Louis Wu's Blog

Will It Ever Get Better?

2026-01-17T17:34:00.000-07:00

It's aquestion I've asked myself daily for the last year. I think it will. But not before things get much worse. We'll never get back to where we were. Much of the damage Trump has done to this nation is irreparable. Everything else will take generations to fix. The hard truth is that more people will die. It might be in an organized armed conflict, or his secret police will continue to pick people off one by one.

Trump will likely never face justice. Probably because he'll have the decency to die of old age before then. Passing away in a nice, safe bed, surrounded by opulence and an army of bootlickers. Sometimes the bad guys win.

As luck would have it, my timing is terrible. Too old to fight, and too stupid to keep my mouth shut. Which is, historically, a great recipe for ending up in a mass grave somewhere.

As long as the Congress and Senate lack the ~~will~~ spine to deal with Trump's lunacy, things will keep spiraling down. Before this is all over, it may be necessary for the rest of the world to intervene. We might make it out of this, but I doubt I'll live long enough to see it.

Post Trump

2022-02-03T21:11:00.000-07:00

Throughout human history, there have always been those whose idea of utopia was them at the top, and the rest which, in some way, served them. At different times, and in different places, they have had varying degrees of success. But the success they had, and the damage they had done, generally tended to be localized, and relatively short-lived. That has changed dramatically over the last 40 years.

When I first started voting, the sum total of American media was 3 TV networks, radio, and your local newspaper. The local TV stations, even though they were affiliated with a major network, were still owned by someone, or some local company. In fact, back then it was illegal for any one person or corporate entity to own more than 7 media outlets. That changed with Reagan, who deregulated, well, pretty much everything. Now virtually all media both in America and in much of Europe is owned by three multinational corporations, who either own them outright or are major stockholders. I'm not waxing nostalgic here. All in all, we're still better off with the greater access to information that we have, at least for now.

But now we are saturated with information, much of it dubious, and left without the time (and for some of us, the will) to ensure its accuracy. We're provided with personalized content that panders to our likes and prejudices. It's understandable in some ways. While I wholly enjoy an animated debate, I'd rather not see things that are hateful or offensive.

Back in 2016, I feared that Trump would lay the groundwork for some other, more competent despot down the road. Those fears are being realized as I write this.

The Chonology of Crazy

2017-10-16T15:03:00.000-07:00

Some may have wondered why I haven't posted in so long. I've certainly had more than enough material over the last couple of years. But rather than fighting against the crazy, I worried that I was contributing to it. Definitely not my intent.

When Trump became President, I lost it. My faith in my fellow Americans was shattered. A Republican was bad enough, but I could have handled that. But this? This vile, racist, misogynist, inept, mentally ill clown? A man so racist that he's trying to erase all evidence of Obama's Presidency.

To me, his election was an act of sabotage, perpetrated by a class of entitled white people who have absolutely no idea how bad things can get. I must admit that there's a part of me that hopes they find out. However if that happens, everyone loses.

Someday, fairly soon I think, the American people will 'disappoint' Donald Trump. It could be anything. The lack of deference by some aide, or the mockery of some late night comedian. This, along with Trump's low self esteem, lack of impulse control, lack of competence, and the pressures of the job will combine to snap him like a twig. If that happens, and if he isn't stopped then and there, people will die. The damage he will do will be far flung and indiscriminate. After all, his contempt for all Americans, even his base, is palatable.

I hope it doesn't get to that point. The damage he has already done will take generations to overcome, if it's even possible. We have a lot of work to do.

Absent

2016-01-25T21:50:00.001-07:00

I took time off, and thought about scrapping this blog entirely. At the time, I felt that there were more than a sufficient number of old men, waxing philosophically about what’s wrong with the world. It felt somehow selfish, and less than constructive.

Before the internet, this would have been true. It would have been nothing more than a single voice, irritating friends and family.

Over the last year or so, I’ve engaged in many debates - Politics, religion, crime and punishment, and a number of other topics. Some were excercises in futility. Others were lively. Still others were incredible learning experiences. I’ve changed a few minds, and had my own changed.

I’ve even had meaningful exchanges with trolls, once the name-calling was dispensed with. It’s hard work, and requires a pretty thick skin. More often than not, it ends up being a complete waste of time.

But there are those rare occasions when the walls come down, and real communication takes place. I can’t speak for anyone, save myself, but in my opinion, it’s eminently worth it.

This technology has allowed us to exchange ideas in a way we had never been able to before. All the barriers that existed before – cultural, political, economic, social, and geographic – have essentially been rendered obsolete.

Sure, it’s dirty, and messy, and we’ll probably screw it up in ways we can’t yet imagine. But it’s my belief that the end result will be a positive one.

test post

2015-12-19T09:46:00.001-07:00

Clip This

2014-04-28T22:14:00.000-07:00

"I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have—Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?" -Donald Sterling

By now, everyone who hasn't been living under a rock has heard the tapes of Mr. Sterling's argument with his mistress. At least as much as they could stomach. The stunning ignorance and racism is bad enough. But the above quote, to me, is indicative of a contempt that goes beyond racism, and extends to, well, everyone else.

These aren't just the comments of some dim-witted old man, but an idea fully embraced by many we call the 1%. The belief that what standard of living we hold is not the result of our own labors and talents, but of their generosity only. And they're a little pissed off because we apparently haven't shown the appropriate amount of gratitude.

From Romney's infamous 47% remark, to the constant vilification of the poor on Fox News, it's an attitude becoming more and more prevalent.

They are the makers. They are the only ones who produce. The rest of us? We're just hanging on to their coattails. Or worse, we're lazy no-accounts who just want free stuff. Their stuff.

It's a mindset so twisted and obscene, that they actually try to use their own racism as a justification of that view.

The worst thing I could wish for them, is to have to actually live in the stagnant, sterile, mono-cultural "utopia" they envision for themselves. Or, perhaps not. It seems that many are quite content living within the bubble they've created within this world.

More's the pity.

Malice or Ineptitude?

2014-04-11T22:33:00.001-07:00

From the LA Times:

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department acknowledged Thursday that its deputies mistakenly shot and killed a aspiring TV producer they thought was a stabbing suspect.

In fact, John Winkler, 30, had gone to a neighbor's apartment Monday night on Palm Avenue in West Hollywood where a man was holding people hostage and tried to help.

Winkler was shot when he rushed out of the apartment with another victim who had been trapped inside the apartment with a third victim and the suspect, sheriff's officials said in a statement.

“The apartment door suddenly opened and a male victim came rushing out,” the statement said. “He was covered in blood and bleeding profusely from the neck. Simultaneously, victim Winkler ran out of the door, lunging at the back of the fleeing victim. Both ran directly at the deputies.”

Three deputies fired at Winkler. He was shot once and died.
(Edit: The original victim was also shot in the leg.)

Three deputies, firing altogether 7 shots from only a few feet away. Only two hit their mark. This tells me that the shots they fired were done while in a blind panic. The culture values the safety of the officer, often in exclusion to all else. The view is reinforced by the fact that they face few, if any, consequences when they take a life. There is a county in Illinois with records going back 160 years, without one example of an officer being held responsible for a wrongful death. While this is technically possible, it is statistically unlikely to the point of absurdity. Anyone with a dangerous job can tell you that, if you're overly concerned with your own safety, it becomes just that much more dangerous. Not only for you, but everyone around you. For those people, I suggest a change of career. Maybe a nice, safe flower shop somewhere.

We weren't always such weenies.

When I was in high school, my friends and I would often go target shooting in the desert. Plinkin', we called it. On the way back home one day, I happened to be speeding, and was pulled over by a DPS officer. Now, imagine being a lone cop, walking up to a car full of rough, long haired teenagers who are armed to the teeth. Wanna know what he did? He gave me a warning, and left, telling us to, "stow those weapons before you blow your damn fool heads off" He was actually concerned for OUR safety.

Those days are long gone. Today, there would have been helicopters, SWAT teams, tanks, body cavity searches, and, of course, bloodshed. Cowardice makes just about every endeavor more dangerous.

Somewhere along the line, we came to believe that there is actually such a thing as a risk free existence. There isn't, nor should there be. That way lies extinction for the lot of us.

Certainly risk can be managed to a point, but once you go past it, you lose essential, hard-won liberties. You end up living in a very secure prison of your own making. There was a time when most people knew this, at least on some level, yet still had the courage to go on about their lives. Now, we are saturated in fear, with voices from every direction telling us what to fear, and just how afraid to be of it.

If we continue this course, we will end up as a nation populated by people who are conditioned from birth to keep their head down, and draw as little attention to themselves as possible. These are people who will never fail, because the consequences for failure will be so immediate, so great, and so permanent that no one will dare risk anything. NSA spying will no longer be a concern, because there won't be anything left worth spying on.

John Winkler was a brave man. A man who didn't hesitate to come to the aid of his neighbor. Had he lived, I think he would have eventually found that living among those with so much firepower, and so little courage to be a fate worse than death.

Whether it is the malice of Albuquerque, or the ineptitude of Los Angeles, the result ends up being the same.

Paying Up

2013-08-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

A number of years ago, I did 2 1/2 years for what the state deemed a "non-dangerous, non-repetitive" crime. Upon my release, I was somewhat apprehensive as to how I might be accepted back into society, if at all. While in, I had heard horror stories. Many of the guards considered recidivism to be a foregone conclusion.

So I did a sort of experiment. Trying to get as varied a segment of the population as I could, I posted the details of my crime and punishment on a number of different internet forums (anonymously, of course), and asked people what they thought. The responses I got back where overwhelmingly negative. I expected that. I had, after all, broken the law.

What I didn't expect, was the venom associated with many of the responses. Up to, and including some disturbingly creative death threats. Those unwilling to take time out of their busy days to kill me themselves, asked that I take matters into my own hands, suggesting methods that I'm relatively certain are physically impossible.

At first, I was horrified. These were people who owned homes? Drove cars? Had jobs? Raised children? Yet these same people openly fantasized about killing me.

After the initial shock wore off, I was depressed for months afterward. If this was the response to my relatively mild trespass against society, what chance did anyone else have?

Back in the days of sailing ships, if a member of the crew broke the rules, the punishment was usually swift and severe. But it rarely resulted in death. An able-bodied seaman was a valuable commodity. Once his forty lashes were done with, he was once again a member of the crew, with the same rights and responsibilities, and the incident was not mentioned again. His debt was paid.

Not so now. We live in a society that increasingly considers even it's best and brightest as inherently expendable. We don't forget, we don't forgive, and no matter what your skills, or how well you live your life from then on, the debt is never paid.

Because of this, there are certain things that are now forever beyond my reach. I'll never have a job that will allow me to buy a home, get decent medical care, or save for retirement. If I'm lucky, and strong enough, I'll be allowed to work until I die. There are many who think this is just. But what if I'm not strong enough, and my health doesn't hold out? Some future taxpayer will have to foot the bill for things that I could be doing now.

Of course by then, some senator may come up with some politically correct final solution that the masses will find palatable. If so, I will go to my end gladly. As I would not want to live in such a world.

Not Intelligent Design

2013-07-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

Tim Minchin said it best,

"Isn't this enough? Just...this? How does the natural universe so fail to hold our imaginations, that we have to diminish it with man-made myths and monsters?"

Let's assume for a moment that there is an intelligence that created this universe (and all the others). It would have to come from outside the universe. So alien as to be incomprehensible (you can't think 11 dimensional thoughts with a three dimensional brain, after all). No more capable of having a personal relationship with us, than we are of having a personal relationship with any one of the millions of nutrinos that are passing through our collective thumbnails at this very moment.

I think the only thing we could possibly have in common, is our imperfection. Nothing is perfect, nor should it be. Since, by definition, it's impossible for a perfect being to create anything imperfect, our hypothetical creator must be subject to error. Indeed, a perfect universe could not exist because the universe exists by virtue of imperfection.

An event. A broken symmetry. A point of reference.

While perfection, and, to some extent, infinity, can be imagined, they cannot exist because the physical laws of this universe prevent it. Were it otherwise, perfection would be a static, sterile thing. Probably the closest thing to absolute nothingness I can imagine. You see the paradox.

Much more likely, I think, is that this universe, and everything in it, is a very tiny part, perhaps even an unintended side effect, of some grander creation.

All of that being said, the end result ends up being the same for us. No heaven, no hell, no grey-bearded old man judging whether we have sinned by wearing two different types of fabric, or planting two different types of crops, or marrying the wrong person, or eating the wrong food, or working on the wrong day, or any of the myriad of silly rules imposed by a primitive belief system that does nothing to explain us or our place in the universe.

The question ends up being meaningless because the result of his existence is the same is that of his non-existence.

Who Deserves Rape?

2013-04-26T07:36:00.001-07:00

A few days ago, a student 'preacher' at the U of A stood in front of the administration building, holding a sign that read 'you deserve rape'. The university's newspaper got some grief for reporting on the incident. There were those who felt that simply reporting on it lent legitimacy to his views. It did not.
Reprehensible though it was, his right to free speech is constitutionally protected.
When you think about it, it's actually a good thing. He's now out in the open, and those who have to interact with him are now forewarned, and forarmed.
Much more dangerous, and more common, I think, are those who believe these things, but never state those beliefs. They look just like decent people. Sometimes they attain power and responsibility. Sometimes they even end up making policy and law.
A lot of bad, immoral, and unjust decisions could be avoided, had we known where they were coming from beforehand.
Still, the students did the
right thing in responding with the same free speech the misogynist availed himself of.

Doubling Down

2013-04-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

I have often been frustrated by the willful ignorance and obstructionism of conservatives. I can understand defending one's point of view. I can even understand becoming emotionally invested in it. But I can't understand people, especially politicians, who are elected to serve this nation and it's people, who will lie as a method of simply winning.

Why don't these people reconsider their positions when presented with clear evidence that they are wrong?

Some of it has to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. We've all met them. People who are convinced that they are surrounded by a world full of idiots, or the lazy, or the immoral. But that doesn't answer everything. People have a comfort zone, and change of any kind annoys some, and terrifies others. But that's still not the whole answer.

I'm going to posit a very loose theory attached to an example. People who believe in, say, proclamations of doomsday prophecy, instead of rejecting those notions when the day never comes, often dive deeper into those beliefs. Why is that?

Certainly, the Dunning-Kruger effect is one answer, but another lies in power relationships. When people are presented with evidence that suggests they have lost the game, what options do they have? They can reconsider, repent, and change to the winning side, effectively negating their previous existence--a total loss of power. Or, they can begin creating conditions in which the game is not over, the rules have changed, and/or the game might be subverted. I use the term "create" because that's what it is, a fiction crafted of the mind to protect one's power.

When it looks like there are no moves left on the chessboard, what is the only move left? You kick over the table. Or, you create a third dimension of movement for pieces. Or, you challenge the legitimacy of your opponent's moves (facts).

Because of the postmodern age's focus on "relativistic truth', this seems like a fair and very effective maneuver to some. The losing party can remain alive forever in a constant stream of subversion, which, unfortunately, guarantees the halt of any possible progress.

They lie. They know they're lying. They know that we know they're lying. They don't care. I find this morally reprehensible.

Found Among the Ruins, and My Own Errant Thoughts

2013-03-31T11:26:00.000-07:00

From Hank Fox:

The existence of the (GMO) technology doesn’t bother me in any extreme way. But that technology in the hands of nice corporations like Monsanto, in an oversight environment that includes a very friendly, very compliant pro-business government … that spooks me more than a little.

The downside of being emphatically yourself is that you can never slip easily into a group. You will always feel just a little bit ill-at-ease, a little bit off-balance, no matter where you are or who you’re with. For me, that price has almost always been acceptable. Still, I think I can understand the great numbers of us who make the other choice.

This is why I find the religious rights' passionate defense of marriage so amusing. A few excerpts from an article called: Marriage by Barbara G. Walker

The word marriage came from the Latin maritare, union under the
auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari. Because the Goddess’s
patronage was constantly invoked in every aspect of marriage, Christian fathers were opposed to the institution. Origen declared, “Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.” St. Jerome said the primary purpose of a man of God was “to cut down with an ax of Virginity the wood of Marriage”.(1) St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime against god, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth.(2)

St. Augustine flatly stated that marriage is a sin and St. Paul damned Marriage with faint praise, remarking that to marry was only better than to burn ( 1 cor. 7:9).

Saturninus said God made only two kinds of people, good men and evil women. Marriage perpetuated the deviltry of women, who dominated men through the magic of sex(8). Centuries later, St. Bernard still proclaimed that it was easier of a man to bring back the dead to life than to live with a woman without endangering ones soul.(9)

Priests abandoned the churches’ rule of celibacy and began to take wives during the 5th and 6th centuries. This continued to the 11th century, when papal decretals commanded married clergymen to turn their wives out of their homes and sell their children as slaves. (5) The church displayed remarkable reluctance to deal with the matter of marriage at all. During the Middle Ages there was no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one.
Churchmen seemed to have no ideas at all on the subject(6) The earliest form of Christian marriage was a simple blessing of the newly wedded, “in facie ecclesiae” –outside the churches closed doors– to keep the pollution of lust out of God’s house. This blessing was a technical violation of canon law, but it became popular and gradually won status.(7).

There was no sacrament of marriage until the 16th century (3). Catholic scholars say the wedding ceremony was “imposed on” a reluctant church, and “nothing is more remarkable that the tardiness with which liturgical forms for the marriage ceremony were evolved.” It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but borrowed from pagan common law (4).

1-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 82, 114
2-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 373
3-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 233
4-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 248-249
5-Jacobus de. Voragine, The Golden Legend, 90-91
6-Ronald Pearsall, The Worm in the Bud , 162-63
7-Encyclopedia Britannica, “Marriage”
8-Vern Bullough,The Subordinate Sex, 103, 112
9-Joseph Cambell, Myths to Live By, 95

Thomas Paine, in 1793, explains skepticism:

"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

    Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

    As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

    No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

    It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

    When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.—Author.]

    When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.

    When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence."

"The biggest failing of Libertarianism is the inability to distinguish liberty (the rights guaranteed by the state) from freedom (the practical ability to exercise those rights). Libertarianism ensures maximum liberty, but actual freedom is reserved only for the very rich."

-nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks

The deception began, at least in the modern age, with Milton Friedman, who said "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people...He moves fastest who moves alone."
This unflagging adherence to free-enterprise individualism is consistent with Social Darwinism , the belief that survival of the fittest (richest) will somehow benefit society, and that the millions of people suffering from financial malfeasance are simply lacking the motivation to help themselves. Social Darwinism is a feel-good delusion for those at the top. Or, as described by John Kenneth Galbraith, a continuing "search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A tenet of progressivism is that a strong society will create opportunities for a greater number of people, thereby leading to more instances of individual success. This is the common sense attitude suppressed by conservatives for over 30 years.

There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
A static society must break down sooner or later, one of the best examples for this is the late Soviet Union, where nothing new happened and which was completely dominated by old men who still evaluated everything in terms of an economy based on heavy industry. And when society breaks down (what it does regularly in human history, this is inevitable), most people will then lose the access to this life-prolonging technology.
I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance.

An explanation of sorts.

2013-03-06T14:51:00.000-07:00

I feel I should explain a bit about my last blog post. Most of it was my way of dealing with grief. Then I tried to imagine what John's life had been like since I last saw him. When I thought of my own experiences during that time, I thought maybe I understood.

In prison, I was witness to the ease with which people hate, and how casually they do harm to one another. One cannot help but be affected by that. More than anything, it confused me. Finally, one day something clicked. See, occasionally the guards would come in and do something mean or hateful, for no reason. Like, say, ripping up correspondence from a loved one. It basically amounted to poking us with a stick. Maybe it was a method of control - a way of keeping us off-balance. Maybe they were just bored. But you could always tell who the new inmates were, because they would always ask the guards "why". The answer was so consistent, that I came to believe that it was actually a part of their training. Their response was always, "Because we can."

When you get down to it, that's really the only reason. Circumstance, or in some cases, authority, gives someone the opportunity, and some take it. There are always rationalizations and justifications later, of course. But while it's happening, it's a base, mindless thing. It's then that the differences between the good guys and the bad guys tend to evaporate.

It wasn't just a prison thing. When I got out, I was apprehensive about how I might be welcomed back into society, so I decided to do a little experiment. On a number of different websites, I posted (anonymously, of course) the details of my crime and punishment, trying to get as big a cross-section of people as possible. The responses I got back were overwhelmingly negative. I expected that. I had, after all, broken the law. What I didn't expect was the venom contained in a significant percentage of those responses. Death threats, some quite creative, were most common. There were others who were too lazy to kill me themselves, so they requested that I do things to myself that were not only fatal, but physically impossible.

For months afterward, I was depressed. These were people who had jobs, drove cars, raised children? Why should I want to join those whose only claim to good citizenship was the ability to follow a few simple rules? I thought about finding a hole someplace to spend the rest of my days in.

Luckily, there are good people out there. I'm lucky enough to count some of them as friends, and all of them as family.. I still believe that most people are hard-working decent folks, just trying to do the best they can. Am I ever wrong? Sometimes with a frequency that is downright spectacular. But if my only choices were to become part of the darkness, or be a victim of it, I'd choose the latter.

Of course, nominally, one should avoid both.

It's my hope that John was lucky enough to surround himself with enough people who cared.

I Hate This.

2013-03-04T07:19:00.000-07:00

My kid brother, John, died yesterday morning. He was 47. I am...bereft. Two brothers gone in less than a year. I'm reminded of a line from the most recent Indiana Jones movie. "We've reached the point where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away."

The last time I saw John, it wasn't the best of circumstances. I was in handcuffs, on my way to prison. As they put me in the squad car, I caught a glimpse of him, waving at me from a nearby rooftop. He always had the luck of the Irish.

The problem with the luck of the Irish, is that when it runs out, it runs out with a vengeance. He ended up working on a ranch just outside of Kingman, AZ. He'd retreated from a world that he felt had no love for him, and held no place for him. It's easy to empathize. We've all felt it. At some point, or to some degree. It was harder for him, because he was the kind of person that needed to be around people.

Like most people on this planet, my brother lived a life that was hard, brutal, and short. That is unacceptable. For him, and for everyone else.

But it seems we're slowly, inexorably being conditioned not to care. Even to hold with contempt and suspicion anything different. The problem is, that we're all different. Each one of us something that never was, nor will be again. A hunk of metal as unique as each one of us would be considered priceless. Yet we consistently treat each other like shit. It will lead to a society where even the best of us are considered inherently expendable.

When I was released from prison, my first impulse was to follow my brother into obscurity. It would have been easy. Especially when it seemed that every signal I got from those around me said that I didn't matter. That I was unworthy and had nothing to offer.

There were those who were merely disinterested. I sat across the desks of bureaucrats who just wanted me to go away so they could go on to the next person they didn't care about. Then there were others who viewed me with open contempt (including a couple disturbingly creative death threats via email). My brother, a decidedly more sensitive soul than I, would not have fared well.

In the beginning, I couldn't retreat because I had nowhere to go. But in the end, it was those very people that made me determined to stay. I learned tolerance from those who, for whatever reason, hated me, and kindness from those who were unkind because, oddly, they felt morally justified in being so. (They will have to forgive me if they find that I am ungrateful for those lessons.)

I hold no illusions about my place in this world, or my ability to change it. But...

We all matter.

For the next few months, I will dream of my brother as he was in life, only to wake to feel the sting of his absence. I'm told that this is common in the face of loss. Still, it's liable to make me a tad cranky.

I take some small solace in the fact that, as unique as we are, in the end we are all equal. The rich and poor, good and evil, all of us destined to be crushed under the same great wheel.

What Despair?

2012-12-24T22:49:00.001-07:00

I read in a New York Times story today, that 4 firefighters were shot, 2 fatally, in an apparent ambush. They had been called to a car fire in Webster, NY. When they got there, they found both a car, and a nearby house on fire. The shooter, William Spengler, 62, was a man with a lengthy criminal record, who lived in the burning house. He had apparently set the fires in an attempt to draw out first responders, then lie in wait for them to arrive. As the firefighters began to work on the fires, Spengler started shooting from a hidden position behind a nearby berm, hitting 4 before the rest were able to take cover. Spengler was later found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. You can read the whole story here.

Walking home from the store this evening, I was attacked by someone's Pitt Bull that had gotten loose. I had my trusty Uncle Henry pocket knife in my pocket, but knew there was no way I'd get to it and open it before the dog got to me. The only thing I could do was stand my ground, and hope bravado would suffice. So I yelled and waved my arms. The dog body slammed me, but, thankfully, didn't bite. By that time it's owners had gotten there and had taken control of the dog. After a few choice words about responsible pet ownership, I went on my way. As I walked, I reflected that my response must have looked like the threat display of an average gorilla. So much for evolution.

My point here is that there is no such thing as a risk-free existence. The very act of living carries with it some inherent risk. Certainly, risk can be managed to a point, like getting rid of assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines. But after that, there are some heavy trade-offs with regard to liberty vs. security. Weapons are only useful if you're planning to go into a dangerous situation (like, say, a war). But if you're caught by surprise, or if someone wants you dead bad enough, and is patient enough, odds are that you'll die.

Most people, like those firefighters, know this, yet still have the courage to go on about their daily lives.

I think even conservatives agree that the NRA's call for armed guards at every school is a stupid, unworkable, unsafe idea. Guns aren't a perishable item, and, taken care of correctly, can outlive their owners. But it's the NRA's job to make sure people keep buying guns. If that means sowing fear and discontent, so be it. Consequently, much of what they say regarding public safety, I find to be less than credible.

It's a complex problem, and I don't have all the answers. But I know that putting more guns into the equation is literally like adding gasoline to a fire.

I don't know what despair or insanity could compel someone to take the lives of innocent strangers, but we need to make sure that it's easier for them to get access to a mental health professional, than access to a gun.

For a friend of mine.

2012-12-17T06:55:00.001-07:00

Hope his makes you feel a little better.

Lessons We Refuse to Learn

2012-12-15T00:28:00.000-07:00

It happened again. Just as we knew it would. I'm not sure I have the words to describe what I'm feeling. Soulsick comes close, I guess. What compounds this horror are the inevitable, insensitive, callous comments of people like Mike Huckabee, who blames this tragedy on "God being driven from the classroom". If only we were that lucky.

Let's pretend for a moment that god is real. How stupid does one have to be? How little self-esteem does one have to have in order to worship a being that would willingly sacrifice 26 innocent people, most of them children, because he feels he isn't being worshiped sufficiently? A being like that is worthy only of my contempt. It's one of those times that I wish god were real. Then there would be someone to blame, an enemy to vanquish.

But that is not the case. Not much is known yet about the shooter, but given the nature of all the others, one can make some assumptions. In order for any human being to calmly take the lives of children and others who pose absolutely no direct or imminent threat to them, one would have to have suffered a serious break with reality.

Having spent a good portion of my misguided youth engaged in "better living through chemistry", I can tell you that, even under the most nominal of conditions, our perception of reality is built on little more than a house of cards. One of the most complex things that exists in this universe is the human brain. It's both fragile and resilient. Even with all the technological advances over the last 30 years, and our ability to store a lot of information in a very small space, the closest we've come to true artificial intelligence resembles more the brain of an ant, than a human. Our brains got us to the top of the food chain, and have created most of what we interact with in our daily lives. There is a lot of power there. So, when they break, things tend to end badly.

When those broken brains are in control of bodies that have access to a lot of firepower, things end badly for a lot of people.

To me, America's obsession with guns is indicative of fear. Canada has just as many gun owners per capita as we do, but less than half the gun violence. Why is it so much worse here?

Fear. Fear that has been carefully cultivated by those who have a vested interest in making, and keeping us afraid. We all know who they are. That fear, which we are being spoon-fed with on a daily basis, is one that many of us are all too willing to embrace. We're afraid of everything. Mostly each other.

It is a cowardice that, frankly, is embarrassing to witness.

The older I get, it seems, the less willing I am to take another's life, even to save my own. Mostly, I think, that it is because I have already lived through what they have yet to. How could I take a gift of that magnitude from anyone?

For the next few days, however, if anyone within arm's reach tells me that those children could have been saved if those teachers had been armed, or they try to portray this tragedy as "god's will", I may just make an exception in the form of a fat lip, or a poke in the snout.

Just So You Know Where My Head's At

2012-11-26T06:10:00.000-07:00

Ah the good old days, back when there was actually such a thing as a lucid Republican. Granted, I disagreed with him on many issues. But that's the point. He was able to prioritize and discern real issues, rather than the stupidity and minutia that today's Republicans focus on.

This speaks for itself.

Pretty much sums it up.

Sound familiar?

Admittedly, I'm not as chipper as I once was....

Sour Grapes?

2012-11-11T22:00:00.000-07:00

There are those who think that we Democrats have been overly celebratory in our victory. They have misinterpreted our reaction. It isn't poor sportsmanship. It's relief. Immense relief. It's like being in a horrible car crash, then realizing afterward that you don't have a scratch on you.

We all dodged a bullet.

From Bain and the comical notion that he was a job creator, to offshore bank accounts, to refusal to release tax returns (obviously hiding something; logic dictates it), to his open contempt of not just the 47%, but to every working person in this country, and endless comments that were guaranteed to alienate different voters, Mitt was showing to many why he should never be allowed anywhere near the White House. Putting aside the "magic underwear", his questionable personal and business ethics, and his painfully obvious cluelessness about everything outside of his bubble, he simply was not qualified for the job.

The fact that the election was this close was due, in large part, to people like the Koch brothers, organizations like ALEC, and multinational (read foreign) corporations who, because of Citizens United, were convinced that this election was already bought and paid for. It's the reason for Karl Rove's meltdown on election night, and why Mitt Romney was described afterward as being "shell-shocked". They thought the fix was in.

It is they who are the takers. They who commit crimes on a scale.much larger than some welfare mom (often vilified by these same people) would have either the will, or the resources to carry out. It should be obvious who does the most damage.

They would gladly turn our elections into a spectator sport. A football game where we still pay the price of admission, but have no say on how the game is played.

A man shared a Facebook post his daughter made that put it eloquently:

"Last thing I'll say about the election and then I'll move on to enjoying these next 4 years, the simple FACT that Obama has won TWICE proves that that times have changed. We are a new America and Republicans need to wake up to this new reality. Open your closed minds and do some simple research. ALL Obama supporters are not welfare recipients or sitting at home waiting to collect another check from the government. Not all Obama supporters are "takers," we are providers as well. We provide for our children, the elderly, veterans.... We work long and hard and pay taxes just like everyone. We watched money being taken from ALL of our checks to pay for a war that was pointless and ridiculously expensive. Please remember the FACTS and go back to the drawing board, because "The Right" is not tuned-in to this new ideology."

He is rightfully proud of her. But her youth shows in her hope that the Right will learn from their mistakes. If history is any indication, they will double down as they've been doing, convincing themselves that they can change the nature of reality itself, if they can get enough people to believe the lie.

The Most Iimportant Right

2012-11-06T06:49:00.000-07:00

Today is election day. If you haven't done so, go vote. Trust me, the most basic of American rights may not seem important, until you lose it.

About a decade ago, I had a raging drug problem. It progressed as you might expect, and I ended up doing a couple of years in prison. When you're convicted of a crime, the first thing they do, is take your right to vote. I've alway assumed that the reason for this is that since you've committed a crime, you decision-making abilities are therefore suspect. Of course there is the fact that there are many politicians out there whose decision making abilities resemble that of someone who is mentally ill. They also have committed crimes on a scale that most of us have neither the will or the resources for. These are the people who write laws. It's up to you to call them on it.

I'm told I can get my civil rights restored. It is, unfortunately, way above my price range. My experience in prison served what I assume was it's intent, and I've lived an exemplary life since, I think. I don't even jaywalk.

But none of that matters. Because money is now free speech, and that freedom is now being held for ransom by the state.

There are millions like me, and that number is growing every day. So, go vote. Because, trust me, you don't want to spend the rest of your life on the outside looking in, with a blog that few people read as your only voice.

Sympathy

2012-11-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in a while. My brother passed two months ago today. It was sudden and unexpected. One of those cancers that show little in the way of symptoms until it's too late.

I'm not exactly what one would call emotionally demonstrative, unless you count being perpetually glib an emotion. (Yeah, I know. Yada yada defense mechanism...I'm workin' on it, alright?). So I was caught off guard as far as how much his loss affected everything I was doing. Especially writing. I usually write a blog post down on paper, then go back and read it a day or so later. At that point, I usually think, "What crap", and try again.

You're welcome.

My brother and I weren't close growing up. He was 15 years older, and out on his own before I was really aware of his presence. As a teenager, I spent a couple of summers with him and his family. I had a lot of hair, and an equal amount of angst. But he was patient with me, and I was lucid enough between bong hits for some of it to take. He would occasionally get the look on his face that hard to describe. It was his way of calling bullshit when I did or said something stupid. Whatever it was, it worked.

After I became an adult, my brother and I found that we had two diametrically opposing political viewpoints. This made for some interesting Thanksgivings, and a couple of decades' worth of spirited emails.

For me, it began when Reagan was elected. I knew it was bad. Really bad. I knew that the consequences would be far-reaching. Being able to say, "I told you so" isn't as fun as I thought it would be.

I suspect now that, much of the time, my brother was playing devil's advocate in order to get me to think logically, and back up my opinions. If so, I owe him a debt of gratitude.

But what I've learned, is that logic and reason must be tempered with empathy and compassion. Otherwise, we tend to end up doing what is expedient, rather than what is right.

Part of my liberalism, and my atheism for that matter, is the belief that most people are good, decent, hard-working folks just trying to do the best they can. Sometimes this is little more than a carefully cultivated delusion. But it's a necessary one, I think. When I'm wrong, it is often spectacularly so. But the times I'm right more than make up for it. If I'm to err, I prefer it to be on the positive side. The problem is, that it requires a strength which I don't always posses. It's at these times, I tend to go into a sort of hibernation until it passes.

Otherwise, I run the risk of seeing, in my mind's eye, that look on my brother's face.

Life Eternal

2012-09-03T18:41:00.001-07:00

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. If you think I'm happy about that, you're wrong. The average 78 year lifespan of an American male is entirely too short for my liking.

On the other hand, if one were to think it through, eternal life would be a fate worse than death. After a relatively short time (compared to infinity), you would have thought your last original thought. No more sense of wonder, your every action done by rote. Assuming finite memory, you would eventually forget how you came to be, everyone you ever loved, everything you once thought important. Eternal life as a zombie? Thank you, no.

I'm sure there's a happy medium in there somewhere. We may even achieve it someday. How long is long enough to reach one's full potential? I'm sure the answer is as varied as every member of humanity.

Early in our relationship, I tried to explain to my wife (a believer) how I came to be an atheist. As I did so, I began to see a sort of fear, even panic behind her eyes. For days afterward, she was depressed. I felt horrible, and I've never brought up the subject again. I vowed then, that if a person's belief did them no harm, and gave them comfort, I'd leave them their illusion. In the end, they'll never even know they were wrong.

As for me, I've taken Carl Sagan's advice: "Better a hard truth, than a comforting fable."

Unfortunately, believers like my wife, people whose moral compass isn't swayed by people like Pat Robertson, and other prophets of hate too numerous to mention, are becoming an endangered species.

There are those, so conditioned by their beliefs, that they would cheerfully commit the most horrible of atrocities if they believed it to be the will of their god. For them, the wage of sin is death. Of course, their definition of sin is often a matter of convenience.

These arbitrary definitions are a common occurrence in the Middle East, and could easily be here, if Dominionists ever succeed in their efforts of doing away with the secular nature of our government.

It is these people that should be fought tooth and nail, with every resource at our disposal. Their vision of the future is this twisted, monocultural utopia where selfishness is a virtue, compassion is a sin, and diversity is not tolerated.

Courage and Common Sense

2012-07-29T16:36:00.000-07:00

As a liberal, I think that the Second Amendment is a good thing. Our founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions, and the Second Amendment has done an admirable job of deterring those things. Of course, at the time it was written, one man with a gun was only slightly more dangerous than one man with a knife.

Liberals aren't generally big fans of firearms. But there are those whose fear is such, that they would turn this country into an armed camp in order to feel secure.

The mistake that our founding fathers made was in assuming that their descendants would have courage and common sense.

Certainly, risk can be managed to a point (that's the common sense part). But after that, you begin trading liberty for what is often the illusion of security. As far as courage, well, the conservative obsession with the myth of a risk-free existence is indicative of a cowardice that is embarrassing to watch. Their response to that fear is to actually make things more dangerous. Maybe it's because they believe that it's not their liberty that they'll be trading.

There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, nor should there be (that way lies extinction). A certain amount of stress and strife is necessary. Of course we would prefer it to be more in the way of positive challenges. But, life is risk, and all the firepower in the world won't change that.

Big business, and the politicians that they own realized long ago that fear is a great tool for manipulating the masses. A very lucrative tool, at that. It's unlikely that those who crave power could ever take our freedom by force. But they don't have to. They have frightened people to the point where they've been gladly voting against their own interests, and selling their security and freedom, a little at a time, for decades.

It isn't a TV show, or a video game. I can guarantee that anyone who says that they could have prevented a tragedy like this, if only they had been present and armed, hasn't ever actually had real bullets shot at them. A firefight is the very definition of chaos, and, unlike TV, someone who is mortally wounded rarely has time to deliver a moving soliloquy before a graceful exit. The end is most often horrifying, undignified, and immediate.

It's impossible for a sane person to take a human life without some damage to the psyche. It's the curse of having imagination and empathy. In times of war, or self defense, it has to be overridden, and that's when the damage occurs.

Most recover, but like any injury, there are scars.

So when I read about people like Russell Pearce, and his armchair heroics, I find it decidedly less than credible.

Aurora

2012-07-20T20:21:00.000-07:00

I won't go into much detail about the tragedy in Aurora. Nor will I address the question of gun control, and the NRA. The situation speaks for itself. We're just not listening. I will say this:

There is a difference between the 2nd Amendment's intent, and what's going on today. The founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions.

They never considered the possibility that their descendants would actually allow public policy to be decided by those whose only qualification is a large pocketbook. They never thought we'd be so short-sighted as to allow our nation to be sold out from under us for such a pittance. They trusted the future of this nation to us. Their mistake was assuming that we'd be worthy of that trust.

Indeed, I think they would feel betrayed, and that we deserve whatever we get for that betrayal.

And they would be right.

Some statistics.

2012-07-03T19:32:00.002-07:00

A nice lady contacted me with some good information regarding this country's obsession with putting people in prison.

Until we love each other's freedom as we do our own, none of us are free.

Created by: OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.com