (as if it has not been with us since the beginning) is to wave a magic wand and make it all go away. "Criminals need to learn that crime in against the law!" Let's get real for one minute; in another institution that has had its share of sexual assault (the military), the message for addressing it has two necessary components and neither involves wishful thinking.
Part one is making it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. taking accusations seriously and punishing evenly and to the extent possible. But, honestly, do any of us really think that any potential sexual predator does not know that sexual assault is wrong. Can anyone grow up in our society and not "know" that this is unacceptable behavior. The polly-anna idea of "let's just teach men that they can't do this" is so much wasted space. Every one knows murder is wrong, robbery is criminal and sexual assault is illegal. Still it happens, just like all those other crimes. This is not an education deficit, it is a moral deficit. They know - they don't care. Making a positive outcome - the end of crime - the responsibility of the perpetrator is foolish at best - a fairy tale. There are bad people who do bad things, not out of ignorance, but out of not caring.
Part two then is protecting yourself from those who do not care that it is wrong. This does not mean you are at fault - but it means that you have to take responsibility for your own safety in the face of those who mean to do you harm. It can be little consolation, I imagine, to be assaulted and then have someone to blame who should have known better. If I want to be as safe as I can from potential criminals when walking the street I need some way of defending myself and so should those who may fall prey to such assaults. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, it happens. This is not to say that any assault is the victim's fault, but their personal safety is an individual responsibility, not to be left to the inclinations of others. I do not know about you, but I do not which to condition my continued existence on the beneficence of those around me.
It is best to put this little pissing contest in the context of recent reports on the rate of sexual crimes on college campuses. You can either sit and wish in one hand for the day to come when everyone is willing to treat their fellow persons with respect or you can be prepared to take care of yourself - to demand it. I suspect that those who prefer to deny their part in insuring their own safety and wait for that day will continue to be at greater risk than those who see the evil in the world, which it were otherwise, but refuse to be victims while they wait for the miracle that will never come. It is so liberal to sit peacefully as you are assaulted and claim your assailant had no right to do so. There is evil in the world! Defend yourself!
This is just like the fairy tale of establishing gun-free zones; telling women that they should not worry about defending themselves but insist that men behave creates a field of defenseless victims who will have nothing but their misguided ideology and indignation to protect themselves. Predators hunt and assault weaker prey who have what they want and cannot defend themselves. Until all predators are gone from among us, each of us had better be ready to make them pay for their miscalculation.
So those of you who think insisting that your little black dress does not mean yes, remember that the predator already knows this - he already knows you love consent - and so do the vast majority of men. But your message is lost on that small violent minority who do not care what it means or what you want or love or what any of us want; they mean to take what they want if you cannot stop them. Learn to stop them.
As can be seen in that article, many who think the answer to violence in all its forms (as if it has not been with us since the beginning) is to wave a magic wand and make it all go away. "Criminals need to learn that crime in against the law!" Let's get real for one minute; in another institution that has had its share of sexual assault (the military), the message for addressing it has two necessary components and neither involves wishful thinking.
Part one is making it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. taking accusations seriously and punishing evenly and to the extent possible. But, honestly, do any of us really think that any potential sexual predator does not know that sexual assault is wrong. Can anyone grow up in our society and not "know" that this is unacceptable behavior. The polly-anna idea of "let's just teach men that they can't do this" is so much wasted space. Every one knows murder is wrong, robbery is criminal and sexual assault is illegal. Still it happens, just like all those other crimes. This is not an education deficit, it is a moral deficit. They know - they don't care. Making a positive outcome - the end of crime - the responsibility of the perpetrator is foolish at best - a fairy tale. There are bad people who do bad things, not out of ignorance, but out of not caring.
Part two then is protecting yourself from those who do not care that it is wrong. This does not mean you are at fault - but it means that you have to take responsibility for your own safety in the face of those who mean to do you harm. It can be little consolation, I imagine, to be assaulted and then have someone to blame who should have known better. If I want to be as safe as I can from potential criminals when walking the street I need some way of defending myself and so should those who may fall prey to such assaults. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, it happens. This is not to say that any assault is the victim's fault, but their personal safety is an individual responsibility, not to be left to the inclinations of others. I do not know about you, but I do not which to condition my continued existence on the beneficence of those around me.
It is best to put this little pissing contest in the context of recent reports on the rate of sexual crimes on college campuses. You can either sit and wish in one hand for the day to come when everyone is willing to treat their fellow persons with respect or you can be prepared to take care of yourself - to demand it. I suspect that those who prefer to deny their part in insuring their own safety and wait for that day will continue to be at greater risk than those who see the evil in the world, which it were otherwise, but refuse to be victims while they wait for the miracle that will never come. It is so liberal to sit peacefully as you are assaulted and claim your assailant had no right to do so. There is evil in the world! Defend yourself!
This is just like the fairy tale of establishing gun-free zones; telling women that they should not worry about defending themselves but insist that men behave creates a field of defenseless victims who will have nothing but their misguided ideology and indignation to protect themselves. Predators hunt and assault weaker prey who have what they want and cannot defend themselves. Until all predators are gone from among us, each of us had better be ready to make them pay for their miscalculation.
So those of you who think insisting that your little black dress does not mean yes, remember that the predator already knows this - he already knows you love consent - and so do the vast majority of men. But your message is lost on that small violent minority who do not care what it means or what you want or love or what any of us want; they mean to take what they want if you cannot stop them. Learn to stop them.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Yep - gun free zone!
All killings are tragedies. But has anyone else noticed that, with the rise of the movement to limit law-abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms and protect themselves, every killing with a firearm has now been elevated to a national news story. Why don't we hear about every stabbing or bludgeoning to death? Why don't we hear about every vehicular homicide? The only conclusion to reach in this is that it is a matter of certain media outlets' desire to attack guns and, by proxy, gun owners.
We have one such example right now in the shooting at Seattle Pacific University. Of course, one of the things that will not be mentioned is that, once again, a shooter chose to commit a murderous crime in a gun-free zone (see SPU policies here). [And, to all liberal news media - also note policy number 3. Why no outrage over that! Maybe the shooter was gay and felt discriminated against].
Time and again, from Columbine to Sandy Hook to the DC Naval Yards to this shooting and all in between, shooters know where they are most likely to be able to kill without intervention. The fairy tale that if we close our eyes to a thing it will disappear is for children - and liberals. I would hope that, at some point, the childish emotional response to such incidents would give way to reason. That is, to a recognition that disarming law-abiding people even more widely will simply provide increased fertile hunting grounds for such actors. I would hope that a more rational approach, such as that shown by research such as that produced by J. Eric Dietz and the Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University, would make a difference. There research suggests, using computer modeling, that the idea that the thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun has merit. One would hope that such "research" would dent some of the academic liberalism that pervades such debates. I work with people who call themselves "scientists" - except when they talk of firearms. When it comes to issues of gun ownership and control, these scientists suddenly become people of faith (belief that does not require evidence - that actually decries it).
Mass killers don't care if the firearm they carry is illegal - that is a consideration only those who obey the law take into account. Those who wish to kill as many people as they can choose to do so where they can expect the least resistance, where only a criminal would be carrying a firearm. Most often mass killers have no intention of surviving and thus, do not fear being killed. Hence, our best defense is to help them die sooner and defeat them in their goals of taking many with them.
Tying together several posts I have made over the last several days - saying that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" insults those who actually did so. Saying that guns make people kill people insults every law-abiding gun owner.
Seems liberals love to insult people they know nothing about.
We have one such example right now in the shooting at Seattle Pacific University. Of course, one of the things that will not be mentioned is that, once again, a shooter chose to commit a murderous crime in a gun-free zone (see SPU policies here). [And, to all liberal news media - also note policy number 3. Why no outrage over that! Maybe the shooter was gay and felt discriminated against].
Time and again, from Columbine to Sandy Hook to the DC Naval Yards to this shooting and all in between, shooters know where they are most likely to be able to kill without intervention. The fairy tale that if we close our eyes to a thing it will disappear is for children - and liberals. I would hope that, at some point, the childish emotional response to such incidents would give way to reason. That is, to a recognition that disarming law-abiding people even more widely will simply provide increased fertile hunting grounds for such actors. I would hope that a more rational approach, such as that shown by research such as that produced by J. Eric Dietz and the Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University, would make a difference. There research suggests, using computer modeling, that the idea that the thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun has merit. One would hope that such "research" would dent some of the academic liberalism that pervades such debates. I work with people who call themselves "scientists" - except when they talk of firearms. When it comes to issues of gun ownership and control, these scientists suddenly become people of faith (belief that does not require evidence - that actually decries it).
Mass killers don't care if the firearm they carry is illegal - that is a consideration only those who obey the law take into account. Those who wish to kill as many people as they can choose to do so where they can expect the least resistance, where only a criminal would be carrying a firearm. Most often mass killers have no intention of surviving and thus, do not fear being killed. Hence, our best defense is to help them die sooner and defeat them in their goals of taking many with them.
Tying together several posts I have made over the last several days - saying that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction" insults those who actually did so. Saying that guns make people kill people insults every law-abiding gun owner.
Seems liberals love to insult people they know nothing about.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
A deserter's return
So the White House and its mouthpieces continue to fire up the "We do not leave anyone behind" and "This was someone's child" routine.
Cool - for the moment I'll buy that if you want to sell it. I will leave it to others to debate whether releasing 5 Taliban commanders who were so dangerous that we held them at Gitmo for years was a reasonable price to pay for the return of a child-deserter. Perhaps this is Obama's backdoor approach to closing Gitmo. But be careful, Mr. President, you and your merry minions, that you do not insult every American who actually did serve with "honor and distinction" by equating them with Bowe Bergdahl.
I know this administration's orientation toward Americans is a value-less one; all are equal, all have won and must have prizes, you didn't build that, rob from some to give to others, rights we want are good, rights you want are bad, and so on. But all indications are that Bergdahl failed to serve with even a minimum of "honor and distinction" and that he walked away from his post and comrades. It has often been alleged that this president does not value military service, those serving, or who have served (reference the VA scandals). Warriors who did serve with "honor and distinction" are left to die, while Bergdahl the deserter is brought home to a hero's welcome. Sadly, he has proved the point.
So, yes, for all his faults here was someone's child; he does seem clearly to be his father's son, uncommitted to American ideals. But I will not buy either Susan Rice's (a whore, serial liar or fool - such blatant lying cannot come easily except to the intellectually challenged or one paid for their services) or Chuck Hagel's (someone I had high hopes for at one point) assessment of Bergdahl's service. We will be waiting to see the investigation into his conduct and the court martial proceedings that charge him with desertion and other potential crimes associated with collaboration. Since when do these Taliban, who get such gratification in beheading (deheading?) people, keep a non-collaborator alive for 5 years. This is a criminal that we have extradited via negotiation and prisoner swap.
Bergdahl chose this course, he volunteered for service, deserted his comrades in reneging on that promise and then sought the fate he lived for years, seemingly sought out his captors. Given what was known, he should never have been promoted in absentia to sergeant - a shameless ploy (akin to the political use of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire) and an insult to those who hold that rank with "honor and distinction". Why were those who knew the particulars compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements? To hold a hero's welcome and ticker-tape parade for this deserter besmirches the "honor and distinction" of every warrior who has served and died (some on VA waiting lists). It matters not whether he agreed with the mission, whether he became disillusioned. Warriors' duties are to serve and perhaps die for a nation, an ideal, but even more face death for the warrior to their left and right, not for the petty motives of politicians and partisans. Hate the war, hate the president, hate the brass, but stand tall and man a post for the men you serve with. Watch Restrepo and the upcoming Korengal by Sebastian Junger to see the world these men live in, how they fight and die for each other - and why equating Bergdahl with them is an insult. Only a president with no personal or family history of military service could ever consider such a thing.
Bergdahl defiled that ethic; he left his fellows to fend for themselves and potentially even got several of them killed trying to save him. Leaving him behind would not be leaving a man behind - he is no man.
Beware the models being held up before you - examples that traitorous behavior against the American ideal and American values is rewarded. Do not take for granted the sacrifices of others, that they will always be there. If you devalue them, they will devalue you. Your brave soldiers will not be there and you will be left with an Army of Bergdahls, deciding when and for what they will fight, when they will walk away and leave you standing alone.
Huffington noted that Obama said:
"I write too many letters to folks who unfortunately don't see their children again after fighting a war," he said. "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents, and that the American people understand that this is somebody's child, and that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try and get them back."
So he's back - marvelous - let the investigation and court martial begin.
Cool - for the moment I'll buy that if you want to sell it. I will leave it to others to debate whether releasing 5 Taliban commanders who were so dangerous that we held them at Gitmo for years was a reasonable price to pay for the return of a child-deserter. Perhaps this is Obama's backdoor approach to closing Gitmo. But be careful, Mr. President, you and your merry minions, that you do not insult every American who actually did serve with "honor and distinction" by equating them with Bowe Bergdahl.
I know this administration's orientation toward Americans is a value-less one; all are equal, all have won and must have prizes, you didn't build that, rob from some to give to others, rights we want are good, rights you want are bad, and so on. But all indications are that Bergdahl failed to serve with even a minimum of "honor and distinction" and that he walked away from his post and comrades. It has often been alleged that this president does not value military service, those serving, or who have served (reference the VA scandals). Warriors who did serve with "honor and distinction" are left to die, while Bergdahl the deserter is brought home to a hero's welcome. Sadly, he has proved the point.
So, yes, for all his faults here was someone's child; he does seem clearly to be his father's son, uncommitted to American ideals. But I will not buy either Susan Rice's (a whore, serial liar or fool - such blatant lying cannot come easily except to the intellectually challenged or one paid for their services) or Chuck Hagel's (someone I had high hopes for at one point) assessment of Bergdahl's service. We will be waiting to see the investigation into his conduct and the court martial proceedings that charge him with desertion and other potential crimes associated with collaboration. Since when do these Taliban, who get such gratification in beheading (deheading?) people, keep a non-collaborator alive for 5 years. This is a criminal that we have extradited via negotiation and prisoner swap.
Bergdahl chose this course, he volunteered for service, deserted his comrades in reneging on that promise and then sought the fate he lived for years, seemingly sought out his captors. Given what was known, he should never have been promoted in absentia to sergeant - a shameless ploy (akin to the political use of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire) and an insult to those who hold that rank with "honor and distinction". Why were those who knew the particulars compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements? To hold a hero's welcome and ticker-tape parade for this deserter besmirches the "honor and distinction" of every warrior who has served and died (some on VA waiting lists). It matters not whether he agreed with the mission, whether he became disillusioned. Warriors' duties are to serve and perhaps die for a nation, an ideal, but even more face death for the warrior to their left and right, not for the petty motives of politicians and partisans. Hate the war, hate the president, hate the brass, but stand tall and man a post for the men you serve with. Watch Restrepo and the upcoming Korengal by Sebastian Junger to see the world these men live in, how they fight and die for each other - and why equating Bergdahl with them is an insult. Only a president with no personal or family history of military service could ever consider such a thing.
Bergdahl defiled that ethic; he left his fellows to fend for themselves and potentially even got several of them killed trying to save him. Leaving him behind would not be leaving a man behind - he is no man.
Beware the models being held up before you - examples that traitorous behavior against the American ideal and American values is rewarded. Do not take for granted the sacrifices of others, that they will always be there. If you devalue them, they will devalue you. Your brave soldiers will not be there and you will be left with an Army of Bergdahls, deciding when and for what they will fight, when they will walk away and leave you standing alone.
Huffington noted that Obama said:
"I write too many letters to folks who unfortunately don't see their children again after fighting a war," he said. "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents, and that the American people understand that this is somebody's child, and that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try and get them back."
So he's back - marvelous - let the investigation and court martial begin.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
The one where the President really fucks it up...
Yeeeaahhh!
Anyone who looks way back in this blog will see that I supported Obama (this was before he reneged on his promise not to assault my 2A rights and when the other choice was Mitt Romney). Clearly there are those who have spent Obama's whole time in office finding the hints here and there of what is, at best, naivete and, at worst, Muslim sympathizing. I will admit that I have often seen that talk as more than a bit "tin-foil hat" like.
Well, now it would appear that those very issues are on full display in the case of trading Taliban detainees to bring home deserter Bowe Bergdahl. I will not go into full rant and outline mode over this, but will simply summarize and refer the reader to the many blogs that discuss all the problems with this case. No matter what, Obama has gone from a man with potential, to a bumbling unqualified idiot, to a malevolent actor who is really out to do harm to this nation, its military and it values. And, again, I say this as someone who was capable of supporting him when it seemed he meant well even if he was not effective.
So, let's see:
1. Bergdahl is a "hero"? I will simply pull up one of many links where one can read about his "heroism". Hero my ass! No one believes this, but the administration wants to use it. They must have known what a piece of human filth they were trading for. Yes, we don't leave a fellow soldier behind. But when he deserted he was no longer a soldier who was taken, he was a coward who walked into the enemies arms. We can debate whether he even is a man. In any case, this is not a hero marching home from gallant service, not a hero like those who were wounded or lost their lives trying to find him. Now that he is coming home the hero's welcome he deserves is to stand court martial for deserting his unit and collaborating with the enemy and a cell in Leavenworth.
2. Obama broke existing law in order to make this trade. Man, I remember the good old days when we all tore into W for such shit - signing bills into law and then adding "signing statements" that he would ignore them. But, hell, this is the O-man, we were going to have transparent government, no more abuse of power. He can do no wrong apparently. Well, right after we court martial Bergdahl, I would say that impeachment seems a good approach to setting the record straight - we may have let W get away with it, but that has to stop somewhere. Democrats likely let W get away with it, because they would commit the same crimes later.
3. Bergdahl's father has made numerous pro-terrorist and anti-American tweets. He is apparently a whore who will be whatever he needs to be to get his deserter progeny back. In all of this, he decided it was important to praise allah in his White House appearance yesterday and got a nice smile from Obama for it. An Islamic blessing in the White House might be appropriate at some other time, but this is a deserter who abandoned his post and fellow warriors, many of whom ultimately died trying to find him, to go live among and collaborate with Islamic terrorists. This glorifies an enemy's ideology. It is an extremely stupid time to smile at someone standing in front of the people's house, praising allah - only slightly less stupid than it would have been on 9-12. His father is welcoming home a hero of the Taliban to America and the White House. That isn't a smiling matter Mr. President - that was when a president who made an honest mistake would shit himself.
4. Susan Rice cannot be viewed any longer as only a mouthpiece sent out by the administration to make up shit about Benghazi. She now has to be rightfully seen as a truly stupid person who doesn't know shit and is willing to say anything. Sorry, but when we have so many true heroes to honor and some of those saying Bergdahl deserted his post and that good soldiers died trying to find and rescue him, then her report that he "...served with honor and distinction" smells foul - it almost requires tar and feathers. To call him a hero, to call his service honorable and of distinction is to belittle every soldier who ever served, much less stood a post, took fire, hated war, but held strong. Even more so, it dishonors those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
This whole occasion saddens and sickens me as someone who thought Obama had the potential years ago to be a good President. His decisions since re-election, to ignore the law, to push certain rights over others, to use the deaths of children to attack my rights and apparent willingness to break the law, support and promote deserters and their terrorist sympathizer parents has really changed my mind. Once all of the criticism of him and his fake birth certificate and muslim education and leanings seemed like political and partisan bull shit; it now seems much more valid and of an existential nature. He is either stupid or criminal, naive or malevolent - or maybe all of the above.
I suspect this will and hope that it does blow up in Obama's face.
Anyone who looks way back in this blog will see that I supported Obama (this was before he reneged on his promise not to assault my 2A rights and when the other choice was Mitt Romney). Clearly there are those who have spent Obama's whole time in office finding the hints here and there of what is, at best, naivete and, at worst, Muslim sympathizing. I will admit that I have often seen that talk as more than a bit "tin-foil hat" like.
Well, now it would appear that those very issues are on full display in the case of trading Taliban detainees to bring home deserter Bowe Bergdahl. I will not go into full rant and outline mode over this, but will simply summarize and refer the reader to the many blogs that discuss all the problems with this case. No matter what, Obama has gone from a man with potential, to a bumbling unqualified idiot, to a malevolent actor who is really out to do harm to this nation, its military and it values. And, again, I say this as someone who was capable of supporting him when it seemed he meant well even if he was not effective.
So, let's see:
1. Bergdahl is a "hero"? I will simply pull up one of many links where one can read about his "heroism". Hero my ass! No one believes this, but the administration wants to use it. They must have known what a piece of human filth they were trading for. Yes, we don't leave a fellow soldier behind. But when he deserted he was no longer a soldier who was taken, he was a coward who walked into the enemies arms. We can debate whether he even is a man. In any case, this is not a hero marching home from gallant service, not a hero like those who were wounded or lost their lives trying to find him. Now that he is coming home the hero's welcome he deserves is to stand court martial for deserting his unit and collaborating with the enemy and a cell in Leavenworth.
2. Obama broke existing law in order to make this trade. Man, I remember the good old days when we all tore into W for such shit - signing bills into law and then adding "signing statements" that he would ignore them. But, hell, this is the O-man, we were going to have transparent government, no more abuse of power. He can do no wrong apparently. Well, right after we court martial Bergdahl, I would say that impeachment seems a good approach to setting the record straight - we may have let W get away with it, but that has to stop somewhere. Democrats likely let W get away with it, because they would commit the same crimes later.
3. Bergdahl's father has made numerous pro-terrorist and anti-American tweets. He is apparently a whore who will be whatever he needs to be to get his deserter progeny back. In all of this, he decided it was important to praise allah in his White House appearance yesterday and got a nice smile from Obama for it. An Islamic blessing in the White House might be appropriate at some other time, but this is a deserter who abandoned his post and fellow warriors, many of whom ultimately died trying to find him, to go live among and collaborate with Islamic terrorists. This glorifies an enemy's ideology. It is an extremely stupid time to smile at someone standing in front of the people's house, praising allah - only slightly less stupid than it would have been on 9-12. His father is welcoming home a hero of the Taliban to America and the White House. That isn't a smiling matter Mr. President - that was when a president who made an honest mistake would shit himself.
4. Susan Rice cannot be viewed any longer as only a mouthpiece sent out by the administration to make up shit about Benghazi. She now has to be rightfully seen as a truly stupid person who doesn't know shit and is willing to say anything. Sorry, but when we have so many true heroes to honor and some of those saying Bergdahl deserted his post and that good soldiers died trying to find and rescue him, then her report that he "...served with honor and distinction" smells foul - it almost requires tar and feathers. To call him a hero, to call his service honorable and of distinction is to belittle every soldier who ever served, much less stood a post, took fire, hated war, but held strong. Even more so, it dishonors those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
This whole occasion saddens and sickens me as someone who thought Obama had the potential years ago to be a good President. His decisions since re-election, to ignore the law, to push certain rights over others, to use the deaths of children to attack my rights and apparent willingness to break the law, support and promote deserters and their terrorist sympathizer parents has really changed my mind. Once all of the criticism of him and his fake birth certificate and muslim education and leanings seemed like political and partisan bull shit; it now seems much more valid and of an existential nature. He is either stupid or criminal, naive or malevolent - or maybe all of the above.
I suspect this will and hope that it does blow up in Obama's face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)