The Radical Centrist™

Think for Yourself!

Archives for October 2017

Inclusion, or exclusion?

By Leave a Comment

When does our quest for inclusion come full circle and become a form of exclusion?

It’s a fair question, and one that we should be thinking about. Tomorrow is Halloween and this quasi-holiday has become rife with examples where a large majority cannot partake in activities that have become tradition because, in the quest for total inclusion, there are a relative few who cannot partake (usually for religious or cultural reasons).

Take the case of Boyden Elementary School in Walpole, Massachusetts. The school principal has issued a letter saying that the school will be foregoing Halloween this year in favor of “Black and Orange Spirit Day”. <insert eye roll here> I’m going to ignore the ridiculousness of Black and Orange Spirit Day and focus instead on banning Halloween, the wearing of costumes, and the annual school parade of costumes. The principal’s letter said, in part…

“The costume parade is out of our ordinary routine and can be difficult for many students. Also, the parade is not inclusive of all the students and it is our goal each and every day to ensure all student’s individual differences are respected.”

Massachusetts school drops Halloween for “black and orange” spirit day

Now, is it ok to wholly shut out kids from activities that you know they can’t do? No, and I’m not saying that. The concept of inclusion is worthy and noble, and indeed should be pursued… just not to the extent that everything else that has been traditional gets shut out along the way.

One of the great things about our country and society is that we have the freedom to make many choices regarding ourselves. This includes religion, culture, and so on. One of the responsibilities of people new to a culture is to either assimilate into the new culture, or accept the new culture respectfully and peacefully (and the same in return). Creating a hostile environment where the existing culture is expected to shut down and pretend it doesn’t exist is actually worse than the original offense. If your life choices preclude you from wearing or ‘celebrating’ Halloween, that’s fine, we all have choices to make throughout our lives, just don’t impose your choices on everybody else. Exclusion has effectively flipped… and made bigger.

What can the school do that would be a legitimate action? They could provide another event for those who cannot partake… and I don’t mean stick them in a room to read a book, I mean something legitimate and fun. They could also have a parallel program to teach ALL the kids about the wonderful differences and contrasts of various cultures. This could be spun into something positive. In other words, make it truly inclusive. Instead, the school has chosen the spineless and lazy way out… cancel everything and create some hollow spirit day thing that has absolutely no meaning.

Excluding everybody… essentially “dumbing down” society, aiming for the lowest common denominator… where nobody gets to do anything in some Don Quixote-like quest for Utopia is neither noble nor wise, and we should be fighting it, not enabling it.

America: Love it or leave it!

By Leave a Comment

America:  Love it or leave it!

We’ve all heard this phrase before, mostly from conservatives, especially far-right conservatives. It goes back longer than I’ve been alive, allegedly back to the McCarthy era, which kind of makes sense. Basically, we’re the best country that has ever graced the face of the earth. All we do is wise and just. America is so great, so unerring and so noble, so giving and benevolent, that you should feel honored to be here at all. No other nation allows for the vast freedoms and choices and options that we do. No other nation provides such limitless opportunity.  In short, how dare you criticize the nation that has given you so much!!!

Sounds so patriotic, doesn’t it? America… love it… appreciate it… revere it… unquestioningly… or get the hell out!

Problem is, this mindset is the absolute antithesis of freedom and patriotism. Those with the “love it or leave it” mentality want to celebrate this unbridled American enthusiasm by… abandoning American values, by shutting down anyone who dares criticize or complain. These people would be happy in an authoritarian society where dissent is verboten. This mindset is about as un-American as one can possibly get. You don’t emphasize freedom by trying to suppress freedom.

And since when is marching in mental and emotional lock step good for a society? I can think of several examples in history where suppressed speech and groupthink did not serve the populace well. One of the benchmarks of a free and wise society is precisely the free exchange of ideas, the re-thinking of concepts that aren’t working, the questioning of the status quo. Wanting to improve things that need fixing is the responsible thing to do.

The next time you hear someone chastise another person for not being sufficiently patriotic, just know which one isn’t truly being the patriot… and it’s not the person complaining.

Police & Respect

By Leave a Comment

Is it possible to admire and respect police for the work they do AND criticize them when they do wrong?

Yes, I believe it is. Not only do I think it’s possible, I think it’s the responsible thing to do.

I do rail against bad cops often, I grant that. I don’t as often praise them. I do occasionally, but not as often, and I’ll grant that, too. For this reason I often get accused… by people with the extreme “cops-can-never-do-wrong” mindset people, imagine that… that I am somehow “anti-cop” or a “cop hater”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have immense respect for police.

Police do a hard job. Long hours. Dealing with the dregs of society. Dealing with outright dangerous and dishonest people. They run the risk of dying during a simple traffic stop, for example, or when they respond to a domestic dispute. Every… single… day. For this reason alone I can understand why they often get jaded. For the most part, after many years, it’s all they see.

Police put their lives on the line often for our safety and benefit. Spare me the crap about logging being more dangerous because it has a higher death rate, police work is still dangerous, and it’s also different because they’re willfully putting themselves in that scenario. Loggers may be more likely to die, but the trees aren’t consciously and literally gunning for them.

Die-hard supporters ask who we run to when something bad to use happens. Generally the police. Of course we do. The majority of us do. That’s what they’re there for.

It is often pointed out that most people wouldn’t do the job, as a defense for why they should be blindly respected. That’s true, too, I wouldn’t do the job. Most people wouldn’t. But there’s many jobs I wouldn’t do, just as I’m sure there are other critical jobs that most police officers wouldn’t do, so I’m not even sure why that’s considered a valid point.

When a police officer does do something wrong, and the other debate points have been exhausted, the apologists will fall back on the “police are only human” angle. And here’s the whole crux of the issue. As a group, most police are honorable and respectful, just as most people in general are honorable and respectful, and deserve our admiration and cooperation. Most police are in it for the right reasons, and do good work. However, police ARE only human, and as such are just as prone to be corruptible or dishonest as anyone else. Using 10% as just an example benchmark, the way I figure it, if 10% of the general population is dishonest, then 10% of police are dishonest, as well. They’re only human.

Funny that the “human” aspect doesn’t go both ways, but I digress.

Anyway, it’s often pointed out that the bad cops and bad incidents are few. Some say a very small number, almost insignificant. Ok, let’s go with that. I buy that they’re relatively few. Sounds like all the more reason that we should easily weed out the few who are bad, doesn’t it? Yet we defend them to the ends of the earth, and meaningful consequences only happen when public light is shined and public outrage becomes too much. And don’t tell me that there was never a bad cop before cell phone video.

If they’re so few, then one would think that the good cops would want to actively drive the bad ones out, for the simple reason that their own jobs are made harder, and their own lives put unnecessarily at risk by creating a bad public image and distrust, when it so easily solvable. Then they go out and do ‘community outreach’ programs to show neighborhoods that they’re just good people like them. Well, don’t contribute to or create the problem in the first place. That would help immensely. That would do more, actually, than showing up at a middle school once a year to show off your equipment. This ‘thin blue line’ makes no sense at all.

In conclusion, I said it before and I’ll say it again, I greatly admire and respect the police. But I also don’t kid myself. There are bad ones out there, too, and it’s the bad ones that are screwing it up for everybody. There’s lots of pro-police rhetoric out there, and that’s fine. Mine would be just another voice in the noise if I joined in. There’s not enough talk highlighting when cops do go wrong, and that needs to be fixed. For everybody’s benefit… including their own.

No, it’s not the guns

By 1 Comment

After every mass shooting comes the inevitable cries for gun control. Mostly from the left, of course, but not exclusively. Some want to “keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people”. Some want background checks. Some want bans of automatic and/or semi-automatic weapons. And some, despite their protestations to the contrary, want to ban guns outright altogether.  And to be fair, I believe these people honestly believe that’s the solution.  I don’t question their sincerity.

Supporters of gun control will point to studies that “prove” gun control works. But they don’t want to talk about places like Chicago that have some of the strictest gun bans in the country and also some of the highest murder rates. Or, that some of the recent mass attacks in France were done with weapons that are outright banned. How did that happen? For every anecdote and study on one side, there’s an equal anecdote or study opposite.

Here in the US we do have mass shooting more often, but we are in no way as unique as we want to believe. France, Norway, etc., all have had large mass shootings. This has been shown throughout the world. Take guns away, and people who wish to do great harm will find other methods. For every Las Vegas mass shooting in an open weapons society like the US there’s an Ariana Grande concert mass bombing in a place that bans guns. For every November 2015 coordinated shootings in France… where 130 people were killed, more than double Las Vegas… a country that severely restricts weapons there will be an Oklahoma City bombing of a government building. Plug a hole, a new leak appears elsewhere.

So, what is causing the increasing rates of mass violence? And that’s really the issue… mass *violence*, not just mass shootings. Focus on the motivation, not the tools. Guns have been a large part of our society for over two centuries, even kids routinely carried guns in some times, and until just the last 20 years there was never the problem with mass shootings that we are now experiencing.  Focus on why these incidents are *increasing*.

These are MY thoughts, based on observation, reading, listening, research, etc. One caveat for this blog post, I am going to concentrate primarily on mass violence in the United States, not so much elsewhere, except for occasional comparison purposes. Ok, I believe that the increase in mass violence comes down to one primary factor, with some sub-factors…

Constant media attention

Yes, the media is driving this, primarily. I don’t think consciously, or as part of some grand conspiracy, or anything, but as an unintended consequence of the information age and the constant unrelenting barrage of information about everything that happens everywhere in the world. We can’t escape it.

As recent as 20 years ago, if there was a murder/suicide in your hometown, you heard about it. If it happened in a town 100 miles away, you maybe heard about it, and if you did it was in passing without much information. If it happened across the country you never heard about it (unless it had some celebrity aspect, or something). Fast forward to today and you hear about everything everywhere. This feeds the feeling and sense of hopelessness that crime is increasing when it’s actually not. The general trend has been that crime is going down over the last couple decades.  So, how does this constant unrelenting barrage of dire information affect mass violence? Here’s my thoughts…

(*) By presenting pretty much every violent act that happens everywhere, people get a sense of hopelessness. People on the edge, or sane people with an extreme agenda, may feel the need to do something desperate, either for them self or their cause.

(*) The media, intentionally or not, but in their zeal for sensationalism, glorifies mass shooters. I cannot find the sources right now, but I have read that most shooters believe they will become famous through their actions. They will be remembered. People will be impressed. John Hinkley Jr. thought he would win Jodie Fosters’ affection by assassinating President Reagan, for example. The two Columbine shooters were in it primarily for revenge, I believe, but also a desire for fame as mentioned below, and they and the attention they got brought in a whole new era of attention for one’s cause. The images of students fleeing is etched in our minds.

Shootings keep getting bigger and bigger, I believe because they want to outdo the previous guy and become more famous than that person. A perverse form of one-upmanship, if you will. And it doesn’t help that every media outlet I have seen after the recent Las Vegas shooting has repeated the “largest shooting in recent American history” mantra, with a special emphasis on “largest”. How can that not encourage future shooters to want to ‘do better’?

But think for a second. How many shooter’s names do you remember? I can name the two Columbine shooters, because that really is infamous. It shocked us into a new reality. But the rest? I can name maybe two. Maybe. And there have been dozens. For the most part the fame isn’t coming.

(*) Related to the one-upmanship mentioned in the previous point, the media… through it’s intense in-depth coverage… provides a literal “how to” for future shooters. Just watch the news and get some handy tips and tricks, some do’s and don’ts.

Bottom line: The media is morally complicit.

So, what can we do about it?

First and foremost, lighten up on the glorification of the shooter(s). I have gotten some harsh rebukes for this stance, but I stand by it. I am not suggesting burying the stories and not report them at all. That would be just as irresponsible. What I mean is not obsess so much on the shooter. Usually by about the third day after a shooting the news media’s newscasts are almost completely about the shooter. What they did, how they did it, speculating on their motivation, chronicling their history since birth, repeating their name over and over and over, ad nauseum. They can report responsibly without making the shooter a household name. That’s glorification. There’s no way around it.

I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t report. Not at all. We need to be an informed society. Just lighten up on the glorification. We can get meaningful information without repeating the name every other sentence, without essentially putting them on a pedestal. I am not even suggesting we keep the name secret. It’s appropriate the first day or two, in moderation. In print articles mention the name once in the story but not in the headline.  Whathisname can be called “The LV shooter” in the headline and the point still comes across.  Again, being an informed society is important.

I am also not suggesting a change in law, and especially not suggesting repealing any portion of the First Amendment. If it came down to that I’d rather do nothing. But, they can and should do it on their own. Self-policing. The media already, except in unusual circumstances, almost never reports on suicides, especially teen suicides, so the precedent has already been established. Out of respect for the families, but also… wait for it… to not encourages others to do the same. Novel concept, right?  Copy-catism is alive and well in the human species, and it’s happening here with mass violence as it would with individual suicides.

Consider this article from a couple years ago after Sandy Hook: The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here’s How.

After a wave of teen suicides in the 1980s, news outlets began reporting on these deaths more cautiously. Similar guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees.

There’s also this Op-Ed piece from the New York Times from a couple years ago: What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers

“…rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?”, one of the Columbine shooters remarked.

(I removed the name.)

Final Thoughts

Please note that I am not saying that some tightening of gun legislation isn’t warranted. That’s fine. I am open to banning “bump stocks”, for example, though I believe we already have plenty of laws on the books that accomplish what we want to, just that some aspects aren’t thwarted by laws. People’s motivations will find a way. Unfortunately, politicians are never willing to simply enforce existing laws, they must pass more so that they can point to the new laws and show the people they’re “doing something”.

No, some gun law tightening will help, but having said that I sincerely believe that dialing back the glorification will have a much deeper and longer-lasting impact than gun control legislation will. The results wouldn’t be immediate, of course, it would take time for people to realize they’re not going to get what they want and they’d just die in vain.

Final final note: You will notice that I do not name any of the shooters or bombers by name. I refuse to do so. I refuse to give them anything even slightly resembling positive credit. No, the actions and the names of the incidents are enough. We know what they are.  An example that we can still talk in depth about these issues without dignifying the perpetrators.

Can we talk about guns?

By Leave a Comment

A Facebook friend of mine posted on Facebook this morning (after the Las Vegas shooting), “Now can we talk about guns?”

Good question, but can we TALK about guns?

I get the sentiment, but no, I don’t think we can. Please note that I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I’m saying that we can’t. Not yet. Not anytime soon.

One, emotions run too high. Not unjustifiably so, but they are obscuring any hope of an effective resolution. People… read that as the people who are the most uncompromisingly vocal on their respective side… aren’t interested in talking and only want their will be done, and they are willing to scream and shout and accuse and demonize anyone who dare share on opposing point of view to do so.

Two, and I’m going to pick on one side here, the gun control side often says things like, “Nobody wants to take guns away from mentally healthy and law-abiding people.” I flat out call bull shit on that. They most certainly do want to take guns away from everyone, they are simply using the illusion of a reasonable argument to further their desired end result. Plus, they also know that current Constitutional law precludes that. But whenever someone says they don’t want to take guns away from good people, I look at them and think, “You liar.”

Three, and now I’m going to pick on the other side, people who strongly support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms often claim that casualties would greatly lessen if everyone were armed and could take out the shooter. These people, to me, are in a special kind of denial. These people are the epitome of the picture of the ostrich burying its head in the sand.

Now, having said all that, both sides are not necessarily and wholly wrong in the overall debate, but neither is either side wholly correct. Each side can produce individual anecdotes and examples to “prove” their point of view. There have been times where an armed person took down a shooter and saved others, you bet. There have also been other times where it either didn’t make a difference or caused further damage with more shooters shooting indiscriminately at each other. Individual examples in and of themselves don’t prove a thing, they’re just a piece of the puzzle in that they’re just part of a larger discussion.

Please know that I have my own thoughts about what we should do, but to prevent this from being a book I am limiting this particular post to the topic of the debate in getting to a better end result.

So, anyway, can we talk about guns and what to do about mass shootings? We need to. But we have issues that run far deeper than simple access to guns, and as long as the larger problem of emotional hysterics… including shouting down of people who dare to present an unapproved point of view… and resolute partisan posturing, which focuses on overly-simplistic solutions, is the strategy of the day, we won’t be able to.