Mankind is a fabulous but terrifying creature. We killed every predator in the world that dared predate on us... and then invented a new and more horrific predator to take the place of those flesh and blood monsters: The Corporation. It is inhumane, psychotic, territorial, oppressive, tries daily to enslave and debase us, to strip us of our rights to the work of our hands, of our minds, of the right to ownership of that which we have bought. All Inventions can be used for Evil or for Good, some more easily than others... Fire warms, but also devastates; Nucleics power but also obliterate; but the Corporation... it unifies us, makes us more efficient... but it, like War, strips away our humanity, our compassion, and binds us, life and limb, to service to a master we dare not leave, for if we do, all we have built and earned and sweated for will be lost and we shall die alone and broken. The Corporation is a beast, and like any beast it has its uses. Yet it must be carefully watched, because given the chance it will turn on us, devour us, and leave nothing behind but bones.
Wal-Mart wants you to buy only from them while they oppress their workers and suppliers. Microsoft wants you to have to pay them for every program you install on your PC, whether they make it or not. Coke wants the countries that supply it's ingredients to put the interest of the company above the rights of their citizens. Monsanto wants the government to say that every farmer who's land is contaminated with their Genetically Engineered Corn is stealing from them. Clothiers want you to buy clothes that are made in sweatshops; Media companies want to tell you that you don't own that CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, Book, or Video Game you bought; Oil and Coal producers want you to believe that they aren't polluting the planet faster and faster each year; Pharmicutical and Insurance companies spend billions to convince us that we're all sick and that they aren't actually profiteering on human suffering and misery; and Fast Food chains want you to believe that what they're selling is actually good for you and not really poison in attractive ready to go packaging.
And we fall for it. Because it makes our lives simpler. Because fighting them seems impossible. Because everyone else is doing it. Because without them and their products our lives stop working. Because if we don't work for one of them, or one of their feeder companies, then we don't work period and then we are homeless and hungry. And Because they have made the world, as a whole, a better place than it was before the Industrial Revolution, especially in the First World. But with every passing year they become more a hindrance, more a shackle, more divorced from the idea that they are part of society and more convinced that society is merely there to provide customers and slave labor.
I'm a Science Fiction fan, and have always hated Dystopian Fiction. Partly because it was so much easier to create a believable future where everything sucked than to create a future were things were better, cleaner, sharper... and humanity still had challenges to overcome. But also because such worlds never seemed real to me. Then I grew up and realized that the reason they didn't seem real is because they portrayed Dystopia as a world where everyone lived in misery and everyone knew it. But that's not the real Dystopia. Our world, today, is the real Dystopia. It's full of 7 billion people doing the same thing every damned day, struggling to make ends meet, struggling not to give in to the soul crushing despair, masking the pain with booze and drugs and reality TV. And yes, Dystopia is full of laughter, and gayity and vibrance and joy too, because, in the end, we are humanity. We are a wonderful species. We can find happiness and comraderie and warmth even in the most brutal of environments. We can connect and overcome any obstacle and endure any hardship, when we stand united. So, in that spirit, and out of the ashes of the dreams of 2 million years of star-gazing apes, I wish you a happy festival season and give you my blessings... may next year be less god awful and depressing than this one was.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Straw Men and Fire Arms.
Ultimately, any time a law is created or changed, one has to view the entire picture. One has to step back and say "What is the harm if we don't create this law?" and then say "What is the harm if we do create this law?"
So lets say we propose to ban all private gun ownership in the US.
What is the Harm of not creating such a law: There are, on average, about 15,000 gun related deaths a year in the US. That's 1 for every 20,000 persons living in the country. I don't have figures to say how many of those guns were acquired by the killer illegally, so lets skip that part and just say that 15,000 deaths could be prevented by banning guns.
What is the Harm of Creating such a law: Well, thieves won't have to fear that breaking into a house or robbing a liquor store will get them a bullet in the chest. Rapists and muggers won't have to fear being shot for picking the wrong victim. Hunters won't be able to hunt. Private security won't be able to arm its people. The only people who will have guns are the Police and the Army... and Criminals.
Even if we can assume that our government will never try to take away our other rights and that there is never going to be a time that we need fear the police and the army, banning ownership of guns is as likely to work as banning drugs has or banning alcohol did once upon a time. People will find a way, and ultimately, banning guns will make law enforcement harder, since no one will register their guns. There won't be a database of test fires and serial numbers and background checks. And American companies that make guns will go out of business because the police and army won't be buying enough weapons to keep those companies in business.
Now, before I'm accused of making a Straw Man argument against any form of Gun Control, I'm not. I'm talking about a Universal Gun Ban, which has been suggested by many, mirroring Britain and Scotland and Japan. I think such a ban would be a mistake. I think it shows a remarkable and completely unwarranted trust in the goodness and honesty of those in power that the people of those nations allow such bans to exist.
That said, I do believe in the idea that the Clear and Present Danger justification that allows some abridgment of the First Amendment can and should be applied to all other Amendments and Clauses of the Constitution. But such justification must be used very, very, very sparingly. So yes, some weapons are clearly too dangerous for public ownership (Tanks, Rocket Launchers, Grenades, Land Mines, Missiles). But handguns, shotguns, and rifles aren't in that category.
Still, public safety and civic responsibility requires me to say that I do believe in Registration and Background Checks and 28 day waiting periods. I believe in requiring classes and acquiring a license to carry concealed. I don't believe in forcing people to pay for an annual gun permit. I don't have to pay for an annual voting permit or an annual free speech permit, and the only reason I buy into the validity of paying an annual tag fee for my motor vehicle is that I drive it on public roads. Otherwise I'd call bullshit.
My big problem with the entire debate over gun control is that it's such an unimportant issue. Gun Deaths account for approximately 1% of all deaths in the US, and two thirds of those are suicides. Gun related homicides... or homicides in general, are the 15th leading cause of death... and that's not saying much. That means if we judge the seriousness of an issue by how many deaths it causes, there are 14 more important issues to tackle than Guns.
In an ideal world, we could all live in peace and there wouldn't be any huge social issues to tackle... but it's not. The issue of Gun Control isn't nearly as important as all the other social woes we have. If I had to rate the top twenty socio-political issues of the day based upon their threat value, gun control wouldn't make the list. The fact of the matter is that homicide rates have been falling steadily for years, both in pure numbers and as a percentage of the population. My point is that we don't need changes in Gun Control laws to make society a safer place. Some changes would be nice, but they aren't needed... and there is a risk in any new regulation. By and large, I don't think criminalization works. I think education and addressing the underlying causes work far better.
One foot note: Every time the ACLU argues against the infringement of civil liberties, it argues a Slippery Slope. I'm not bashing the ACLU. I love those guys. But with Human Rights, of which The Right to Bear Arms is one, sometimes you have to paint a worst case scenario to make your point and to make it stick. Rhetoric and Logic are friends, but they don't see eye to eye on all cases. You have to pick your means of making a point. After all, political cartoons are valid Rhetoric, but almost all of them are Reducto ad Ridiculum. And, let us be clear, every single argument that we need stronger gun control laws to stop school shootings are examples of "For the Children" arguments.
In closing, let me just say that yes, America has problems, and they need solving, and those solutions are only going to come from Americans of all walks of life working together. But the bullshit media sensations and cause of the day crap like this doesn't help. It hurts. It drives wedges between factions and distracts us from serious work. It diverts us from worrying about the larger issues, such as the underlying causes of crime. We can't make our society great from the top down and we can't make our society stand if the foundations aren't strong. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of our society, rebuild the middle class and lift the working class out of abject poverty before the whole damned mess falls down around our heads.
So lets say we propose to ban all private gun ownership in the US.
What is the Harm of not creating such a law: There are, on average, about 15,000 gun related deaths a year in the US. That's 1 for every 20,000 persons living in the country. I don't have figures to say how many of those guns were acquired by the killer illegally, so lets skip that part and just say that 15,000 deaths could be prevented by banning guns.
What is the Harm of Creating such a law: Well, thieves won't have to fear that breaking into a house or robbing a liquor store will get them a bullet in the chest. Rapists and muggers won't have to fear being shot for picking the wrong victim. Hunters won't be able to hunt. Private security won't be able to arm its people. The only people who will have guns are the Police and the Army... and Criminals.
Even if we can assume that our government will never try to take away our other rights and that there is never going to be a time that we need fear the police and the army, banning ownership of guns is as likely to work as banning drugs has or banning alcohol did once upon a time. People will find a way, and ultimately, banning guns will make law enforcement harder, since no one will register their guns. There won't be a database of test fires and serial numbers and background checks. And American companies that make guns will go out of business because the police and army won't be buying enough weapons to keep those companies in business.
Now, before I'm accused of making a Straw Man argument against any form of Gun Control, I'm not. I'm talking about a Universal Gun Ban, which has been suggested by many, mirroring Britain and Scotland and Japan. I think such a ban would be a mistake. I think it shows a remarkable and completely unwarranted trust in the goodness and honesty of those in power that the people of those nations allow such bans to exist.
That said, I do believe in the idea that the Clear and Present Danger justification that allows some abridgment of the First Amendment can and should be applied to all other Amendments and Clauses of the Constitution. But such justification must be used very, very, very sparingly. So yes, some weapons are clearly too dangerous for public ownership (Tanks, Rocket Launchers, Grenades, Land Mines, Missiles). But handguns, shotguns, and rifles aren't in that category.
Still, public safety and civic responsibility requires me to say that I do believe in Registration and Background Checks and 28 day waiting periods. I believe in requiring classes and acquiring a license to carry concealed. I don't believe in forcing people to pay for an annual gun permit. I don't have to pay for an annual voting permit or an annual free speech permit, and the only reason I buy into the validity of paying an annual tag fee for my motor vehicle is that I drive it on public roads. Otherwise I'd call bullshit.
My big problem with the entire debate over gun control is that it's such an unimportant issue. Gun Deaths account for approximately 1% of all deaths in the US, and two thirds of those are suicides. Gun related homicides... or homicides in general, are the 15th leading cause of death... and that's not saying much. That means if we judge the seriousness of an issue by how many deaths it causes, there are 14 more important issues to tackle than Guns.
In an ideal world, we could all live in peace and there wouldn't be any huge social issues to tackle... but it's not. The issue of Gun Control isn't nearly as important as all the other social woes we have. If I had to rate the top twenty socio-political issues of the day based upon their threat value, gun control wouldn't make the list. The fact of the matter is that homicide rates have been falling steadily for years, both in pure numbers and as a percentage of the population. My point is that we don't need changes in Gun Control laws to make society a safer place. Some changes would be nice, but they aren't needed... and there is a risk in any new regulation. By and large, I don't think criminalization works. I think education and addressing the underlying causes work far better.
One foot note: Every time the ACLU argues against the infringement of civil liberties, it argues a Slippery Slope. I'm not bashing the ACLU. I love those guys. But with Human Rights, of which The Right to Bear Arms is one, sometimes you have to paint a worst case scenario to make your point and to make it stick. Rhetoric and Logic are friends, but they don't see eye to eye on all cases. You have to pick your means of making a point. After all, political cartoons are valid Rhetoric, but almost all of them are Reducto ad Ridiculum. And, let us be clear, every single argument that we need stronger gun control laws to stop school shootings are examples of "For the Children" arguments.
In closing, let me just say that yes, America has problems, and they need solving, and those solutions are only going to come from Americans of all walks of life working together. But the bullshit media sensations and cause of the day crap like this doesn't help. It hurts. It drives wedges between factions and distracts us from serious work. It diverts us from worrying about the larger issues, such as the underlying causes of crime. We can't make our society great from the top down and we can't make our society stand if the foundations aren't strong. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of our society, rebuild the middle class and lift the working class out of abject poverty before the whole damned mess falls down around our heads.
"ParaNorman" or "How to Bludgeon your Kids with a Message"
4/10 stars.
ParaNorman is a movie with a message. That message is Listening to
Others is good. Fair enough. Good Message. But this movie isn't good.
It's lousy. It hits you over the head with the message that no one
listens to poor Norman and Norman doesn't listen to other people... in
the first ten minutes. It then proceeds to reinforce that message by
clubbing you upside the skull every couple of minutes with further
examples of failed communication, inattentive parents & teachers, and
over the top mockery.
The movie also makes a stand against reactionary mob mentality, both in
the 300 year old judicial murder of the 11 year old "witch" of town
fame and the modern townfolk's panic at the rise of 7 zombies who hurt
absolutely no one. And why does all this happen? Weren't you listening?
Because no one is Listening!
That said, the humor isn't funny, the acting isn't interesting, and the
visuals? meh. They look like Jimmy Neutron, but less so. The claymation is okayish, but nothing compared to Chicken Run, Wallace and Gromit, or the Tim Burton Trilogy (Nightmare before Christmas, Corpse Bride, and Frankenweenie.)
I just can't recommend this movie to anyone. I don't think it's a good kids movie and I don't want to subject parents to it.
ParaNorman is a movie with a message. That message is Listening to
Others is good. Fair enough. Good Message. But this movie isn't good.
It's lousy. It hits you over the head with the message that no one
listens to poor Norman and Norman doesn't listen to other people... in
the first ten minutes. It then proceeds to reinforce that message by
clubbing you upside the skull every couple of minutes with further
examples of failed communication, inattentive parents & teachers, and
over the top mockery.
The movie also makes a stand against reactionary mob mentality, both in
the 300 year old judicial murder of the 11 year old "witch" of town
fame and the modern townfolk's panic at the rise of 7 zombies who hurt
absolutely no one. And why does all this happen? Weren't you listening?
Because no one is Listening!
That said, the humor isn't funny, the acting isn't interesting, and the
visuals? meh. They look like Jimmy Neutron, but less so. The claymation is okayish, but nothing compared to Chicken Run, Wallace and Gromit, or the Tim Burton Trilogy (Nightmare before Christmas, Corpse Bride, and Frankenweenie.)
I just can't recommend this movie to anyone. I don't think it's a good kids movie and I don't want to subject parents to it.
On Cloud Atlas
I'm not sure how to best convey just how remarkable Cloud Atlas is. It, like The Fountain before it, redefines just how good, how pure the movie experience can be. There simply isn't a single moment of this movie that was not utterly captivating, not one flaw in its presentation, direction, acting, or script. Not a single note rang false.
It is a profoundly sad movie, presenting a litany of the worst crimes of humanity; from sexism and racism and fanaticism to theft and betrayal to slavery, murder, cannibalism, and genocide... and yet it is a hopeful and profoundly glorious film as well, for it shows humanity at it's best, when we are humble, when we love each other, when we do what is right even though it cost us everything. It's message is simple... tyranny must not stand and freedom will prevail, for nothing is more important.
If I have any complaints about the movie, they are these: Poor Hugo Weaving, for in all the time periods of this movie, he plays not a single noble soul. The other complain is perhaps a silly one... I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully grasp every layer of this movie, even were I to watch it a hundred times. I suspect I'd keep finding new depths and new meanings.
I can honestly say that it is the best movie I've seen this year... although I haven't seen Les Mis or Django Unchained yet.
Still, I'm appalled that the Golden Globes didn't nominate this movie for Best Ensemble, Best Script, Best Director, Best Film, and Best Actress for Halle Berry. Best Actor nods for Jim Broadbent and Tom Hanks would not have been out of line either, and Hugo Weaving certainly deserved one for Best Supporting Actor.
It is a profoundly sad movie, presenting a litany of the worst crimes of humanity; from sexism and racism and fanaticism to theft and betrayal to slavery, murder, cannibalism, and genocide... and yet it is a hopeful and profoundly glorious film as well, for it shows humanity at it's best, when we are humble, when we love each other, when we do what is right even though it cost us everything. It's message is simple... tyranny must not stand and freedom will prevail, for nothing is more important.
If I have any complaints about the movie, they are these: Poor Hugo Weaving, for in all the time periods of this movie, he plays not a single noble soul. The other complain is perhaps a silly one... I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully grasp every layer of this movie, even were I to watch it a hundred times. I suspect I'd keep finding new depths and new meanings.
I can honestly say that it is the best movie I've seen this year... although I haven't seen Les Mis or Django Unchained yet.
Still, I'm appalled that the Golden Globes didn't nominate this movie for Best Ensemble, Best Script, Best Director, Best Film, and Best Actress for Halle Berry. Best Actor nods for Jim Broadbent and Tom Hanks would not have been out of line either, and Hugo Weaving certainly deserved one for Best Supporting Actor.
Guns and Suicide
The US ranks 38th in the world for suicides of all kinds at about 12 per 100,000 people. Japan, where there are an average of 8 gun deaths a year... it ranks 7th, with twice that many. So, yeah, guns may make suicide easier, but that didn't stop more than 40,000 Japanese from killing themselves last year without them. And even in Lithuania, Global leader in Suicide rates at a massive 31.6 suicides per 100,000 people? It's gun deaths were 1.6 per hundred thousand, of which the majority (2 out of every 3, were suicides.) So let's cool it with the use of Suicide numbers to boost the Gun Death Numbers, shall we? Let's only talk about the Homicides.
I know, I know, there are also accidental gun deaths. In the US they average less than half of 1% of all accidental deaths.
But Yes, homicides almost entirely use guns. If you want to argue Gun Deaths, use Homicides. In 2009 there were 16,799 Homicides in the US. Of them 11,493 were firearm related. That's the number. 5.5 human beings per 100,000 were murdered in 2009. 3.7 human beings per 100,000 were murdered with guns. That's the figure you want. Now here's the number you don't want. Rifles including Assault Rifles because the FBI statistics don't differentiate, were used to murder 348 people. There are between 10 and 30 million Assault Rifles in private hands in the US. That means that the remaining 11,145 were either shotguns or handguns. And estimates of the percentage of homicides that are performed with guns obtained illegally in the US ranges from between 50% and 95%.
So make no mistake, if you're serious about wiping out gun related homicide, you aren't talking about an Assault Rifle Ban. You're talking about a Universal Gun Ban. A ban which would require a constitutional amendment. A ban that would be opposed by, at the very least the 83 million Americans who legally own guns... almost all of whom vote. And no, not all of them are rednecks, tea party members, or even republicans. There are 315 million people in the US, of whom 219 are eligible to vote. 83 is about 38% percent of 219. Of those 219, only about 126 million voted in the last presidential election. To get an Amendment to pass you need a Super Majority of states or the Electorate to pass it. A Universal Gun Ban is simply not going to happen.
So continue trying to stop gun related violence by banning Assault Rifles, but realize you're trying to get rid of something that kills fewer people each year than choking on a bone. All those millions of dollars and thousand of man-hours and who knows how much political capital wasted that could have been spent working for better teacher salaries, better schools, better anti-drug education, better health care, better roads, better law enforcement and fire responder training, and even better health and safety regulations to help protect people against these senseless deaths.
Stop trying to take away the Assault Rifles. Stop trying to get guns banned and work to convince the gun owners that they and their loved ones will be safer if they work with you to make sure that every gun purchased has a 28 day waiting period, a background check, and a state and federal registration. Offer to eliminate licensing fees in exchange for compulsory licensing. Try and reach an accommodation with the gun owners, because the more you demonize them the more they are going to resist. But all gun owners hear from the anti-gun crowd is "Guns are evil, no one should have guns." Is it any wonder they think you want to take them away?
I know, I know, there are also accidental gun deaths. In the US they average less than half of 1% of all accidental deaths.
But Yes, homicides almost entirely use guns. If you want to argue Gun Deaths, use Homicides. In 2009 there were 16,799 Homicides in the US. Of them 11,493 were firearm related. That's the number. 5.5 human beings per 100,000 were murdered in 2009. 3.7 human beings per 100,000 were murdered with guns. That's the figure you want. Now here's the number you don't want. Rifles including Assault Rifles because the FBI statistics don't differentiate, were used to murder 348 people. There are between 10 and 30 million Assault Rifles in private hands in the US. That means that the remaining 11,145 were either shotguns or handguns. And estimates of the percentage of homicides that are performed with guns obtained illegally in the US ranges from between 50% and 95%.
So make no mistake, if you're serious about wiping out gun related homicide, you aren't talking about an Assault Rifle Ban. You're talking about a Universal Gun Ban. A ban which would require a constitutional amendment. A ban that would be opposed by, at the very least the 83 million Americans who legally own guns... almost all of whom vote. And no, not all of them are rednecks, tea party members, or even republicans. There are 315 million people in the US, of whom 219 are eligible to vote. 83 is about 38% percent of 219. Of those 219, only about 126 million voted in the last presidential election. To get an Amendment to pass you need a Super Majority of states or the Electorate to pass it. A Universal Gun Ban is simply not going to happen.
So continue trying to stop gun related violence by banning Assault Rifles, but realize you're trying to get rid of something that kills fewer people each year than choking on a bone. All those millions of dollars and thousand of man-hours and who knows how much political capital wasted that could have been spent working for better teacher salaries, better schools, better anti-drug education, better health care, better roads, better law enforcement and fire responder training, and even better health and safety regulations to help protect people against these senseless deaths.
Stop trying to take away the Assault Rifles. Stop trying to get guns banned and work to convince the gun owners that they and their loved ones will be safer if they work with you to make sure that every gun purchased has a 28 day waiting period, a background check, and a state and federal registration. Offer to eliminate licensing fees in exchange for compulsory licensing. Try and reach an accommodation with the gun owners, because the more you demonize them the more they are going to resist. But all gun owners hear from the anti-gun crowd is "Guns are evil, no one should have guns." Is it any wonder they think you want to take them away?
On Deaths by the Gun
Apparently, in 2009, in the US there were 10.2 gun deaths for every 100,000 people, of which 3.7 were homicides, 6.1 were suicides, and 0.2 were accidents. That works out to about 610 accidental fire arm deaths, 11,285 homicides, and 18,605 suicides... of a population of 305,000,000. That's according to government agencies. Now, according to the CDC in that year, there were 118,021 accidental deaths of which 610 were fire arms related, or about 0.5%. Suicides accounted for 36,909 deaths that year, so about half were gun related. 11,285 homicides is a lot... but the leading causes of death in the US in 2009 were Nephritis (and related issues) at 49,000; Diabetes at 69,000; Alzheimer's at 79,000; Stroke at 129,000; Chronic Respiratory Diseases 137,000; Cancer at 568,000; and Heart Disease at a whopping 599,000.
What's my point? Instead of trying to pass gun laws or trying to spend 18,000,000,000 dollars putting cops in every school... how about we spend our time and effort and money worrying about real killers and shoring up Health Care? Diabetes alone kills 3.5x as many people as guns and we don't try legislating how much sugar people can get access to and we barely touch food preservatives and fatty foods, all of which contribute. Alzheimer's is linked to Aluminum, so conclusively that the EU bans it's use in cooking pots, but we don't ban them. Drunk Drivers killed 10,839 people in 2009. That's about 300 hundred less than were killed by gun related homicide. Where the fuck is the outrage?
Yes, Sandy Hook was a bloody tragedy, and yes Adam Lanza was a colossal asshole who deserves to burn in hell for what he did, no matter how messed up he was by his drugs or his mental problems. But it was the act of a lunatic and every single outraged "They're going to take our guns" or "We should ban assault rifles!" or "Japan / Scottland / Switzerland / Israel doesn't have these gun death rates" isn't helping. And the major reason is that this isn't that big an issue. Gun Deaths account for about 1% of all deaths in the US. let me repeat that GUN DEATHS ACCOUNT FOR ONLY ABOUT 1% OF ALL DEATHS IN THE US! Heart disease accounts for about 33% Which of these sounds like a serious emergency?
What's my point? Instead of trying to pass gun laws or trying to spend 18,000,000,000 dollars putting cops in every school... how about we spend our time and effort and money worrying about real killers and shoring up Health Care? Diabetes alone kills 3.5x as many people as guns and we don't try legislating how much sugar people can get access to and we barely touch food preservatives and fatty foods, all of which contribute. Alzheimer's is linked to Aluminum, so conclusively that the EU bans it's use in cooking pots, but we don't ban them. Drunk Drivers killed 10,839 people in 2009. That's about 300 hundred less than were killed by gun related homicide. Where the fuck is the outrage?
Yes, Sandy Hook was a bloody tragedy, and yes Adam Lanza was a colossal asshole who deserves to burn in hell for what he did, no matter how messed up he was by his drugs or his mental problems. But it was the act of a lunatic and every single outraged "They're going to take our guns" or "We should ban assault rifles!" or "Japan / Scottland / Switzerland / Israel doesn't have these gun death rates" isn't helping. And the major reason is that this isn't that big an issue. Gun Deaths account for about 1% of all deaths in the US. let me repeat that GUN DEATHS ACCOUNT FOR ONLY ABOUT 1% OF ALL DEATHS IN THE US! Heart disease accounts for about 33% Which of these sounds like a serious emergency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)