First off, let me say that my heart goes out to the Parisiens, both those who were injured or slain, and those whose world is now composed of fear. I live near New York City, and I still remember what it was like, and that wasn't close-up, face-to-face killing. I cannot begin to imagine how much worse it is now for them.
That said, I want to reproach many American politicians and pundits who seem intent on using the Parisian attacks to justify their own brand of hateful fear-mongering, pointing to different aspects of Daesh's (see here for why I'm not calling it "ISIS") operation to defend their call to deport undocumented people, to refuse humanitarian aid to refugees, even to fight against any, any, attempt at curbing armed violence in the US, and to call for yet more attacks on Daesh holdings.
DON'T. YOU. GET. IT?! That's what they want! They need an external enemy attacking to hold them together. Their vision of Islam is so narrow, that without someone outside to hate on, they'll turn on each other and destroy themselves.
Also, they need the multiple civilian casualties ("acceptable collateral damage") to justify their rule in their conquered territories. "See?" they cry. "Look at the non-Muslims. They kill us without any care. If we were not here fighting them, they would kill you all."
And, of course, video footage of American (and European) bombs falling all over the Middle East figures into most of their recruitment images and propaganda. That, and the rhetoric spewing from many far-right speakers, denouncing all Muslims as terrorists. Is it really that surprising, with such speech coming from elected leaders, those vying for election, and popular radio and TV personalities, that young Muslims think they have to join Daesh, or Al-Qaeda, or another like them, lest them be hunted down and "detained" or even killed outright?
Does Daesh need to be stopped? Yes, of course they do.
Is a military solution the best one? Honestly, I'm not sure any more.
Most Americans, especially those who served in the Middle East, or know someone who did, are exhausted with endless war. We don't want to spend more American lives and deaths over there. Besides, there are prominent nations right there who could step up and do something. (Saudi Arabia, for one; they have the wealth and the military strength to do something.) We can't traipse through the Middle East, killing and bombing, without myriad enemies springing from the ground like dragons' teeth. Our continued involvement there is only culling the less-capable terrorists and allowing those who survive to replace their lost ranks with new, scared, young people. Scared of bombs dropped from drones; scared of being rounded up and shipped to who knows where for being Muslim.
I know one of the excuses people use to lump all Muslims together. "Why don't you 'good' ones stand up and stop them? Don't you really support them secretly?"
One: the so-called 'good' ones are usually unarmed civilians, dominated by heavily armed and skilled fighters. Trying that will get them killed. Would you yourself stand up in a futile gesture that will get you killed, and your family too, without even making the 'bad guys' stumble?
Two: All you christians out there; do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? They call themselves Christian. How about the KKK? They base their actions on (selected portions of) the Bible.
You don't support them? Then why don't you stop them? They can't even kill you; that's illegal here. Or at least speak out against them; that won't violate their "free speech". You won't even do that? Then you don't get to lump all Muslims together because they won't "stand up" to Daesh and those like them.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
When a new law is proposed or enacted
One other lesson from Houston, and the voter fraud stuff too, is how to think about a new, proposed law.
Just ask two questions about it:
1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?
"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.
If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?
For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)
Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")
Just ask two questions about it:
1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?
"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.
If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?
For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)
Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")
Voting and Fear
So, last Tuesday, local elections happened. Several things of note: New Jersey democrats went from a small minority in the state government, to a large minority (though still a minority), surprising basically everybody. Several states that already had the Medicaid expansion elected new governors who have vowed to remove it. And, in Houston, transgender people's rights were removed.
I take a lesson from New Jersey: if you're legal, register and VOTE! The statistically most common reasons for not voting are, I believe, my vote doesn't matter, there are thousands of people voting. How could I make any difference? Well, NJ is how. Nobody thought so many Dems would take seats. But they did. Why? Because people who wanted them to, showed up and voted them in.
The other reason, is that certain areas are making it basically impossible to vote, calling it protection against "voter fraud". Look up the numbers yourself; there have been less than 10 actual cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so. That is so statistically tiny that it won't even show up in percentile data analysis.
The Houston thing got me thinking. The act was voted down, basically because the anti-rights people terrified the populace by essentially threatening that rapists (no, not "sexual predators"; see the George Carlin bit on Euphemisms) would just dress in women's clothes to get in the women's bathroom.
My first thought about this was: "Wait. People planning to commit the worst, vilest crime that can be committed against someone is going to not do it in a bathroom because they're not supposed to be in the women's bathroom?" Really? The most heinous crime will be prevented by a social norm keeping men out of bathrooms?
To me, this seems transparent, make up something to be scared of, and tell them this law will make it happen. Whether or not it's going to be true or not. It's kinda nasty. Unfortunately, it seems effective.
I take a lesson from New Jersey: if you're legal, register and VOTE! The statistically most common reasons for not voting are, I believe, my vote doesn't matter, there are thousands of people voting. How could I make any difference? Well, NJ is how. Nobody thought so many Dems would take seats. But they did. Why? Because people who wanted them to, showed up and voted them in.
The other reason, is that certain areas are making it basically impossible to vote, calling it protection against "voter fraud". Look up the numbers yourself; there have been less than 10 actual cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so. That is so statistically tiny that it won't even show up in percentile data analysis.
The Houston thing got me thinking. The act was voted down, basically because the anti-rights people terrified the populace by essentially threatening that rapists (no, not "sexual predators"; see the George Carlin bit on Euphemisms) would just dress in women's clothes to get in the women's bathroom.
My first thought about this was: "Wait. People planning to commit the worst, vilest crime that can be committed against someone is going to not do it in a bathroom because they're not supposed to be in the women's bathroom?" Really? The most heinous crime will be prevented by a social norm keeping men out of bathrooms?
To me, this seems transparent, make up something to be scared of, and tell them this law will make it happen. Whether or not it's going to be true or not. It's kinda nasty. Unfortunately, it seems effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)