We should apologize

As we are all too painfully aware, one of Mitt Romney's most persistent lies during this campaign season is that Obama went on an "apology tour" after he was elected.  That he traveled around the Middle East and apologized for past actions of the United States.  

The response to this claim has been nearly universal: it is a lie.  Democrats and their affiliates have pushed back against this lie with great vigor.  

The response we’re not hearing, however, is the fact that we should apologize.  Or, the fact that this machismo "no apologies" bullshit being peddled by the right wing noise machine is bad for our culture.  That it hurts us, it hurts the world, it prevents us from being the nation we should be, and that it sets a bad example for all generations. (That’s right, I played the "think of the children!" card)

So let's cut to the chase, the bottom-line that can’t be refuted and should be pointed out by those on the left:

People are dead because the United States fucked up.

Before storming on with my angry rant.  We should take a moment to let that sink in.  Human beings are dead.  Their loved ones grieve them still.  And, if it matters, if it sinks in deeper, many of these people were American soldiers, they were ours.  Our country and our leaders owed them a duty to give them our best, because they promised to give us theirs, and we fucking failed.  And, there were other soldiers of others countries, civilians, children, parents, fiancées, spouses, teachers, neighbors, security officers, public officials . . . dead, when they didn’t have to be, when they shouldn’t be.  

Are we really so arrogant and full of bluster that we not only refuse to apologize for that FACT, but we act like the very notion that someone might think about saying something that could remotely be interpreted as an apology is shameful.  

You know what is shameful?  Someone who hurts people and won't even offer them the dignity of an apology (let alone reassurance that it won't happen again).  

Anyone who is moderately informed (or over the age of 26 and with a functioning memory) should be able to agree on some basic facts:

•    the invasion of Iraq was based on the claim that there were wmd's (even if the right later tried to etch a sketch the reason into removing Saddam)
•    there were not the wmd's we thought and claimed there were
•    the invasion of Afghanistan was screwed up when we failed to secure Osama Bin Laden early in the conflict
•    the failure to kill Bin Laden early in the conflict extended the Afghanistan conflict's timeline and scope
•    we failed to commit enough troops to the early occupation of Iraq
•    that failure resulted in extending the conflicts timeline and scope and required the later "surge" of troops
•    as a result of these tactical and policy errors people died.

It doesn't really matter if you believe the Iraq or Afghanistan wars were mistakes or not.  Everyone should be able to agree that mistakes were made, at the very least, in the implementation of these wars.  

So what do you do if your screw up causes hurt to others?  What do we teach every single human being at the youngest of ages to do?  You fucking apologize.  

You say "I'm sorry, it will not happen again."  and you MEAN it.  The concept is in every kindergarten and pre-school in the country, but the notion of it sends our highest elected officials into fits of denial and finger pointing? Seriously? Fuck those assholes.  

And yet I don’t seem to see any media voices push back on this issue at all.  It’s not a difficult concept, it is directly and easily analogous to events we face in our own lives.  

The examples are not difficult to think up:

•    Say you think a traffic light is green and you hit and injure someone, but later video evidence proves that the light was red.  What do you do? Apologize.
•    Say you start a business venture and convince a bunch of friends to invest in it, but then you mismanage it and they lose a bunch of money.  What do you do? Apologize.
•    Or maybe your juice box is stolen and you think Timmy stole it so you punch him, but then it turns out he didn't.  and then you engage in two poorly executed simultaneous wars which result in the horrific deaths of hundreds of thousands.  what's the next step here guys? Fucking Apologize.

We literally expect toddlers to understand this concept, this is not complicated policy mumbo jumbo.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are poisoning our culture with their apology tour bullshit.  Like so much in political discourse it isn't just about winning elections.  The idea they are pushing is that apology is weakness.  That only cowards acknowledge mistakes. When we all know that it's the exact opposite.  
Maybe it’s time we say it aloud.  That maybe the greatest nation in the world should be able to stand the fuck up and say “we made mistakes, and we are sorry to those who have been hurt by them.  We have always and will always strive to be better and to learn from history.”

This idea that apology is weakness is only bolstered by the Democrats' cries of "he didn't apologize!" – the lie is countered, the election may be one, but our culture takes one step closer to the dark side.    

The Obama campaign has an election to win, and they need to stay on target and can't be fighting ideological battles.  But people on the left need to stand up and fight those battles for them.  

That means we should be pointing out that we know Obama didn't apologize for the United States, because those of us on the left are upset at him about it, because we should.

The Psychological Power of Guns shouldn't be ignored

[shorter version: guns don't kill people, people kill people; but, if we think about the psychology behind guns, we will come to the realization that guns are about power, not action]

The intake for the water line was clogged.  This meant a hike 900 feet up into the hills behind our cabin in order to clear the intake filter.  We brought the shotgun.  It was pretty unlikely that we would encounter a bear, but better to have and not need, and all that.

Gun use and gun safety was one of the first things we ran through after getting off our float plane and dropping our bags in the fishing cabin, that would be our home for the next three months, on the south end of Kodiak, Island.  I had grown up around commercial fishing, bears, and guns, but my long time friend and co-crewman had not.  So a gun lesson was high on the list of to-do's before my father left, and the two of us were left to fend for ourselves. 

Kodiak Island is home to the largest bears in the world.  As salmon and berry eaters, they don't have to be dangerous, but as enormous wild animals they certainly are.  I am a fairly large athletic guy, but the weight ratio between an average Kodiak Bear and me is the same as the weight ratio between me and a two year old toddler.

The short hike up our waterline was not bear country.  The bears should be up at the streams, eating their fill of salmon.  But, we had specifically switched to using black electrical tape on the water line instead of silver duct tape because the duct tape seemed to attact the attention of wandering bears, and result in bite damage, bears could wander to this area. 

When we reached the water line I handed the shotgun to my friend and began clearing the filter.  That's when he said it:

"I could kill any animal on earth right now."

I looked at him, and saw that the statement was made, not in bloodlust, but in astonishment.  He was right.  A 12 gauge loaded with 8 slugs packed a lot of potential punch.  Now, I don't know how it would do against a bull elephant, or charging rhino, but that wasn't the point.  The point with this simple tool my friend was transformed from a slow, awkward ape with a large brain, to a contestant for most powerful animal on earth. 

There are a lot of fantasy stories which center around the corrupting influence of power.  In the fantasy setting it usually takes the form of an item of great power which the good guys must destroy.  Inevitably someone suggests that they use this item for good, to defeat the big bad.  It is just a 'tool' after all, surely they could harness it.  But the item has a corrupting influence, it cannot be used for good, not because of some innate feature of the 'tool,' but because of the influence it has in the mind of the wielder. 

In the super hero setting the source of power cannot be destroyed.  Instead it must be harnessed, and most super heroes get an early lesson in the corrupting influence of their power.  Learning that they have to respect their power, and that there will always be a temptation to abuse it.  Those who don't learn this lesson become villains, lured away by the corrupting influence of power.

Power is intoxicating, and meant to be used.  Power wants to be used. 

So you see, my friend wanted a bear to attack us, and so did I. 

Throughout my life I've killed dozens of bears.  I've rescued my family, friends and strangers from vicious bear attacks.  My friend and I were charged by bears numerous times while cleaning the water filter, and each time I was forced to use my training and save us from the charging animal.  Because, when you're warned that something terrible could happen, and when you're prepared, a part of you, sometimes a large part, wants that thing to happen.  You see it, you picture it, you act it.  It's part of being ready.  Even if it never actually happens outside of your own mind, it happens. 

I don't know what happened during the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.  But I do know that Zimmerman wanted to be attacked that night.  Because I know what it is to carry a gun.  More specifically, I know what it is to fear something and to no longer fear it because you're carrying a gun.  Zimmerman had shot Trayvon lots of times before that fateful night.  He'd shot him to stop robberies and burglaries.  He'd shot him defending himself, and he'd shot him defending others.  He was ready.  He had a gun.  He was the most powerful thing on earth. 

Spend time with people who spend significant time in rural Alaska and you'll find a common approach to nature: respect.  The best bush pilots know not to test the weather, the best boat captains know when to stay in harbor and all Alaskans know that you don't mess with bear safety.  The so called "Grizzly Man" was a source of fascination for many.  But in Alaska he's a fool who lacked proper respect for the 'wild' part of 'wild-animals,' and his lack of respect got someone else killed.  But this respect is just a recognition that you're dealing with something much more powerful than yourself and your tools. 

Nature makes us feel our own powerlessness.  Everyone in rural areas knows of someone who has fallen victim to the merciless cruelty of the great outdoors.  A plane crash, freezing waters, and yes, the occasional bear mauling.

But there are those moments when nature makes you feel invincible.  Standing strong in the path of something furious, something truly mighty, is empowering.  Being at sea in a storm, having your tent hold up to powerful winds, reaching the peak of an intimidating mountain, and yes, facing down a charging bear - gun in hand. 

Most of us, of course, do not live in anything that could be described as wilderness.  But, we do live in just as intimidating environments.  The truth is that life is fragile, and that many of us are powerless.  A big city, a big nation, a crowded highway, a cruel economic system, can cast us aside or smash us under its heel as easily as a winter storm or 1200 lb. animal.  An emperor, king or dictator wields impossible power, you can no more stand up against that, as a naked individual, as you can stand up against the ocean. 

Guns are a tool.  A tool designed for killing.  That's their design, but their effect is to dramatically transform the power of the wielder.  Hold a gun, and you are capable of anything.  Therein lies the true power of the tool.  There in lies it's corrupting influence.  Therein lies the fantasy.  When you hold a gun you secretly hope you're attacked by a bear.  You secretly hope someone attacks your family.  Because if that happens, you can stop it, you can stop it with your gun. 

The intoxicating psychological effect of a gun is central to our discussions about them, and too often ignored.  Guns are tools of power.  Some tools are purchased to be used.  You buy a table saw to cut wood.  If you never need to cut wood, you don't buy a table saw.  But a gun serves a powerful purpose without ever being used.  In all those hikes up that waterline, we never fired a single shot.  But in all those hikes up that waterline, the gun we brought served its purpose.   

If you face a bear attack, without a gun, your best option is to play dead.  Lay down, don't move, and hope the bear loses interest before inflicting too much damage.  You cannot run from a bear, they run faster than quarter horses.  You cannot out climb a bear, they are quite effective climbers.  Running downhill from a bear will not cause it to tumble head over heels and facilitate your escape.  Play dead, hope the bear buys it, and live.  It's not the kind of scenario that allows for heroics, even in one's imagination.  Bear attacks may be extremely rare, (until just last week there had never been a person killed by a bear in Denali National Park in Alaska) but they happen all the time in the minds of hikers and campers.  You look into the brush around you and think "what if . . ."  Without a gun, that imagined scenario should always end with you laying still, trying not to move, waiting for the danger to pass on its own.

You can't fight a revolution against modern military technology with an automatic rifle.  But if you have a gun you're never forced to play dead when you ask the question "what if . . .."  When you have a gun you can create any number of scenarios, any number of possibilities can answer that question.  The gun has transformed you from powerless peon in an impossibly large system, to the most powerful animal on earth. 

The low probability of needing a gun does nothing to change this psychology of power.  If I tell a gun owner that he is extremely unlikely to need a gun to defend his home from burglars, his person from muggers, or his neighborhood from "suspicious" characters, how is that different than telling me and my friend, walking along that water line, that we really weren't in an area bears traveled.  We weren't.  But what will we think we ponder "what if . . ." 

And if I point out to that gun owner that they are so powerless, so insignificant, that even with their gun, they could not stand against a modern military, that their tool of empowerment is futile, aren't I just reinforcing the very feeling of impotence in the modern world that the gun serves to counter?  If the gun is a tool which primarily creates a feeling of power, how could I possibly undo the gun's hold on our culture by more emphatically pointing out just how powerless we all are?

Gun culture is not built on the need of guns.  Guns are designed to kill.  It's preposterously rare for any of us to need to kill anything, and yes, that includes bears in bear country.  Gun culture is built on the feeling of powerlessness we all feel in the face of things larger than ourselves, be they mountains or be they governments. 

Sometimes, late at night, I contemplate whether I should have a gun for home safety.  Sure, I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood, but I'm responsible, I'm careful, and it's better to have and not need, than to need and not have, isn't it?  What options would I have if someone broke into my home, if someone attacked my family, except to play dead, except to hope the danger passes without choosing to do too much harm? 

The truth is that I haven't held a loaded weapon in several years now. The guns are safely stored, locked away, far from where I live. The ammo somewhere entirely different. But, you see, my gun makes me feel powerful.  With it there is no danger on this earth that I couldn't give a run for its money.  Sure, that's not technically true.  But if it feels true, it doesn't really matter does it?  It's not like I actually think black helicopters will come for me, or that armed criminals will assault my home, so it doesn't matter what my actual chances would be.  It matters how I feel.

To change gun culture, we have to change the way people feel, not the way they think. 

Murder Insurance

Well, the title may be a bit strong, but NRA members are being encouraged to purchase exclusive 'self defense' insurance.  The insurance would cover civil and criminal legal fees for shooting someone in self defense.  Although it should be noted that you only get your criminal fees back if you are acquited or the charges are dropped.  So, y'know, it's only a little crazy, not totally crazy. 

I would like to take this opportunity to launch my far less expensive "don't shoot people"(tm) defense plan.  If you pay me just $50 a year I will send you a daily email which states:

Do not shoot anyone today.  Yes, even if they are trying to take your stuff.  If you think someone wants to hurt you, try going somewhere where they are not. 

As an added bonus to the plan, if you actively retreat from someone and they track you down with a deadly weapon and you are forced to shoot them, and you are still prosecuted with a crime, then I will personally fly to your location and take the bar exam in your state and defend you for free. 

This deal is too good to pass up.  Please send me my free money now. 

The Friend Zone is Bullshit

As someone who used to suffer from being 'friend zoned' and felt wronged by it as a 'nice guy' I'm appalled that I was unable to see that the entire idea behind the friend zone relies on the primary value a woman has to offer a man being her vagina, and that if she refuses to offer up that vagina in reward for patient friendship she is somehow wronging the male friend. 

Nearly half of Americans creationists

This poll from Gallup finds that 46% of Americans believe God created human beings in their current form. 

My first reaction to this poll is to think that there's something in the question itself skewing the results.  It has been shown time and time again that the phrasing of a poll question can dramatically change the results. 

Certainly most Americans believe that God guided human evolution . . . so that kind of belief is getting mixed into these results.  So let's look at the exact question asked by Gallup:

So, lets look at the answer 46% of American respondents gave:

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Again:

. . . within the last 10,000 years or so . . .

So, ok, this isn't some polling error.  This is the response people gave.  46% of people asked feel that people were created in their current form sometime after the oldest cave paintings, or petroglyphs. 

My second reaction to this poll is to wonder who these people are.  Where are these 46%?  It accents to me exactly how insulated I am from a huge portion of American culture.  I just don't regularly encounter nearly half of the people who live in this country.  At least I hope I don't, because I would not hesitate at a dinner party conversation about politics or science to openly state that creationism is a preposterous position.  Apparently I would be insulting 4-5 out of every 10 people. 

My final reaction is to tell myself that many of these respondents are just defying the position they are "supposed" to have.  So that this response is more about defying authority than it is about actual ignorance on the topic.

It's not a good choice.  Either a huge portion of the population is amazingly ignorant about basic human history, or a huge portion of the population feels a desire to express ignorance as a way to say 'you can't tell me what to think' to scientists and pointy headed intellectual liberals.

The Catholic Church embraced evolution as part of God's grand plan in 1996, the end of a road started in 1950.  It amazes me that the American populace can't seem to catch up. 

On Hate Crimes

This is a standard argument against hate crimes. And I think there's some merit into it, but it's ultimately incomplete and really leaves the case for hate crime legislation hanging.

I think he's blurring a few issues here. Hate crimes legislation doesn't intend to perfect human nature, it seeks to distinguish crimes that are, in my opinion, meaningfully different. I think the term "hate crimes" seems to focus too much on the emotion and belief of the perpatrator; the real focus should be on the intended effects of the crime, and therefore, I'd just call almost all hate crimes "terrorism."

First, Hate Crimes law has never been about regulating speech or belief. Neither is constitutionally permissible or and the latter isn't possible anyway. You're free to go to Klan rallies or Pentecostal churches or neo-Nazi meetings and say whatever you want. Keller says that "the government is authorized to punish you for thinking those vile things, if you think them in the course of committing a crime," but that's not exactly true. The government is authorize to punish you not for thinking those vile things but for committing an act motivated by those vile things. Similarly, you can be punished differently for a murder intended to eliminate a witness, and we're not surprised that your thoughts, intents, and motivation affect your sentence. If your motivation is independent, you're off the hook, at least on that wing.

He also spends too little time on the point that hate crimes are different because they terrorize an entire community, saying that any crime will instill fear in neighbors. True, all crimes do that, but all crimes are not intended to do that, and I think that's a very important difference. If you break every window of every synogogue in a five mile radius, your act has a fundamentally different effect than if you're just causing random mayhem. You are aiming your gun at people not present, and illegally coercing them. You create a very real and immediate threat of violence to those who aren't your victim, and it's not a side effect but your intended act. That's a real problem, and not one that's captured if we treat all acts of vandalism equally without noting these community effects. Furthermore, you're either tacitly or explicitly recruiting by acting this way. Perpatrators of hate crimes don't see themselves as criminals, like a mugger does, but as heroes. When uncaught, they seek to define their acts as those of the community, and when captured, they hope to be a martyr to the cause and inspire others to match them. Again, these aren't true of ordinary crimes.

He then skips past arguments that we must protect the vulnerable by pointing out others are vulnerable, too, and we don't protect them. But we do! And I'd happily argue that we should expand those protections. And we never have hesitated to punish pedophiles differently and worse than other sex criminals. We're happy to pick out these motivations and bring down more justice.

This is another red herring: "The distinction Hurd makes — convincingly, I think — is that when you penalize intent you are punishing matters of choice. One can choose not to pull the trigger, not to throw the rock, not to steal the purse. 'You can’t choose not to be prejudiced or biased — at least not willy-nilly, on the spot.'" No, you can't choose not to be bigoted. Not really. But we're not really asking citizens to forbear their bigotry. We're asking them not to commit crimes motivated by bigotry, to keep their bigotry nonviolent. And that's far from an impossible task.There are patterns of violence which you can't participate in and pretend they're outside the pattern. They're manifestly different crimes. And sure, we can't execute people twice, so to some extent, hate-crime-murders aren't really important, it's all the other crimes where there's a scale to be made. But this isn't about trying to convert the hateful. It's about restraining behaviors to remove specific threats to the peace which differ from their underlying crimes.

Great Video