;)
The Commentariat -- Dec. 15, 2013
Mark Mazzetti & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "American intelligence and law enforcement investigators have concluded that they may never know the entirety of what the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden extracted from classified government computers before leaving the United States, according to senior government officials. Investigators remain in the dark about the extent of the data breach partly because the N.S.A. facility in Hawaii where Mr. Snowden worked -- unlike other N.S.A. facilities -- was not equipped with up-to-date software that allows the spy agency to monitor which corners of its vast computer landscape its employees are navigating at any given time."
Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post: "The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials."
Huh. Michael Strain of the conservative American Enterprise Institute argues in the right-wing National Review in favor of an extension of the emergency federal unemployment-insurance program. He makes a rational, non-ideological economic argument. Wonders never cease.
Paul Krugman: "It has taken an amazingly long time, but inequality is finally surfacing as a significant unifying issue for progressives -- including the president. And there is, inevitably, a backlash, or actually a couple of backlashes." ...
... Kathleen Geier in the Washington Monthly on economic inequality: "... the policy fixes for economic inequality are fairly clear: a higher minimum wage, stronger labor unions, a more progressive tax system, a more generous social welfare state, macroeconomic policies that promote a full employment economy, and much more powerful government regulations, particularly in the banking and finance sector." Geier builds on Krugman's post.
Dana Milbank awards Selfies to self-centered, hypocritical Washington officials. CW: Ted Cruz might have been Fourth Runner-Up for Time's Person of the Year, but he gets first Selfie ever. And he deserves it.
Chris Geider of BuzzFeed: "A federal judge struck down Utah's criminal ban on cohabitation between a married individual and another person not his or her spouse, a prong in the state's law against polygamy. The Friday ruling did not address legal polygamy -- actually being married to multiple people -- but only what U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups referred to as 'religious cohabitation.'" CW: It was a star-studded case: the plaintiffs star in a TLC reality show called "Sister Wives"; their attorney is well-known lawyer Jonathan Turley. ...
... Turley takes to his blog to boast about his big win. CW: If I won a big case in federal court, I'd brag about it, too.
Amanda Marcotte of AlterNet, in Salon explains Christian conservative belief system & how it impacts the Christian rights' view of the U.S.: "Over and over again, right-wingers warn that all the things they hate, from pro-gay Broadway shows to immigration to multiculturalism, are not just signs of an evolving American society, but portend the actual end of it.... But really, what all these fantasies of cities burning down and impending war and destruction are expressing is a belief that the culture of white conservative Christians is the culture of America. So it follows that if they aren't the dominant class in the United States, then America isn't, in their opinion, really America anymore."
AFP: "Pope Francis said he knew a lot of 'good' Marxists but was no communist himself, following criticism of his diatribes against unfettered capitalism from conservative commentators in the United States. 'Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have met a lot of Marxists who are good people, so I do not feel offended,' Francis said in an interview with the Italian daily La Stampa published on Sunday." CW: "Diatribes"?? ...
... The English translation of the La Stampa interview by Andrea Tornielli is here.
Elizabeth Tenety, the Washington Post's "On Faith" editor, says that what people like about Pope Francis is what they like about Jesus.
Faux "News"
Andy Borowitz publishes children's letters to Megyn Kelly along with Kelly's responses. CW: I think Borowitz made up the kids' letters & sent them to Kelly. No doubt Borowitz is just another race-baiter, like the ones Kelly complained about yesterday. But I'm pretty sure Kelly's answers are real. Thanks to James S. for the link.
News Ledes
New York Times: "Joan Fontaine, the patrician blond actress who rose to stardom as a haunted second wife in the Alfred Hitchcock film 'Rebecca' in 1940 and won an Academy Award for her portrayal of a terrified newlywed in Hitchcock's 'Suspicion,' died at her home in Carmel, Calif., on Sunday. She was 96."
CBS "News": "Actor-writer-director Tom Laughlin, whose production and marketing of 'Billy Jack' set a standard for breaking the rules on and off screen, has died."
New York Times: "The European Union on Sunday broke off talks with Ukraine on the far-reaching trade deal that protesters here have been demanding for weeks, and a top official issued a stinging, angry statement all but accusing Ukraine's president of dissembling during the negotiations." ...
... Guardian: "Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians braved freezing temperatures and aggressive policing to return to central Kiev on Sunday to demand political change, sending a message to authorities that the crisis over the government's failure to sign an EU integration pact is unlikely to end soon." ...
... Guardian: "Senator John McCain on Sunday told thousands of Ukrainian protesters camped on Kiev's main square that Ukraine's destiny lay in Europe and that it would make Europe better." CW: Ah, a cast of hundreds of thousands. Apparently the US network green rooms are getting too small for McCain. ...
... UPDATE. But Wait. A sojourn in Kiev didn't stop McCain from appearing on a Sunday show. CNN: "Sen. John McCain joined CNN's 'State of the Union" from Kiev, Ukraine, on Sunday after the Arizona Republican addressed thousands of protesters who are angry over the Ukrainian government's decision to backpedal away from an agreement with the European Union." You cannot keep that man off the teevee.
CNN: "The rampage [at Arapahoe High School in Colorado] might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, [Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson] Robinson said. Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said.... He praised the deputy's response as 'a critical element to the shooter's decision' to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots."
Reuters: "China landed an unmanned spacecraft on the moon on Saturday, state media reported, in the first such "soft-landing" since 1976, joining the United States and the former Soviet Union in managing to accomplish such a feat."
Guardian: "The actor Peter O'Toole who found stardom in David Lean's masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia, has died aged 81...." The New York Times' obituary is here. The Los Angeles Times has a good slideshow here. ...
... Here's a much-expanded New York Times O'Toole obituary.
New York Daily News: "Thousands of drunken Santas went dashing through the snow under the influence Saturday, dutifully earning their places on Saint Nick's 'naughty' list. The red-faced revelers -- many from out of town -- overwhelmed parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan for SantaCon...." With photos.
AP: "... Nelson Mandela has been buried in the African ground he loved. His casket was lowered into the earth after military jets and helicopters with South African flags displayed flew over the pallbearers." The New York Times story, which includes a slideshow, is here.
AFP: "Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in New Delhi[, India,] on Saturday he no longer 'trusts' the United States, accusing the Americans of saying one thing and doing another in his troubled homeland. Karzai's statement to journalists came a day after he insisted he would not be 'intimidated' into signing a security pact allowing US troops in Afghanistan to stay on after next year."
AFP: "Iran said on Saturday that it had safely returned a monkey to Earth after blasting it into space in the second such launch this year in its controversial ballistic programme."
23 Comments
Reader Comments (23)
Just finished reading several articles about Karl Pierson, the 18 year old Arapahoe High School student who wounded a classmate and shot at several others, before killing himself. Apparently he went to school armed with a shotgun, a machete, 3 Molotov cocktails and ammunition strapped to his body. He is thought to have planned to kill many--although his prime target was a librarian sponsor, who dropped him from his prized debate team.
In reading about this young man, I first ran across an item that said he was a bright student from a religious family who attended Bible study meetings--even though his parents were divorced. My reptilian brain kicked in, and I immediately assumed that this was a right wing kid from a crazy fundie family, who was a 2nd amendment nutcase and was out to get unpatriotic lefties.
YIKES! Was I ever wrong. He was a self-described vociferous Keynesian, who was bullied for his strong, oft stated beliefs in liberal causes. Hmmm.....surburban Denver? This from the Denver Post:
..."Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on a Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"
To say I never expected this would be to understate the obvious. Now I (all of us) are left to contemplate a potential mass-murderer, obviously disturbed, who was not only a progressive, but taunted for being a "commie." Makes me wonder (of course) about the parents and about the bullying. Also about the librarian. I have read no descriptions of this kid as being an odd-ball or anti-social.
The MSM, unfortunately, will never ask the right questions, so I guess we will have to wait for a "psychological autopsy." Makes me want to go back to writing and researching dysfunctional families with acting out kids. And bullying.
"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off." -- Anton Chekhov
"... if you look at the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history – those claiming 12 or more lives – half of them occurred during the 50 years between 1949 and 1999. The other half of those deadliest shootings occurred in the past six years — between 2007 and now. (There was a hiatus between 1999 and 2007 in that '12 lives and more' category.)" -- Sarah Goodyear in the Atlantic
I don't think there's much mystery in this latest school shooting, and I don't know if it's too useful to look at "dysfunctional families with acting out kids." I would bet that nearly every kid "acts out" in one way or another at one time or another. "Acting out" seems to me to be pretty "normal" given the dramatic life changes a young person experiences. Placing the blame on bullies or divorcing parents or teachers or political views is just a way of deflecting the Chekhov Rule as it carries over into real life: if there's a rifle hanging on the wall, there's a chance an angry person will use it.
Yes, for each "normal" shooter there is usually an identifiable cause & effect. In this case, a young person whose persona was wrapped up in his debating skills was suddenly deprived of this essential self-definer. Probably for good cause -- but maybe not -- the librarian redefined him down.
If not for the gun on the wall, the acting out would have manifested in a temper tantrum or smacking the teacher or dropping out of school -- something like that. But because of handy weaponry (-- perhaps not coincidentally because the shooter lived a few miles from Columbine & Aurora --) killing the librarian & students became the preferred mode.
Such mass shooting are not overtly political. Many are by young men with severe mental disease -- Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, the Navy Yard -- but others are by (usually) men who have "coping" skills & "go postal" because of some setback -- a setback that to most of us would be upsetting but to the shooter seemed like a traumatic, life-changing reversal of fortune that could only be avenged in the annihilation of the "perpetrators."
The notion that we are rational beings is highly overrated -- a holdover myth from the Enlightenment. Yes, most of the time we do act fairly rationally, but when something deeply hurts or angers us, our immediate reaction is not always, or even usually, in our best interest. Of course we're apt to realize that later, but if weaponry, rather than harsh words or breakable crockery, is the means of expressing our anger, "later" may be too late.
Wringing one's hands over "What could have stopped this?" may be useful in some cases. For instance, Nancy Lanza was obviously an idiot to put her deeply-disturbed son in proximity to a cabinet full of guns & ammo. But Pierson seemed to be coping all right, at least according to initial reports. We may find out that Pierson's parents "made mistakes" or the librarian was overly harsh or whatever. But parents make mistakes all the time & every kid has a teacher who is a dick -- and most don't plan & carry out mass murders to retaliate. That it happens more often now probably has more to do with the Chekhov Rule, likely enhanced by copycat behavior, than with political leanings.
If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's this: If there's a child, a teenager or a volatile adult in your home, yourself included, get rid of your guns. (If you're worried about your safety & you live in a state where tasers are legal, maybe get a taser.)
Marie
@CW: You are so right.
You are entirely correct, Marie. What is concerning is this coping pattern of people of high school age may portend a future generations political coping pattern. The, seeming, impossibility to fit in any income producing situation that makes you feel human could exasperate the problem.
As certain people joke about pitchforks, short ropes and street lights, others take these messages seriously. I believe this is a more volatile situation than we realize
Re: Serious for the mourning; Absolutely Marie. I believe "road rage" incidents are caused by those same instant bad choices; "...but when something deeply hurts or angers us, our immediate reaction is not always, or even usually, in our best interest". Fight or flight; and if the corner that you make your stand is in your mind it's best not to have guns around.
On a totally different subject; the NSA computers in Hawaii don't have cookies? Humm
Re: Amanda Marcotte. A few days ago, Marie posted a Phil Ochs song. Phil wrote another one "Power and Glory" about how the US is all one country. Sadly I wonder if it is.
Marie,
May I copy your statement on gun violence and use it when talking about gun violence in RI and the need for better controls? Where does the statement from Chekhov come from?
Bravo Marie. I have felt for a long time that mental illness is used as a way to obfuscate the obvious solution which is to limit gun ownership and use. Mental illness is a perfect beard. We can all agree that funding for diagnosis and treatment is woefully lacking. The mentally ill shooter gives us the perpetrator and victim in one without having to acknowledge the lethal source. Finding a mentally ill person or adolescent who is "troubled" that might go on a shooting spree is like looking for a needle in a haystack. After an incident, it is made to look clear and predictable. On the other hand, finding and securing the guns which may used in an atrocity is obvious.
@Dede: The Chekhov quote is from a letter to A.S Lazarev-Gruzinsky [November 1889]. "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it."
Thank you all. I would like to use some of your comments as I work to reduce gun violence in RI. I have reached a point in life where I realize I can only address issues concretely in a small way and my state is fortunately small (although in the past a mafia center with it's residual mindsets).
Here is a pretty comprehensive article on "Facing the Real Problem of Gun Violence" in the NYRB by David Cole:
"First, we should abandon efforts to ban assault weapons. Each year murders with all kinds of rifles, including assault weapons, make up only about 3 percent of all homicides in the US. A 2003 study in Jersey City, N.J., found that large-capacity magazines figured in less than 5 percent of shootings. the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths are attributable to ordinary handguns. If pushing for an assault weapon ban will do little to address gun violence but will harden gun owner's resistance to other reforms, is it really worth the cost?"
And he has some solutions:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/20/facing-real-gun-problem/
As many said, words good, true, and practical, Marie. Also a pleasant reminder for me this morning of a great teacher from long ago who quoted the same bit about the gun on the wall.
We do all have our "postal" tendencies. And goodness knows, as a liberal, I'm as likely to get upset with my circumstances--reading the morning paper does it for me--as is anyone else. Anger or depression certainly are not responses limited to one end or the other of the political spectrum.
Yet, I thought Kate's attempted psychological forensics intriguing. Would not extremes of anger and resentment be likely to find a more natural and welcoming home in one of our two major political parties? And would that not be the party that encourages and stokes such feelings? I can see why Kate's thoughts went in that direction.
It's not as if the Left does not have its own history of violence, I know, and I remember the old saw about the political spectrum, viewed from afar, being a circle whose extreme ends actually meet in identical explosions of angry acts, but here and now, it seems most politically motivated violence within our borders comes from one side.
Then there's the whole issue of justification. Depends, I would say on our perspective and beliefs. While I don't like violence anywhere, I am more sympathetic to some of it than I am to other instances. Means may never justify ends--I still wrestle with that one-- but when I when I see the downtrodden tossing a few bricks in revolt, I don't have the same degree of negative reaction to it that I do when the police in their riot gear wade in and disperse a mostly peaceful mob, whose interests are my own. In short, violence on my side doesn't seem quite as reprehensible.
Tho' I can't think of a case of individual politically-connected "postality"--other than political assassinations on which I'm not going to try to conduct postmortems-- the case of a young person turning on those who have bullied him does evoke some sympathy in me. Understanding, at least...which is not all the way into justification territory but gets us near its border, I think.
Of course, it's easier to justify a fistfight than a murder. For justification also has its Gilbert & Sullivan element: does the punishment fit the crime?
Thanks Kate and Marie for this morning's stimulation.
@Dede: By all means. I volunteer the remarks of the contributors here, too, as I think I jointly hold -- with the writers -- the copyright to what's published here.
Chekhov repeated the principle, & Pepe cites one iteration of it. Wikipedia, my reliable general source, provides a couple of other variations. Chekhov's idea was that a work of fiction should be spare & all of its parts integral to the story.
The gun on the wall is a means of foreshadowing. Writers use various techniques to create suspense, & introducing an ominous object like a gun promises that a shooting will take place. Chekhov says don't introduce a gun unless you're going to use it, but it's equally important to provide some hint -- a foreshadowing -- of the impending plot twists in your story. If you're going to "solve" your story's dilemma by having the villain get hit by a bus, you'd damned well better foreshadow his demise early on by having your character be an absent-minded fellow who doesn't look both ways before crossing &/or else has a weird fear of buses. In real life there, there are complete "hit by a bus" surprises. Not in real literature.
Which is why truth is stranger than fiction.
And, Dede, thank you for your efforts. We who hope not to die at the hands of a crazed gunman salute you.
Marie
And in keeping with the subjects of gun violence and justification, the LA Times has been running a long retrospective (I think that’s the best term for it) on the Christopher Dorner rage and rampage, the detectives tracking him, the final ambush (both sides do it), and Dorner's death. It’s five chapters long, well-written, and begins here:
http://graphics.latimes.com/christopher-dorner-manhunt/#chapter-one
@Marie-
I appreciate your thoughtful response--and Chekov's words. You are absolutely right, I think, in saying that crazy kids and dysfunctional families cannot "take the blame" for the rash of mass killings in our sad little country.
I do think it needs to be known that the Pierson house contained no guns! Karl Pierson bought his shotgun December 6 and the extra ammunition on the day of the shootings. Had he been able to buy a handgun there surely would have been much more carnage.
From the Denver Post again:
...." Pierson legally purchased his shotgun at a local store a week before the shooting and bought the ammunition the day of the shooting. Anyone 18 and older is allowed to buy a shotgun in Colorado; only those over 21 can legally buy a handgun."
Chekov's theory would not apply--except in a metaphorical fashion. The rifle hanging on the wall could be the young man's "seething resentment" about whatever bedeviled him--and personified in the rejection by the librarian. I certainly was surprised to find out there were no guns in the house, nor had this young man ever shown any interest in guns--except to support gun control. I am guessing that classmates who bullied him were gun lovers and thought of him as a wuss. Still much to be understood. There is no one explanation for any of these tragic situations, for sure.
Before commenting on the Pierson shooting it's worth reading the Denver Post article.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24725665/motive-behind-arapahoe-high-school-attack-remains-murky
CW: I'm letting this comment stand, but it's right on the edge of unacceptable. If there's another one like it, it will go. These bombs you drop -- then fail to follow up on -- are not appreciated. Contributors & I provide a free service here, not a venue for divebombers to imply we're ignorant.
PD,
If the world (ie, the US) were a saner place, we wouldn't have to make the sort of trade-off you suggest. In other words, the idea that gun control should be applied across the board, would hold against any argument to the contrary.
Except in this country.
Right-wingers have very successfully created a world of Hobson's Choices for the rest of us: you want health care? Fine. No contraception or family planning assistance. You want a farm bill? Okay, we're cutting food stamps for lazy moochers. You want a budget deal? If so, we're going to shred the safety net and make damn sure that corporations don't pay a bloody red cent extra in taxes. You want immigration reform. Okay, but those questionable non-white invaders all have to wear yellow shirts and can be deported at any moment if they so much as spit on the sidewalk in front of a white person. You want to vote for a blah president? Suit yourself. We're going to make his, and your, life as absolutely miserable as possible for the next eight years. We're going to question his place of birth, fitness for office, his religion, his friends, his allegiance to America, hell, we're gonna make a big fucking deal about him owning black dogs, and our most morbidly obese, non compos mentis sons of bitches will make jokes about his wife's butt. You want civil rights? Great. Corporations' civil rights will outweigh yours by about 2,000,000,000 to 1. Anything else? Assholes?
And for the last five years, their plan has been so good that most times they didn't even have to throw up the choice. They just played the Filibuster Card.
This strategy has become so ingrained that it works even when the answer, categorically, will be NO, NO, NO, and didn't you hear me the first three times? NO. So even though you are correct that the use of assault weapons in your standard run-of-the-mill NRA supported massacre is dwarfed by the rifles hanging on Chekov's wall (brilliant, Marie), the fear that, if, in some alternative universe, wingnuts would give a tiny bit on regulating machine guns and military grade assault weapons, they would then demand that everyone be forced to purchase multiple handguns, deer rifles, shotguns, RPG's and bazookas, and would further demand that concealed carry be the law of the land, scares the shit out of anyone who dares think that there might be some way to curtail the bloodshed.
Silly us.
We thought it was cut and dried that More Guns Available=More People Murdered. I doubt the NRA would even disagree with this, but this, my dear brothers and sisters, is the Wingnut Price of FREEEEEDDOOMMM.
Or didn't you know?
Marie: Andy Borowitz is a humorist in the New Yorker. Yes, he made up the letters and the answers. He does stuff like this every day. His aim was to take something that is ridiculous and make it more ridiculous by writing pseudoseriously about it. You can bet that Megyn Kelly has not seen the made-up letters or the answers.
@jeanne pitz: Sorry, I was kidding. I've been reading Borowitz's stuff for at least five years. I know what he does. I'm quite aware my snark isn't always evident. Again, I apologize. It's I, not you.
Marie
Note that Pierson used a pump shotgun with either a three or five round chamber which, when emptied, requires a pause for reloading, which takes a minimum of a half minute or so. In consequence, even though a tragic loss of life might have occurred, a mass homicide would have been almost impossible. This would also have been the case with a revolver. So consider this:
I grew up in 1950's rural Cajun Louisiana, where hunting and fishing were a way of life. We had pump and double barrel shotguns and a lever action rifle on the wall. My father had been a competitive marksman in the Army, and my mother was no slouch. I remain a fair marksman with a rifle and competent with a handgun. So I ask: what is the point of ANY semiautomatic firearm? For the hunter, it only rewards poor marksmanship; if the first shot misses, any following are more likely to miss. For (home) self defense, a single shot firearm is more than adequate. For recreational shooting, a semi-automatic saves a little time, but not much. On the other hand, it makes mass murder much, much more efficient. Now, a liberal interpretation of the second amendment guarantees arms ownership, but does not address arms type. Implicit in 1789 are muskets and knives. We have already banned automatic firearms, explosives, and probably artillery. What would be so anti-2nd-amendment of banning ALL semiautomatic firearms, and restrict manual repeaters to three rounds for shotguns (already a federal restriction), five rounds for bolt or lever rifles (no clips, just magazines) and six rounds for revolvers. NO CLIPS. No one, except those with phallus complexes, will be inconvenienced.
Write your congressman. At least in MN it might be heard. But it will, of course, go nowhere.
Oops, didn't know it was snark. And I should: I have been reading YOU for years, also; I used to like your letters in the New York Times so much...when I finally went to your blog, I was delighted to know that I could get a daily dose without wading through some of the antiprogressive stuff in the Times. I should have realized you see everything in print miles before the rest of us...thanx, CW...
Question: Will you, my fellow commenters and our "hall monitor", Marie, be "up" for my doing a family/psychological autopsy when more facts are known about this recent sad tragedy in Colorado?
Since I am doing a bit of family therapy supervision at this point in my retirement, I feel somewhat called. Not so much, however, that "no" would be fine.
It is interesting to consider a "psychological autopsy" of one of the attempted mass murderers. From my viewpoint, however, each murderer is unique. The larger issues are considered here on this forum - like the ridiculous numbers of weapons of mass destruction. What has not been brought up directly are some pretty interesting social issues, like:
these are young WHITE males.
the majority have had serious mental illnesses.
mental illness interventions, when attempted, were not effective in preventing the murderers from murdering.
All of these issues could potentially be relevant for a political commentary (I definitely think they are), but I'm not sure that the relevance is obvious to everyone.
The larger political problem I have been considering in any discussion of the scourge of mass violence is the horrific numbing unrealistic violence on teevee every day. Why no effort to limit this? There's lots of data to show how deleterious this is to children. How can people imagine that this has no influence on learned behaviors in kids?