Tag Archives: Politics

A Different Approach to School Shootings

So yesterday morning as my sweetie-wife and I were en route to my day I caught a very interesting piece on NPR’s Morning Edition. They were interviewing writer Malcolm Gladwell and he proposed a radical take on the growing phenomenon of mass school shootings. The interview was prompted by a piece Gladwell had written for the current issue of the New Yorker Magazine and can be found here. It’s worth the time to read.

What he says and the sociological theory of riots he applied to school shooters all make sense to me and maps fairly well with what I know about these events. To be clear, these are a very different from workplace shootings and also very different from politically motivated mass killings. Gladwell avoids the simplistic approach of mental illness and looks at a much more frightening mechanism. The mob effect and in my opinion the status seeking motivation.

Particularly upsetting it the idea that traditional mass media is no longer a relevant factor as a status conferring mechanism. The internet drives a lot more of this now. This matches with what I do know about these schools shooters. They often, if not always, obsessed on-line over previous events, often analyze the shooters methods and outcomes, and seek to — for lack of a more apt word — improve on the results.

I have confided privately to a friend that my personal belief is that this wave is going to continue to a generation, perhaps two while our culture deals with the shock waves induced by massive change. (It is not a coincidence that the shooters are nearly always young men. The only except I know is the Brenda Spencer case and that’s more than 40 years old.) My friend if a gun collector and I predicted that it was likely the US would see more and more restrictive gun laws passed and that these would likely have little to minimal effect on the wave. (The laws that are possible, assault weapon bans, background checks, magazine capacity limits, are unlikely to make any serious change to these sorts of killings and a total gun ban is simply unrealistic for this country.)

However, this article sparked an idea. The problem is identifying these gunmen and killers before they act. More and more they have no history of serious mental illness that could be used in a reliably predictive manner. A position I hear repeatedly from psychiatric professionals on this matter. there simply is now way to screen to the vast population of angry young men and sort out the shooters from the non-shooters.

But they may be sending up flags we can use. On-line. If they are obsessing on-line about previous events, sharing information in forums and chatrooms, and leaving a digital trail of their intentions then it should be possible too use that information to identify, isolate, and prevent them from acting on their murderous fixations.

In order words, treat them like the terrorists they are and utilize the full power of the intelligence agencies to deal with this problem.

Share

Thoughts of the Republican Primary Season

Clearly this is a political post and if that’s not your cup of tea, skip.

America is gearing up for the 2016 Presidential contest and the Republican after getting beaten the last two out is gunning for a win.  The process starts early and runs long. there are, I think, 17 candidates running to represent the Republicans in the autumn contest. this far out early polls have very little predictive power about who the eventual nominee will be, but that can give you insight in the party, its factions, and its troubles.

Last week the first debates Fox News hosted the first debates. They held two, one for candidates who polled very low and another prime-time debate for the top 10. I did not watch the junior varsity debate, but I did watch the main event. Everything that follows is opinion only. I possess not special knowledge or training in this field.

It looked to me that the host, Fox News, long accused and rightly in my opinion, of presenting their material with a bias for conservatives and the Republican Party, managed the debate with bias for factions and candidates within the Party. It seemed to me that some candidates were treated in a manner that would enhance their standing within the contest while downplaying their weaknesses. Other candidates were subject to hostile questions to looked to me to have the intent of driving a wedge between the candidate the party’s base.

Candidates that were treated favorably in my opinion were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker. Bush often received questions that allowed him to answer with his resume as a governor while sliding past the fact that these facts and reports were already nearly a decade old. Walker and Rubio were treated with opportunities to boast of their social conservatives ideals, playing well to the base. All three in political writings are often referred to as candidates acceptable to the business/establishment faction of the Republican Party.

Candidate treated less well included Trump, Paul, and Kasich. All three were questioned about stands or actions taken that might be considered heresies with the conservative base. Trump endured the brunt of the attack questions while Paul and Kasich both had fewer but given their positions more policy-oriented questions. (Paul in a previously proposed budget suggest cutting all aid to Israel and his isolationism doesn’t play well with the hawkish elements of the base. While Kasich was pulled onto the carpet for expanding Medicaid in his state, and thus committing the sit or working with Obama’s hated health care reforms.)

It is interesting to watch some conservatives react with anger and surprise at Fox’s behaviors during the debate. It hardly surprises me. If they present a blatant bias in other areas it is quite reasonable to assume that they have biases within the party and its contentious factions. As the old saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Far more fascinating to follow is is the entire war on Trump. Now in my opinion Trump is a buffoon, an egotist, and narcissist, and a terrible, terrible choice however he’s tapped into the anger and resent that Fox News and the conservatives have cultivated within the base of the party. Anger is not rational, and those who are standing for Trump are not doing so because of policy and position, but because of passion. They see someone standing up and ‘telling it like it is.’ The problem for the republican party is that what Trump is spewing is pretty much vile, racist, sexist, shit. Fox news tried to use this at the debates to destroy Trump. They launched their nukes and watched the monstrosity of their creation withstand the blast and grew stronger. Instead of driving a wedge between Trump and the base, they drove a wedge between the Base and Fox News. Trump threatened their ratings and Fox folded. (Revealing the critical flaw in running a news organization as a for-profit business. Can any report from them ever be trusted again?)

Trump has the go to keep running even if he can’t win. He has the money to do it big and loud, as he does everything. he has the petulant nature to run purely to hurt those who have hurt him. Where in the last cycle the fringe candidates like Herman Caine eventually flamed out and crashed, Trump has the cash to survive anything crisis he wants to survive. I do not think he can win the nomination, but I do think he can stay in the race, dividing support, and maybe even throwing next year’s convention into chaos if the leading candidate doesn’t have a clear majority of the delegates. All of that would critically wound the eventual Republican nominee, nearly ensuring a Democratic victory. But what tools, what weapons does the party have to placate Trump?

No matter what happens, it’s time to buy stock in popcorn.

 

 

Share

A Proposal

Or possibly more like a notion.

I think we are watching the disintegration of the primary system for selecting candidates for President of the United States of America. The primary system itself, as we know it today, is a rather recent development. It truly started with 1968 and the Democratic Party trying to making the process more responsive to popular opinion and the voters. Watergate in the early 70s accelerated the reforms and both parties adopted a system where they hold elections to see who’s going to stand in the election. On the face of it the system looks sound. candidates campaign, as tested int he waters of an actual election, and the people can votes based upon who they agree with the most.

As we can see this cycle, and in previous cycles, that is not reality. Candidates jump in who have no intention of winning the primary but rather developing support bases for further financial gain. Once that pays off it encourage more of the same, candidates vying for base votes play to the most fanatical elements of their own parties, sounding more and more extreme and reaping rewards for such actions.

Before the primary system, the Convention is where the candidate was selected. It was a time of smoke-filled rooms and party bosses calling the shots, but it was mercifully short and tended to produce stable competent candidates.  Convention today are coronations more about spectacle than policy. How could we devise a system that selects the best of both worlds, voter input and party competency?

Here’s an idea, just a spitball off the top of my head concept.

Retain primaries, make them closed, (after all this about selecting the party’s face and that should be restricted to party members.) but remove individual candidates. Instead politicians or just folk run election trying to gather votes for factions. The factions are awarded the delegates and at the convention the factions, using their delegates, vote and select the standard-bearers for the party. Factions could raise money, unlimited money in fact, but at the end of the primary all excess monies go to the party for the general election. Politicians who stumped for the faction would certain have a leg up on getting the nomination but if they stumbled or embarrassed themselves or the party they’d be plenty of time and ability to move to a better candidate. Because the money went to the factions and not an individual person, there would be less emotional blackmail associated with massive donations reducing the corrupting effects. This would also open up a party to greater inclusion as it would be unlikely that a single faction would amass a majority of delegates right off and a nominee could only be picked by consensus.

Remember that the current primary system is not part of our system of government. It is not dictated by the laws of the land, it is the rule by which a party selects its candidate. It’s a recently developed method and I think it’s unstable. (Trump)

 

Share

Politics and Prose

Today marks the one-month anniversary for me being represented a literary agency. While no sales occurred in that month, nor were they expected, it has turned my eyes towards the future and what it means for me.

I often spout politics on this blog and now I may actually have some sort of literary presence that those political rants could affect.

Authors I know seem to be of several minds on the intersection of politics and their writing careers. Some take the approach that their author-selves should remain utterly apolitical. Take no stands, express no over political opinion, and remain as neutral as possible. Facebook and social media are for self-promotion, jokes, and cat videos. I see nothing wrong with that position, but I think I would have a difficult time maintaining that line.

Other authors fly their political flags at every parade, Nearly every issue must be commented one, positions must be debated, and guidance given to all. The thought of such constant debate I find terribly weary. While I often comment on politics here, there are many many political thoughts and positions I don’t bother to place formally on-line. I’ll leave that to those for whom politics is a passion and not a pastime.

I think I will continue with the occasional political post. I could not silence myself on some matters and remains true to who I am. It would feel deceitful. Anyway, I think much of an author’s political views are there for the uncovering in their fiction, particularly in genre fiction. World-building, as SF and Fantasy require, is inherently a political act. The author is constructing a world that he or she believes is plausible and in doing so they tip their hand in what they think works and does not work. This applies to me as well as any other author. I think if you look closely you can see the general shape of my philosophies hiding amongst my prose.

Share

The Delicate Deception of Word Choice

There has been a lot of stories in the media lately concerning marriage equality and businesses that assert the right to withholding services to participants of same-sex weddings. In almost every case a very sly bit of slight-of-hand is used in these stories that subtly bias the piece.

Word choice is paramount in writing, Mark Twain advised aspiring writers to always use the precise word, noting that there is a world of difference between ‘lightning and lightning bug.’ A similar but I suspect quite deliberate word substitution going on in many of these pieces. Consider the following sentence:

The baker has strong religious convictions.

That’s a clear, declarative statement that is perfectly logical. Now let’s change one word:

The bakery has strong religious convictions.

Huh? How does a bakery have religious convictions, strongly held or otherwise. A bakery is a business, a company, a baker is a person and the two are not the same.

What is going on is that the person who owns the bakery is asserting that his business has the same religious beliefs as a person does and the owner is doing it to retain the option of    discriminating who is served and under what conditions.

I assure that this concept that the baker and the bakery are one and the same is purely a marriage of convenience. Let that bakery produce a product that poisons a wedding party and you will swiftly find that the baker’s assets are separate and protected from the bakery’s assets.

 

Share

The P’s of Politics

There is a famous saying that ‘politics is the art of the possible.’ As far as it goes that is true, but there are additional P’s to couple with politics, Principle and Priorities and it is these secondary P’s that are often in conflict and often denied for their importance.

Principle is not dogma. Dogma is inflexible. Dogma does not admit the half-loaf and demand only total victory. Dogma demands total fealty. Principle is a guidepost, a map, not a straight jacket.

Priority is about what matters more. If we are being mature about our politics and realistic about our expectations, then priority becomes important and presents us with the most difficult decisions.

For example I support gun rights and I support marriage equality, it is quite rare to find an acceptable candidate that holds both of those positions. Therefore when looking at candidates I end up, via my vote, prioritizing one over the other. In practice it tends to be marriage equality, while I support gun rights I must be honest that it is a secondary cause and that the fight there has to wait while a more important battle is waged.

In my experience most people have the conflicting priorities, but they rarely are honest with themselves in their hierarchy. In my positions they would proclaim themselves both for gun right and marriage equality, claiming the honorable mantle of both camps while ignoring the ground facts of their actual support.

 

Share

Do Not Put Your Faith in Facebook Memes

This will be quick but I have to get it off my chest.

You CAN NOT trust the things you read on partisan internet memes. This was brought to my attention when on my Facebook feed someone shared a meme about Texas Senator Ted Cruz. (I do not like Senator Cruz. In my opinion he is a dangerous disingenuous demagogue.) The member attributed the following quote to his speech announcing his candidacy for president.

“There is no room for Atheists or gays in my America.”

The quote is clearly a fabrication. Had the man been so stupid as to have uttered those words at his Liberty University announcement the new cycle would have exploded. You would not learn about such a thing from a random Facebook posting. (To be sure I went to the text of the speech and indeed he said nothing of the sort.)

It is nearly certain that I would never vote for this man. (See my opinion statement above.) However lies and hyperbole are crappy tools for persuasion. The people passing the image around are only making their own stands less secure for if you need lies to support your arguments how strong can it be?

 

Share

A phrase I nearly always distrust

‘We’ve got to take back …”

“Our Country”

“Our Awards”

“Our Government”

I’ve heard this uttered on the left and on the right. I’ve heard this uttered for deadly serious things like the country as a whole and less serious things like SF’s award The Hugo. Wherever I hear this I tend to cringe. The unspoken – but only just barely unspoken – underlying assumption is one of ownership and possession. The subject of the ‘take back’ it the rightful property of of those proclaiming the mission. An ownership that is exclusionary to a segment or population.

Sorry, that’s just not freaking true. It wasn’t ‘your’ country. It wasn’t ‘your’ award. It wasn’t ‘your’ thingie. Especially with something like our nation or our government it is ours, collective. You know, our government, our nation, our conventions, they are always changing. Not always in ways you like. Not always in ways I like, but it always happens and always will.

Reverse is a suitable gear only for automobiles.

 

Share

A Bad Idea

Anyone who knows me is aware that I hold anti-vaxxers in the same sort of contempt that I reserve for creationist and anti-evolutionist. Recently I spotted a proposal that parents should be required to confer with a physician before being allowed to opt out of getting their children vaccinated.

No! This is a terrible idea.

When justice Alito was up for confirmation to SCOTUS one of the things that troubled me from his judicial history was upholding a law that required married woman confer with their husband before obtaining an abortion. Granted it gave the husband no legal standing, he had no way to legally forbid the process, the woman merely had to inform and confer with her spouse on the matter, the decision was still hers. It was a terrible idea for the exact same reasons as this proposal about vaccinations.

Freedom of speech and expression is not just a positive right. In addition is have the freedom to express your ideas, you are free from having to participate in expression of ideas. Compelled speech is not free speech.

Ban unvaccinated children from schools. I support that.

Require the vaccinations for public health. No trouble with that at all.

But for heaven’s sake do not infringe on freedom of expression to get there.

Share

Why I Cannot Vote Republican

For many years my natural political niche was Republican. In 1994 I was quite happy to see the House switch parties. There still are a number of points that cause me to be uncomfortable when I vote on the left side of the ballot. (Those I will save for another post on another day.) However the evolution of the Republican party and conservatism in general has driven me from their support. The following points are not meant to be exhaustive but merely the most important issues that make, for me, a Republican impossible. (Any I am talking primarily about national politics, not local.)

  1. Torture:   There simply is no other way to put it; the Republican Party made this country a nation that tortures. They refuse to correct their mistake, standing firm on the weasel euphemism ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Torture, the abuse of prisoners, is an immoral and evil act. I may not be religious, I may not be Christian, but I will not endorse such evil. (There are times when I wonder what a Republican Christian imagines he or she would say to their God when they face the final judgment. What argument can support trading torturing human beings for tax cuts?)
  2. Marriage Equality: One of my philosophical passions is equality. I do not see the animal ‘gay marriage.’ In my mind there is not such animal. There is only marriage. I can remember back in the 80’s, long before this bubbled up into the national political fight, coming to the conclusion that no logical argument support banning gay people from marriage. Nothing in the decades in-between has altered that conclusion.
  3. Anti-Abortion Absolutism and Hypocrisy : There is no reasonable compromise that can be forged with the Social Conservative on abortion. Any agreement is merely a stepping stone for further restrictions on the march to total prohibition. There are those who accept the argument that this is really a personal liberty issue, defining the unborn fetus as a person whose liberties outweigh all others, but I do not believe that this is the sincere motivation for the abolition at all. IF you accept that the fetus is a person with all the right and protections of a person (which I do not) there can be no moral justification aiming all criminal charges in the direction of the providers and not the woman. Here is no moral argument supporting excepting for rape or incest. Anyone who supports the death penalty for murder for hires would have to support it for abortion. No, the real issue here is an attempt to roll back the sexual revolution. Hence the Conservatives issue with the HPV vaccine. Nothing that makes sexual encounters safer can be tolerated.
  4. The Iraq War: I was against the invasion when it happened and nothing has come to light to present the Iraqi dictatorship as an imminent danger to the United States. The War was foolish without any serious thought given to the post war environment. The major players in the Republican field supported the war and continue to do so. State

5. Fiscal Hypocrisy: Hypocrisy is the normal state of affair in politics. The Filibuster is scared when you’re the minority and a nuisance when you are in the majority. However the central conceit of Republican is their supposed fiscal sanity. 2000-2008 proved the lie to that illusion. Deficits only matter when they can be used to bludgeon the Democratic Party. Given the chance the ‘conservatives’ rushed to war and paid for it on the government credit card.

Comment if you like, but the subject of the thread is the Republican Party. Deflecting to the Democratic Party and its sins is off topic.

Share