Comments Elsewhere: Guns and Rape

Over at LGM, in their discussion of the abuse heaped on Zerlina Maxwell for some simple truth-telling, I made a few comments:

March 10, 2013 at 8:56 pm

Since nobody, for better or for worse, is seriously arguing that all guns should be banned…

I am, but nobody listens to me.

Hunting can be done with bow and crossbow.

Self-defence should be done with blunt and edged weapons.

Sexual coercion of all sorts should be stigmatized to the point where all rapes and sexual assaults are treated the way we treat child molestation, necrophilia.

Oh, and everyone should take a lot more history classes in college.

March 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm

Oh, and that “only criminals will have guns” thing? Yup, that’s the idea. If you’ve got a gun, and you don’t have a uniform and a badge, you’re a criminal, and should be treated like a dangerous rabid animal.

It’ll take some time to get the bulk of the guns out of circulation, yeah. But gradualism will only confuse things: Make ‘em all illegal for private ownership now, and let things get better more or less immediately, and from that point forward.

I’m open to a black-powder recreator exception for the weapons, but not for bullets: putting anything but black powder and wadding in the muzzle constitutes a felonious weapons violation.

In a different thread, I said

March 10, 2013 at 8:48 pm

According to NCVS there were 108,000 defensive gun uses in 2010. Even if we assume that half of them were someone’s fantasy, that’s 54,000 people not robbed, raped, beaten, or killed each and every year. Somehow or another all those people managed to clear leather fast enough to not be a victim.

I would assume that 90% were over-reactions or escalations that would not have happened without the presence of the gun, and that 9% were responding to the presence someone else’s unnecessary gun.

Comments Elsewhere: Voting and Morality

They're having a bit of a pile-on over at LGM about the question of voting and moral responsibility. I'm trying to stay out of it, mostly, but I did throw in a few comments (about 1% of the total offered so far) here:

This is a point I made in the last post as well, but voting does matter. It may not matter a lot, but aggregate vote totals affect ongoing political strategy (i.e. selection of battleground states; willingness of national parties and PACs to invest in local candidates) and may play a role in setting national policy (i.e. the current majority vote electoral college reform effort). It is an historic record of an opinion, and affects the way in which we understand ourselves as a society. I don't think these are merely 'psychic' benefits, but we seem to have otherwise divorced the concept of citizenship from any sense of obligation. I think we need to bring it back: membership has its privileges, and it should also have responsibilities beyond merely obeying the law.

And here:

There is no such thing as a non-battleground state. Not voting for Obama in Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, etc., means that these areas will continue to be viewed as non-battleground states where the minority of voters can be safely ignored, where the Democratic party will not “waste” money or other resources to aid local candidates or shift discussions, where Republicans will feel empowered to continue building their New Confederacy. There is a political battle going on EVERYWHERE, and while voting in the minority isn’t necessarily fun, it still should count for something. And people in “safe” states who would throw away votes need to remember that polling is a social science.

Arguments against voting make me very cranky. Though there are really interesting moral issues at work here. Also here:

my vote is an endorsement of the policies of the person who gets my vote ...as better than the alternatives overall. I reserve the right to disagree with candidates I vote for, and to criticize their policies after they win. And while I may bear some responsibility for policies that were discussed in the campaign, policies which were not significantly in play — or easily foreseeable — during the election are not my responsibility. How, in a two-party system — or even in a 10-party system — can anything else be true?

Nicest thing anyone's said about me in a while....

Offered without comment (but with context):

Ahistoricality’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right.

Comment Elsewhere: Ecology of the Future

In response to a fascinating discussion of disturbing new trends in wildlife "management" I wrote:

At some point, we're going to need to decide that human economic activity isn't part of the ecosystem, at least not in terms of preserving environments. At some point, we're going to need to accept the fact that change - particularly climate change - is part of ecological history and that attempts to prevent *ALL* extinctions and migrations are un-ecological. At some point, we're going to have to accept that humans *ARE* part of the ecosystem, and decide whether they get managed like kudzu and snakeheads or like salmon and sea lions.

Comment Elsewhere: Tools

Though I try not to respond to obvious trollery (the post isn't trollish, but the commenter is), sometimes a good line comes of it

Abortion, like ibuprofen, hammers, and the Funky Chicken, is a tool to implemented under appropriate circumstances. It is possible to believe that a tool is used less frequently than necessary (spellcheck) and that it is used badly (spellcheck) without believing that the tool is either good or bad in itself.

Low class is better than no class at all....

For fun, I did the "What Class Of White Are You" test Charles Murray's hawking. I won't link to it, but I'll link to commentaries here and here and here. The fun part is trying to guess what point he's making with each question, and then reading the scoring guide and realizing just how weird his internal cultural map is. As I pointed out at LGM, " By his own admission, backed up with statistics, most of what scores you points on this test are minority experiences, in some cases quite narrow ones (Military service. Who the hell identifies race car drivers by sight? Branson? And what’s the socioeconomic profile of people who made Inception a top-grossing film?)."

So, how did I do?


1. 5
2. 0
3. 6 (but working at a college in a small town shouldn't count, right?)
4. 0 (what do you mean, "Graduate school doesn't count"?)
5. 0
6. 0 (what do you mean "Carpal Tunnel doesn't count"?)
7. 0 (I had a friend who was a Monarchist: that ought to count for something)
8. 0
9. 4
10. 0
11. 1
12. 0
13. 0
14. 2, but only because I had guests coming who drink the stuff
15. 1
16. 3
17. 0
18. 2
19. 2
20. 0
21. 1
22. 0
23. 1
24. 0
25. 4

Total: 32

"A first-generation upper-middle-class person with middle-class parents.
Range: 11–80.
Typical: 33."

Am I "upper-middle-class"? Not by income, but I certainly fall into the overeducated liberal elite category he's trying to guilt-trip into voting culture-war Republican (though anyone with a real interest in improving the lives of lower-class working folk wouldn't).  To be honest, lots of my points come from having married into a family with rather different tastes and having lived where I needed to live to pursue an academic (though not an elite) career.

Does this suggest that I need to rethink my understanding of American society? No: the logical leaps and cultural blinkers and statistical junk pseudo-science is strong with this one....

Comment Elsewhere: Amateur Opinions Matter

In a discussion of a particularly blatant bit of retrograde elitism, I noted:

Law, like history, is a field where amateur opinions not only are common, but matter a great deal: they define the discourse in ways that professionals must adjust to.

This is something that the professional historical community has been grappling with for as long as I've been part of it: public history, historical memory, historical mythologies all are part of the public discourse which greatly affects the wider understanding of our work.

Comment Elsewhere: Pathology and Mass Murder

Yeah, it's a discussion of the Oslo/Utoya killings, so forewarned. Some yahoo claimed that only the psychologically abnormal kill, which is just weird:

Apparently sociopathic behavior can be the result of extreme conditions rather than an underlying mental condition: which is to say, just because he did something which defies normal rational moral explanation doesn’t mean that he’s insane in any meaningful way. He thinks he’s at war, fighting for the life of himself, his race, and he’s willing to do what it takes to win. He’s not insane. He’s not a “madman” or somehow unaccountable for his actions. He’s a political actor who made a tactical decision in what he believes is a time of crisis.

And he should be required to watch a continuous loop of home movies and tributes of his victims in a jail cell from now until the end of his natural life.

Comments Elsewhere: Birtherism and the Ground Game

After watching 80-odd comments on the birth certificate issues miss the point, I added

There’s a whole raft of birther-related bills floating around statehouses, targetting the next round of primaries and national elections: filing season is going to come up in a matter of months. Releasing these documents now is a reminder to every state attorney general, every state legislature that they will mire their state in costly legislation, and if they craft a bill that excludes Obama’s documentation, they’ll be in violation of constitutional due process and full faith and credit protections, and if they don’t, they’ll just look like idiots for missing their target.

Frankly, the short-form birth certificate was enough, legally, but this just drives it home.

Probably won’t stop them from trying, but it could peel away enough cost-conscious state senators or governors to keep the legislation sane and/or kill it outright.

Comment Elsewhere: McCain on TV on Ethanol

In response to Steve Benen's reporting on John McCain's latest Sunday News SHow Appearance and flip-flop, I replied:

I like the ongoing count of McCain appearances: it's a fantastic reminder of the vacuity of commercial news and influence peddling.

That said, the science and economics of ethanol - especially corn-based ethanol - has changed over time: I have great respect for politicians who will admit that their policy views have changed based on science and fact. McCain, on the other hand, uses policy positions as levers and bludgeons, and has no actual affinity for reality.

Comments Elsewhere: Rejecting Parallelism

In response to Scott Kaufman's post obliterating right-wing complaints about the Tucson memorial, someone wrote that the complainers were stupid. I replied

It’s not intelligence, exactly, that’s the issue. I think it’s the lack of a moral compass or sense of guilt which allows them to use any and all means, including outright falsehoods, against their percieved enemies, and allows them to hypocritically do the same things their percieved enemies did (or vice versa, to accuse their opponents of wrongdoing for things which they themselves did). It’s a sheer instrumentality in which there is nothing but tactics.

They don’t even have an internalized sense of shame anymore, though they can still, at times, be shamed into some restraint if the right leverage is applied.

I realized later, that my comment here was the start of that thought.

At least they still have some shame. They don’t feel guilt anymore, we know that. But if we can still shame them, we have leverage.

Back at LGM, one of the right-wing trolls tried to play the "both sides" gambit.

I’ll admit to having my own political preferences, even some biases, but I’ve spent a long time training to look at evidence rather than guessing or making stuff up. The situation isn’t parallel anymore. The sides aren’t equal, or equivalent. I don’t see how “pox on both houses” can be anything more than a reflexive twitch or defensive crouch.

Comments Elsewhere: Citizenship and Personhood

In a discussion of Republican selectivity on Constitutional principles, including a issues of immigration and abortion, I wrote (satirically, just to be clear):

And since the unborn are persons, their being born doesn’t change their personhood, and therefore shouldn’t change their citizenship status. Only people whose parents can prove that the pregancy was conceived on American soil (preferably in a suburb) should be considered citizens.

Curiously, it undercuts the attack on Republicans as hypocritical, because it creates a consistency in their thought that they don't deserve.

Comments Elsewhere: Politics

It's been a day of heavy political discussion.

In a discussion of the recent elections with Anne Zook, I wrote:

1/6th of the population will reliably vote, and vote Democrat; 1/6th of the population will reliably vote, and vote Republican; 1/6th of the population, the most motivated of the remaining 2/3rds, will show up and vote their outrage, and the winner is determined by whether inconsistent voting Republicans are more outraged than inconsistent voting Democrats in any given cycle.

A lot of research about independent voters has convinced me that they actually constitute a very small share of the population compared to weak-voting Democrats and Republicans who only show up to vote when they're angry. So the "independent voter" in exit polls oscilates from cycle to cycle not because independents are changing their minds, but because different people are showing up.

Then, in response to Rich Puchalsky's declaration of late-blooming anarchism, I responded:

The problem with anarchism, for me, has always been the absurdly optimistic endgame: if we remove all the structures of oppression and power (and we can't tell the difference), we'll all be happy sharing people!

It feels weird, but as a Lockean/Millsian left liberal, I've become a kind of Burkean conservative: Look, we had these systems and traditions and they worked pretty well! Let's not change them too quickly or expect too much from people! Revolutions get out of control! Especially theirs!

More to the point, perhaps, is that I don't see how you solve the problem of scofflaws by abandoning the concept of law: if your ultimate goal is to create a society of decency, I don't see how law can be anything other than an insufficient but necessary condition of its existence.

We're potentially on the verge of a techologically-aided revolution in law and decency: the ability to document, share, and shame systems of power. Or maybe not, because the same systems of surveillance and publication can even more easily be used against us as methods of control, but it seems to me that fact that we're having the debate about Yoo and Bybee now, less than a decade after the crimes were committed, is a step forward from the decades that disclosure and reckoning used to take. Our skill at self-justification is as great as ever, though, so it might not matter as much as I think.

That said, I feel a lot like I'm clinging to something that really won't support us anymore. Puchalsky's right that the big winners in this process are the plutocrats and "the rule of law" has never significantly affected the national security aspects of the state or economy; Zook is right that the political process is a poisoned well surrounded by idiots.

Comment Elsewhere: Threading a Needle

In a discussion of US college campus representations of the MidEast conflict, I responded to Nadir Jeewa's incisive comment (in italics) with a variation of my own:

As an ethnic Muslim / religious atheist, I still identify with the Palestinian cause, and wouldn't want the issue to disappear completely from campuses. I just don't want to be forced to make a choice between supporting the Gaza blockade in the name of Israeli security (or becoming an anti-Semite), and supporting Hamas in the name of anti-colonialism (or becoming an Islamophobe). But, that's the options I'm given.*

As an agnostic liberal Jew, I still identify with the Palestinian cause, as well as some Israeli security concerns, and I wouldn't want either issue to disappear from our attention until they are no longer problems. Neither Hamas nor the Israeli government is worthy of energetic support at this point. I'm greatly supportive of Palestinian and Israeli people, and sincerely hope that sometime soon they get the leadership and opportunities they deserve and so clearly lack.

Limerick Elsewhere: Grammar Police

In response to a limerick-capped discussion of a new round of student-bashing English 'education', I had to respond (I think I got it right: it's in moderation):

We strive to teach students clarity
and sometimes we end up with hilarity
but if they don't learn
from betting that burn
they'll treat us with similar charity.

In other words, if we put our effort into teaching them to write precisely before teaching them to think effectively, they'll view us, quite correctly, as scolds and neurotics.

Comment Elsewhere: Pointless Discussions

Someone claimed that "Hickory Wind" by Gram Parsons was "infintely better" than "Achy Braky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus. I responded

Cyrus is a better musician than Parsons, but the whole musical industry has raised technical standards so much, that it’s not obvious until you compare them side by side. And “Achy Braky Heart” is an entirely successful, intentionally funny song. It’s not lyrical poetry (and “Hickory Wind” is so full of faux sentimentalism and forced romanticism that I could barely listen to it once) but it’s a fantastically written and perfectly performed piece. The problem most people have understanding Cyrus’ work (and I’m not a huge fan, honestly, but this kind of stuff drives me buggy) is that they don’t understand that country (like folk music) has a deliberately and broadly humorous side and doesn’t actually take itself as seriously as the authenticity-hounds (or their mindless rejectors) seem to think.

For comparison, here are the two songs: make up your own mind:

Comment Elsewhere: Political tribalism

Kevin Drum was expressing his difficulty with getting into the conservative mindset, and I responded:

But on an emotional level, it just seems nuts. So I wish that I could figure out a way to feel it. To understand it.

It reminds me of the constant sense of embattlement the Jewish community in the US has been dealing with for.... well, most of the 20th century, I suppose. A hostile educational culture, institutional barriers to success, a presumption of cultural wrongness, the assumption that assimilation to the wide culture equates with a loss of principles, the sense of constant existential threat punctuated by episodes of actual existential threat, and the weekly drumbeat of concern/panic/self-criticism in religious life. A response which includes cultural combativeness, mutual aid within the community, attempts to present a unified front to the rest of the world, hypersensitivity to slights and slippery-slope dangers, creation of separate institutions of education, finance, culture, philanthropy. Celebration of infiltration into mainstream culture and institutions, combined with maintenance of parallel separate institutions.

The list goes on and on. What's surprising is the translation of an authentically tribal response to modernity into a political movement which has now transcended politics to be come a culture.

I've been concerned for a long time that the homeschool movement would be the foundation on which a true epistemic split would be created in American life, but perhaps it's Fox News and Liberty University, instead. Or perhaps it's all of a piece, but it isn't going away anytime soon.

Comment Elsewhere: Texas Republican Platform

A friend suggested that we read the Texas Republican Party Platform [PDF]. Wow. Here's some selected comments from the experience. I skipped over most of the anti-abortion, anti-homosexual stuff because it's been widely reported. It's pretty bad, really. But there's even more odd stuff there.

There's some stuff in there that I kind of like:

The Government shall not, by rule or law, exempt any of its
members from the provisions of such rule or law.

This would mean that police officers would have to justify the use of force based on the same standards as the rest of us, and tasers would be considered assault with a deadly weapon.

We demand elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders and other mandates lacking congressional approval, as well as repeal of all previous executive orders and mandates.

Oh, wow.

Affirmative action falsely casts those who advocate merit as racist.

If the shoe fits....

We support limiting the definition of eminent domain to exclude seizing private property for public or private economic development or for increased tax revenues.

Yup, capitalism can go too far.

The state should have no power over licensing or training of clergy.

I wasn't aware that any such restriction existed.

the Republican Party of Texas urges local government bodies to determine their own policies regarding religious clubs and meetings on all properties owned by the same without interference.

Didn't they want strict adherence to the Constitution earlier?

Either party in a criminal trial should have a right to inform jurors of their right to determine facts and render a verdict.

Jury nullification, yeah! Especially for prosecutors!

We urge Republican Senate leadership to ensure that a record vote is taken on every judicial nominee.

Ending the judicial filibuster? I'm there!

We support full disclosure of the amounts and sources of any campaign contributions to political candidates, whether contributed by individuals, political action committees, or other entities.

Transparency in politics? Not bad. But congressional Republicans just turned down a chance to do this, so the Texans must be DFHs.

We support repeal of all Motor Voter laws; re–registering voters every four years;

Because too many people just show up and vote!

We urge changing the Election Code date of filing for the March primary from January 2 to the second Monday in January.

Why?

OMG, I'm only on page 5. Time to start skimming....

We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States.

I've taught kids from Texas: this could be good!

We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way.

Yeah, like turning the Alamo into a theme park, and American Flag Swimsuits.

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society

That sounds painful: I think they're doing it wrong.

Also, they have clauses against both RU-486 and the Morning After Pill. Nobody there, apparently, realized that they were the same thing?

Hmm. They're against gambling, but they're in favor of individual retirement investment accounts -- stock market gambling -- instead of social security.

We support the availability of natural, unprocessed foods, which should be encouraged, and that the right to access raw milk directly from the farmer be protected.

Wouldn't you rather get it from the cow? Oh, the farmer and the cowman will be friends....

We advocate equal educational opportunity for all students and the requirement that children with special needs be educated commensurate with their abilities.

Except for the bit about removing learning disabilities from the ADA....

Here's one for the professors!
We support Texas’ colleges and universities use of the same or substitutable textbooks for ten or more years in order to bring costs to students down and maintain some residual value for used books. We oppose restrictions on use of textbooks for multiple years, such as requiring annual access codes.

Granted, the two-year replacement cycle for textbooks is a bit out of hand, but would you want to use textbooks from 10+ years ago in your field?

Also, later: We support the removal of the system of tenure in Texas state colleges and universities.

I have my doubts about tenure, mind you, but I think they're going to have a problem with contracts....

We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.

There's something about 'self-sufficient families' earlier: I guess this is part of that.

As a prerequisite, we urge passage of a constitutional amendment
prohibiting imposition of state regulations on private and parochial schools

That's a level of school choice that goes well beyond anything I've ever seen before.

We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews.

?

We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent

Aside from the grammatical hash of the last sentence, how much medical freedom are we talking about here? Also, I'm pretty sure there's no medical care for minors without parental consent already. At least based on the paperwork I've seen.

To help instill lifelong healthy eating habits, we support making only foods of nutritional value available in schools during school hours and served in appropriate serving sizes

So, they can take any medication their parents approve of, but they can't eat junk food.

We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.

That'll end well.

We support the individual right to enter into real estate contracts without Government interference or regulations.

You know that's about compacts and restrictions, right?

Child abusers should be severely prosecuted. However, we
oppose actions of social agencies to classify traditional methods of discipline as child abuse. We support enactment of a homicide-by-abuse statute that provides punishment for abusing a child to death without intent of killing.

Ick. What I can't tell from the platform is if "homicide by abuse" should be punished more or less severely than other forms of murder: is it more like involuntary manslaughter, or murder with special circumstances?

They also want to replace all taxation -- income, property, whatever -- with sales taxes, except for internet transactions (at least, I think that's what they mean. They might just be opposing those 'government will tax your email' chain letters, though).

Here's one of my favorites:
We strongly believe that the United States of America must protect and defend its national sovereignty as given in the Constitution to the people and remain free of external control or influence and be governed independently of any foreign power, especially with regard to the formation of the North American Union/Community as proposed by the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). ... later: We oppose relinquishing United States supremacy to any foreign powers on our soil. We support prohibition of all foreign or international military bases within the United States.

Yes, the Texas Republican Party Platform is written by people who believe chain letters. Later, they oppose one-world government and one-world currency, along with withdrawl from the UN and expulsion of the UN from US territory. On the other hand, they want to reinvigorate NASA's moon program, so it's not all bad!

Recommittment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, intervention into the MidEast (by declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel) and Asia (by declaring Taiwan a sovereign nation) that are sure to get us even further into trouble. Gotta love the foundations of their foreign policy: "Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations
and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise."

There's a legislative summary at the end, which is oddly inconsistent with the body of the platform.

Wow.

Comment Elsewhere: College Sports Prophecy

In a discussion of the conference readjustment going on in NCAA football, I predicted that

For every school president that ’sees the light’ and goes against alumni and conventional wisdom to shift funding, there’ll be two whose fundraising office and resume-building impulse will lead them to double-down on the athletic bet.

To be fair, I've known college and university presidents who were academically serious, ethical, farsighted and responsible. Even they had major investments in athletics, and often little control over the athletic departments. I've also known presidents who were fickle, ambitious, self-serving and borderline stupid, and the only thing that kept them from investing more in athletics was ... well, nothing, but the limits of the budget and need to maintain the fig leaf of accreditation.

Comment Elsewhere: Our current Catch-22

Terry noted an attempt by anti-immigrant groups to invoke environmental rhetoric in defense of their racism. I responded:

They tried this tack with the Sierra Club a couple of years back: a bunch of anti-immigrant activists began running for positions on the board, conflating these issues, and came awfully close to having some real influence on environmental activism.

We do have a bit of a catch-22 here: if everyone wants to live like we do, the planet can’t sustain it. Either we have to accept and enforce gross inequality, or we have to accept that our material standard of consumption will decline as the rest of the world becomes more economically successful. These yahoos want to do the former.