Preserving Freedom By Locking A City Down

Max Blumenthal, via Twitter: On Wednesday, Obama said they would not intimidate us — “not here in Boston.” And today the whole city is shut down because of one guy.

They shut down the subways. They shut down the trains.
They shut down the buses. A spokesman explains,
“We’re cutting his options till not one remains”
And the city has ground to a stop.

They’re asking you kindly, to please stay inside,
It’s all for your safety—too many have died—
The people of Boston should take it in stride
(Only open your doors for a cop)

With SWAT teams, and K-9s, and bulletproof gear
You know it’s not long till they sound the all-clear
There is no place to hide—you have nothing to fear
They can’t hide; not a man, not a mouse!

They can’t take our freedom! This city is strong!
The people of Boston will show them they’re wrong!
We’re patriots here, and we’ve been all along!
…now it’s time to get back in the house.

The classroom exercise, of course, is to trace the referents for “they”.

And yes, I did say I would stop doing this. One cannot control one’s compulsions, or they would not be termed “obsessions”.

Lost in Boston Fog

We don’t have the answers—
Too early to tell;
There are so many rumors
And myths to dispel
But now, the confusion
Lets anyone yell
And point at the groups that they choose!

Let’s blame it on this group
Or blame it on them
Or name any others
We’d like to condemn
A flood of suspicions
There’s no time to stem…
We’re scared, and there’s no time to lose!

While some have been cautious—
Not wanting to guess—
Still others had issues
They had to address
And took full advantage
Of carnage and mess
To promote their political view

They jumped on their soapbox
While other folks bled,
Ensuring the media
Heard what they said
Some few may be helpful,
But some are misled
I don’t have the answers… do you?

It’s just maddening. I won’t point to examples; some will likely be deleted (may be saved in odd places here or there), or not, I have no idea. The New York Post, alone, claims a dozen dead, where everyone else says two. A suspect is, or is not, in custody. It is a Saudi man, or it is a tax protest, or it is related to Newtown, or… or this or that or too many possibilities. (BTW, the second verse originally named names–but I thought that might be more heat than light, so I got rid of it.)

This is the first year I can recall where I do *not* know that I have students running the marathon. Yes, I do know people who are running–Cuttleson’s best friend is safe and sound, but was not allowed to finish (it was a good day to be slow).

I’m watching Boston’s news coverage–they really are doing a remarkable job of not jumping to conclusions (the internets, however, cannot be said to be exercising the same restraint).

One, or maybe two or a handful, of people did this. Dozens, or scores, or more, ran to help when they witnessed the explosions. Hundreds, or more, donated blood in the days before (and, I have heard, on this day–the word is that marathon runners crossed the finish line and kept running to Mass General Hospital to donate blood–I don’t know if that is true, but damn I hope it is), such that the Red Cross is, surprisingly, not asking for increased donations. Thousands, or tens or hundreds of thousands, have watched and asked “what can I do?”, ready, willing, and able to donate blood, money, and time.

Bottom line is… This was a horrible day for some… and a day that allowed the vast majority to demonstrate just how uncharacteristic this horrible action was.

We are better than this. Yes, we (humans) are also this, but on the whole even this terrible day is better evidence of goodness than of badness.

Yes, the Red Cross says to wait… but don’t wait too long. Give blood, and give regularly. Tell them Cuttlefish sent you. (they may make you sit for a bit longer, waiting for the blood to go back to your brain. Take advantage of this time to eat another sandwich and some cookies.)

See also Ashley Miller’s post.

Hey, It’s Only A Word

Foolishly, mulishly
Internet Solomons
Contemplate cutting the
Baby in half

Thinking the problem is
Etymological
Offer solutions that
Just make me laugh

One thing about the same-sex marriage cases in the news–it sure makes online news comment threads a target-rich environment. In three different locations, by multiple commenters on each, one comment was quite common: “Ok, give gays the same rights, but just call it something else!”. Oddly enough (unless there is an organized campaign somewhere I am unaware of), in all three locations, the commenters thought themselves mighty clever to come up with “garriage” as their alternative.

So, yeah–if it’s only a word, it’s only a word. I suggest telling those commenters that it is an acceptable solution, and they can start calling opposite-sex marriages “garriages” any time they want.

What’s that? It’s unacceptable? I thought it was “only a word”.

If a word is important, it’s important to both parties, and separate but equal will be inherently unequal. If the word itself isn’t important, then there’s no problem there to be solved, and no reason to use two words.

The Thin Veneer Of Civilization Peels Away

It looks just like civility
In towns both far and near
It looks as firm as solid oak—
It’s false as thin veneer.

They go to church on Sundays
And they bow their heads in prayer
American utopia?
Try peeling back a layer.

“Our boys are always gentlemen!
They like to party, but…
They’re members of the football team!
It must have been the slut.”

And no, it’s not just Steubenville,
And no, it’s not just jocks
Just look online, at comment threads
On CNN or FOX.

They gladly make excuses for
This adolescent jape—
And claim they’d call the cops themselves…
If only this were rape.

This wasn’t really rape, they said,
And isn’t worth a fuss…
But, damn… it really isn’t them…
I look around… It’s us

Let me start with verse 2–in this particular case, I absolutely do not mean that all the rape apologists are religious. I needed a rhyme for “layer”. My point is not hypocrisy, my point is that I don’t think there has been a news site I have yet checked–right wing, left wing, local, national, whatever–where there hasn’t been an active cluster of rape apologists. CNN. FOX. NPR. MSNBC. Others. On NPR, I took the bait of a troll, and remembered that it is much easier to compose a drive-by trolling post than to properly respond… other commenters warned not to feed the troll, but if no one responded at all, it could be confused with tacit approval of a rape apologist.

And here I am, a doggerel writer. A writer of light, often humorous commentary. Ever try to write lightly about something that turns your stomach? Cos I have. It doesn’t go well.

So, in part because of this stuff, in part because of never you mind, I spent part of last night shivering through an anxiety attack, and the rest of it not sleeping. And I can’t wait to read some good news. If you have any, I’d love to hear it.

And the damnedest thing is, I have absolutely no reason to complain. Here I just phrased much of this post in terms of *my* discomfort, and that is so far removed from the actual real thing that’s wrong that it just makes me look a fool.

I guess the good news is, so far (don’t point me to exceptions, not yet!) whereever I have seen rape apologists on news sites, I have seen people ready, willing, and able to call them on it. And it seems that the apologists have been in the minority–motivated, headstrong, stubborn as mules, and loud, but in the minority. It seems. I certainly hope so.

All that TED talking about de-extinction, and I can think of a species I wouldn’t mind saying goodbye to.

If You Don’t Agree With This, You’re An Idiot

It’s the modern world I live in,
And I use it when I can
I get all my information
From my common, fellow man
I won’t venture an opinion
Till I see what others think—
And I’ll read it all in pixels,
Cos I cannot wait for ink.
Yes, the internet is perfect
When you cannot wait for ink.

Now, some drama is expected
When you get your news online
Where a claim won’t go unchallenged
(And this happens by design)
A democracy of chaos,
Where the hoi polloi will roar—
When the comments are uncivil
I will listen all the more!
Yes, when comments are uncivil
This will bring them to the fore.

There is vitriol aplenty—
It’s a caustic, nasty mess!
Some may strive, perhaps, to educate,
Still others, to impress—
While yet others play a sort of game,
Where points are won or lost
Where truth and reputation are
A portion of the cost
Yes, respect for fact or person
Is a line that’s often crossed!

When the comments are uncivil
They are given much more weight
So the rude and boorish bastards
Hold more sway in the debate—
There’s no need to point to evidence
Or logic, you can tell—
When the comments thrive on rancor
All you have to do is yell.
Yes, the winner (on the internet)
Is he who best can yell.

In today’s New York Times, an editorial that speaks to the current state of news commentary on the interwebs. The editorial comments on a recent article in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, investigating the relative effect of civil vs uncivil commentary (regarding a nanotechnology issue) on participants’ opinions of nanotechnology’s risks vs benefits.

Ok… if you read the NYTimes article the results are “both surprising and disturbing”.

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

But, really… these were not big effects. The sample sizes were large, so significance could be found without really large effects. But… oh, well.

What is strange is that there is no mention in the NYT article of the religious interaction effect. From the paper itself:

Our findings also reveal a significant interaction between religiosity and incivility on risk perception. (beta=-.07;p< .05). Among those exposed to uncivil comments, those with high levels of religiosity were more likely to report higher levels of risk perception and those with low levels of religiosity were more likely to report lower levels of risk perception...

So, yeah… incivility contributes to polarization of positions. Perhaps especially with regard to religious issues. And incivility is a weapon, it appears. Not that it should be, but it is. Incivility and argument should be orthogonal… but it seems, empirically, they are not.

Civility matters, empirically, it seems. And truth matters. And people are more swayed by incivility than by truth, especially where religion is concerned. So… dickishness, on such comment threads, is actually an adaptive trait, contributing to one’s cause?

We are all so screwed.

Free Speech, Or Plot To Kill And Eat His Wife?

We see these rights as absolute—
No state would dare restrict ‘em—
We have not broken any law…
Until there is a victim.

We’re free to speak of fantasies
Of murder, rage, or hate—
We haven’t crossed the line, of course,
Until… it is too late.

Our whispered, dark conspiracies
Are safely out of reach—
Until you find a body,
Hey, you can’t restrict free speech!

In the New York Times today, a troubling story of the cop on trial for conspiring to kill and eat a number of women, including his wife. She’s the one who accidentally stumbled across the evidence on a home computer. Her husband had been chatting on some fetish sites online, and she found detailed descriptions of how she and some of her friends were to be tortured, killed, and cannibalized.

Or… the officer was merely engaging in fantasy writing, with no plans to actually do anything he described. Torture porn has a market, after all, and the first amendment is there to protect the speech we detest. I have, in satirical verses, linked to a cannibalism site (one I sincerely believe is itself satire). These were only words, after all, and no one is harmed by mere words.

No one harmed. Imagine finding such writing, naming you (some people don’t have to stretch much to imagine such a thing). In this case, the woman moved from New York to Nevada, and contacted the FBI, understandably frightened for her life. No one harmed.

It will be interesting to watch this one play out. Words have consequences, and free speech is not absolute. And while this case is obviously an extreme, we can see the roles in this case reflected in so many other places. To what extent can you say, even to yourself, that hurting someone is any more acceptable because it is just with words?

There is one aspect to this case that sets it aside from the others that spring to mind–the officer clearly never intended his writing to be discovered by his wife. If it was mere fantasy (as the defense claims), any harm it did (and it did do real harm, unquestionably) was unintentional. There are others waving the free speech banner who are quite intentionally attacking others.

In a way, that makes them worse than this guy.

Snake-Handlers? In 2013?

For goodness sakes
I need my snakes
Or God won’t know I love Him!
I have to show
Or He won’t know
There’s no one else above Him!

I know my sect
Is more correct
(As well as more exciting);
Among my clues,
We fill the pews
When rattlesnakes are biting!

Though some have died
At least they tried
To do as God commands
It may seem sick–
One serpent’s prick…
Their fate is in His hands

Middlesboro, KY–A pastor wants his snakes back. Middlesboro’s Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name has been in the news before, also for snake-handling. Today’s story is simply that a pastor had some $800 worth of venomous snakes confiscated in Tennessee, and wants them back… in the name of religious freedom and simple property ownership. The story from years ago was of death by snakebite. Actually, in searching for the case I knew was there, I found several others; it seems snake handlers have a tendency to get bitten and die.

The one that springs immediately to mind (I may have found that link, but it might be a different case), which my parents (who lived in the area at the time) told me about, was of a child custody battle between grandparents. Both parents were dead from snakebite, and the grandparents were fighting over the kids. One set of grandparents were snake-handlers, and argued that since the parents were snake-handlers as well, they were the obvious choice to raise the kids as the parents wanted. Honestly, I didn’t have the heart to look to see who won the battle. (They are not the only case of multiple generation snake-handling deaths in one family.)

Thinking of those kids, I am not even tempted to say “give the preacher his snakes back and let nature take its course”. I am glad this is only a fringe sect, but it is outrageous that such a deadly ritual is protected as religious free speech.