I recently posted this review of A Modern Witch by Deborah Geary.
The book is an excellent example of why we end stories with "happily ever after." Because "happily ever after" is really, really boring.
I was reminded of the contrast in the next book I've been reading, Written in Red: A Novel of the Others, by Anne Bishop. I'm not finished and thus not ready to post a review yet, but so far, it's a lovely book.
As I was reading along, rooting for the heroine, it dawned on me that I am pulling for her to lead a good, happy life. But, having just read an entire novel detailing a woman's good, happy life, I realize that is the last thing I want to read about. I really want conflict, suffering, loss, peril and tough choices. I just want it to all end up with "happily ever after."
I've never been much of a fan of those nihilistic novels where everyone is still sad and suffering in the end, because that's how life is and the book is gritty and real. If I want to know about people whose lives persist or end in suffering and despair I can turn on the news. The universality of suffering is not something I need to be reminded about. Who are those people that need that reminder? Would it be fun to live in their world, or really really boring? Or is is just that misery loves company? Again, there's plenty of miserable company in the real world. I don't need it in my literature.
Because I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, I also regularly read books with monsters of some sort in them. I realize that this isn't a new observation, but the monsters of fantasy are really just us. They're a way of putting a neat wrapper around evil so that we can see it and compartmentalize it and reassure ourselves that it doesn't have anything to do with us. We are not monsters. The vampires and werewolves and demons -- they're the monsters! Of course, the most self-aware sci-fi and fantasy realizes this and generally finds some way of inverting that trope (hopefully in ways not as awful as Twilight). But it's a reminder to take with us back into the real world. There is nothing the monsters of our fantasies can possibly do, no act so vile or depraved, that it has not already been inflicted upon one human by another human in the real world. Why would we need to be afraid of vampires? There are humans out in the dark.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
On Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul and the Shoulders of Giants
Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size. -- John of SalisburyWith the passage of Margaret Thatcher, we have lost the last of the triumvirate of the great leaders of the free world of the late 20th century.
It is sad that they failed. But giants always fail, in the long run. The wheel of time grinds even giants beneath it. What is important is that we occasionally have giants, so that we briefly have their shoulders to stand upon.
One might respond that they didn't fail, that they brought down the Soviet Union, and helped freedom and capitalism flourish. But the Soviet Union itself was just a giant of a darker kind. The giants rise and fall, but the impulses that drive the world remain the same.
The Soviet Union and its fellow Marxist states managed to take what seems like an admirable, egalitarian sentiment "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." and turn it into one of the worst nightmares of human suffering ever seen on the planet.
If our giants had really triumphed, then that impulse would be gone. But it is not. Not even close. Because it is a fundamental feature of human nature. Always there have been people who have a vision for making the world a better place. And always there have been those willing to make their visions a reality by whatever means necessary.
The 99% vs, the 1%. "Asking" (because there's no "asking" involved) the "rich" (the defining line of who is rich is always changing) to "pay their fair share" (what share is "fair" is never, ever given a hard definition, for that would rob the phrase of its usefulness), or "spread the wealth around" is just another formulation of the original marxist creed. "You didn't build that" is another expression of the collectivist urge.
The collectivist urge can't be wiped from the human psyche. Indeed, there's nothing evil about it. We do accomplish great things when we work together. Likewise, the urge for individual achievement cannot be wiped away either. It, also, is fundamental, and not evil -- the world needs giants -- people of great ambition and ability.
What is evil is the totalitarian urge. The totalitarian urge isn't left or right, collective or individualist, it's simply the wielding of force to achieve one's vision without the consent of those who disagree or who are in the way.
The totalitarian urge, too, I'm afraid, is an essential characteristic of human nature.
Thus, giants of light and dark will always arise and impose their will upon the world. Masses will rise up and perform sweeping acts of collective good and evil. And talented ambitious people will use their abilities to achieve great and terrible ends.
This will not change. Ever.
We will never escape the giants of light and dark. The value of the giants of light isn't that they may change things for good, forever, but that when we live in lesser times, in lands of dwarves, we may remember when we stood upon their shoulders, and how far we could see.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Crisis Overload And The Rise Of Gay Marriage
I'm not so sure that the public has suddenly become overwhelmingly fond of gay marriage. Referendums supporting traditional marriage have still been overwhelmingly successful when put to public vote.
I have a theory that what's really going on is "crisis overload." What I mean by that is that people naturally set priorities, and in a time when the nation is suffering from several major nation-shaking crises and challenges, I think it is possible that gay marriage has simply sunk low enough on peoples' priorities that only those people who are especially motivated about it -- primarily gay activists -- are driving the issue.
If I was listing my priorities for political action right now, I think I'd list my top priorities as
With a nation in crisis, I'm prepared to say "stop bothering me about gay marriage and abortion. I have more important things to worry about."
This means, of course, that the gay marriage issue is driven by the people that care enough to want to do something about it. Their wheels are squeaking. Mine are not. We know how that works.
If the nation were in such great shape that I had nothing better to worry about, then maybe I'd expend more effort opposing gay marriage. I think its effects will be subtle and take decades to bear ill fruit, and by the time they do, that fruit will be so mixed up with the ill fruit of other poor cultural choices we're making that it will be difficult to say for sure whether gay marriage is responsible. Society is too complicated for such simple causes and effects to often be easily traced.
I have a theory that what's really going on is "crisis overload." What I mean by that is that people naturally set priorities, and in a time when the nation is suffering from several major nation-shaking crises and challenges, I think it is possible that gay marriage has simply sunk low enough on peoples' priorities that only those people who are especially motivated about it -- primarily gay activists -- are driving the issue.
If I was listing my priorities for political action right now, I think I'd list my top priorities as
- Limits on Government Power (this comprises a lot of sub-issues with some overlap):
- Government Spending
- Taxes
- Entitlements
- Currency Manipulation
- Over-Regulation
- Routine Violation of Constitutional Limitations and Routine Violations of Individual Rights and Liberties
- War on Drugs (really part of 5, but so massive it deserves it's own spot)
- Immigration
- Development of a Sensible Foreign Policy
- ...
With a nation in crisis, I'm prepared to say "stop bothering me about gay marriage and abortion. I have more important things to worry about."
This means, of course, that the gay marriage issue is driven by the people that care enough to want to do something about it. Their wheels are squeaking. Mine are not. We know how that works.
If the nation were in such great shape that I had nothing better to worry about, then maybe I'd expend more effort opposing gay marriage. I think its effects will be subtle and take decades to bear ill fruit, and by the time they do, that fruit will be so mixed up with the ill fruit of other poor cultural choices we're making that it will be difficult to say for sure whether gay marriage is responsible. Society is too complicated for such simple causes and effects to often be easily traced.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
I'm Pretty Sure It's Really Graboids!
Sinkhole becomes par for the course for Illinois golfer
Sinkhole in Washington, D.C.
Rescuers call off search for Florida man swallowed by sinkhole, officials report
I've seen Tremors! Or another case of invasive species infestation; this time, Mongolian Death Worms! The government-controlled media conspiracy of silence isn't fooling me!
Sinkhole in Washington, D.C.
Rescuers call off search for Florida man swallowed by sinkhole, officials report
I've seen Tremors! Or another case of invasive species infestation; this time, Mongolian Death Worms! The government-controlled media conspiracy of silence isn't fooling me!
"Federal Law Trumps State Law"
Does it?
Variations of this phrase are uttered frequently by people at all parts of the political spectrum. I believe it is at best a dangerous over-simplification of the separation of powers in the Constitution, at worst, situationally, an outright falsehood.
The concept originates in Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.and also this passage from the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.However, these passages have to be taken in context. The "Laws of the United States" mentioned can only be those made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution itself. The powers granted to the federal government are defined and limited. Thus, the federal government cannot make laws that trump state laws in areas where the federal government is not empowered to act. Criminal law (except for trademarks and copyrights, treason, counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas) is an area where Congress has no power to act.
It cannot criminalize the use of a certain drug, because it has no grant of power to criminalize drug use. It can claim to regulate interstate commerce of a drug, but it's clear that once a drug goes into someone's system, its interstate commerce days are done. Furthermore the word regulate is not the same as the word prohibit. Back when the Constitution was more-faithfully adhered-to, Congress realized it would need an amendment if it was going to prohibit alcohol. It couldn't prohibit it on interstate commerce grounds (this was before the days of Franklin Roosevelt, when discovering new abuses of the commerce clause became a government pastime).
Under a more sensible reading of the commerce clause than we're saddled with today (thanks to the Wickard decision), goods made or grown within a state for use in that state, or made or grown by a person for their own private use, would not count as "commerce among the states." We've labored under Wickard for more than 70 years. It's time for this harmful precedent to be reversed.
That would remove much of the power the federal government claims to meddle in the states and the rights of private individuals to manage their own affairs and property.
If a state government makes a law that establishes conflicting criteria for discharging a bankruptcy (Art I. Sec. 8, Par. 4), federal law naturally supersedes the state law. But if a state legalizes marijuana, the federal law does not trump the state law, because the federal government has no such authorized power to prohibit marijuana in the first place!
The tenth amendment makes this explicit:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Even Crazy Mass Murderers Have Some Rights
In an article today:
Judge approves possible use of 'truth serum' on Colorado massacre suspect
However, things are different in civil proceedings. The fifth and sixth amendments were specifically written to address criminal proceedings, and none of our fifth and sixth amendment rights apply to civil proceedings. Mental health determinations are, in every state, handled as civil matters. Because these proceedings involve loss of liberty, involuntary incarceration and suspension of other constitutional rights, I consider this a great injustice, an egregious loophole in our system of protections of individual rights.
I was an observer (friend of the defendant) in such a case. Under our mental health civil commitment procedures, one can be forced, in essence, to testify against oneself via psychiatrict evaluation. One can be incarcerated for indefinite, elastic amounts of time without ever having been charged with or convicted of a crime. One's freedom, one's fundamental civil rights, can be suspended without trial by jury.
One can be kept imprisoned in a mental facility while waiting judgment and observations of the staff and social workers compiled as evidence. Even refusal to take drugs is offered as a sign of mental illness. Disagreeing that one is mentally ill is offered as a sign of mental illness. Being angry that one has been incarcerated is offered as a sign of mental illness. Any failure to be cooperative is offered as a sign of mental illness. The system is designed to isolate a person from their normal life, put them in an infuriating situation, subject to the arbitrary whims of low-paid health-care workers and civil servants, yet being seen to be angry or depressed over the situation is considered a sign of mental illness!
We were very fortunate in the case in which I was involved that the psychiatrist who testified in front of the magistrate (after having spent only an hour with the "patient" and reading the records compiled by other staff) determined -- reluctantly, I might add -- that she was not an imminent danger to herself or others and reluctantly had to release her, though in his opinion she could benefit from more time in that hellhole.
A very innocent, perhaps unusually naive young woman spent more than a week in a mental institution, terrified for her future, while waiting for that ruling. She was enduringly traumatized by the event, which arose entirely out of a bout of frustration when she said some angry things on the phone to me,and which I understood were just venting. We ended the phone call with her a bit calmer and I was on my way to take her to lunch and talk it out with her when disaster struck.
A busybody near her on the street when she was talking to me on her cellphone overheard her, and called the police, who came and told her they were going to take her to someone she could "talk to." Being, as I said, very naive, and still upset, and used to trusting and obeying the police, she complied. She didn't know that with every word of the angry rant she gave the social worker, she was digging herself into a deep and terrifying hole.
By the time I was able to find out where she was and what had happened to her, she was incarcerated. This was a young woman who had never been in trouble in her life, had never hurt anyone, who led a happy, productive life and was a straight-A college student. But, by God, once the mental health system had its hooks in her, they weren't going to let her go until they'd put her through the full wringer.
According to the law in my state, there are numerous steps along the way where a social worker or facility can simply decline to proceed further and release the person. The social worker kept lying to me and to her, giving us hope that at any day she might be released. What I discovered is that, in practice, this is never done, according to her court-appointed attorney who has many years experience with civil commitment. The social worker knew this, too. At all points where they can simply decline to proceed, they rubber-stamp it to the next step, ensuring that the person has to come before a magistrate. I assume that this is done to force it to a legal judgement and also to absolve the facility and staff from any responsibility for the decision: "Hey, the magistrate said so!"
This is a very scary process, because if the person is found by the magistrate to be mentally ill and a danger to herself or others, the commitment goes on her permanent record, and a host of life options are closed off to her forever: firearms ownership, work in the healthcare industry, work in a secure government job, and many other kinds of work, as the commitment will show up on a background check.
All this is, obviously, of tremendous consequence to the person, yet it is done with virtually no constitutional protections, and it is entirely based on extremely subjective determinations by dubiously qualified people.
Thus, in order to protect an innocent like this girl, I have to insist that the system is equally unjust when used against the worst people, like Holmes. Under no circumstances should he be forced to testify against himself in mental health proceedings. And certainly no drugs or polygraphs. These are known with certainty to be very inaccurate. People might say anything under sodium amytal and pentothal and it might seem crazy and it might not be the truth!
I spent days investigating mental health diagnoses while advocating for this young woman (as she was incarcerated the whole time, her ability to defend herself was limited, she needed someone on the outside to do her legwork). What I found was that it's a completely subjective, squishy system of diagnosis. Wrong diagnoses are hugely common, diagnoses are entirely symptomatic and can change based on whether the patient or doctor got up on the wrong side of bed that day!
If you go through the checklists that are published for common use, any one of us could be classified as suffering from Major Depressive Disorder on a bad day. And I'd think being incarcerated against your will and waiting to find out if your life is going to be destroyed qualifies as "a bad day."
The psychoactive drugs they prescribe have effectiveness rates barely distinguishable from the placebo effect, and horrific side effects, yet they prescribe them with abandon -- even prescribing drugs to young adults that are known to increase suicidal thoughts and impulses in their age group, while such a young adult is being subjected to life-altering evaluations that hinge on whether she might be having suicidal thoughts or impulses!
The system is insane and inhumane.
Furthermore, it's entirely irrelevant in the Holmes case. Determine if he shot all of those people. If so, give him the maximum penalty allowed under Colorado law. End of story. He was able to buy the guns, load the guns, drive himself to the theater and shoot the guns. That's plenty of mental competence in my book.
Judge approves possible use of 'truth serum' on Colorado massacre suspect
The defendant in the deadly Colorado theater shooting could be given "truth serum" under a court order issued Monday to help determine whether he is insane if he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.Let me preface my comments with these disclaimers:
A narcoanalylitic interview is a decades-old process in which patients are given drugs to lower their inhibition. Academic studies have shown that the technique has involved the use of sodium amytal and pentothal, sometimes called truth serum.
...
Sylvester said Holmes also could be given a polygraph examination as part of the evaluation.
After reading a draft of the advisory, Holmes' lawyers objected, saying a narcoanalytic interview and a polygraph would violate their client's rights.
- I think Holmes is clearly guilty and deserves to be executed.
- The above opinion wouldn't change whether he was found insane or not. Going into a theater and massacring innocent people is, by definition, insane. I really don't care if he knew right from wrong at the time.
However, things are different in civil proceedings. The fifth and sixth amendments were specifically written to address criminal proceedings, and none of our fifth and sixth amendment rights apply to civil proceedings. Mental health determinations are, in every state, handled as civil matters. Because these proceedings involve loss of liberty, involuntary incarceration and suspension of other constitutional rights, I consider this a great injustice, an egregious loophole in our system of protections of individual rights.
I was an observer (friend of the defendant) in such a case. Under our mental health civil commitment procedures, one can be forced, in essence, to testify against oneself via psychiatrict evaluation. One can be incarcerated for indefinite, elastic amounts of time without ever having been charged with or convicted of a crime. One's freedom, one's fundamental civil rights, can be suspended without trial by jury.
One can be kept imprisoned in a mental facility while waiting judgment and observations of the staff and social workers compiled as evidence. Even refusal to take drugs is offered as a sign of mental illness. Disagreeing that one is mentally ill is offered as a sign of mental illness. Being angry that one has been incarcerated is offered as a sign of mental illness. Any failure to be cooperative is offered as a sign of mental illness. The system is designed to isolate a person from their normal life, put them in an infuriating situation, subject to the arbitrary whims of low-paid health-care workers and civil servants, yet being seen to be angry or depressed over the situation is considered a sign of mental illness!
We were very fortunate in the case in which I was involved that the psychiatrist who testified in front of the magistrate (after having spent only an hour with the "patient" and reading the records compiled by other staff) determined -- reluctantly, I might add -- that she was not an imminent danger to herself or others and reluctantly had to release her, though in his opinion she could benefit from more time in that hellhole.
A very innocent, perhaps unusually naive young woman spent more than a week in a mental institution, terrified for her future, while waiting for that ruling. She was enduringly traumatized by the event, which arose entirely out of a bout of frustration when she said some angry things on the phone to me,and which I understood were just venting. We ended the phone call with her a bit calmer and I was on my way to take her to lunch and talk it out with her when disaster struck.
A busybody near her on the street when she was talking to me on her cellphone overheard her, and called the police, who came and told her they were going to take her to someone she could "talk to." Being, as I said, very naive, and still upset, and used to trusting and obeying the police, she complied. She didn't know that with every word of the angry rant she gave the social worker, she was digging herself into a deep and terrifying hole.
By the time I was able to find out where she was and what had happened to her, she was incarcerated. This was a young woman who had never been in trouble in her life, had never hurt anyone, who led a happy, productive life and was a straight-A college student. But, by God, once the mental health system had its hooks in her, they weren't going to let her go until they'd put her through the full wringer.
According to the law in my state, there are numerous steps along the way where a social worker or facility can simply decline to proceed further and release the person. The social worker kept lying to me and to her, giving us hope that at any day she might be released. What I discovered is that, in practice, this is never done, according to her court-appointed attorney who has many years experience with civil commitment. The social worker knew this, too. At all points where they can simply decline to proceed, they rubber-stamp it to the next step, ensuring that the person has to come before a magistrate. I assume that this is done to force it to a legal judgement and also to absolve the facility and staff from any responsibility for the decision: "Hey, the magistrate said so!"
This is a very scary process, because if the person is found by the magistrate to be mentally ill and a danger to herself or others, the commitment goes on her permanent record, and a host of life options are closed off to her forever: firearms ownership, work in the healthcare industry, work in a secure government job, and many other kinds of work, as the commitment will show up on a background check.
All this is, obviously, of tremendous consequence to the person, yet it is done with virtually no constitutional protections, and it is entirely based on extremely subjective determinations by dubiously qualified people.
Thus, in order to protect an innocent like this girl, I have to insist that the system is equally unjust when used against the worst people, like Holmes. Under no circumstances should he be forced to testify against himself in mental health proceedings. And certainly no drugs or polygraphs. These are known with certainty to be very inaccurate. People might say anything under sodium amytal and pentothal and it might seem crazy and it might not be the truth!
I spent days investigating mental health diagnoses while advocating for this young woman (as she was incarcerated the whole time, her ability to defend herself was limited, she needed someone on the outside to do her legwork). What I found was that it's a completely subjective, squishy system of diagnosis. Wrong diagnoses are hugely common, diagnoses are entirely symptomatic and can change based on whether the patient or doctor got up on the wrong side of bed that day!
If you go through the checklists that are published for common use, any one of us could be classified as suffering from Major Depressive Disorder on a bad day. And I'd think being incarcerated against your will and waiting to find out if your life is going to be destroyed qualifies as "a bad day."
The psychoactive drugs they prescribe have effectiveness rates barely distinguishable from the placebo effect, and horrific side effects, yet they prescribe them with abandon -- even prescribing drugs to young adults that are known to increase suicidal thoughts and impulses in their age group, while such a young adult is being subjected to life-altering evaluations that hinge on whether she might be having suicidal thoughts or impulses!
The system is insane and inhumane.
Furthermore, it's entirely irrelevant in the Holmes case. Determine if he shot all of those people. If so, give him the maximum penalty allowed under Colorado law. End of story. He was able to buy the guns, load the guns, drive himself to the theater and shoot the guns. That's plenty of mental competence in my book.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
How To Say "Lying" Politely
Obama, his team struggling with accuracy when explaining impact of sequester cuts
If you read the article, you find out that the white house has been out-and-out lying about the impact of the sequester cuts, claiming layoffs and pay cuts where there will be none.
"Struggling with accuracy" deserves the Euphemism of the Year Award. Other top contenders:
"Jewel Thieves struggling with honesty"
"Cannibals struggling with vegetarianism"
"Joe Biden struggling with coherent thought"
If you read the article, you find out that the white house has been out-and-out lying about the impact of the sequester cuts, claiming layoffs and pay cuts where there will be none.
"Struggling with accuracy" deserves the Euphemism of the Year Award. Other top contenders:
"Jewel Thieves struggling with honesty"
"Cannibals struggling with vegetarianism"
"Joe Biden struggling with coherent thought"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)