Putting democracy in the cross hairs

I roused from a late afternoon rest to see Twitter declaring the Rep Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona had been assassinated. Then I saw that maybe she wasn't dead. But quite a few other people were. Tragic. Absolutely tragic on so many levels. It need almost go without saying that murder is horrible. And mass murder is vile. But there's something particularly tragic about the slaying of people who were participating in our democracy - as representatives, as aides, as supporters and I dare say as dissenters. Without a doubt among those killed and injured will be someone who disagreed with the politics of Representative Giffords and was there to let her know. To spray bullets on such a gathering is an attack on orderly, peaceful representative democracy. To kill the chance of ordinary people getting close to their representatives. I hope that everyone injured in today's shooting recovers quickly.

But what I also saw on Twitter was quick condemnation of Sarah Palin and rhetoric which borrows heavily from text of Guns n' Ammo. Yep, Ms Palin is certainly one to rouse emotions. I'm not a fan of her approach generally and I disagree with her on pretty much every political stand she takes. But she didn't pull the trigger. Yes, apparently she put Rep Giffords in the cross hairs on her website. In retrospect, it seems more than inappropriate. But a target seat is still a target seat. Everyone uses language like that. Everyone talks about picking off vulnerable opponents and some talk of political hit lists. I don't know how common cross-hairs are for political maps, but I wouldn't be surprised to see flames and bulls-eyes. Maybe we need a slightly different discourse. And we mustn't tolerate anything which goes further than this.

It takes a nut job to actually carry even extreme rhetoric to action. But sadly there's no lack of people who are willing to step up to the plate. From the recent assassination in Pakistan, to the stabbing of Stephen Timms. Call for violent action loud enough and often enough, even in the guise of metaphor, and someone will hear the call.

For sure, politics is a rough sport. And I wouldn't for a second wish to curtail freedom of speech. But surely we can all do more to counter aggressive, violent speech. To shun it. To repudiate it. To not tolerate or cosset it. No matter whom it's targeted against, as it lowers the tone for all of us. And that includes harsh responses, labelling Sarah Palin a murderer and demanding retribution.

And a similar post from a local politician I've met.

Sara Bedford blogs as well.

It's in the blood

Following the tragic shootings at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church many folk have posited reasons and rationales for the motives of a madman. (Talk radio, lack of mental health services, and so on...)

John Dolan, writing at Alternet, suggests that it's something in the blood. That maybe it's something about being the descendant of those brave pioneers, the Ulster settlers.

maybe, just maybe, heartland Americans aren't such wonderful people at all. What you see in these posts is the oldest, deepest and meanest strain in American culture: the Ulster America founded by violent sectarians who moved westward again and again, from Scotland to Northern Ireland and then to the southern United States, then again westward into the American continent, to find a place where they could hone their hair-trigger intolerance without fear of interference from warmer, more humorous people.

Reading that, some part of me wants to slash his fuckin' tires.

And while I can recognise some kernel of truth in his statement and even take some pride as being part of a culture that's the oldest, deepest and meanest, he destroys his own argument by implying that the Scots-Irish are somehow not warm or not humorous. Not funny? How can he say that? Has he not seen the Jeff Foxworthy "You know you're a redneck if..." sketch?

-0-

On a serious note, I've rarely met warmer, more side-splittingly funny people than those steeped in the Ulster tradition in America. Tennesseans, and in particular those Tennessee boys who keep their humor powder dry, coming out with those corking, cutting one-liners are absolutely without par in the funny stakes. The gals are hilarious, too - though men you may not know this - sometimes they're only at their best outside mixed company.


-0-

On a more serious note, what a bunch of racist hooey. Sadly, it's we humans who are savages.

I never found that the Unitarian Universalist approach appealed much to me, but their statements of purpose seem to me to be a noble attempt to overcome that savage side of human nature (from Wikipedia):

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

And I've no doubt that UUs in general, and the Knoxville congregants in particular (many of whom must be also Scots-Irish to some greater or lesser extent) would completely reject Dolan's flippant, easy aspersions.

Surprised

I'm a little bit surprised that the British media hasn't made more of the Knoxville church shooting. After previous rampages, colleagues have asked me about it. This time they hadn't heard. I thought the story hit most of the elements the British media like to cover in American culture - churches and guns. Maybe they just passed it off as "that's what Americans do - shoot each other, at prayer."

It's not that it was completely ignored. The BBC covered it with a headline:

US church killer 'hated liberals'

And I thought, well - I guess he went to the right place, then.

I've been to church myself, attended services there. Everyone was very friendly. The setting was lovely. A nice bunch of people who didn't deserve that. It's hard to imagine someone wanting to bust in on church services there with a gun. But then, I have a hard time imagining why people to do lots of things.

I can't imagine, too, why people would hate liberals so much. It's become like some national sport. Blame the liberals. It's not that I don't think a lot can go wrong when you have gushy leftist policies, but honestly - I think most of the liberals I know really do mean well. They do try to cover up their own outward meanness - which isn't the worst thing you could do. It's not as bad as shooting up a children's play - in a church.

I feel for her, I kinda do

I'm no fan of Naomi Campbell. I think celebrities get away with far too much and appalling, base, rude behavior is excused and overlooked far too often.

Ms Campbell's behavior has been consistently appalling, assaulting maids, suing the press, throwing fits and on and on.

And, of course, there's really no excuse for spitting in the face of a police officer. At the very least it's a stupid thing to do.

But having had my own blood-boiling run-ins with Heathrow staff, understanding that the newly opened Terminal Five is a cluster-fuck of enormous proportions, and seeing the mountain of lost luggage*, I must admit I felt more than a twinge of sympathy.


_________
*btw, all that lost luggage is auctioned off within walking distance from my house. I've never been to the auction, but I've always wanted to go.

Dog bites child

The NHS is reporting a 40% increase in dog bites over the last four years, but in London the number of dog bites has doubled. Children under the age of 9 are the most frequent victims.

According to a BBC story this morning:

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, called for more to be done to make people aware of the risks of irresponsible dog ownership.

The Liberal Democrats want to see stricter legal duties laid on dog owners, and control orders to impose conditions on ownership - or in severe cases disqualify irresponsible owners.

Of the attack figures Mr Lamb added: "These are dramatic increases. I think in some communities these dogs have become a badge of honour, a fashion accessory in a way, and I think that's very disturbing."

I've certainly noticed an increase in the number of Staffordshire Bull Terriers (or allied breeds). I see them in parks (we spend a lot of time in parks these days) and on the street. Quite often not on a leash. Quite often accessorised in an intimidating fashion (spiked collars and the like). And quite often in the company of people whom I would not describe as responsible owners.

It scares me to death. They could have Buddy away in an instant and there'd be absolutely nothing I could do about it.

Defenders of the breed say that it's not the animals, it's the owners.

OK. It's the owners. But these are dangerous breeds because they can inflict serious damage. And the owners are brutalising their animals. I've witnessed it myself and I've seen the evidence in public parks.

Some owners seem appalled at the notion that their precious pups could be used to maim:

A lot of people look at them horrified, like you've got Satan himself on the end of your lead," says Marian Waller of Dulwich, south London, owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier named Teddy. "They look at you like you're taking the Hound of the Baskervilles for a walk." She adds, "They'll cross the road to get away. I don't know why, because they're great with people. (The Independent, July 2006)

Yep. I'm one of those people. Because Ms Waller, I just don't know if you're one of those people who encourages a happy friendly pup or if you've tortured your dog into some kind of killing machine. And even if you look like the next Miss Marple, how do I know that you're not looking after the dog for your teenaged, hoodlum grandson and the dog is much, much more than you can handle. And frankly, there's no way I can know.

We know that these dogs were bred to fight and to maim and to kill. And yes, in the right hands and in the right circumstances I'm sure they can be wonderful dogs. But many of the breed are ending up in the wrong hands:

Typical new breed of owner: young lad, aged 15-22. Typical purpose for having the dog: to gain respect, to intimidate, to use as a form of protection, and sometimes for crime.

And they're certainly ending up in the wrong circumstances. If people were just wanting canine companionship they probably wouldn't opt for a larger, dangerous breed in the crowded conditions of Inner London. For when I talk about seeing these dogs on the streets, I'm talking about the congested sidewalks of the local town centres of London. People naturally brush against each other, old people, babies and toddlers in strollers, the noise of traffic, and increasingly other dogs. (Even fans of the breed acknowledge that the males are prone to fight each other).

My council, Wandsworth, is taking action on dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners, but frankly it couldn't happen soon enough.

Wandsworth Council's leader, Edward Lister, is also calling for a new licensing system - including a minimum age for keeping a dog - to deal with the problem of irresponsible ownership.

The new licences would require stringent tests preventing those deemed unsuitable from owning a dog. We need sharper powers if we are to tackle this problem proactively."

Coun Lister added: "A risk-based approach to dog ownership would identify those animals for which a licence would be necessary. It could include, for example, all types of bull terrier - going beyond the very narrow list covered by the Dangerous Dog Act.

"Crucially it would also look at who was owning and controlling the dog. In our experience in Wandsworth most of the problems are with animals owned by young people aged 13-17.

"There should be a minimum age for ownership. You could add a fit and proper person test which would weed out many other unsuitable types. The critics might say this would be as unworkable as the current legislation or as irrelevant as the old licence system. That would be giving up before we've started.

Dog defenders are quick to blame irresponsible owners. If that's really the problem, then licensing seems like an ideal solution. If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then they just don't belong in crowded urban environments.

With friends (and MPs) like these...

There's a big furore here over the potential bugging of a conversation between an MP and his friend and constituent. This MP happens to be my MP. This constituent lives within easy walking distance from my house. That is he lives there when he's not in jail - on terror charges.

Sadiq Khan is at the center of a controversy about whether his jailhouse conversation with Babar Ahmad should have been taped without his knowledge. Doubtless, all of Mr Ahmad's conversations are bugged (except probably privileged conversations with his lawyer) - given that he is, in fact, a terror suspect awaiting extradition to America. It's all so very complicated why he's to stand trial in the US and not in the UK. But what appears to not be in dispute is that the man helped raise money for the Taliban.

He raised money for them, but this wasn't a crime in the UK at the time he was doing it because the Taliban wasn't a proscribed organisation at the time. Not that we didn't know they were nasty pre-9/11, just that they weren't outlawed.

From the Washington Post:

In late 1996, while a 22-year-o.ld undergraduate at Imperial College in London, Ahmad launched a Web site dedicated to promoting Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan, according to U.S. federal prosecutors. Dubbed Azzam.com, in honor of Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian who served as bin Laden's spiritual mentor, the Web site rapidly became a prominent and influential English-language platform for Islamic militants.

...snip...

"It was the very first real al Qaeda Web site," said Evan Kohlmann, a New York-based terrorism researcher who has tracked Azzam.com since the late 1990s. "It taught an entire generation about jihad. Even in its nascency, it was professional. It wasn't technically sophisticated, but it was professional looking, definitely more professional than any other jihadi Web sites out there."

...snip...

According to a U.S. indictment filed in October, Ahmad used Azzam.com to
solicit donations for Chechen rebels and the Taliban, and arranged for the
training and transportation of Islamic fighters. Among the specific charges is
one alleging that Azzam.com posted messages in early 2001 containing specific
instructions for supporters to deliver cash payments of up to $20,000 to
Taliban officials in Pakistan

And I blogged about this two and a half years ago (post has links to US extradition request).

-0-

Now, Sadiq Khan, MP feels aggrieved because there is an established convention that MPs' conversations won't be bugged. I guess I can understand that, though it was Mr Ahmad and not Mr Khan who was the explicit subject of surveillance.

But in news story after news story Babar Ahmad is listed as both a constituent and a friend. They did grow up in the same area, so childhood friends they may be - and I'm sure we all had playmates who turned out not as well as might be hoped. But Mr Khan should consider whether he really wants friends like Mr Ahmad. And Tooting constituents should consider whether we want an MP with friends like that.

Low-grade phobias and serial killers

I'm afraid of heights and that's pretty normal, though I wish I weren't. But I also have some weird low-grade phobias. By low-grade I mean I'm very afraid of it, irrationally so. But I also understand that the likelihood of encountering my trigger is pretty low - so it doesn't exactly rule my every day life.

I did have a low-grade phobia of being sued. And I was sued. And it was pretty awful.

Currently, there's a story in the UK press which has aroused my sense of fear relating to another low-grade phobia I have.

Here's how the scenario plays out.

There's a knock on the door. It's the police. It's probably a plainclothes officer. He has a warrant. But it's not because of anything I did. It's because some psychopathic nutcase who used to live in my house is suspected of hiding human remains on what's now my property. And now the police want to dig up my garden. My beautiful garden, with its perennials and shrubs and layers of bulbs and small but perfectly formed magnolia.

You know you can't refuse, because the police have a warrant or will get a warrant. And you also know that no matter how careful they are, all your horticultural effort will be gone in a couple of days.

So what brings this up? Police are currently digging up the garden of someone in Kent, because Peter Tobin used to live there. Human remains have been found, but not the ones they were looking for.


-0-

Peter Tobin was convicted for the slaying of a young Polish woman, Angelika Kluk. Her body was found in a church and I remember the story because during the investigation it was revealed that she had had an affair with the priest. Although it had broken off, and he was entirely innocent of her slaying.

I don't think any of the former owners or occupiers of our home were sex killers, but you never know. I know a lot of them were odd, because of their post that we're still receiving. Psychics and scientology mainly.

-0-

There may be some illegal remains in our garden though. Our cat is buried there, and I think, technically, we're not supposed to dispose of animal remains that way. But we were careful, we buried her deep.

If they freed me from this prison

I love cable. I'm watching Johnny Cash singing from the Tennessee State Prison 30 years ago. He's doing a train song medley. Everybody's hair looks horribly dated except, oddly enough, for the styles of about 90% of the prisoners.

It wasn't just Johnny playing. but also Linda Ronstadt and Roy Clark and a comedian called Foster Brooks. Anybody remember Foster Brooks? I don't. Is that what passed for funny back in the 70s?

Do folks play prisons anymore? Do prisoners have cable now and watch Johnny playing to inmates of three decades ago? (I guess some of those guys are still in prison.)

Wasn't there a song about a guy who wanted to see Johnny Cash and he got into all kinds of scrapes and so forth and ended up in prison where he got to see Cash. Heh.

A good year for dope?

Regular readers will know I do like to garden. I'm pleased to say my fingers (UK) and thumb (US) are pretty green - I have a nice depth and breadth of knowledge for an amateur gardener. My parents, though, will probably be pleased to note that I know almost nothing about growing marijuana.

I don't know what kind of growing conditions marijuana needs. But just looking at it - and knowing where it grows, I'd guess it needs heat, more light than you'd find in an average basement, and a fair bit of moisture. But maybe not. Despite a bad growing season for most things in Tennessee this year, maybe Cannabis is more drought tolerant than I thought - cause it's been a bumper year for dope in Cocke County.

Tennessee Highway Patrol helicopter pilot, working with the Governor’s Task Force for Marijuana Eradication, spotted marijuana plants in a Cocke County cornfield Monday valued at half a million dollars.

...

It is the largest harvest in Cocke County this year and perhaps the largest marijuana eradication in Tennessee this summer. The more than 45-hundred plants, ranging in height from eight to 15 feet tall, were collected and taken to the Cocke County Highway Department, where they were destroyed Monday evening.

William at Nashville is Talking wonders about the consequences of the Cocke County crackdown:

in a year of unprecedented drought where traditional crops have failed, how many rural farmers in Cocke Co., one of the poorest counties in TN, will not be able to feed their families?

...or indeed keep their families pacified.

Wild speculation

American readers may not be aware of the story, but you had to have been hiding under a rock for the past four months to not know a little girl named Madeleine McCann is missing.

She and her family were vacationing in Portugal when she disappeared one night, while her twin siblings slept on and while her parents were dining in a tapas restaurant within their resort complex.

In an effort to find Madeleine, her parents have mounted a well orchestrated media campaign. Posters, print and broadcast interviews, web sites, even advertisements in the cinema. They traveled all over Europe, David Beckham did an ad for them and they even met the Pope.

But time went on and no little girl. I suppose some might have given up hope, but the McCanns kept up the media pressure. But apparently folks in Portugal were beginning to get tired of them. The McCann case couldn't have been good for the local tourist economy and the pressure on the police must have been getting pretty hot.

And now the McCanns themselves are suspects according to the Portugese police. The McCanns imply they are being fitted up, and I would tend to believe them.

I've never been a supporter of the McCanns. Obviously, I hoped their little girl would be found - alive and unharmed. At worst, I wished that they might have closure. But I think they behaved terribly (leaving three very small children alone in a hotel room). I don't for a second believe that anyone could have foreseen that a child would be taken. But surely they could have reckoned that their children might wake up, alone in a strange place, scared or might just inflict some kind of injury on themselves. (They claim they were checking on them every 20 minutes, but this consisted of one or another adult listening at the door.) I understand that they wanted some time away from their kids - and that they'd rather not be trapped in their holiday apartment while the kids slept scanning the Portugese television for something to watch - but the resort did offer a baby sitting service. I've never understood why they got such an easy ride in the press for behaving so irresponsibly. Perhaps it's because they're doctors, professional middle class types, and very good looking.

All that being said, I really don't think that they murdered their daughter. There's little available information, but the evidence seems spurious - it kind of doesn't make sense.

• Portugese police say they've found Madeleine's blood in a rental car that her parents rented 25 days after her disappearance. That means they would have had to disappear her - and then get her out of hiding (a cell or a grave) and transport her between media interviews.
  
• It's been suggested that Portugese police wanted the mother to confess to over-sedating her daughter (plausible), but that doesn't fit with the supposed blood evidence in the holiday apartment or hire car.

Now here's the wild speculation bit. I reckon the police and the town were getting absolutely fed up with them. They had vowed not to leave Portugal without their daughter. I think they were offered a deal. Leave - and we won't frame you. Within days of the mother being named as a suspect, they're back home in England.

Unstoppable vs immovable

"What would happen if Perry Mason defended one of Columbo's suspects?"

I think I've been watching too much daytime tv.

Safer sex work?

Over at Nashville is Talking, the question has been posed: Why isn't prostitution legal? prompted by this post which speculates that sex workers might be safer if it was. Would that solve all kinds of problems? e.g. lower levels of disease and crimes against the women who engage in prostitution?

Despite the fact that I'm generally in favor of the free market - including the selling of personal services, I'm very dubious indeed about the legalisation of prostitution. Is it for moral reasons? Yes, it is. But it's not about sex. It's about the way that we treat workers on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Those who favor the legalistation of prostitution and the heavy regulation of the sex workers and their places of work probably have the right idea in principle, but not in practice. Prostitutes are the lowest of the low - they always have been. Legalising the trade has never made that different. I mean how many women who've managed to get out of the sex biz now have their time as prostitutes proudly displayed on their resume*? Even in countries where prostitution is legal. (Despite the fact that engaging in this kind of work successfully demands a whole array of marketable skills - flexibility, customer service and a sharp judge of human nature). Sure, a few whores manage to attain some sort of social standing and they're called courtesans or heterae or geisha and offer companionship as well as sexual services. But these are a rare breed indeed - how many of us could charge just for the pleasure of our company and maybe a little singing or tea pouring?

In countries where prostitution is legal and regulated (e.g. the Netherlands) the sex work force isn't overwhelmingly happy hookers. No, it's the foreign sex workers who may or may not be there willingly, the drug addicted and the grossly misfortunate. Regular blood tests don't change this and the people who manage these workers (pimps, if you will) don't care about the personal development of their employees. This is a dead end job which usually results in that dead end quite early. And these are workers in a highly regulated, partly socialised economy where there are well-established mechanisms for investigating work place safety. The sex trades in London and Amsterdam and other big cities in Europe are well stocked with sex slaves from Eastern Europe and South East Asia and Africa. Do you really think that people who would enslave young women and boys are into complying with red tape and regulation? These folks are criminal scum and they'll find ways to get around regulation just as they find ways to get around the existing legislation against prostitution, pimping and slavery.

What about the US? Do you think America is geared up to regulate the sex trade? Under the Bush administration work place safety and regulation has been gutted. And that's for respectable trades like mining or utility ditch digging or meat packing - not for the morally dubious business of sex for sale. Can you really see the religious right prioritising the physical and mental welfare of prostitutes when the Republican party has resisted supporting workers and maintaining an objective, adult attitude to sex?

No. My reasons for objecting to legalisation of prositution is that I don't think it will make much, if any, difference to the safety of sex workers and may make it more difficult to pursue the criminals behind the worst practices in the trade.

______
*update: - well, here's one example - but I reckon that's pretty unusual.

How wrong is that?

Via Nashville's Tiny Cat Pants - I learn that all but four counties in my home state charges rape victims for the evidence collecting rape kit:

Also, just now, the governor is going to sign a bill that would have the state cover the cost of the rape exam. Yes, America, you heard that right. Until Thursday, June 21st, 2007, unless you were “lucky” enough to be raped in one of four counties that provide free rape kits here in Tennessee, you had to foot the bill–anywhere from $600-1,000–for the collection of evidence of a crime committed against you.

Sick.

for honor

Anglofille has been writing about the death of a young woman in Kurdish Iraq. It's all pretty horrific. She was killed, savagely beaten to death, for being a gal who cut her own path. Her death and post-mortem kicking were filmed. How 'bout those cell phone cameras.

And while some of us find such a thing shocking - apparently the clip of her death and her bloody corpse being dragged off the streets have inspired more "honor killings".

-0-

These things don't just happen in Iraq or Afghanistan or Jordan or Egypt. No, they happen here, too.

While researching this issue of honor killings in Britain, I found a BBC news article from last September. According to their poll, 1 in 10 British Asians believe that honor killings are acceptable. The government estimates that 13 women in the UK die each year as a result of honor killings, but support groups say this number is way too low.

Scandalous.

Hate crimes

When I visiting friends in Austin years ago, George Bush was the Governor. We drove down past the state house and they told me about how pissed they were that he was about to veto a hate crimes bill.

Plus ca change

My friends were pretty pissed. They were, perhaps not coincidentally, lesbians. When asked for my opinion, I had to say that I don't support hate crimes legislation either.

Do I find it somehow more deplorable that a person is attacked or killed because they're different (black, gay, female, male, of a different religion) rather than because they were involved in a drug deal gone wrong? Yes. I guess I do. It offends my sensibilities. It seems somehow more meaningless.

But I do think they should be punished more for it? Not necessarily. Although I think we as a society should have discretion to punish more harshly for truly disgusting and particularly heinous crimes like the murder of James Byrd, Jr - which did happen to be racially motivated. But I don't think we should necessarily slap more time on if the assailant and the victim come from two different religions, races, ethnicities or sexual orientations.

Basically, I believe that there ought to be equal protection under the law. And when that equal protection doesn't manage to actually protect someone, then I believe that their life is worth the same as the the next person's and that and the nature of the crime itself - as proven by discernable facts - should determine the punishment. I don't think that speculation as to prejudice in an assailant's mind should figure.

But we do have to acknowledge that there is inequality in sentencing. For example, people who commit crimes against black people in the US are punished less harshly (generally) than people who commit crimes against whites. Does this mean we need hate crimes legislation? Nope. Because this discrimination, this undervaluation of black life, limb and property applies whether the perpetrator is black or white.

In particular, victim characteristics are important determinants of sentencing among vehicular homicides, in which victims are basically random and in which the optimal punishment model predicts that victim characteristics should be ignored. Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 59 percent longer sentences. Drivers who kill blacks get 60 percent shorter sentences. (from an Abstract in The Journal of Legal Studies)

Normal vehicular homicide is not a hate crime, but yet killing a black person (or a man) leads to shorter sentences. Let's deal with this before we start trying to look inside people's heads and hearts.

-----

On the other hand, I don't see why if we are going to pass hate crime legislation we should exclude sexual orientation. Though I'd prefer we stopped with the me-too-ism of victimhood and just dealt fairly with crime and punishment. Let's have some research and peer review of sentencing judiciary rather than an inadequate legal patch.

Could arming up have prevented a massacre?

Kat Coble has posted about Jonestown after watching a documentary about it. I did that, too - not long ago.

People of a certain age (and if I remember correctly, she's nearly exactly the same age as me - born May 1970) will have Jonestown imprinted on them as their first memory of newsworthy tragedy.

If you're a wee eight year old, and 900 people "commit suicide" by drinking a Kool-Aid like substance and Kool-Aid, is the object of much desire for this 8 year old, (my parents did not provide me with anything like what I considered an adequate amount of the sweet, colored drink) - you're going to remember it. Plus nearly a thousand people died and news reports showed body after body, many of them kids your age, piled on top of each other and rotting on the jungle floor.

But her long term reaction...

I believe in guns because of Jim Jones. I believe in the ineffectuality and haphazardness of government because of Jim Jones. I believe in being a Discerning Believer because of Jim Jones. One of the more fun things about ideas is being able to trace the growth of one of your deeply-held beliefs to the source. I’ve been able to do that more in recent years as pop culture digs up “nostalgic” events from my childhood.

...and my long term reaction are very different. I'd say my overriding feeling has been that people are crazy and can be induced to do even crazier things. They can be convinced to kill their kids, kill their neighbors, kill themselves - and all it takes is a loudspeaker, sleep deprivation and a little peer pressure. In fact, you can do it without the sleep deprivation.

I will say that I agree with her 100% on the importance of scepticism (i.e. the Discerning Believer). When you're in a big old group of people, who are all being told the unbelievable or the unlikely or the downright disgusting, and they're all raring to go - it might be a good thing to question those in authority. But then again, it might be too late. But I suppose one take some comfort in saying: I told you these guys were crazy, I had a feeling that this would all end badly. I know that it would make me feel better to be able say "I told you so," even as the bullet bit. But that's just me.

As to the ineffectuality of government the massacre at Jonestown was triggered by a visit from Congressman Leo Sayer, but it had been practiced and practiced well before his trip had been thought of - and if so many discerning believers hadn't asked to leave with the congressional delegation then the mass murder-suicide probably wouldn't have happened for another week or so. But, I can't say that's a lesson I took away in 1978. I only recently learned about his role. I so understand the sentiment, I've worked in the public sector for almost all my adult life, so I've seen a lot of ineffectuality in my day - and even perpetrated some. But I've seen a lot of good done, too - especially the basic and thankless work of organising infrastructure and managing the collective work (public health, transportation, education) that has brought our society to the point it is today. And one thing I'll say for those working for the public is that most of them mean well. I've hardly ever met anyone who entered public service (in the US or UK) because they wanted to do ill to their fellow man.

But where I really digress in experience and sentiment is on the guns. No. I don't think having more guns would have made a blind bit of difference in Jonestown. There were guns there. But those guns will have only been in the hands of those who plotted evil or blindly followed. Guns can't prevent craziness. In Jonestown, they only helped precipitate craziness. (The shooting of Leo Sayer and members of the delegation was used by Jones to tell his followers that their utopia was coming to a crashing end and that they would all be carted off and split up - so they were better off dead at their own hand.) And how would you have got guns in the hands of the Discerning Believers? Who would have doled them out? The Government? Why would most of the people there think that they needed guns - they largely believed they were part of a radical and loving experiment that could change the world for the better.

But more importantly, I just don't believe that guns are the key ingredient, the critical success factor for a responsible, respectful society. Responsibly held and largely unused weapons in the hands of citizens is something you see because there is a mature relationship between state and citizen (government by and of the people, where citizens exercise their responsibility to participate) and where there is largely a feeling of trust between citizen and fellow citizen. The feeling of trust, the mature relationship doesn't occur as a result of folks being armed to the teeth.

Maybe I'll agree that weapons are a bellweather. If you're a responsible, calm and largely non-violent person and you have to ask "Why can't I have a gun?" - then you have to wonder what's going on in the relationship between the people and the power. But you don't even need guns to ask that question - in Jonestown, questions with similar answers (Why can't I leave? Why do I have to hand over all my money and property?) could have been asked.

The questioning of power and the engagement of the responsible, free citizen in governance prevents the abuse of power, not tooling up. After all, those in power will always be able to out-purchase and out-gun an individual.

and she's still gagging for it

I picked on Jen a little bit in my previous post. I'm bad that way. But what I really wanted to do was draw your attention to her excellent piece on rape conviction rates in the UK. I've written about it before, but there's been a new study showing the same old bad news. I didn't really have the heart to do a post on it again.

rape is an appalling topic no matter what the circumstances, but rape in the u.k. is truly horrific because only 5% of reported rape cases end in a conviction. that’s a number which has, in fact, been falling since 1977. of the cases that go to trial, one of every two ends in acquittal. in other words, a victim who manages to make it to trial has only a 50/50 crapshoot of getting to see her attacker put behind bars

and reading the reports, it’s not hard to understand why. in news item after news item, there’s just no sense that anyone in the justice system takes rape seriously. there’s a lot of talk about the number of false accusations, the difficulties of determining consent if someone’s been binge drinking, and passing the buck blame-gaming. all we hear is how hard it is to determine what happened when the two parties know each other. attempts at judicial reforms have been dismissed by judges, police incorrectly record allegations as “no crimes”, and more than a third of dropped cases have should have been pursued. but perhaps the most telling indicator of how rape is viewed and prosecuted in the u.k. is that women are still often questioned about their sexual history as part of the trial.

And there's more...

A two-percenter?

Via Volunteer Voters

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) - An Army private at Fort Campbell charged with the slaughter of an Iraqi family was diagnosed as a homicidal threat by a military mental health team three months before the attack.

Hmmm...a soldier... homicidal?


Actually they didn't use to be. In World War II, very few American men fired their weapons in the vicinity of the enemy. That's very few men in combat units. Even fewer actually shot to kill - about two percent of soldiers. Half of those two percenters were normal guys who believed they were there to do a job - and they were able to shoot and to kill and then they were able to come home and be normal. The other half were...well, psychopathic. They'd been waiting for this big turkey shoot all their lives. Finally, finally able to kill without consequence. Presumably, some of them came back and were able follow the observable rules of society and others weren't.

The Army was pretty shocked when they came up with these numbers. Surely Americans were a little more bloodthirsty than that? Nope. Not really. Most people have an aversion to that kind of thing - particularly if they're not in the heat of the moment. Many people can't find it in themselves to do it. And if they do manage it, there are consequences. Mental consequences. It's hard on a human to kill another human.

So the Army came up with some better training. More desensitizing and of course, practice, practice, practice. They were able to get a much higher percentage of soldiers to shoot to kill. They helped these soldiers find their inner killer. But I'm not sure they helped them with how to put it away again.

in the 'hood

I was just checking my stats when I discovered a lot of people were visiting my site from the search string "Tooting Broadway Murders" or "Tooting Broadway Stabbing". Hmm, I thought to myself, has there been a new murder in Tooting (my neighbourhood)?

Sorry to disappoint readers who wanted to read about this brand-spanking, new murder. My post is about these murders.