Guilty

The list of charges.

.

Religion of Peace

Where does cultural justification of violence meet historical revisionism? Well, this week those forces met in Norway, and the noise machine kicked into gear.

There are two views of the world. In one view, one accepts that human beings are capable of horrible things as well as wonderful things, while using their individual beliefs to justify extreme behavior on either side and all those in between. In the other view, human beings are capable of horrible things as well as wonderful things, but what marks the difference depends on how much they agree with your own beliefs.

Take the latter too far, and Andrew Sullivan explains what you get:

Both Islamism and Christianism, to my mind, do not spring from real religious faith; they spring from neurosis caused by lack of faith. They are the choices of those who are panicked by the complexity and choices of modernity into a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion in order to attack what they see as their cultural and social enemies. They are not about genuine faith; they are about the instrumentality of faith as a political bludgeon.

.

Legit Verdict

To be clear, I'm of a rationally firm opinion that if someone attacks you with deadly force, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with a firearm.

However, if an attacker has already been shot, and they are unconcious and bleeding on the floor, coming back to stand over them and shoot them 5 more times is little better than cold-blooded execution. It passes the realm of "self-defense" and into the realm of "murder" when the attacker is no longer a threat due to lying prone and bleeding on the floor.

I don't know all the evidence presented in this case, but that's a verdict that appears to have a basis in reality.

.

Fighting Back

I'm just going to leave this right here next to this.

.

Profiling

My first post regarding Tuscon focused on seperating the act itself from the guns that were used and the political rhetoric being discussed. But now, in less than a week, the story has gone from the incident itself and stories of the victims to the way the media victimizes "conservatives." Why do all our news stories end up "victimizing conservatives?"

Let's see if I've got this right, Sarah:

Violent rhetoric from politicians against other politicians? OK.
Military metaphors from politicians against other politicians? OK.
Gun and target graphics in political campaign literature? OK.
Talk of secession? OK.
Demonizing political rivals and their supporters? OK.

Questioning whether any or all of the above contributed to the assassination attempt of a political figure? NOT OK.

Now, did the violent rhetoric drive this shooter to murder a bunch of people? We don't know that, yet. Right now, it is looking like this guy is just one of those men who wants to watch the world burn. But I'm willing to say probably not.

So why, in the first shocked hours as our nation tried to make sense of the tragedy, did there come to be a focus on the violent, vile and destructive political rhetoric of the right-wing? One word answer.

Profiling.

Back it up just a second (I mentioned this on Maitri's post the other day). When almost anything bad happens, and the perpetrator has even a slightly Middle Eastern name, the immediate gut reaction is to blame terrorism from fundamentalist Islam. And then crank up the right-wing "Sharia law is coming to get you" meme. And then blame all followers of Islam, everywhere. Hell, as far as over-politicizing a tragedy is concerned, the right-wing wins this contest going away. And soon after, you hear the calls for "profiling" possible evil doers and the assertation that "political correctness" is leaving us open to terrorism.

So, in a country with our political rhetoric being what it is, where we have faced the real spectre of political violence in the past, when a Democratic congresswoman - a congresswoman who has, in fact, gone on record responding to violent rhetoric, images, threats and vandalism to her person and office - her staff, and bystanders are gunned down by a 22 year old white male, in Arizona of all places, what do you think the immediate, gut-reaction is going to be?

That's profiling. Sorry, folks, you got to dance with the one that brung ya.

Because even more than overblown, violent rhetoric in this country, we have developed a well-honed progress-resistant trait called jumping to conclusions. Then we hold onto those conclusions despite contrary evidence. Or we argue about the initial reaction instead of discussing the contrary evidence.

And even as this story began to move away from the initial political aspects, as any story tends to do, the right grabbed a hold of it from their angle and won't let it go. I wonder how many stories were actually written about Sarah Palin's map being at fault for this shooting compared to how many stories, talk radio segments, and breathless pundit appearances have been made about how those few stories unfairly demonize the right wing? Because all I'm hearing about now is the latter.

Thus: "Democratic Congresswoman, staffers and bystanders shot; actual human beings dead and hurt; right-wing noise machine victimized by media."

Perhaps we should not let the right-wing define the terms of the debate any longer, because they're doing it even here. Y'all, I can't speak for others, but I've been concerned with the overblown, hyperbolic and emotionally overwrought rhetoric of the American right for a long, long time. I don't know how many times I can say it. From a sitting US Senator (R-Texas) politically justifying volence against judges back in 2005, to Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies," this has become a destructive cultural trait of the political right. And it has been years in the making.

Though there may be large numbers of professional protesters, internet meme creators, and even some candidate also-rans of the Democratic Party that spew vile rhetoric against the right; there may be some ridiculous college students who try to silence Ann Coulter by throwing pies - let us try to remember who is doing what.

But there is a big difference between a cafe-press t-shirt and Rush Limbaugh. There is a difference between a poster at a protest and Candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America Sarah Palin. As a matter of fact, I would state that there is a Mount f ing Everest of difference there, in terms of cultural and political power. And before we start comparing apples to apples, even the right-wing also-rans can become political celebrities if you add guns and promise to kick someone's ass.

So is it a shock that, in the hours following what appeared to be a political shooting, people may look immediately at those who have marketed themselves as gun-toting ass-kickers and literally used target images when describing the specific individual who got shot, so much so that the specific individual who got shot publicly raised concerns about it? Think about it another way, right-wing, this just proves that your marketing works as well as you think it does.

.

They Forgot Huey Long

Other than that, this is something to see.

.

"Most States Have Some Firearms Laws"

After the Tuscon shooting, I've been engaged in several conversations, both in person and online, regarding gun laws. I've attempted to recall some of my own knowledge and experience, mostly involving what passes for "gun control debate" in this country. But the vast majority of my participation in this conversation is trying to remember stuff my Dad says. He's something of an expert on Federal gun laws.

When asked for specifics, I've been tempted to call my father up on the phone and ask him. But I fear that conversation will ramble somewhat and drift erroneously into the realm of Notre Dame or Alabama football (Roll Tide).

Then I remembered, the old man has a website that goes over this exact topic.

And uses his typical "teacher's voice" of not assuming prior knowledge of a subject by his readers. Which lead to hilariously sublime statements like the title of this post, or this:

"Violations can result in severe penalties."

Which should probably be incorporated into a demotivational poster, but I digress.

.

The Troubled Psychology

First and foremost, I've had quite enough of my society living in perpetual fear that some mentally or emotionally unstable individual is going to pick up guns and start shooting up a place. Every time this happens, several someones admit to being worried their acquaintance would snap at some future point and do harm to others. Every time.

And yet most of the time those several someones powerlessly continue with their day, often making uncomfortable jokes about the situation in order to defuse the nerves or tension they feel. Or tell friends about it. On occasion, someone tells an "authority" figure, such as a teacher or administrator or boss. Sometimes they do something, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they just don't know what to do about it. Eventually you come to the point where there is no preventative next step.

Most of the time, the next step is just to restart the cycle, and the troubled individual becomes more marginalized by society, and they live out their days surrounded by their own troubles, physically hurting no one but emotionally trying for themselves or their family members or friends who try to figure it out.

But sometimes, that next step shows up as "Breaking News." Columbine. Virginia Tech. Fort Hood. The Bad Part of Anywhere, USA. Austin, Texas. And now, Tuscon, Arizona.

What the hell can we do about this? I'm not smart enough to say. I know that the current state of our nation's mental health infrastructure isn't what it should be. I know that our society is not currently set up in a way that culturally promotes mental health or even peaceful resolution of conflict, for that matter. I know we stigmatize the wrong things, and our society is uncomfortable talking about mental health in mature ways. I also know that our society does not have adequate means of addressing mental health issues, once they have been identified.

Hell, even labeling the shooter "mentally ill" could be a cop-out, pure speculation, based on our current view of the situaion.

Let me be the one to say that this kind of tragedy happens too often in the United States. Let me also say that we don't hear about it most of the time. When we do, they are only high profile events. We've gotten so used to this, it takes either deaths in the double digits or the shooting of a sitting member of Congress for it to stay in the news cycle for more than two days.

Second of all, instead of talking about that, we're going to talk about the politics. If the perpetrator was a Muslim, it was terrorism. If the perpetrator was white, maybe it wasn't terrorism. If it was a black-on-black crime, we don't even hear about it.

There is always a push to fit things in everyone's preferred larger narrative. If you are left-wing, this guy in Tuscon shot the place up because Sarah Palin uses firey and violent political rhetoric and this sort of thing has been expected for a long time. If you're right-wing, and enjoy the violent political rhetoric, this guy is absolutely a left-winger. We're not even entertaining the fantasy that there is some legally presumed innocence here, because we're too busy preemptively ignoring any facts that may arise to challenge our preconcieved worldviews.

We don't even wait for the facts or the investigations to make up our minds anymore, we just fill in the blanks ourselves and never let our opinion move from that spot. If you think political rhetoric was violent and abusive before, this tragedy has done nothing to quell that, and has, in fact, only increased the vitriol. Because what we need now is to elevate this shooter to Gavrilo Princip status in a society already bought into the competing "Democrats are Destroying America" vs. "the Tea Party Will Kill Us All." That will calm things down, for sure.

Don't you see it? Tell me, how much have you read about Gabrielle Giffords outside her family particulars and finger movements, and how much have you read about the percieved political motivations of her would-be killer? How much have you read about the three 70+ year olds also gunned down while waiting in line to speak with their Congresswoman?

Third, the guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns make it much easier for people to kill people. So do knives. So do automobiles. But because people have proven their intentions to kill other people with such gusto, regardless of armament, the defensive capability of owning guns is as unassailable as the capability of owning an automobile. Should we be more dilligent with background checks? Yeah, probably.

Fourth, the violent political rhetoric. Oh, you thought I was going to let the Palins, Limbaughs, Hannities and Becks of the world off too easy didja? Sorry.

It is still too early to determine whether this particular case has anything to do with the violent political rhetoric of the mainstream right-wing. That doesn't mean such rhetoric isn't a problem and shouldn't be called out for what it is.

Sarah Palin used a bullseye to target political adversaries. You can try an argue that point away all you want, but go play Goldeneye for four minutes. Or pick up any hunting-focused magazine. Don't try to tell me the universal symbol of crosshairs is suddenly something different from what it has always been. Don't try to tell me that the imagery was accidental as her statement that Republicans don't "retreat, they reload." That may work on folks who believe the bullshit Glenn Beck tries to sell as history, but it doesn't work on those of us who actually live in reality.

You want to get political candidates voted out of office without violent imagery? Use a different universally recognized symbol that says "don't do this."

I am a Democratic voter, and a member of the Democratic Party. Neither I, nor any Democratic Party member I know, nor any Democratic Party candidate I have ever voted for, is trying to "destroy America." Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says on his show every damn day.

And when Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle talks about "2nd Amendment Remedies," she is advocating armed insurrection against a legally elected United States government. At the time of her statement, the "Congress" she described was politically Democratic. I can only take her at her words that Democratic individuals are the purveyors of tyranny, and subject to 2nd Amendment remedies. As a Democratic voter and Party member, who helped elect that Congress, I wonder if those remedies extend to me and mine or if she just expects individuals like me to let it happen? I don't know what other way to interpret those clearly stated words.

But they are their own words, and they must take responsibility for them. They are not the words of honestly held policy positions, rationally discussing policy change with mild political rivals whom they respect and understand as holding, honestly held opposing positions. No, those words are full of killing and revolution metaphors, describing opponents in terms usually reserved for the monsters of history.

That's not a calm, collected way of talking when anyone does it. And before you go all false-equivalency on me and say "But Pat, Democrats do it, too!" because some Dem also-ran in the suburb of some Northern state wants to try and rile his base up using nonsense. There may be some Dems who do this, there may be many liberal bloggers, and it ain't OK when they do it. But it also ain't in the mainstream DNA of the Democratic Party at this time. Own your own words.

We have now become so passionate about politics in this country that it borders on mania, and some are worse than others. That does not provide a safer environment for any of us. It does not create a society that culturally promotes mental health. And that goes back to my first point: we don't have an adequate system in place to deal with a collective and crippling national mental illness. Which it seems is what politics has now become, and done so completely seperately from any shooting in Arizona.

.

Freedom of Movement

You know those Constitutional rights you thought you had? You know, the ones that say escaping a disaster area on foot in an attempt to save your life and the lives of others with you is perfectly legal?

Yeah, Think again.

According to this ruling, if you try to walk out of a disaster area and the police don't wan't you to go through there, they can shoot at you.

.

The Grand Army of Huntin' Season

Bush lied to me, they all lied to me: "We gotta go to Iraq because they're the most dangerous country on Earth. They're the most dangerous regime in the world." If they're so dangerous, how come it only took two weeks to take over the whole f****** country? S***. Man, you couldn't take over Baltimore in two weeks. - Chris Rock

While a bit oversimplified, here is a good look at why conquering the United States would be difficult. Chris Rock ain't wrong.

I wish [Machiavelli] was around today, if only to hear the praise he would have for a nation that every year assembles and then disbands the world’s largest army purely for the purpose of managing its deer population.

(HT: Daily Dish.)

Let me say first, that as a civil libertarian, I think one of the greatest guarantees of personal liberty is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

While the 600,000 armed individuals running around the Minnesota woodlands might not constitute a ready-and-willing Second Grand Army of the Republic in tactics, the sheer number is overwhelming. This is almost three times the number of Union and Confederate combatants at Gettysburg. As a matter of fact, if these numbers are true (and I have no doubt they are) than Michigan and Pennsylvania both had more armed individuals running around the woods this deer season than were combat deaths in the entire Civil War, to date this nation's bloodiest struggle.

But I make the Civil War comparisons for a reason. Though the author examines the difference in centralized force of arms vs. decentralization, this view should not be romanticized. Look through the comments section for some good points. To which I supplement the following:

We have an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to keep an invading horde from even reaching American shores, or bottle them up and annihilate them at whatever beachhead they are lucky enough to grab onto. Because of this, the United States will likely never have to face an external threat of invasion, but it is nice to know that, should that eventuality ever happen, our invaders are going to need the proverbial "bigger boat." There are a lot of us here in the USA. There are a lot of us who own guns. There are a lot of us who know how to use those guns.

Decentralized militia do make it very difficult to take and to hold territory by conquering. One commenter is exactly right - this is the exact kind of enemy we are facing in Afganistan, Iraq, and in Vietnam a generation ago.

Even with those numbers emerging from the woods of Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia and Minnesota, the casualties on our side would be catastrophic. This is always the case when a more numerous, decentralized and lightly trained home guard faces off against whatever invaders could have come that far.

One commenter mentions that this is why the South thought they would be able to resist Union invasion during the Civil War. Before I get to the larger perspective, let me address the history. The South didn't have anywhere near these kind of numbers in the first place, while the North did. The South lasted as long as it did because of A) some brilliant tactical generalship, and B) because the Union didn't really get its numbers together with a strategy until almost 1864. Once that happened, it only depended on how fast Grant and Sherman wanted to lose men while winning battles.

Even then, the Union did not have the will to use that force of numbers and hold the South. This is why Reconstruction ended in 1877, and the South had to be effectively re-conquered in the 1960's.

And that's the larger point: there is no external threat of invasion to the United States of America. Our greatest threat to national destruction has always been and will always be ourselves. I don't worry that those 600K, 700K, or 750K deer hunters will be called up as volunteer militia against the screaming Canadian cavalry or airlifted Chinese tanks. I do worry that those hundreds of thousands of American guns will be turned on hundreds of thousands of other Americans with guns.

That is something we have seen before.

.