In the wake of the Orlando shootings last weekend, there have been a lot of things said by people all over the issue of firearms rights and gun control. I'm sick of it, and I believe that there is nothing that will ever be done by the people nominally in charge because our nation has become a bunch of gun-loving lunatics who will fight to the bitter end to defend a myth and right that are increasingly irrelevant to the largely urban population of the nation.
And this story from last year, in the LaCrosse Tribune shows it better than any argument I can imagine: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/man-who-shot-roommate-while-teasing-cat-with-laser-sight/article_391cd397-6e3b-54ea-81af-986b2750f7d4.html
(In case the link expires or for those people too lazy to read the link, while it's still up: A man was using the laser target on his pistol to play laser tag with his cat. The pistol was loaded, so when he accidentally gripped the trigger, he ended up shooting his roommate and friend in the leg. Now this guy has no previous record, had done all the necessary stuff to own his gun, except think about the most basic safety requirements. And yet - the prosecutors in the case argued for the judge to allow the guy to plead to a charge that would allow the guy in question to have his felony record expunged, for fear that his right to own a firearm would be restricted otherwise.)
When we're cherry picking charges that could have been gross negligence or even assault, simply to allow the person who behaved in a criminally stupid manner that goes against everything I know of firearms safety to continue to own a gun. . .
Guns are too goddamned important to Americans.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Saturday, February 20, 2016
The Wall between the US and Mexico
I just thought I'd take a moment here, to document some of what I've found when I choose to look up the known or estimated costs of the sort of wall that certain politicians of the GOP want to see built on the US-Mexico border.
Historically, I can think of two borders fortifications that would be adequate parallels between the sort of wall that these GOP idiots want: The Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea, and the Berlin Wall. While there are certain reasons that the DMZ might have been the better example to use to estimate costs - the use of military troops from more open governments would probably allow for a better baseline for estimating the manpower costs of maintaining such a border fortification being the biggest one I can think of. Having said that, there is effectively zero official sanctioned communication between the two Koreas - so there's no need for the DMZ to worry much about rail traffic, tourists, or any other large-scale legitimate crossing. For this reason I'm more inclined to base my estimates from the model of the Berlin Wall, instead.
Now, there's going to be someone out there telling me that I'm barking mad to think that the Berlin Wall is a good model to choose - I mean the fortifications of the wall were manned 24/7 with pillboxes guard towers and estimates of thousands of troops being occupied to keep East Berliners from making illicit crossings into the West. But an unmanned wall is going to be worse than useless. We already have significant environmental barriers between the US and Mexico - if the pressure pushing people North from Mexico weren't already terribly strong, there would be no need nor desire to risk having a coyote smuggle one across the desert border - often in atrocious, and life-threatening conditions. The existing segments of wall have already been defeated countless times, by direct measures - not simply people walking past the edge of these existing walls. Tunnels, catapults, rockets, balloons and other means have all been used to get contraband and people across the border. If the proposed wall is not manned, and patrolled, it will not achieve any of the goals that its supporters claim. So the proposed wall will be a manned wall. And given the rhetoric of some of the people supporting this wall, it will be armed with shoot-to-kill orders.
So - the Berlin Wall it is.
The Berlin Wall, according to Wikipedia, was 155 km long. Or just over 96 miles. According to this article from the August 17, 1963 Milwaukee Journal pegs the cost of the then existing wall at $25 million. Now, we're going to ignore that, even as late as the mid-80s the Berlin Wall was in a constant state of flux and continually being improved. We're also going to ignore that the Berlin Wall was constructed in many different ways - only some of the wall being the iconic three point something meter tall concrete wall. For a ballpark figure we're talking about $260,000 per mile to build the Berlin Wall. This doesn't include anything but the physical artifact of the wall, so manning costs and I think weaponry costs are still to be figured. For the purposes of a quick and dirty examination this will work, however.
Inflation counters across the web are pretty consistent when dealing with US dollars. The ones I checked all gave a 2016 value for that $260,000 per mile figure derived above of about $2 million dollars per mile of wall. The US-Mexico border is, according to Wikipedia 1954 miles. At this point, I'm just going to call it a 2000 mile long wall, at $2 million per mile - that's a four billion dollar wall they're talking about. It doesn't figure anything for manning costs.
That same 1963 article claims about 11,000 trooops were involved with manning the positions along the Berlin Wall. That's a Division strength unit being used, or about a company of troops for every mile of fortification. Simply extrapolating that would leave us with a requirement for over two hundred thousand troops to man this money hole.
Let me say that again: two hundred thousand troops. The current size of the US Army is four hundred and fifteen thousand active duty and another six hundred thousand in the various reserve formations. Depending upon how you want to look at it that means that this boondoggle would suck up anywhere from 20% of the Army's personnel to almost 50% of it.
Which brings up another reason that I'm sure these cost figures are low: the housing of the troops required for this wall haven't been accounted for. In an urban environment it's relatively easy to add another ten thousand people without having to worry about building water facilities, waste treatment, housing, cooking, stores, etc- all the things that people need to be healthy and functional. (I don't believe the GOP candidates give a flying fuck about the people manning this boondoggle to be happy. Knowing the way their alleged minds seem to work they probably think that homicidal anger and frustration will make the troops manning this fiasco more effective killers of would-be crossers.)
And again, using the Berlin Wall model - it will still be doomed to failure. I realize that the human costs are beneath the contempt of the politicians putting forward this idea, but those will be abominable. The human cost associated with the current methods of smuggling people across the border is already horrific, and while I'm sure the coyotes will be able to find ways around this proposed wall, too, the risks will be going up. And some people will be losing that gamble. Yet even at its most effective and efficient the Berlin Wall never stopped everyone from making the crossing. Many crossings were later shown up as the sort of daring-do that makes for good TV movies, other crossings were more mundane - but they happened through the whole history of the Berlin Wall.
So, can we stop talking about a wall between the US and Mexico as something that makes sense in any kind of reality?
Historically, I can think of two borders fortifications that would be adequate parallels between the sort of wall that these GOP idiots want: The Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea, and the Berlin Wall. While there are certain reasons that the DMZ might have been the better example to use to estimate costs - the use of military troops from more open governments would probably allow for a better baseline for estimating the manpower costs of maintaining such a border fortification being the biggest one I can think of. Having said that, there is effectively zero official sanctioned communication between the two Koreas - so there's no need for the DMZ to worry much about rail traffic, tourists, or any other large-scale legitimate crossing. For this reason I'm more inclined to base my estimates from the model of the Berlin Wall, instead.
Now, there's going to be someone out there telling me that I'm barking mad to think that the Berlin Wall is a good model to choose - I mean the fortifications of the wall were manned 24/7 with pillboxes guard towers and estimates of thousands of troops being occupied to keep East Berliners from making illicit crossings into the West. But an unmanned wall is going to be worse than useless. We already have significant environmental barriers between the US and Mexico - if the pressure pushing people North from Mexico weren't already terribly strong, there would be no need nor desire to risk having a coyote smuggle one across the desert border - often in atrocious, and life-threatening conditions. The existing segments of wall have already been defeated countless times, by direct measures - not simply people walking past the edge of these existing walls. Tunnels, catapults, rockets, balloons and other means have all been used to get contraband and people across the border. If the proposed wall is not manned, and patrolled, it will not achieve any of the goals that its supporters claim. So the proposed wall will be a manned wall. And given the rhetoric of some of the people supporting this wall, it will be armed with shoot-to-kill orders.
So - the Berlin Wall it is.
The Berlin Wall, according to Wikipedia, was 155 km long. Or just over 96 miles. According to this article from the August 17, 1963 Milwaukee Journal pegs the cost of the then existing wall at $25 million. Now, we're going to ignore that, even as late as the mid-80s the Berlin Wall was in a constant state of flux and continually being improved. We're also going to ignore that the Berlin Wall was constructed in many different ways - only some of the wall being the iconic three point something meter tall concrete wall. For a ballpark figure we're talking about $260,000 per mile to build the Berlin Wall. This doesn't include anything but the physical artifact of the wall, so manning costs and I think weaponry costs are still to be figured. For the purposes of a quick and dirty examination this will work, however.
Inflation counters across the web are pretty consistent when dealing with US dollars. The ones I checked all gave a 2016 value for that $260,000 per mile figure derived above of about $2 million dollars per mile of wall. The US-Mexico border is, according to Wikipedia 1954 miles. At this point, I'm just going to call it a 2000 mile long wall, at $2 million per mile - that's a four billion dollar wall they're talking about. It doesn't figure anything for manning costs.
That same 1963 article claims about 11,000 trooops were involved with manning the positions along the Berlin Wall. That's a Division strength unit being used, or about a company of troops for every mile of fortification. Simply extrapolating that would leave us with a requirement for over two hundred thousand troops to man this money hole.
Let me say that again: two hundred thousand troops. The current size of the US Army is four hundred and fifteen thousand active duty and another six hundred thousand in the various reserve formations. Depending upon how you want to look at it that means that this boondoggle would suck up anywhere from 20% of the Army's personnel to almost 50% of it.
Which brings up another reason that I'm sure these cost figures are low: the housing of the troops required for this wall haven't been accounted for. In an urban environment it's relatively easy to add another ten thousand people without having to worry about building water facilities, waste treatment, housing, cooking, stores, etc- all the things that people need to be healthy and functional. (I don't believe the GOP candidates give a flying fuck about the people manning this boondoggle to be happy. Knowing the way their alleged minds seem to work they probably think that homicidal anger and frustration will make the troops manning this fiasco more effective killers of would-be crossers.)
And again, using the Berlin Wall model - it will still be doomed to failure. I realize that the human costs are beneath the contempt of the politicians putting forward this idea, but those will be abominable. The human cost associated with the current methods of smuggling people across the border is already horrific, and while I'm sure the coyotes will be able to find ways around this proposed wall, too, the risks will be going up. And some people will be losing that gamble. Yet even at its most effective and efficient the Berlin Wall never stopped everyone from making the crossing. Many crossings were later shown up as the sort of daring-do that makes for good TV movies, other crossings were more mundane - but they happened through the whole history of the Berlin Wall.
So, can we stop talking about a wall between the US and Mexico as something that makes sense in any kind of reality?
Friday, February 19, 2016
No Cake For You!
Senator Ritchie’s proposed State Law is a bundle of mixed
assumptions, misleading justifications, and utterly vile insinuations against
those people in NY who are using SNAP benefits to maintain their basic
nutrition.
While the Senator is undeniably correct to discuss the
obesity epidemic in the US and here in NY in particular, her attack on SNAP
recipients is utterly reprehensible. While
she makes an argument against foods that have minimal nutritional value and are
often considered junk food – such as cookies, soda, and energy drinks, it’s her
repeated claims that something has to be done to prevent people receiving SNAP
from getting “better cuts of meat, or lobster,” that is getting the most attention
in the press. Not only would it be
impossible for the use of SNAP benefits to purchase these items to be
contributing to the obestity epidemic that the Senator claims to be trying to
deal with, there’s no reason to assume that any significant fraction of SNAP
benefits are being used to purchase such items.
Until evidence of such widespread purchases can be produced it seems to
this writer that there’s little more behind this bill that the continued
vilification of the poor that is a constant refrain from the GOP – even as they
keep enacting policies to bankrupt more and more workers.
The most offensive part of the whole proposal, however,
comes when one looks at what the Senator thinks the financial costs of enacting
this boneheaded piece of maliciousness would be: None.
Yes, you read that right. This
woman, who seems to think that your neighbors who have to take two jobs to pay
the rent, and heating costs, and then still qualify for SNAP benefits to be
able to feed themselves and their families but are somehow magically overeating
on steak and lobster this woman also believes in magical accounting from state
employees: Her proposal claims there
will be no costs associated with implementing this change in the law – even after
specifically tasking two different offices to come up with policies, and lists
of foods and beverages to be added to the list of things one can’t buy with
SNAP benefits. Either the Senator is so
ignorant of the way that the state government works that she assumes there are
hordes of underworked staffers in the Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance who will have the time to make up her required list of further items
to be barred.
Let’s be honest here – this is the same sort of fraudulent
thinking behind the claims of wanting to help poor people get into drug rehabilitation
programs that is used as a justification for drug screening and testing of
applicants in several states – testing that has overwhelmingly found that
contrary to the assumptions of the rich and powerful most poor people are too
damned poor to afford drugs. It is a
moral judgment that if someone is receiving public assistance the public has
the right and responsibility to restrict what those people can choose to do
with themselves. And far too many people
in the public believe that all the poor deserve is gruel, or something equally
disheartening because all they need is motivation to be able to go out and get
a good paying job. And this in an
America where billion dollar companies feel no guilt in telling their employees
that, in order to live on the wages paid them, they’ll have to take a second
job (which will also not be full time- because that would cost the company more
money in required benefits) and make use of SNAP benefits to feed themselves.
And Senator Ritchie begrudges these people so much as a cupcake
for celebration? To Hell with her. And the gold-plated SUV she rode in on.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Demonizing the Mentally Ill - a letter to the VoteVets organization
I was deeply disturbed by the email I got from your group today asking for my signature on a petition being circulated by Garrett Reppenhagen, asking to call on Congress for sensible gun laws to be enacted - requiring background checks on all purchases and to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill.
I cannot support such a petition. In a United States where too many of our leaders view Mental Illness as an on or off condition for people - with anyone having any diagnosis of mental illness to be considered a danger for hair trigger explosions of temper and ill-judgement - without careful and specific definitions for what "Dangerously Mentally Ill" might mean, I am far too afraid that by the time Congress is done with such a proposal they will simultaneously shift the burden for self-defense to the mantle of the private gun-owner and then remove the ability to protect themselves from the one in four people in the United States who will suffer from some form of mental illness during their life times.
This is not sound public policy. It's also regressive in that it leaves at the most vulnerable those people who are poorest and can least afford to protect themselves with a privately owned firearm.
I am going to ignore, for the sake of keeping this note to a readable length, the fact that without regular proficiency shooting I don't believe that anyone could use a gun for self defense in any sort of effective manner, anyways. Similarly, I will simply mention that any massive increase in gun ownership in the US is going to increase the rate of death by firearms if only because the largest single risk-factor for suicide in this nation is the presence or absence of a gun in the home.
Without specific, clear, and limited definitions for what constitutes dangerous mental illness, a petition such as the one Garrett Reppenhagen is circulating is going to do more harm than good.
The thing that bothers me most is that while I abhor the fuzziness of this particular petition's language I agree with the intent of the petition - to make sure that people whom any reasonable, informed person might consider a poor risk for good judgment when holding a lethal weapon do not have easy access to firearms seems only sensible to me. But in order for that discussion to happen, we've got to address just what is and isn't mental illness in the public conscioiusness. As an example, in two of the three more public shooting incidents to have gotten the attention of the national media, the perpetrators have no history of mental illness in their records, and can be argued to have been acting in their right minds at the time that they committed their horrific crimes. Darryl Roof is a racist who was too willing to buy into the necessity for race war to cleanse the nation, and protect it from inimical influences, this does not mean, however, that he was acting under the influence of any mental illness when he performed his horrific and insane actions. No definition of dangerous mental illness would have kept a gun out of Mr. Roof's hands. That the standard background check should have kept a gun out of his hands is no comfort, either - but it's not a sign that there is a loophole for the dangerously mentally ill to acquire firearms that needs to be closed with quickly enacted, and poorly thought out legislation.
When you're representing an organization that is primarily consists of veterans of recent military service, it is particularly galling to me to see you lending yourselves to the demonization of the mentally ill without taking precautions to make sure that the service members coming back from service overseas with mental illnesses are not going to be lumped into whatever sacrificial group is going to be staked out for the next round of gun violence. One in four Americans will suffer mental illness at some time in their lives, and the vast majority of them will never commit any crimes in that time. I don't know what the incidence of mental illness is in recent veterans, but I can't help but think it's even higher than the current average for Americans as a whole.
There are far too many in the Presidential field who view the best solution for gun violence in the US to be an extension of gun ownership, and more venues where it is considered normal to carry firearms. This would merely be annoying if it weren't for the concurrent demand these same politicians are making to remove firearms from the mentally ill. As far as I know, Garrett Repenhagen's petition is the only voice sharing this general call that even hints that there might be such a thing as someone suffering mental illness who isn't an immediate public hazard. So the effect of these policy changes, if they go through, may be to improve the safety of those people trusted to carry firearms, and the people around them. I take leave to doubt that, but again - that's beyond the scope of this discussion. It will also leave a sizable population, who in many cases have never committed any crime, metaphorically staked out as sacrificial goats to anyone who wants to target them.
And when talking about the mentally ill, they're a group already so statistically more vulnerable than those around them, this is utterly unconscionable in my opinion - and would be so even if I weren't on a VA Disability Pension for my own depression.
If we, as a people, or VoteVets as an organization, wishes to advocate for more rational gun control laws - something I support - it seems to me that a very useful dual-pronged first step would be to remove the Congressional bars to simply gathering information about gun violence and crime in the US. On the one hand, the BATF is barred, by statute, from collecting and analyzing data active gun sales - we require cars to be registered and in most states insured, becuase of the risk to the public good from such devices, isn't it time we consider doing the same for firearms? More importantly, forbidding the CDC to commission studies that touch on gun violence or treat gun violence as a public health concern limits anyone approaching the issue with any kind of reliable data from which to make decisions.
I do support other steps as well, and would support a petition for the improved background checks that Garrett Repenhagen suggests. I'd love to support including some kind of check to try to keep firearms out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill if I were sure that that provision weren't going to mutate quickly into a blanket condemnation of all the mentally ill.
But I don't think that any of these steps, by themselves, are going to be sufficient or provide a cure-all for gun violence in this nation. And the sooner we admit that these are only first steps, the better off we'll be.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
A question for the gun rights crowd: When would it become an issue of too easy access to guns?
This past Saturday an 8 year old girl was killed by a shotgun blast. Allegedly fired by an 11 year old boy, over an argument about puppies.
According to the story going around, now, the boy was denied an opportunity to play with the girl's puppy - and so went into his house, got the loaded shotgun his father kept, and fired it out the window at her.
Now, clearly, there's a lot of things to point fingers at - not least being the boy's insane sense of entitlement. We can also speak about his obvious control and anger issues, too. But in my mind had the shotgun not been loaded, unlocked, in a known location, this would not have escalated to the point where the parents of an 8 year old girl are burying her this week.
Are we, as a society, so in love with guns that we're going to defend the right to have them without let, regulation, nor reason above the expectation of sound parenting? While the 11 yo boy is obviously responsible for his own lethal action, there's also a good case to be made that his parents should also have some accountability. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter has been castigated in the press for allowing her son access to her weapons - and she'd kept them locked in a proper gun safe, that he got at only after he killed her. Obviously there was no convenient straw-buyer to be put through the public trial in that case, to provide a scapegoat for the tragedy. When William Spengler killed his sister, and several first responders from the West Webster Fire Department and several responding police officers, there was a straw buyer who could be punished with the full extent of the law.
Of course, she's the only person I'm aware of who has been punished by those laws. There's a current murder case going on where Charlie Tan is accused of killing his father - with a shotgun purchased for the deed, by a friend. There are no pending straw buyer charges for friend.
So, who will be held accountable for this boy's hair trigger temper and easy access to firearms? Are we going to continue to vilify anyone labeled as being mentally ill, and blame the parents for not getting their son the counseling or treatment it seems like would have been appropriate? Or are we going to finally recognize that lethal weapons in the home are lethal weapons and certain precautions are simply good practice that should be automatically taken by anyone who feels the need to have firearms in the house?
According to the story going around, now, the boy was denied an opportunity to play with the girl's puppy - and so went into his house, got the loaded shotgun his father kept, and fired it out the window at her.
Now, clearly, there's a lot of things to point fingers at - not least being the boy's insane sense of entitlement. We can also speak about his obvious control and anger issues, too. But in my mind had the shotgun not been loaded, unlocked, in a known location, this would not have escalated to the point where the parents of an 8 year old girl are burying her this week.
Are we, as a society, so in love with guns that we're going to defend the right to have them without let, regulation, nor reason above the expectation of sound parenting? While the 11 yo boy is obviously responsible for his own lethal action, there's also a good case to be made that his parents should also have some accountability. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter has been castigated in the press for allowing her son access to her weapons - and she'd kept them locked in a proper gun safe, that he got at only after he killed her. Obviously there was no convenient straw-buyer to be put through the public trial in that case, to provide a scapegoat for the tragedy. When William Spengler killed his sister, and several first responders from the West Webster Fire Department and several responding police officers, there was a straw buyer who could be punished with the full extent of the law.
Of course, she's the only person I'm aware of who has been punished by those laws. There's a current murder case going on where Charlie Tan is accused of killing his father - with a shotgun purchased for the deed, by a friend. There are no pending straw buyer charges for friend.
So, who will be held accountable for this boy's hair trigger temper and easy access to firearms? Are we going to continue to vilify anyone labeled as being mentally ill, and blame the parents for not getting their son the counseling or treatment it seems like would have been appropriate? Or are we going to finally recognize that lethal weapons in the home are lethal weapons and certain precautions are simply good practice that should be automatically taken by anyone who feels the need to have firearms in the house?
Friday, October 2, 2015
Some thoughts on the 2015 Papal Visit to the US, and why I think that the Pope has blundered badly
Welp, It's done. The great, historic Papal visit to the US of 2015 is over and done. Popapalooza has finished its run and at the end of the run, the Pope's popularity had surged high, and his position had brought some interesting guns to the continuing fight in Congress and the nation as a whole over the role of government in the international global ecological fight.
In among the many personal and public pilgrimages the Pope took during this visit were many things that spoke towards his message of forgiveness and toleration. His words at the Ground Zero site were far from the blanket condemnation that so many US hawks would have preferred to hear, for example.
To add to the impact of his visit, his alarmingly liberal positions, at least from the view of the US-based episcopal ranks, have forced into a the limelight that many US bishops are only happy talking about Papal Primacy when the views from the Vatican are marching in lock-step with their own prejudices, or can be twisted to be that when presented to their congregations.
(As an aside, that last paragraph certainly sounds like I'm getting my view of the Catholic heirarchy from Jack Chick tracts. The reality is rather that it's my own interpretation of the events of my lifetime. I was raised in the Catholic faith, in a household that subscribed towards the Jesuit tradition of education - i.e. that all knowledge was to be studied and evaluated, rather than having certain arguments or pieces of evidence locked away from the masses lest they be tempted into doubt or confusion. My personal opinion is that the Catholic Church would be better served if that sort of attitude would spread further through the hierarchy. And while I can talk about the bishopric as if it were a unitary body, the truth is that there are many different views within that body. There are individual bishops in the US whom I find very laudable. And others whom I think would love to bring back the Inquisition. But the current behavior of the mass of bishops in the US leaves me doubting both their adherence to the theory of Papal Primacy, and their ability to express Christian mercy. For example, when the Bishop of Rochester, last year, banned all travel to Africa, and recommended quarantine for anyone returning from that continent in response to the ebola epidemic, he failed, in my opinion, the tests of both reason and faith.)
I am no longer a practicing Catholic and unlikely to return to any church. So I have to admit my view of things is that of an outsider, but an outsider who does have a fair grounding in both history and the catechism of the faith. In a world where the Catholic Church is still propagating such evil policies as not merely fighting the availability of condoms in Africa to fight the spread of HIV, but are often actively complicit in spreading mis-information about the efficacy of condoms in fighting the spread of disease, I welcomed any sign that the Throne of Peter would be filled by someone who would pay more attention to the realities that the poor of the world are facing, instead of simply trying to build an ivory tower of perfection for a few select Westerners.
So, this is the background for how I viewed the Papal visit.
I had been cautiously optimistic as the Papal visit focused on several of the great humanitarian trials facing the world at the moment - the exodus of refugees from Mesopotamia, and the climate crisis. I am not so arrogant as to suggest I have the answers for either, but the current attitude of so many people to deny that either problem exists or could affect them personally is a huge bar to getting any kind of solution in place.
The Pope's statements on these issues were clear, concise, and most importantly without much nuance: these problems exist, and people should address them - especially good Catholics and Christians of any stripe.
A simple, easily understood call to action.
Then on the last day of his visit, this so-called People's Pope visited with Kim Davis.
In the interests of full disclosure I think that Kim Davis is an idiot, and worse a tyrant, who wishes to see imposed a true theocracy in the US. Furthermore I believe she is a tool of evil manipulators who are using her. In short, if she cannot, in good conscience balance her oath to obey the law with her private views of what God demands of her, the proper and just decision for her is to resign her position. That she finds this impossible to even consider says scary things to me about what she's willing to impose on other people on the basis of her faith. It's not simply a matter of supporting gay marriage, but rather what other verses will she use, next, to impose her will upon her constituents?
With this background I think that having anyone giving her support is a BAD THING.
That the Pope and his handlers tried to visit her in secret is even worse.
It undermines any authority he has by suggesting that he's got positions he's not willing to make public, for fear of the political backlash. Furthermore, since the Vatican is now having to scramble to put the best spin possible on this visit, I have the distinct impression that this was supposed to be a secret visit. In which case, anyone who thought that Kim Davis or her handlers would agree to keep quiet anything that might strengthen their position in the current public debate was an idiot of the first water.
Whether it says good things about me, or not, my primary guide is intelligence. I may deplore someone's actions, but it's only when those actions are stupid as well as evil that I really get exercised. So, this one act not only burns up much of the goodwill the Pope had established with his visit, and by making it a private vs. a public visit he's left the question of to what degree he means to support Davis and her position. The Vatican's current spin is so mealy-mouthed that it's going to have the inevitable effect of softening anything else the Pope cares to say for years to come.
And all this to support an idiot women, who isn't even of the Catholic faith, who is violating her oath of office egregiously, and riding high on a wave of hero-worship from other idiots who can't understand the rule of law when it hits them in their face?
What a fiasco.
In among the many personal and public pilgrimages the Pope took during this visit were many things that spoke towards his message of forgiveness and toleration. His words at the Ground Zero site were far from the blanket condemnation that so many US hawks would have preferred to hear, for example.
To add to the impact of his visit, his alarmingly liberal positions, at least from the view of the US-based episcopal ranks, have forced into a the limelight that many US bishops are only happy talking about Papal Primacy when the views from the Vatican are marching in lock-step with their own prejudices, or can be twisted to be that when presented to their congregations.
(As an aside, that last paragraph certainly sounds like I'm getting my view of the Catholic heirarchy from Jack Chick tracts. The reality is rather that it's my own interpretation of the events of my lifetime. I was raised in the Catholic faith, in a household that subscribed towards the Jesuit tradition of education - i.e. that all knowledge was to be studied and evaluated, rather than having certain arguments or pieces of evidence locked away from the masses lest they be tempted into doubt or confusion. My personal opinion is that the Catholic Church would be better served if that sort of attitude would spread further through the hierarchy. And while I can talk about the bishopric as if it were a unitary body, the truth is that there are many different views within that body. There are individual bishops in the US whom I find very laudable. And others whom I think would love to bring back the Inquisition. But the current behavior of the mass of bishops in the US leaves me doubting both their adherence to the theory of Papal Primacy, and their ability to express Christian mercy. For example, when the Bishop of Rochester, last year, banned all travel to Africa, and recommended quarantine for anyone returning from that continent in response to the ebola epidemic, he failed, in my opinion, the tests of both reason and faith.)
I am no longer a practicing Catholic and unlikely to return to any church. So I have to admit my view of things is that of an outsider, but an outsider who does have a fair grounding in both history and the catechism of the faith. In a world where the Catholic Church is still propagating such evil policies as not merely fighting the availability of condoms in Africa to fight the spread of HIV, but are often actively complicit in spreading mis-information about the efficacy of condoms in fighting the spread of disease, I welcomed any sign that the Throne of Peter would be filled by someone who would pay more attention to the realities that the poor of the world are facing, instead of simply trying to build an ivory tower of perfection for a few select Westerners.
So, this is the background for how I viewed the Papal visit.
I had been cautiously optimistic as the Papal visit focused on several of the great humanitarian trials facing the world at the moment - the exodus of refugees from Mesopotamia, and the climate crisis. I am not so arrogant as to suggest I have the answers for either, but the current attitude of so many people to deny that either problem exists or could affect them personally is a huge bar to getting any kind of solution in place.
The Pope's statements on these issues were clear, concise, and most importantly without much nuance: these problems exist, and people should address them - especially good Catholics and Christians of any stripe.
A simple, easily understood call to action.
Then on the last day of his visit, this so-called People's Pope visited with Kim Davis.
In the interests of full disclosure I think that Kim Davis is an idiot, and worse a tyrant, who wishes to see imposed a true theocracy in the US. Furthermore I believe she is a tool of evil manipulators who are using her. In short, if she cannot, in good conscience balance her oath to obey the law with her private views of what God demands of her, the proper and just decision for her is to resign her position. That she finds this impossible to even consider says scary things to me about what she's willing to impose on other people on the basis of her faith. It's not simply a matter of supporting gay marriage, but rather what other verses will she use, next, to impose her will upon her constituents?
With this background I think that having anyone giving her support is a BAD THING.
That the Pope and his handlers tried to visit her in secret is even worse.
It undermines any authority he has by suggesting that he's got positions he's not willing to make public, for fear of the political backlash. Furthermore, since the Vatican is now having to scramble to put the best spin possible on this visit, I have the distinct impression that this was supposed to be a secret visit. In which case, anyone who thought that Kim Davis or her handlers would agree to keep quiet anything that might strengthen their position in the current public debate was an idiot of the first water.
Whether it says good things about me, or not, my primary guide is intelligence. I may deplore someone's actions, but it's only when those actions are stupid as well as evil that I really get exercised. So, this one act not only burns up much of the goodwill the Pope had established with his visit, and by making it a private vs. a public visit he's left the question of to what degree he means to support Davis and her position. The Vatican's current spin is so mealy-mouthed that it's going to have the inevitable effect of softening anything else the Pope cares to say for years to come.
And all this to support an idiot women, who isn't even of the Catholic faith, who is violating her oath of office egregiously, and riding high on a wave of hero-worship from other idiots who can't understand the rule of law when it hits them in their face?
What a fiasco.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Why I am not moved by the defense of NJP when talking about reforming the military justice system
A couple of caveats, here. I am a veteran, so I have spent some time in the belly of the beast, so to speak. (And as a snipe, it's definitely the belly of the beast - down below the waterline, at the widest part of the hull, keeping power and water and heat going to the rest of the ship.) However my personal experience with women serving was minimal: Some awareness of female boot camp companies going through at the same time my boot company did, female officer instructors at NNPS, and one short middie cruise in 1993 my ship hosted that included some 12 or so female middies.
So, I cannot say that I have any direct knowledge of the extent of the sexual assault problem in the military. However, indirect indica were aplenty. First was the rape awareness training we got in boot camp that claimed that something like one third of all women in the Navy - not the military in general - were subject to sexual assault during their time in the Navy. Then there was Tailhook, and how it affected things through the fleet. And the attitudes some of my higher-ups had about the whole thing. I had one E7 complain to me that the officer who was assaulted should have known what was going to happen, and should have kept quiet about it. And he was not the most sexist or traditional of the senior people in my division, let alone aboard ship.
Another factor was my awareness that the nuclear Navy was and is something of a world to itself. I said and did things while I was in that would have gotten someone in the non-nuke service written up for insubordination. Some of it was simply accommodations made for a talented, and even respected, misfit; but a lot of it was simply that Rickover's Navy has some very different traditions and attitudes than the rest of the fleet. In the nuclear navy, if an enlisted member believes that an evolution is going to be unsafe they are trained to stop things. Now, doing that too often, or in error, is not going to be career enhancing, but in general as a E4 I was telling officers what we would be doing to the engineering plant. With respect, of course, but there was no question whose expertise was leading the course of action. Everything I've heard while I was in, and since I've been out, is that that sort of autonomy for junior enlisted personnel is very rare outside of certain specialized services and situations.
All this has left me viewing the reports of the problems with military sexual assault with a very open mind, and one that finds the reports both appalling and credible. And dreading what's going to happen when more enlisted women feel empowered enough to speak up - since for a number of reasons the majority of the cases that make it to public awareness are involving female officers. And simply looking at the numbers, it's reasonable to think that officer assaults are only a tithe of the incidents out there. And as bad as the retaliation against female officers has been - what enlisted personnel have dealt with is worse.
I have been offering my support, such as I may, to Kirsten Gillibrand's efforts to reform the miltiary justice system. In particular the action of Lt. General Craig Ferguson overturning the conviction by a court martial of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson for aggrivated sexual assault brought home to me just how impossible it is for anyone to trust the to military, at this time, to treat such cases with the gravity they deserve. I see now, that Wilkerson is retiring at the rank of Major in the wake of this, claiming to be the innocent victim of political pressure. If that's what it takes to get his raping ass out of uniform, I'm all for political pressure.
Today I read that there's an alternate, and more conservative, bill before the Senate to reform the military justice system. Based on my admittedly brief readings the big difference between the two bills is how they'll handle reports of sexual assault. Gillibrand's solution is to set up a military office with military lawyers who will evaluate each claim and see to the appropriate action; the competing bill is to offer more emphasis on the need to treat such reports seriously, but to keep the decision on whether to proceed within the command - and to especially allow for the use of NJP (Non-Judicial Punishment) on such cases.
For anyone who hasn't been in the military NJP is what happens when someone screws up and breaks the rules badly enough to warrant punishment, but not so badly as to necessitate a court martial.
NJP offers a lot of benefits, in general, to both the accused, and the command involved - and thus to the service. It allows for the punishment to be kept in house, and while close confinement (something that's often redundant aboard a ship at sea) is one of the worst punishments available, and the command can usually demote one rank from the servicemember's permanent rank, the long-term effects for the person so punished are rarely career-ending. It's faster than a court. It's cheaper, too. And it doesn't leave the command in question requiring a replacement. It is the rolled-up newspaper the military uses to try to keep its servicemembers from going completely off the rails.
And with the majority of the things that can get a servicemember in trouble, I think it's a great thing. Brawling, drunken behavior, and other things that often crop up can be handled quickly, and efficiently. While allowing the servicememeber a chance to correct his or her behavior.
NJP, when there is such a horrible epidemic of sexual assault within the military is not the answer. When you have general level officers excusing a convicted rapist because he knew the officer in question couldn't possibly be guilty - it's a clear flag that at this time the military cannot be trusted to judge for itself when a sexual assault is the result of a behavior that may be corrected, or one that requires the most stringent sanctions.
I recognize that by taking NJP away from commands in the case of reports of sexual assault is going to reduce the command's authority. And create problems for units all over the globe. Particularly with staffing which can often be a truly fragile construct.
But when the officer in charge of coordinating training and doctrine to prevent sexual assault in a branch of the military is convicted of sexual assault, himself - when a general feels justified in reversing the verdict of one of the rare courts that actually got impaneled in response to a claim of sexual assault - when multiple boot camp instructors are convicted of using recruits for sexual pleasure - it is impossible to deny that there is a major problem with sexual assault in the military. Too many people have come forward to report the chilling effects of the way they were treated when they tried to report their own assaults, and found that the command not only didn't listen to their complaint, but would retaliate against them.
In the 20 years since Tailhook the military has had a chance to show it could take sexual assault seriouisly. It has squandered that opportunity. It is time to take a more active stance. And if that means that authority of the commanders in the field is being beaten a bit about the edges, they had their chance.
NJP does not work for sexual assault. Maybe it will again in the future. But not until the culture in the military changes.
We need stronger measures, and that's what Sen. Gillibrand's bill offers.
So, I cannot say that I have any direct knowledge of the extent of the sexual assault problem in the military. However, indirect indica were aplenty. First was the rape awareness training we got in boot camp that claimed that something like one third of all women in the Navy - not the military in general - were subject to sexual assault during their time in the Navy. Then there was Tailhook, and how it affected things through the fleet. And the attitudes some of my higher-ups had about the whole thing. I had one E7 complain to me that the officer who was assaulted should have known what was going to happen, and should have kept quiet about it. And he was not the most sexist or traditional of the senior people in my division, let alone aboard ship.
Another factor was my awareness that the nuclear Navy was and is something of a world to itself. I said and did things while I was in that would have gotten someone in the non-nuke service written up for insubordination. Some of it was simply accommodations made for a talented, and even respected, misfit; but a lot of it was simply that Rickover's Navy has some very different traditions and attitudes than the rest of the fleet. In the nuclear navy, if an enlisted member believes that an evolution is going to be unsafe they are trained to stop things. Now, doing that too often, or in error, is not going to be career enhancing, but in general as a E4 I was telling officers what we would be doing to the engineering plant. With respect, of course, but there was no question whose expertise was leading the course of action. Everything I've heard while I was in, and since I've been out, is that that sort of autonomy for junior enlisted personnel is very rare outside of certain specialized services and situations.
All this has left me viewing the reports of the problems with military sexual assault with a very open mind, and one that finds the reports both appalling and credible. And dreading what's going to happen when more enlisted women feel empowered enough to speak up - since for a number of reasons the majority of the cases that make it to public awareness are involving female officers. And simply looking at the numbers, it's reasonable to think that officer assaults are only a tithe of the incidents out there. And as bad as the retaliation against female officers has been - what enlisted personnel have dealt with is worse.
I have been offering my support, such as I may, to Kirsten Gillibrand's efforts to reform the miltiary justice system. In particular the action of Lt. General Craig Ferguson overturning the conviction by a court martial of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson for aggrivated sexual assault brought home to me just how impossible it is for anyone to trust the to military, at this time, to treat such cases with the gravity they deserve. I see now, that Wilkerson is retiring at the rank of Major in the wake of this, claiming to be the innocent victim of political pressure. If that's what it takes to get his raping ass out of uniform, I'm all for political pressure.
Today I read that there's an alternate, and more conservative, bill before the Senate to reform the military justice system. Based on my admittedly brief readings the big difference between the two bills is how they'll handle reports of sexual assault. Gillibrand's solution is to set up a military office with military lawyers who will evaluate each claim and see to the appropriate action; the competing bill is to offer more emphasis on the need to treat such reports seriously, but to keep the decision on whether to proceed within the command - and to especially allow for the use of NJP (Non-Judicial Punishment) on such cases.
For anyone who hasn't been in the military NJP is what happens when someone screws up and breaks the rules badly enough to warrant punishment, but not so badly as to necessitate a court martial.
NJP offers a lot of benefits, in general, to both the accused, and the command involved - and thus to the service. It allows for the punishment to be kept in house, and while close confinement (something that's often redundant aboard a ship at sea) is one of the worst punishments available, and the command can usually demote one rank from the servicemember's permanent rank, the long-term effects for the person so punished are rarely career-ending. It's faster than a court. It's cheaper, too. And it doesn't leave the command in question requiring a replacement. It is the rolled-up newspaper the military uses to try to keep its servicemembers from going completely off the rails.
And with the majority of the things that can get a servicemember in trouble, I think it's a great thing. Brawling, drunken behavior, and other things that often crop up can be handled quickly, and efficiently. While allowing the servicememeber a chance to correct his or her behavior.
NJP, when there is such a horrible epidemic of sexual assault within the military is not the answer. When you have general level officers excusing a convicted rapist because he knew the officer in question couldn't possibly be guilty - it's a clear flag that at this time the military cannot be trusted to judge for itself when a sexual assault is the result of a behavior that may be corrected, or one that requires the most stringent sanctions.
I recognize that by taking NJP away from commands in the case of reports of sexual assault is going to reduce the command's authority. And create problems for units all over the globe. Particularly with staffing which can often be a truly fragile construct.
But when the officer in charge of coordinating training and doctrine to prevent sexual assault in a branch of the military is convicted of sexual assault, himself - when a general feels justified in reversing the verdict of one of the rare courts that actually got impaneled in response to a claim of sexual assault - when multiple boot camp instructors are convicted of using recruits for sexual pleasure - it is impossible to deny that there is a major problem with sexual assault in the military. Too many people have come forward to report the chilling effects of the way they were treated when they tried to report their own assaults, and found that the command not only didn't listen to their complaint, but would retaliate against them.
In the 20 years since Tailhook the military has had a chance to show it could take sexual assault seriouisly. It has squandered that opportunity. It is time to take a more active stance. And if that means that authority of the commanders in the field is being beaten a bit about the edges, they had their chance.
NJP does not work for sexual assault. Maybe it will again in the future. But not until the culture in the military changes.
We need stronger measures, and that's what Sen. Gillibrand's bill offers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)