Monday, November 28, 2016

The Revolution IS What It Managed To Be And Not What It Wished To Become

I was originally going to write a really long-winded obituary on Fidel, but it's that point in the semester when I'm typically just too tired to think straight (coming off of stuffing myself full of food for a week probably doesn't help).

There's very little I can add to the conversation that hasn't already been said. Castro was a hero to many, a villain to many others, with many more holding complicated feelings toward him. Regular readers of this blog will have little difficulty guessing where I fall on that spectrum (though for those having trouble, I tend to agree with Nelson Mandela, a man Castro defended while my own president called him a terrorist).

Really the only surprise to me in the aftermath of his death was finding out how many liberals and other shades of the left despised him. While I typically hate the hand-waving condescension of saying people have fallen for propaganda, I guess if you call someone a brutal dictator enough, most people will believe you. I personally was accused of falling for propaganda when I happened to mention the oft-cited statistic that even though Cuba is a tiny island nation under embargo from most of the world, they manage to have significantly lower infant mortality rate than the United States. And maybe my accuser was right; if anyone is going to be peddling pro-Cuba false stats, it's gotta be the CIA. I guess maybe the 639th assassination attempt is killing him with kindness?

But yeah, Castro had his worts, as does any world leader. But because he was considered an enemy of the US, his sins are foundational and unchanging, unlike the many sins of the US, which are accidental and non-consequential. This leads to the bizarre spectacle of President Obama condemning the human rights violations of the Cuban government while he runs a literally lawless torture prison on Cuban soil.

While I searched around for the words to capture the heights and lows of Fidel's life, as is usually the case, it turns out someone else already said it better. So rather than ramble on any further, I'll instead offer my official endorsement of the poetic words of Eduardo Galeano on Fidel's life and legacy:

His enemies say he was an uncrowned king who confused unity with unanimity.
And in that his enemies are right.

His enemies say that if Napoleon had a newspaper like Granma, no Frenchman would have learned of the disaster at Waterloo.
And in that his enemies are right.

His enemies say that he exercised power by talking a lot and listening little, because he was more used to hearing echoes than voices.
And in that his enemies are right.

But some things his enemies do not say: it was not to pose for the history books that he bared his breast to the invaders' bullets, he faced hurricanes as an equal, hurricane to hurricane, he survived 638 attempts on his life, his contagious energy was decisive in making a country out of a colony, and it was not by Lucifer's curse or God's miracle that the new country managed to outlive 10 US presidents, their napkins spread in their laps, ready to eat it with knife and fork.

And his enemies never mention that Cuba is one rare country that does not compete for the World Doormat Cup. And they do not say that the revolution, punished for the crime of dignity, is what it managed to be and not what it wished to become. Nor do they say that the wall separating desire from reality grew ever higher and wider thanks to the imperial blockade, which suffocated a Cuban-style democracy, militarized society, and gave the bureaucracy, always ready with a problem for every solution, the alibis it needed to justify and perpetuate itself.

And they do not say that in spite of all the sorrow, in spite of the external aggression and the internal high-handedness, this distressed and obstinate island has spawned the least unjust society in Latin America.

And his enemies do not say that this feat was the outcome of the sacrifice of its people, and also of the stubborn will and old-fashioned sense of honor of the knight who always fought on the side of the losers, like his famous colleague in the fields of Castile.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Mass Movements: The Silver Lining of The Trump Victory

I went to a large meeting last night centered on how we should respond to the election and how we can build movements and connections to resist what are most likely some terrible policies and laws coming our way in the next few years. The meeting itself was fairly useless, having obviously been thrown together last minute and with extremely little planning, but it was nonetheless nice that a hundred or so people showed up on such short notice. Better than nothing, etc.

But one speaker at the event enunciated a lot of what I've felt post-election, especially the way so many on the left have responded with their collective rendering of their garments and gnashing of their teeth. Not coincidentally, he was also the only person of color speaking at the event (again, pretty poorly organized, but that's not the point of this post).

He led off by talking about how he had joked before the election that he kinda wanted Trump to win, if only because it would make white people as nervous as Black people are every day in America. And as he pointed out, it sure does seem like a lot of white people just now realized America is a racist nation. It's not like Trump invented all of this; he capitalized off it, meaning it obviously predated him by quite a bit (I'd say by roughly 400 years, but that's a different conversation).

Perhaps the strongest point this speaker made, though, was in directly asking the assembled crowd how many of them would be attending an emergency anti-racist organizing meeting if Clinton had won the election. While a few in attendance sheepishly raised their hands, it was obvious his point hit home for many (as it damn well should). He went on to explain in much greater eloquence than I can recreate here that the upshot of Trump winning is that it forces white America to confront what Black American already knew -- that there is an incredibly strong current of racism in this nation which is barely concealed, but concealed enough so that comfortable people who don't want to notice it don't have to. But Trump's election removed what little cover this racism (and sexism, and homophobia, and nativism, etc.), forcing these same people to finally reckon with it.

While deserving of it's own post on another day, much of this is due to the blindness encouraged by the two-party system, in which anything done by their side is bad and anything done by my side is good, irrespective of what that action is. As Glenn Greenwald has exhaustively covered, the exact same policies and actions liberals condemned as borderline-fascist under Bush became ideas they cheered and defended under Obama. Hell, often times these liberals defended things Obama did that were objectively worse than those of Bush; while many were quick to denounce Bush granting himself the right to wiretap phones without warrant or any form of oversight, these same folks were conspicuously quiet (or even worse, in favor of it) when Obama granted himself the right to murder anyone he wanted without warrant or any form of oversight. Regardless of your politics, if you find warrantless wiretap a bigger cause for concern than warrantless murder, well...you have a very inscrutable set of beliefs.

So a silver lining is that at least the terrible policies of the next four years won't have the cover of a putatively progressive president behind them, thus allowing people who would otherwise oppose them to actually oppose them. Take, for instance, immigration -- there is currently quite a bit of concern among liberal America that Trump's policies will lead to the deportation of upwards of 3 million people. And these folks are right to be concerned! That would be tragic and indefensible. But what these same folks seem to conveniently ignore is that is roughly the number of people the Obama administration has deported. In fact, the Obama administration has deported more people than any presidential administration in the history of our nation. And yet somehow that wasn't really concerning to these people who are now super concerned about the people Trump might deport (and if he's able to do so, it's only because Obama built such a massive deportation apparatus for him).

But the point of this isn't to make the argument that all presidents are the same so none of this matters or to chide liberals for conveniently forgetting their ideals whenever someone they like violates them (though they should be held accountable for that), but instead to again offer a sliver of hope in these dark times -- many of the people who would have stayed home during a Clinton presidency will be out in the streets during a Trump presidency. And as someone who firmly believes what happens in the streets is far more important and impactful than what happens in the Oval Office, that's actually some comfort.


Wednesday, November 09, 2016

"Gramsci and Hope In Dark Times," or "Finally! A White Guy Weighs In On The Election"


The above quote has been bandied about a bunch on my face book feed today, because all of my friends are nerds. As an unabashed Gramsci fanboy (my first cat was named Gramsci), I obviously like it. And while it's appropriate in both it's bleak realism and the fact that Gramsci was specifically writing about an instance when fascism suddenly, and to many inexplicably, gained prominence in a nation many thought (and traditional Marxist theory held) would be primed and ready for socialist revolution. His conclusions were at once both bracingly negative and outlandishly hopeful (a famous saying of his is "Optimism of the Will, Pessimism of the Intellect"), and I think much the same conclusions can be drawn from the election of Trump.

I haven't blogged here for quite awhile now, about 4 or 5 months if memory serves correct. Part of it was that as a big boy with a big boy job, sometimes shit just gets busy and I don't have time for writing long-winded rants. But a part of it was the vitrolity of this election season; I don't just mean between Trump and Clinton supporters, but also among those on the Left more generally (I'm assuming the same can be said of the Right, but I'm not privy to those arguments). I'm not so naive as to suggest that previous presidential campaigns were all high-minded rhetoric and respectful debate, but this one felt qualitatively different. While I'm rarely reticent to share my political opinions (they are, after all, the central point of this blog), it got to be fucking exhausting debating and defending every aspect of my political views, which is something I'm assuming many others felt as well.

What got to me most in this election is the constant charge of stupidity -- that is, anyone supporting any different candidate from you (and I certainly do not except myself from this criticism) for any reason is not just wrong, but stupid. A moron. Someone who can't see that their actions are going to ruin the nation, and likely, the world. On the Left, this name-calling became inexplicably intertwined with identity politics, as everyone played the Oppression Olympics to prove that their position was not only correct, but the only morally defensible position that can be taken. You're privileged if you're voting for anyone other than Hilary, you're privileged if if you're voting for Hilary, you're privileged if you're not voting, you're privileged if you vote for anyone. Take your pick -- no matter your approach to the election, you can easily find a group of people who applaud your brave stand or who condemn your selfish shortsightedness. Whichever you support probably says significantly more about you than about any sort of larger argument. Why today alone I've already been thanked for my perspective on the election and condemned as a heartless bastard. That is how the Left treats its own.

The Left's attitude toward the right, however, has been much more uniform. The response of nearly all the Left toward the outcome of this election has been pretty uniformly "How could they be so stupid?!?" They of course being those people not like me and stupid being not voting how I voted. Those people were duped by a con man. I get it; I would be lying if I said the thought didn't cross my mind while watching election results pour in.

But, as Gramsci would remind us if he were here today, that is the exact wrong conclusion to draw. Many people have written eloquent post mortems on this race (I highly recommend Thomas Frank's and Glenn Greenwald's), but I want to address the notion of treating Trump voters as uniformly and solely stupid, uniformed, racist, xenophobic, etc. as if they have no actual reasons for having voted for the man (who, just to be clear, I think is a very bad person who will make for a very bad president). This kind of argument is not only overly reductive, but at a very basic level, it doesn't even jibe with the empirical data -- Trump outperformed Romney significantly among Latinx and Black voters, as well as getting the votes of hundreds of thousands who voted for Obama twice. If his support was entirely due to social prejudice, this simply would not have happened (and again, just to be clear, these social prejudices clearly contributed, it's just that they alone do not explain the election).

To be overly simplistic myself (and I highly recommend you read the articles link above that spell this out in detail), a large number of people have been left behind by the global economy and are desperate for some sort of meaningful change in their lives. Much like in Gramsci's Italy of 1930s, the predicted populist revolt did indeed materialize, but it came from the far right instead of the far left. And, again much like in Gramsci's Italy, even the bitter cynics like me didn't really see it coming, even if we thought Clinton was a candidate especially vulnerable to the kind of (faux) populist claims Trump was making. I mean, I was nervous enough about the outcome to shred what little radical street cred I have left and vote for Clinton, even though I didn't truly believe she could lose this thing. But lose she did, and now we have the guy who's been endorsed by the KKK, with many positions that are gleefully in violation of international law and the Geneva convention, and whose only consistent policy has been of hate.

But instead of dismissing this asshole's supporters are mere simpletons, now is the time to figure out how he was able to build such appeal and defeat someone whose rise to the presidency has seemed to be a foregone conclusion since 2008. Because simply turning up our noses and musing to ourselves how those people could be so stupid, we need to figure out how to make our message more appealing than Trump's message. And here's where the hope comes in -- I think we already know how to do that. Really, when you listen to Trump's speeches, the biggest applause lines were often for things like repealing NAFTA, stopping the offshoring of jobs, bucking the corrupt incestuous political beltway, returning power to working people -- these are all standard Leftist beliefs! We can find a way to make our message more appealing than that -- we've done it before and can do it again. A good first step would be to treat Trump supporters as future allies instead of enemies to be defeated.

Here's where Gramsci comes in with some hope. As he forcefully demonstrates, anyone that seeks to govern with any legitimacy at all (e.g. not be an out-and-out fascist dictator) must exercise leadership, which in Gramsci's parlance means operating with the consent of the governed. So now our political task becomes building a movement that lets Trump and his cabinet know they are not operating with our consent (after all, less than 1/4 of the American population actually voted for the guy).

Again, we've done this before and in fairly recent memory: one president established the EPA and OSHA, instituted price controls, initiated major missile treaties with the Soviet Union, and opened diplomatic relations with communist China. These actions would still be considered far-leftist today, and they were implemented by Richard M. Fucking Nixon. Nixon! Quite the opposite of a progressive leftist!

Ol' Tricky Dick didn't do these things because he was some bleeding heart softy, he did them because the Left mobilized civil society to make it clear that he had no legitimacy to govern without doing these things. And while it's obviously far too soon to know what sort of governing style Trump will have, it wouldn't be hard to build an argument that he would be especially susceptible to public pressure, what with his seemingly constant need for validation.

So yeah, today fucking sucks and seeing someone run on a campaign of such unmitigated hate being validated in such a way is impossible not to read as setback of some kind. But often the greatest lessons are learned in setbacks, and the silver lining is that we've been able to overcome this kind of setback before. Let's take a day or two to mourn and then get back to the hard work of building that movement.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Gun Bill Also Contains Potassium Benzoate

For the 5 of you who don't get the reference

In an effort to be slightly less cynical about life and the state of the world, I'm trying to look more often for the best in situations and people. Well...I'm not straying that far from cynicism. So I guess I should say I'm looking for the...not...um...completely terrible...in situations and people?

Which brings us to the unprecedented sit in being lead by House Democrats in an effort to force a vote on some gun control bills. In trying not to be completely cynical about the world, I'll note it's fairly cool that some elected officials are at least trying to make some changes in how we respond to the repeated mass murders plaguing our nation. But as is so often the case, hoping for meaningful change from the two-party system is like buying a cursed doll and receiving a free cursed frogurt, in that any positive you can find is almost immediately tempered by an extreme negative.

In this case, we have a bunch of elected officials taking drastic action to begin to address our nation's gun violence epidemic (that's good!). But their offered solution rests upon racism and scapegoating of an already embattled minority group (that's bad). This could signal a long-overdue shift in elected officials repeatedly caving to every demand of the gun lobby (that's good!). But this particular action is to call a vote on bills that are already doomed to be voted down and wouldn't meaningfully address the problem in any way (...can I go now?).

While those linked readings explain why these bills are trash on the larger level of political and human rights (short version: the very same no-fly list that was decried by Democrats as a racist Orwellian invasion of our rights when it was introduced by the Bush administration is now being trumpeted as the solution to our problem by those very same Democrats), there's also the obvious problem I've not seen addressed by anyone: only Homer Simpson would buy a cursed doll.

Which is my way of saying it is insanely naive to think justifying gun control by saying that terrorists are snatching up legally-available guns is going to change the opinion of anyone who was already opposed to gun control. "Terrorists are going to come here to take advantage of our lax gun laws!" is not going to result in gun-control opponents suddenly thinking "Ok! We definitely need to restrict access to guns." Instead, given everything we have witnessed in the past 20 or so years of how gun-huggers respond to any hint of gun control, I can pretty much guarantee they'll respond with "HOLY SHIT! TERRORISTS ARE BUYING GUNS! I NEED EVEN MORE GUNS TO DEFEND MYSELF FROM THESE HEAVILY-ARMED TERRORISTS! PEW PEW PEW!"*

And that more than anything if why I feel like Homer at the curious oddities shop -- any possible good that's going to come from this is more than washed out by the fact that the doll is actually a cursed, murderous spirit hellbent on killing me. Or maybe the problem is just that someone set the NRA to evil?

*Ok, maybe not that last part, but I like to imagine that every sentence of gun-humpers ends with them aiming finger pistols in the air and pretending to fire a gun. I can't say for certain that's true, but I'm pretty confident it is.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Whose Lives Matter? (Hint: Not Brown People's!)

By now you're obviously aware of the horrible attack on Pulse nightclub in Orlando, which has as of this writing, left 50 people dead and another 50+ injured. It's a horrible attack on innocent people, and while we're still parsing the killer's motivation, the fact that he targeted queer people of color is not a simple coincidence. Whether it turns out he is an ISIS wannabe, a deeply-conflicted closeted man, or having a psychotic break (all theories I've seen floating around the media), it's obvious he was targeting that club because of the presence of queer people of color.

It was a heinous crime, and has been rightfully condemned by pretty much everyone alive, even people who otherwise really seem to hate queer people who haven't murdered. But one person's condemnation of the attack really stood out as hypocritical, even more hypocritical than the condemnation of a woman who has argued in court that gay marriage would do irreparable harm to the people of Florida.

And that super hypocritical person is President Obama, who had this to say on the attacks:
Today as americans we grieve the brutal murder, horrific massacre of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families who are grasping for answers.
We stand with the people of Orlando who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate.
Big words. Strong words. Who could disagree? Seriously, who could possibly disagree with condemning this attack as a terrorist attack and calling for the utmost compassion for the victims and their families? Who?

Well, if this had happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, I know one person who would strongly disagree with that statement.

It would be President Obama.

Because in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Syria, and Libya, and Pakistan, and on, and on), these kind of indiscriminate attacks are not tragic matters, but instead official policy. After all, we remain completely unaware of who 90% of people killed by our drone attacks are. They could be bad people, or they could (much more likely), be completely innocent people, like those killed in the Pulse shooting. And instead of being killed for any defensible reason, much like the people in Pulse, they are killed simply because of who they are. Indeed, even the most conservative estimates put it at hundreds of people killed by US done attacks.

But surely Obama feels just as bad when the drone strikes he orders and approves kill innocent people, right? I mean, he just delivered a rousing speech in which he said we need to end such senseless mass killing. Obviously he would be especially upset if he was personally responsible for multiple mass killings, right?

Nah, he's not upset at all. In fact, he denies killing any innocent people (despite not knowing who he's killing), because every male of "military age" (generously defined as 15-60 years old) is assumed to be a terrorist unless it is posthumously proven they are not. So, you know, the ol' "Guilty Until Proven Innocent After We've Murdered You For No Reason" level of evidence. So when Obama's drones murder a bunch of innocent people at weddings or at funerals or yes, even clubs, everyone there who has a penis is officially considered a terrorist. No muss no fuss for a man who has the second most inexplicable Nobel Peace Prize ever awarded.

So to put it in Obama's reasoning, had the club been hit by a drone instead of a guy with an AR-15, there would have been 50 dead terrorists instead of 50 dead innocent people. Instead of sad press conference mourning the loss of lives, there would have been a triumphant press conference celebrating another win in the War on Terror. Even though, in both cases, there's no evidence there are any terrorists there (except for the ones doing the killing).

Perhaps the most disgusting part of this spectacle is how Obama has the absolute gall to deliver a press conference in which he claims to be "tired" of all this violence and imploring us to find a way to put an end to mass killings. Well, hey, here's a novel idea: if you're tired of the mass killings of innocent people, why don't you try to set a good example by not repeatedly doing it yourself? It rings just a little bit more than hollow for someone responsible for the death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people to give a teary press conference about how bad it is to kill people.

But don't worry, the hypocrisy will gladly continue, as even though he's on his way out, both of the people with a viable chance of taking over his job have already confirmed their commitment to keep on killing innocent people to make sure that everyone knows how wrong it is to kill innocent people.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

That Shitty Rapist, Leftist Bloodlust, and a Failure of Imagination

By now you're likely aware of the case of Brock Turner, the asshole who raped an unconscious woman and blamed it on drinking and hookup culture and who received an incredibly slight punishment, largely because he's a rich white kid who's good at swimming. You're probably also aware of the ludicrous defenses offered on his behalf, such as this one from his father claiming he shouldn't be punished for "20 minutes of action" (as if the length of time it takes to commit a crime is a central concern) or this one from his childhood friend/member of a super shitty band claiming he's only being punished because of "pc culture" (as if stultifying liberal discourse is what caused him to rape someone). His statement, his father's statement, and his friend's statement are all...well, "infuriating" barely begins to cover it. Blood boiling? The purest possible distillation of rape culture? The stupidest things said in a long time? It's hard to accurately convey in words.

But what's got me most interested in following the fallout from this case and his incredibly lenient sentence is the reaction of progressive folks to this news, specifically two central arguments I keep seeing come up: 1) that his mugshot should be plastered everywhere, and 2) that his punishment should be significantly harsher.

In context, both of these arguments are very easy to understand -- there's obviously extreme amounts of rich white kid privilege playing into the fact that the photo used with nearly every story on the case for the first several days after the trial was of the perpetrator smiling broadly in a suit and tie instead of the much more traditional mug shot which usually accompanies such stories. And he very much did receive a sentence that is incredibly lenient for this kind of crime, especially one which had multiple witnesses; while I haven't read the actual sentencing decision, as I understand it he's sentenced to 6 months in county, with the likelihood of release at 3 on good behavior. That is pretty light for being convicted of three felonies. So the complaints, at least to me, seem to be pretty rightly justified.

But taken out of this specific context, you have a bunch of leftists calling for promoting and distributing the mugshot of someone, calling for a significantly harsher prison sentence for someone, and calling for using social media to brand a person as a criminal for life, to make sure this person is never able to go anywhere or do anything without everyone knowing of his criminal past. Heck, here's one fairly representative example which literally brands itself as calling for pitchforks.

This is a bit incongruous, as these are not usually things lefties call for. 

In fact, they are typically things lefties strongly oppose, and for good reason. For instance, here's a great piece written by my smart friend Sarah on the significant problems with mugshots floating around social media. I could link to about a billion pieces about how harsher punishments don't do much of anything to deter future crime, but I'm lazy and the point is pretty much self-explanatory to anyone who has watched our nation's "get tough on crime!" obsession for the past 50 or 60 years have basically no effect on crime rates in either direction (turns out the factors which lead to crime are a wee bit more complicated than such approaches imply).

The reaction to this story reminds me quite a bit of the reaction of much of the left to those assholes who took over a bird-watching sanctuary out in Oregon; leftists are usually pretty big fans of people who try to challenge state power through collective action, resisting police intrusions into their social movements, and attempting to replace hierarchical government with a more collectivist orientation. And yet here we had so many on the left asking on a daily basis why the cops were being cautious with them and attempting to negotiate rather than just shooting them all like the dogs they are. Again, if you didn't pay attention the the specifics of the case, these folks (and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else) sounded much more like law-and-order conservatives in the 1950s than progressive radicals in the 21st century.

While pondering why this is, I remembered this little bit from my prelim exams way back in the day. Since no one other than my PhD committee ever read it (and to be frank, I'm not entirely certain they gave it much of a read, either), I figured this is a good excuse to expose my hard work for the world to see. Here's a little bit where I'm talking about the work of prominent criminology scholars Jonathan Simon and Marie Gottschalk:
Simon (2007) argues that much of this is due to the fact that since the early 1960s crime has become the model problem through which other problems are defined and acted upon. This “governing through crime” means that not only is crime a dominant strategic issue for multiple actors and institutions (as well as a fail-safe electoral strategy), but that the metaphor of crime prevention can be extended to a number of non-criminal problems as a clear moral narrative. Given the righteous anger provoked by the category criminal, the crime metaphor serves as a powerful archetype for drawing stark moral divisions in a number of contentious cultural battles.           Gottschalk (2006) extends this concept historically as well as broadening the view of what caused this shift to the carceral state. She argues that unlike other great shifts in the governing philosophy of the United States, such as the New Deal or the Great Society plans, the carceral state was never presented as a set of policies up for public debate, but rather was a “largely invisible feature of American political development” (19) that came about in unplanned spurts and starts. Although she identifies the carceral state as a top-down elite-led process, she notes that while the public hasn’t necessarily always supported tough-on-crime measures, rhetoric of supporting victims by punishing criminals has found favor with not only conservatives but also women’s groups seeking the recognition and punishment of domestic abuse, LGBT groups supporting the advent of hate crime laws, and other progressive social movements.
It's that last bit that sticks out to me when thinking about this case and others like it that makes me feel like ultimately the problem is a lack of imagination; that is, we don't really have any other way to conceive of how to deal with the Oregon militia idiots or that asshole rapist other than the state coming down on them with full force and administering brutally-harsh punishment.

Because really, the way the Oregon people were treated (cautious discussions with the police rather than police coming in guns a-blazing, ask-questions-later style) and the way the asshole rapist is being treated (thinking about what purpose a harsh punishment really serves, and bearing in mind the ramifications punishment itself has) are much more in line with how I wish all criminal suspects and those convicted of crimes were dealt with. Obviously much of the outrage is that such considerate action only happens when the accused/convicted are privileged white guys, but again, stripped of the exact particulars, isn't this how most progressives and radicals want criminal cases to be handled?

And this is why I pin what appears to be a fairly contradictory reaction from the left on a lack of imagination -- all Americans of all political orientations have become so conditioned to see a harsh state response as the only meaningful reaction to crime that even those of us who oppose such harsh penal measures can't seem to come up with any other way to deal with this stuff. As such, we end up with the bizarre spectacle of radical leftists demanding to know why the state is not locking someone up and throwing away the key.

This is the sort of perniciousness Gottschalk and Simon identify in the carceral state -- even those of us who strongly oppose it are quite easily sucked into its regressive viewpoint of harsh, reactionary punishments when we feel so deeply offended by someone's behavior, as we do with this asshole rapist. But if we truly want to dismantle mass incarceration and the many problems which go along with it, we can't keep pointing to it as the solution to our problems when it suits us. Much easier said than done, yes, but a move away from mass incarceration will never happen as long as its harshest critics are willing to ditch their insightful criticisms when it suits them...

Friday, June 03, 2016

Follow Up to Previous Post

So in what could either be a coincidence or more evidence of the horrid nature of bit-time collegiate athletics, watch Mississippi State's Athletic Director get taken to task for giving an athlete who savagely beat a woman on video a one game suspension. For context, this same school had an athlete that was impermissibly using a loaner car from a local car dealer. That athlete was suspended seven games.