Everyday Erinyes #346

 Posted by at 2:39 pm  Politics
Nov 272022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

In the light of the Q-Club massacre, and since Colorado does have a red flag law (which appears to have been violated), I thought it was time for this article. I’ll just highlight (using color, bold, and italic, since I don’t have an actual “highlight” tool) a couple of parts which I think deserve particular attention, and, at the end, I’ll make my case to the Furies.
==============================================================

Red flag laws and the Colorado LGBTQ club shooting – questions over whether state’s protection order could have prevented tragedy

Flowers at a memorial near Club Q
RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Alex McCourt, Johns Hopkins University

The killing of five patrons in a Colorado LGBTQ bar on Nov. 19, 2022, is the latest mass shooting to garner headlines in the U.S.

Police have said they have yet to determine a motive. But one thing that has emerged is that the suspect had a history of violent plans, having allegedly threatened to attack his mother with a homemade bomb more than a year before the attack at Club Q.

It has led to questions over why that earlier alleged incident did not trigger Colorado’s “red flag” law – something that may have prevented him from acquiring the AR-15-style semi-automatic weapon that police say was used in the Club Q attack. The Conversation asked Alex McCourt, an expert on gun laws at Johns Hopkins University, to explain how red flag laws are supposed to work – and why they weren’t triggered in this case.

What are red flag laws?

Red flag laws – also know as extreme risk protection orders – allow for judges to make a ruling that results in firearms being taken away temporarily from a person who is deemed to be at high risk of harming themselves or others. They also prevent that person from purchasing guns for a set period of time.

They are aimed at protecting against the actions of individuals who have made violent threats or may be going through some sort of crisis.

The way they work is that specific people can petition a court to issue an order when someone is deemed to be behaving dangerously or making violent threats.

The categories of individuals who can petition in this way vary from state to state. But all the states that have enacted such laws – 19 plus the District of Columbia – include law enforcement officers among those who can petition the court to have a red flag order imposed.

Household and family members are also commonly listed. And in Maryland, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, health care officials can petition the court should they be concerned over the behavior of a patient. In California, Hawaii and New York, teachers or school administrators are included in the list of people who can petition the court.

Typically, if the court finds there is sufficient evidence of risk of violence, a judge will issues an ex parte – or temporary – order. These cover a very short period until a hearing can take place. At that subsequent hearing the potential subject of the order can provide an argument that they aren’t dangerous.

If the court decides there is indeed a risk, it will deliver a longer-term order. In most cases it covers a period of up to a year. The subject of the gun ban may be able to petition for the order to be ended early, should they be able to prove, for example, that their moment of mental crisis is over or that they have sought sufficient treatment. The petitioner can also ask for the order to be renewed at the end of the year.

Does research show that red flag laws work?

The first thing to note is that the laws are relatively new – most have come in over the past decade. So researchers are still evaluating the data. But studies have shown that they can be effective in preventing mass shooting events and possibly suicides.

Research from 2019 found that, among a group of cases in which guns were removed from individuals who made threats of mass shootings in California, none of the individuals went on to carry out mass shootings. A 2022 study evaluated extreme risk protection orders in six states. It found that all the states being observed were issuing orders on the basis of mass shooting threats – 20% of these cases involved threats toward schools and 15% toward intimate partners or family members.

Though these laws are relatively new, research analyzing the legislation suggests that they may help prevent suicide.

So there is enough evidence to say they can be used to prevent deaths. But these measures are so new, we need to know more about how well they are being implemented by states. So far, research suggests that public awareness of extreme risk protection orders is low and that efforts to educate the public and facilitate filing of petitions might help.

How well are red flag laws implemented across states?

Connecticut and Indiana both had early versions of red flags laws, in place in 1999 and 2006 respectively, but the policy was really developed after the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012. Since that incident – in which 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman – a further 17 states and Washington, D.C., have added extreme risk protection orders to their statutes. Most have come in since the Parkland school shooting of 2018.

One of the areas in which more research is needed is on implementation of red flag laws. There appears to be wide variation – both state by state, but also within states that have laws in place.

Spotty implementation might be the result of a combination of factors. As they are quite new, there is a knowledge gap – that is, would-be petitioners might not know that a red flag order is an option, or how to go about filing for an order.

But it is also true that there has been a fair amount of pushback from certain counties and sheriffs who have said that they won’t enforce these laws out of Second Amendment concerns. This appears to be the case more in rural areas. But that has not been systemically studied to date.

Any chance of a federal red state law?

There has been some discussion among advocates about trying to pass federal legislation. But to date, the main actions taken at the federal level are to make it easier for individual states to adopt red flag laws. The Biden administration has pushed for their adoption, and the Justice Department has issued model legislation that states can use.

Meanwhile, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed in June 2022 allows for the distribution of funds to states for crisis intervention programs, including the rollout of extreme risk protection orders.

What was in place in Colorado?

Colorado’s red flag law was enacted 2019. It allows for law enforcement and family or household members to file a petition to a court. If it is approved, a court can order that an individual’s guns be removed for up to one year.

A 2021 study of the first year of implementation of Colorado’s law found that in 85% of cases it was law enforcement that initiated proceedings, and in 15% of cases it was household or family members that petitioned.

There has been slower uptake in Colorado than in some other states. But there have been some questions over whether that is over the timing of the law – it was implemented just before COVID-19 pandemic began, so for a large chunk of the first year it has been in operation, people were under stay-at-home orders.

Nonetheless, the study found there were a significant number of sheriffs and counties that said they would not enforce the law. There is no real legal basis for them to do this; it is more of a symbolic or political stance. But it does have implications for red flag laws, as law enforcement officers may not have the training or inclination to pursue red flag orders.

Why was it not triggered in this case?

There hasn’t been an awful lot of detail released on why a red flag order was not imposed on the Colorado shooter. Early reporting suggests that this appears to be a classic example of someone who made a threat, in this case threatening his mother with a homemade bomb – and as such would qualify for an order. But there is reportedly no public record indicating that law enforcement or any family member acted on that threat and petitioned the court.

Experts can only speculate about why this might be the case. But one point of note is that it occurred in a county where the sheriff has expressed opposition to Colorado’s law and has previously said that his officers will not petition for an order except under “exigent circumstances.”The Conversation

Alex McCourt, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, of course our county Sheriff is an elected official – elected by the same people who have been electing Doug Lamebrain Lamborn to Congress for the last sixteen years and just re-elected him again. They are unlikely to vote Sheriff Bill Elder out, or to replace him with anyone who doesn’t have the same character flaw. Yes, the Colorado Oath of Office includes the phrase “I will support the constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state of Colorado, and the laws of the state of Colorado.” And, yes, there is a penalty for breaking that oath (since perjury is presumed.) But I would think charges would have to be brought by the District Attorney (of the Fourth Judicial District, which comprises El Paso and Teller Counties), and, although I cannot find what party he belongs to (I even tried Ballotpedia), I assume he is also a Republican, since it’s essentially the same territory as the Sheriff’s territory. Teller Country isn’t as red as El Paso, but it also doesn’t contain enough people to overrule El Paso’s redness. Maybe you ladies would help me write a letter to the Governor? I don’t know whether there is anything he can do, but I’ve met him, and I’m confident that he will at least be willing to listen.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
 Comments Off on Everyday Erinyes #346  Tagged with:

Everyday Erinyes #345

 Posted by at 3:50 pm  Politics
Nov 202022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I hope y’all will bear with me here. We are all aware that Nancy Pelosi has decided to step down from Congressional leadership, essentially planning, it appears, to serve this term in Congress as just another Representative, while also being a resource for the new Minority Leader and Whip for coaching and advice. Somehow, this feels very final – and not just to me. Tributes and rememberances are pouring in, many from the last people you would expect, and, although almost everyone will have seen some of them – and some may have seen all of them – I want to share several in one place here.

The 19th Magazine was named after the 19th Amendment, so it comes as no surprise that it concentrates on women, and especially minoroty women, as well as persona of fluid gender, and their effect on our politics. Of course they would write about Speaker Pelosi. Here’s some of what they said –
Pelosi was considered one of the most effective legislators and political negotiators in Washington, ushering President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, the Affordable Care Act, through the often fractious House of Representatives amid stiff Republican opposition. Pelosi also supervised the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, the repeal of a 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” that directed the Defense Department not to ask about military applicants’ sexual orientation, and two major components of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda. In a statement, Biden praised Pelosi as “the most consequential Speaker of the House of Representatives in our history.”

It’s easy now to forget just what an achievement it was to get the ACA through the House. Congress was so splintered that even President Obama wanted to pull the legislation – and n=Nancy had to argue him into proceeding. Which she did. And it got passed. It was an extraordinary accomplishment, and it spurred an extraordinary effort from readers and member s of Daily Kos: 2,616 red roses were delivered to her DC office, timed to arrive on her 70th birthday.

“She sent half of the roses to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and is distributing the other half to hill staff to thank them for all their hard work on the health reform legislation.” And there’s more to the story – Walter Reed reported some patient responses.

I mentioned these flowers over at Democratic Underground a couple of days ago.  I have no idea whether I started something – I didn’t follow up, and so many great mindsthink alike – but yesterday at DU I found this:

I thanked Madam Speaker for service as the best Speaker in US history and wished Paul a speedy recovery. I explained that we raised $4200 for Senator Warnock in her honor and that many of our members had volunteered for GOTV and curing House ballots. I noted that she inspired us every day and that our hearts would be with them this Thanksgiving.  The flowers will be delivered on Wednesday so that the Pelosi’s can enjoy them for Thanksgiving.  Thanks so much to everyone who participated!

Heather Cox Richardson, being a historian, naturally provided a little history –
Pelosi was elected to Congress in a special election in 1987, becoming one of 12 Democratic women (now there are more than 90). She was first elected speaker in 2007, the first woman ever to hold that role. She was speaker until the Democrats lost the House in 2011, then was reelected to the position in 2019, and has held it since. Jackie Calmes of the Los Angeles Times tweeted: “As an ex–Congress reporter, I can speak to the records of 8 of the 55 House speakers, 4 Dem[ocrat]s & 4 R[epublican]s back to Tip O’Neill. I’m not alone in counting Pelosi as the best of the bunch. 2 Dem[ocratic] presidents owe their leg[islati]v[e] successes to her; 2 GOP presidents were repeatedly foiled by her.”

Robert Reich commented:
I had the privilege of working with her, and although I didn’t agree with her on everything she did or refused to do (I was disappointed at her initial resistance to a bill that would bar House members from actively trading in stocks, for example), she will go down as one of the most effective and forward-looking Speakers in American history. At a time when America came as close as we’ve ever come to losing our democracy, Pelosi effectively beat back Trump, refusing to bow to his demands. (One of her most memorable public moments was ripping up Trump’s vacuous and hateful 2020 State of the Union Address in front of millions of American viewers.) She led two successful efforts to impeach him (although the Senate shamefully failed to convict). She organized the January 6 committee, making sure it was bipartisan yet without it containing any Republican election-denier.

But I think I am most powerfully impacted by things said by people who were in direct opposition to her politically. People who disagreed with her the most. Such as John Boehner.

And Steve Schmidt:
She passed a test that was laid out by President-Elect John Kennedy in front of the Massachusetts Legislature on the eve of his ascension to the Office of President of the United States.+

First, were we truly men of coursge – with the courage to stand up to one’s enemies – and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one’s associates-the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment-with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past-if our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others-with enough wisdom to know what we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity-men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them-men who believed in us-men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication-with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aum, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.

It is a tragedy of our era that so few men and women have kept faith with that test laid out by John Kennedy. That is why Nancy Pelosi should be celebrated and honored.

Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, we certainly could use more like her.  I suspect AOC is such a one, and Katie Porter, and I hope they get their chances to demonstrate it, and that they are seen for it.  But I also know there are others out there.  Help us help them build a climate in which they can be heard and seem and appreciated.  In Nancy’s place, that is what I would want my legacy to be.

The Furies and I will be back.
=================================

Share

Everyday Erinyes #344

 Posted by at 2:48 pm  Politics
Nov 132022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

It’s a funny thing about this election – it has caused a number of people who were already knowledgeable about elections, but from a different perspective, to get personally into the process right at the precinct level. I already mentioned that my other Senator (the one who wasn’t running for reelection) decided to be a poll watcher, went through all the training, and spent the day at the polling place, watching voters come in, watching what happened to the ballots, observing the nuts and bolts. And here we have a nationally recognized expert in election law at the University of Iowa College of Law, where he studies and teaches about the role of states in the administration of federal elections, who has decided that is not enough – he needed to go right down into a precinct and observe the process by working in it himself. And he has done so before in more than one state.
==============================================================

I’m an election law expert who ran a polling station this election – here’s what I learned about the powerful role of local officials in applying the law fairly

Local residents wait in line to receive their ballots before casting their vote, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2022, in West Des Moines, Iowa.
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

Derek T. Muller, University of Iowa

Derek Muller is a nationally recognized expert in election law at the University of Iowa College of Law, where he studies and teaches about the role of states in the administration of federal elections. In late October he submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on a case that could drastically reshape U.S. elections, addressing the independent state legislature theory. But Muller doesn’t just understand election law from an ivory tower perch. On Election Day, he was a precinct chair in Iowa City, running a polling station inside the University of Iowa. The Conversation U.S. asked him to reflect on what it’s like to be both a election law scholar and an election worker.

You occupy a pretty high place in the world of election law scholars. But here you are, participating at the most basic level in an election and in our democracy.

I’ve worked as a poll worker several times in California and in Iowa. It’s just a remarkable opportunity to see boots on the ground, what the effects of the law can be in the day-to-day administration of an election. And it’s a very practical way of giving back to the community and participating in a way that can help voters at the most important points of their contact with the democratic process.

A dark-haried man in a plaid shirt working at a computer next to a printer.
Election law scholar Derek Muller checking in a voter on Election Day 2022 at a polling place on the campus of the University of Iowa.
Derek Muller, CC BY-SA

Did you see anything different this election from previous ones you’ve worked?

Turnout was higher than 2021 in Iowa. But that was an off-year election. I think there’s been a return to in-person voting in a lot of places. Whether that’s because of COVID-19 or whether that’s because of changes to absentee ballot rules like those in Iowa, it’s not clear. Otherwise, it was pretty typical of how I’ve seen the elections run in the county before.

What was your precise job?

As a precinct chair, my responsibility is to make sure that I contact the other precinct election officials who are working the day. I collect the supplies the night before that we’re going to need for the election. I help set up and organize the precinct ahead of the polls opening and assign people to different functions. I troubleshoot any problems that arise from the other officials. We had an election observer in the room at all times from one of the parties, so they check in with me.

If there were problems I couldn’t solve, then it was up to me to contact our rover, essentially a supervisor who “roves” across six different precincts, or the county auditor’s office if other problems arose.

Did you get any sense from voters what they were thinking about?

Occasionally, some people made comments about the process because they were frustrated if they didn’t have the right ID or their ID was expired. And then there are the other people who were really excited – it’s their first time voting, they want to have a selfie or they’re really excited about how easy the process is, or they’re really grateful that these workers are spending 15 hours sitting there, so you get a range of statements from voters. I think people are always pleased to do their civic duty. They’re enthused to get a sticker and head out the door.

A dark-haried man in a plaid shirt working at a computer next to a printer.
Election law scholar Derek Muller checking in a voter on Election Day 2022 at a polling place on the campus of the University of Iowa.
Derek Muller, CC BY-SA

Was there something you saw that might inform your work as a scholar, or something that your scholarship informed in terms of what you did there?

I see how election officials have discretion; how the way they phrase things can have an effect on the voters.

If somebody doesn’t have the right proof of residency, for instance, it’s kind of discretionary what an election official does.

Do you say, “If you can go home and find your proof of residency and bring it in, that would be great. We’d love to get you registered today so we can have the opportunity for you to vote. But you know, there’s only two hours left in the polls being open.”

Or do you say, “I don’t think you’re going be able to get home and find that and get back, so we can have you cast a provisional ballot.” But if you encourage that they might fill that ballot out, and never come back to cure it, so their vote won’t count.

You’re trying to provide opportunities for voters to consider things that really give them a choice without driving them into a direction that can skew the decision-making. That’s really hard.

In that interaction, you have the power to make their vote more or less likely to count.

Yes.

On the other side, as a scholar doing this Election Day work, I realize that we have these laws that we write and think they make sense until they play out on the ground. And then election officials are supposed to juggle things.

Can you give us an example?

You have the statutes on the books about proof of residency. For instance, if you’re trying to establish residency on Election Day, you need a utility bill, or a cellphone bill.

But questions arise where somebody who wants to vote says, “I have this statement from the university to my home address billing me for services” or “I have a health care bill” or a heating bill. Do these things count? You don’t have a lot of guidance there, and you’re trying to make your best judgment call.

A screenshot from a University of Iowa website telling people where they could vote.
The University of Iowa provided voter information on its website.

In late October you submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the independent state legislature theory. Less than two weeks later, you’re sitting at a table signing in voters. What’s that like?

I like both. Writing academic works and articles is important. Writing big-idea amicus briefs to the Supreme Court is important, and I’m honored to have done a little bit of that. I don’t know that I’ve had as much influence as others have had, but we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say.

But there’s no better way of seeing how these laws play out in the voting process than seeing it at the ground level. We have all these ideas about how elections work, but you can’t understand the law’s implications until you get there and see a lot of volunteers, a lot of senior citizens or retirees who are participating in running the process. And then there’s the added benefit of working in my community.

Did the political maelstrom in the rest of the country affect your polling place in Iowa?

In places like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan there was just a lot of heat, rhetoric and a lot of energy spent by Republicans talking about the election process and the election system. And that trickled into the primaries in those states and in other states where there are senators or governors on the ballot. In Iowa, you didn’t have people who are openly questioning our election process.

What about recent concerns about many election officials coming from a partisan background?

Working with election officials, including our auditor in Johnson County, you learn how professional these officials and their staff are, and the care and attention they put into their work, year in and year out, to make these things run smoothly. They don’t want problems. There can be consequences for a poorly run election. People might not want you to serve in that job again.

In Iowa, they do a really good job of having bipartisan balance on every precinct. Whenever there’s anything involving tabulation of ballots, there’s always a bipartisan team at every precinct who’s involved in that. They do a good job of trying to eliminate some of the politics from the process. I think, for the most part, election officials want the election run as smoothly as possible, and they’re doing everything they can to that end.The Conversation

Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, University of Iowa

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, we need to see more of this, please. And not just in regard to elections. But people in academia, people in legislature or the administration, people in the judiciary at all levels, coming in as just a citizen to see what it looks like from the bottom. Yes, listening to people who have been there helps … but there is nothing like seeing for oneself.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #343

 Posted by at 5:45 pm  Politics
Nov 062022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As important as this topic is, I almost bypassed the article because of the rampant bothsiderism in the introduction and first section. But eventually, the author has to admit that all the actual violence and threats of violence today are indeed coming from the right. And that this violence and threats of violence can be traced to the deliberate manufacture of political delusion. Conservative thinkers appeas to have replaces Descartes (“I think, therefore I am”) with “I think, therefore it is so.”
==============================================================

Political violence in America isn’t going away anytime soon

A member of the National Guard patrols the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2021.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Richard Forno, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

A warning about the threat of political violence heading into the 2022 midterm elections was issued to state and local law enforcement officials by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Oct. 28, 2022.

The bulletin was released the same day that Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s husband was hospitalized after a home invasion by a lone right-wing extremist seeking to harm her.

This incident is the latest in an increasing stream of extremist confrontations taking place across the United States in recent years. These incidents have primarily targeted Democrats, including a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. But threats from both sides of the political spectrum are up significantly.

And, of course, there was the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, where supporters of a defeated Republican president, acting on a widespread lie he perpetuated, violently attempted to prevent the certification of electoral votes. According to well-documented public evidence, some rioters planned to find and execute both Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence.

Such incidents reflect a disturbing trend that targets the very fabric, foundation and future of U.S. democracy. But what led to this point?

As a researcher taking a critical and apolitical eye toward security issues, I believe the rise in contemporary right-wing political extremism – and violence – began with an outdated focus in national communications policy.

A large brick home down the hill from a police tape stretched across the street.
Police take measurements around House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home after her husband, Paul Pelosi, was assaulted inside the home on Oct. 28, 2022.

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Media-induced slow burn

Until the late 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Doctrine required traditional licensed broadcasters to offer competing viewpoints on controversial public issues. But these rules did not apply to cable or satellite providers. As a result, the rise of cable news channels in the 1990s led to highly partisan programming that helped divide American society in the ensuing decades.

This programming fueled increasing polarization in the public and political arenas. Bipartisanship was abandoned in the 1990s, when the Republican Congress under Speaker Newt Gingrich embraced a “scorched-earth” policy of governing. That meant treating the minority party not as the loyal opposition and respected elected colleagues who had differences over policy, but as enemies.

In addition to emerging partisan cable television networks like MSNBC and Fox News, in the early 2000s, an increasingly polarized Congress and the public received a new source of division: social media.

Internet platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and 4Chan allowed anyone, anywhere, to create, produce and distribute political commentary and extremist rhetoric that could be amplified by other users and drive the day’s news cycle.

Political pundits and influencers across the spectrum became less concerned about correctly informing the public. Instead, they stoked outrage in the search for money-generating clicks and advertising dollars. And political parties exploited this outrage to satisfy and energize their voting base or funders.

A white woman and man pull back a black curtain to show a voting machine with a big screen.
Philadelphia city commissioners display a voting machine in Philadelphia City Hall on Oct. 24, 2022.
Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images

Moderation or censorship?

To combat online extremism, social media companies reluctantly began moderating user posts and sometimes banned prominent users who violated their community standards or terms of service.

In response to what it dubbed “censorship” from Big Tech, the right wing splintered into numerous niche platforms catering to their conspiracy theories and extremist or violent views such as Truth Social – run by former President Trump – Gab, Parler, Rumble and others.

Compared with Democrats, Republicans have mastered this form of gutter politics. One example: Right-wing political figures have mocked Paul Pelosi for being attacked, spread baseless conspiracy theories about his personal life and used the incident for applause lines at campaign rallies.

Accordingly, today’s voters and politicians end up confronting one another in the public sphere not on matters and substance affecting the future of the country, but on fundamental facts and conspiracy theories, or to address distractions often generated by their respective media ecosystems. This is only exacerbated by a prolonged nationwide decline in media literacy and civics education.

A crowd of people, some wearing protective helmets, push up against a group of protesters. One of them holds an American flag in the air.
Rioters outside the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, clash with police.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

Law enforcement’s unique problem

Against this backdrop, federal law enforcement has become more vocal in warning about the dangers of domestic political extremism, including a bulletin issued in February 2022. The Oct. 28 DHS bulletin further underscores this concern.

But it’s hard for law enforcement to effectively address political extremism, because speech protected under the First Amendment is a major consideration. Phrases like “I’m fighting for you!” or “Saving our country!” might seem like typical political bluster to one person. But they could be seen by others as an implied call for intimidation or violent action against political opponents, election officials, volunteer poll workers and even ordinary voters.

How does speech turn into violent action? Security specialists and scholars use the term “stochastic terrorism” to capture how a single, hard-to-locate person might be inspired or influenced toward violence by broader extremist rhetoric, as appears to have been the case with the man who allegedly tried to kill Paul Pelosi with a hammer.

Law enforcement’s problem is made worse by right-wing lawmakers who normalize or actively praise the actions of violent extremists, calling them “patriots” and demanding their prison sentences be overturned or pardoned. This helps obscure the actual reasons for such incidents, often by deflecting them into broader conspiracy theories involving their opponents.

Certainly there are controversial left-leaning politicians, pundits, activists and talking points too.

But few – if any – openly disregard the fabric of American government, scheme to overturn democratic elections by force or plot to assassinate politicians.

By contrast, there are over 300 Republican election deniers running for office this year, including many incumbents – the vast majority of whom endorse political violence such as the Jan. 6 attack either by their actions or their silence.

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst

Tensions are high heading into the 2022 midterms. Politicians are making final arguments, and the online messaging machines are spreading campaign information, fundraising requests – and plenty of disinformation as well.

Americans expect a peaceful transfer of political power after elections, but recent history shows we must prepare for the worst. It’s clear that the modern Republican Party is openly and successfully embracing and exploiting misinformation, outrage and attacks on democracy and the rule of law.

Until Republicans actively disavow their extremist rhetoric and the misinformation contributing to it, I believe the likelihood for political violence in America increases with each passing day.The Conversation

Richard Forno, Principal Lecturer in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
AMT, the fact is, yes, we need the fairness doctrine or something like it. But we need even more to demand truth in journalism – and in education. Truth – facts – speak for themselves. And what they say is often counter-intuitive. Applying a fairness doctrine to interpretations of fact should take a back seat to actual evidence. And the differences between pure fact, interpretations of fact, and pure opinion need to be recognized and clearly delineated. Just how feasible it is to get to that point from where we are today remains to be seen.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #342

 Posted by at 6:10 pm  Politics
Oct 302022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Well, we did not start soon enough to try to reduce our production od carbon to slow or stop climate change. And even bringing our production of carbon to a complete standstill would now not be enough. So, now, scioence is looking at ways to pull carbon fron the air and store it somewhere else. Earlier this year, the Erinyes looked at working to incorporate carbon pulled from the air into products which people use anyway (such as concrete and carbonated beverages.) That’s creative, but it would not be enough. So other storge solutions are also being studied. One of them is the ocean (all the oceans).

Science tends to ask questions like “Could we?” Two educators, one from Arizona and the other from British Columbia, think we had better, before we jump into action, answer more questions like “Should we?”
==============================================================

Using the ocean to fight climate change raises serious environmental justice and technical questions

Humans could sink more carbon in the ocean to fight climate change, but should we?
Eric Lafforgue/Art in All of Us/Corbis via Getty Images

Sonja Klinsky, Arizona State University and Terre Satterfield, University of British Columbia

Heat waves, droughts and extreme weather are endangering people and ecosystems somewhere in the world almost every day. These extremes are exacerbated by climate change, driven primarily by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases that build up in the atmosphere and trap heat at the Earth’s surface.

With that in mind, researchers are exploring ways to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it away – including using the ocean. But while these techniques might work, they raise serious technical, social and ethical questions, many of which have no clear answers yet.

We study climate change policy, sustainability and environmental justice. Before people start experimenting with the health of the ocean, there are several key questions to consider.

Ocean carbon dioxide removal 101

The ocean covers about 70% of the planet, and it naturally takes up carbon dioxide. In fact, about a quarter of human-produced carbon dioxide ends up in the ocean.

Ocean carbon dioxide removal is any action designed to use the ocean to remove even more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it already does and store it.

It spans a wide range of techniques – from increasing the amount and vitality of carbon dioxide-absorbing mangrove forests to using ocean fertilization to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton that absorb carbon dioxide to building pipelines that pump liquid carbon dioxide into formations under the seabed, where it can eventually solidify as carbonate rock.

A cross-section of ocean showing different types of carbon capture, like ocean fertilization
Methods of ocean direct carbon removal.
2021 Boettcher, Brent, Buck, Low, McLaren and Mengis, Frontiers, 2021, CC BY

There are other forms of carbon dioxide removal – planting trees, for example. But they require large amounts of land that is needed for other essential uses, such as agriculture.

That’s why interest in using the vast ocean is growing.

Would these methods store enough carbon?

The first crucial question is whether ocean carbon dioxide removal techniques could significantly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it long term, beyond what the ocean already does. Greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing globally, which means that ocean carbon dioxide removal would need to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for a long time, at least until greenhouse gas emissions have fallen.

Initial evidence suggests that some forms of ocean carbon dioxide removal, such as those that rely on short-lived biomass like kelp forests or phytoplankton, may not keep captured carbon stored for more than a few decades. That’s because most plant tissues are quickly recycled by decay or by sea creatures grazing on them.

In contrast, mechanisms that form minerals, like the interaction when carbon dioxide is pumped into basalt formations, or that alter the way seawater retains carbon dioxide, such as increasing its alkalinity, prevent carbon from escaping and are much more likely to keep it out of the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.

Ecological risks and benefits

Another key question is what ecological benefits or risks accompany different ocean carbon dioxide removal approaches.

Research shows that some options, such as supporting mangrove forests, may promote biodiversity and benefit nearby human communities.

However, other options could introduce novel risks. For example, growing and then sinking large amounts of kelp or algae could bring in invasive species. Dissolving certain types of rock in the ocean could reduce ocean acidity. This would enhance the ocean’s ability to store carbon dioxide, but these rocks could also contain trace amounts of metals that could harm marine life, and these risks are not well understood.

Satellite view of the coast showing swirls of phytoplankton
Phytoplankton can grow explosively over a few days or weeks. Ocean fertilization is designed to supercharge that process to capture carbon dioxide, but it can have harmful affects for other marine life.
Robert Simmon and Jesse Allen/NOAA/MODIS

Each process could also release some greenhouse gases, reducing its overall effectiveness.

Interfering with nature is a social question

The ocean affects everyone on the planet, but not everyone will have the same relationship to it or the same opportunities to have their opinions heard.

Much of the global population lives near the ocean, and some interventions might impinge on places that support jobs and communities. For example, boosting algae growth could affect nearby wild fisheries or interfere with recreation. People and communities are going to evaluate these risks differently depending on how they are personally affected.

In addition, people’s trust in decision-makers often shapes their views of technologies. Some ways of using the ocean to remove carbon, such as those close to the shore, could be governed locally. It’s less clear how decisions about the high seas or deep ocean would be made, since these areas are not under the jurisdiction of any one country or global governing body.

People’s perceptions will likely also be shaped by such factors as whether or not they see ocean carbon dioxide removal as interfering with nature or protecting it. However, views of what is acceptable or not can change. As the impacts of climate change increase, tolerance for some unconventional interventions seems to be growing.

It’s also an ethical question

Ocean carbon dioxide removal also raises a variety of ethical questions that do not have straightforward answers.

For example, it forces people to consider the relationship between humans and nonhumans. Are humans obliged to intervene to reduce the impact on the climate, or ought we avoid ocean interventions? Do people have the right to purposefully intervene in the ocean or not? Are there specific obligations that humans ought to recognize when considering such options?

People crouch down to plant mangroves.
Volunteers plant mangrove saplings in the Philippines.
Romeo Gacad/AFP via Getty Images

Other ethical questions revolve around who makes decisions about ocean carbon dioxide removal and the consequences. For example, who should be involved in decision-making about the ocean? Could relying on ocean carbon dioxide removal reduce societies’ commitment to reducing emissions through other means, such as by reducing consumption, increasing efficiency and transforming energy systems?

Who pays?

Finally, ocean carbon dioxide removal could be very expensive.

For example, mining and then adding rocks to reduce the ocean’s acidity has been estimated to cost between US$60 and $200 per ton of carbon dioxide removed. To put that into context, the world produced more than 36 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from energy alone in 2021.

Even macroalgae cultivation could be in the tens of billions of dollars if done at the scale likely necessary to have an impact.

These methods are more expensive than many actions that reduce emissions right now. For instance, using solar panels to avoid carbon emissions can range from saving money to a cost of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, while actions like reducing methane emissions are even less expensive. But the harm from continued climate change has been estimated to be in the hundreds of billions annually in the United States alone.

These costs raise more questions. For example, how much debt is fair for future generations to carry, and how should the costs be distributed globally to fix a global problem?

Ocean carbon dioxide removal could become a useful method for keeping global warming in check, but it should not be seen as a silver bullet, especially since there isn’t an effective global system for making decisions about the ocean.

Sarah Cooley, a former research scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and director of climate science at the Ocean Conservancy, contributed to this article.The Conversation

Sonja Klinsky, Associate Professor and Senior Global Futures Scientist, Arizona State University and Terre Satterfield, Professor of Culture, Risk and the Environment, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
AMT, I’d be very much in favor of establishing a “global governing body” to protect the “high seas and deep ocean” – and by extension, us. I think I would want such a body to be estalished through, or at the very lear with the cooperation of, both the United Nations and the International Court. I’d like for it to be formed and staffed with people who are extremely conscious of the relationships between species, and the effects they all have on each other. (For example, I think I could probably live without poisonous jellyfish. But I might be wrong, Their disappearance might have a huge effect on the disappearance of tuna. I would not like to have to live without tuna. I’d want this body to have, both as members and staff, people who are smarter than me about this.)

The authors do allude to the cost of doing nothing (they don’t use that term, but that’s what “the harm from continued climate chages” refers to.) But, other than saying there is currently no governing body over the oceans, they don’t go in that direction at all. I suspect that, had they attempted to do so, the rest of the article might have gotten lost in the discussion of those complexities. Perhaps you, dear Furies, can shed more light (with a minimum of heat) on this.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #341

 Posted by at 4:18 pm  Politics
Oct 232022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

The premise of this article is summed up on one sentence from it: [T]he U.S. government has often acted as if Indian traditions were somehow not truly religious and therefore not eligible for the constitutional protections of the First Amendment. I would file that under Captain Obvious (or preferably under my NSFW way of saying the same.) Finally at least some progress is being made, though probably not enough and not fast enough. How wold you feel if the government wanted to, say, run an oil pipeline through the cemetery where your parents are buried? Or under your house?
==============================================================

Native Americans’ decadeslong struggle for control over sacred lands is making progress

Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano in Hawaii, with an observatory visible on its summit. Native Hawaiians consider the mountain sacred and object to construction on it.
Chris Condon/PGA TOUR via Getty Images

Rosalyn R. LaPier, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Who should manage public land that is sacred to Native Americans?

That is the question that the United States government and some states hope recent policy changes will address by giving Indigenous people greater input into managing such land. Co-management, as the policy is called, might alleviate the friction that emerges when sacred landscapes are managed without Native American input.

Mauna Kea, a 13,802-foot dormant volcano on the island of Hawaii, is one example. The mountain is managed as public land by the state of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians have protested the state’s management of Mauna Kea for decades, saying Hawaii has allowed too many research buildings on their sacred mountain, which disrupts their ability to practice their religion.

This kind of conflict is not unique to Hawaii. Indigenous peoples have lived in what is now the United States for thousands of years and developed intimate relationships with the lands they call home. For years, Native people across the country have demanded more input into how the government manages areas they consider sacred.

Now, the government may finally be listening.

‘We worship there’

As a Native American scholar of religion and the environment, I am interested in Indigenous peoples’ relationship to the natural world and their struggle to protect their sacred landscapes.

Native Hawaiians believe that Mauna Kea is the first creation of the Earth Mother, Papahānaumoku, and the Sky Father, Wākea. The mountain is an important part of their origin narrative.

For astronomers, the mountain has another significance. They believe the summit of Mauna Kea has the clearest skies for conducting research. For the past 50 years, the state of Hawaii has leased the summit of the mountain to dozens of research institutions. Together, they have built 13 telescopes and numerous buildings on Mauna Kea.

Three telescopes on a mountain top, sitting above the clouds
The Subaru, Keck I and Keck II Telescopes at the Mauna Kea Observatories.
Julie Thurston Photography/Contributor via Getty Images

For years Native Hawaiian leaders have argued that the state ignored their concerns over such construction. When Mauna Kea was selected in 2009 as the preferred site for the Thirty Meter Telescope, a new class of extremely large telescope, Native Hawaiians protested to stop the project.

Native Hawaiians, like those from other Indigenous religious traditions, believe that sacred areas should be left alone without roads or buildings because they are the homes of the divine.

“We worship there, the iwis of our kupuna [bones of our elders] are buried there,” Mililani Trask, the Hawaii island’s trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said at a public meeting regarding an environmental impact statement of Mauna Kea with the National Science Foundation on Aug. 9, 2022. “No,” she continued, “you will not build here.”

The state of Hawaii is hoping to address this ongoing conflict with the creation of a new eight-person commission that includes three Native Hawaiian leaders to manage Mauna Kea.

“I believe we can find a way for science and culture to coexist on Mauna Kea in a mutually beneficial way,” Hawaiian Gov. David Ige said on Sept. 12, 2022, when he announced the new commission.

What makes land sacred?

Native American religions, similar to other religions, view areas as sacred because they are the homes of gods or places that are sanctified by a god. Sacred places may be physically small or large areas, they may be built or natural areas, such as churches and shrines, or mountains and rivers.

Religious studies scholars such as Tisa Wenger have argued that religious freedom for Native Americans has been difficult because “the U.S. government has often acted as if Indian traditions were somehow not truly religious and therefore not eligible for the constitutional protections of the First Amendment.”

Two men stand with signs reading, 'Protect sacred places' on the National Mall, with the Washington Monumemt visible in the background.
People call for the protection of sacred Indigenous spaces to commemorate the delivery of a totem pole carved by the Lummi Nation as a gift to President Joe Biden on July 29, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Native Organizers Alliance

In one dispute in the 1980s, the U.S. Forest Service wanted to construct a road across a sacred mountain in Northern California. A consortium of tribes fought back, and the case ended in the Supreme Court; the tribes lost.

Following that decision, in 1996, President Bill Clinton created a definition of Native American sacred land as a “specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land.”

This language intentionally excludes large areas such as mountains or open landscapes in favor of smaller sites. That does not fully represent the variety of places that Native peoples consider sacred, say religious studies scholars, leading to inevitable clashes over the meaning and uses of such lands.

Co-management is one small step

On Sept. 13, 2022, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland released new federal guidelines to help address these long-standing conflicts.

This new policy, which focuses on publicly managed areas that Native Americans view as sacred or culturally important, will allow some tribes to share management responsibilities with federal agencies.

“By acknowledging and empowering Tribes as partners in co-stewardship of our country’s lands and waters, every American will benefit from strengthened management of our federal land and resources,” Haaland said.

In a related effort, Congress on Sept. 14 held hearings on two new bills to address this same issue. If they pass, their backers hope they will facilitate the inclusion of “tribal management of public lands” and strengthen the “protection of sacred and cultural sites.”

Such changes are “a small step, but an important one, in giving Tribal nations the respect and authority they deserve,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona.

But, he added of the federal government’s new desire to share land management with tribes, “There is no deed that can undo or fully compensate for this country’s historical neglect and desecration of Indigenous Peoples’ culture and places that are sacred to them.”The Conversation

Rosalyn R. LaPier, Professor of HIstory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, I realize I am preaching to the choir here. But, I don’t know, maybe the choir needs to sing louder. Both bills mentioned here have been introduced – and that is not nothing, because it means they have made it through some committees and gotten to the House floor. But that’s all. Neither has passed. I didn’t look up the Senate versions (which were also introduced), but dang, if the House can’t get it done – the Senate is even more of a jungle – I don’t really expect much from this Senate. It surely appears to me they will need to be re-introduced in the 118th Congress, or else they will die. Anyone can track them at these links – HR 8108 and HR 8109 – those are the general pages, and one can dig deeper from them.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #340

 Posted by at 12:08 pm  Plus, Politics
Oct 162022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

This is the culture article I had hoped to do last week, but it’s really timeless. I’d like to start with a personal story. Back in the oughts, when I was working at AAA, and our cubicles had low walls so we could see and possibly talk to people across to us, one day the woman across from mee said something, I forget exactly what, but with which I heartily agreed. I had seen a joke that morning which put me in mind of a particular phrase and I responded “For shizzle!” She was startled and said, “I didn’t even think you would know who Diddy was.” I said, “Well, yeah, I listen to classical music pretty well all the time, but that doesn’t mean I have to be ignorant.” And she replied that most people don’t think that way. And that little conversation was what led to our becoming BFFs. And I have learned so much and gotten so much joy from our friendship, and I think she has too, that I am so grateful to have, and so determined to continue having, an open mind.

However, I’m afraid she was right – most people don’t think that way. I can’t forget all the heads that exploded when Mr. Robert Zimmerman received the Nobel for Literature one year. Or that when the musical “Of Thee I Sing” received a Pulitzer and every creative talent who worked on it received the award except George Gershwin – that was not in my lifetime, but it’s such a well-known event, and so ironic, it sticks with me. And then, there’s “The Lexicon of Musical Invective,” a collection of quotes from history in which older composers, and some critics, verbally destroyed younger composers who turned out to be as great as or greater than their critics. You wouldn’t believe, for instance, the trash talk about Beethoven.

So when I saw this article about how one creative activity can spill over into, and even foster, a different creative activity that is unexpected, I wanted to share it. You don’t need to agree with me or the author – you don’t even need to read it – but it’s natural for me to want to share something – a type of openness – which has given so much to me.
==============================================================

Kanye may not like books, but hip-hop fosters a love of literature

Kanye West provoked criticism recently when he compared reading to eating Brussels sprouts.
Gotham via Getty Images

A.D. Carson, University of Virginia

When Ye – the artist formerly known as Kanye West – stated during a recent podcast that he doesn’t read books, some people questioned whether he was sending the wrong message to children.

Those questions took on more importance in light of the fact that Ye recently launched Donda Academy, a private educational venture named after his late mother, Donda West, who was herself an English professor.

As a rap artist, author and academic, I would never argue that reading lots of books is the only path to gaining knowledge or showing intelligence.

After all, I created the first-ever peer-reviewed hip-hop album published by a university press. For my doctoral dissertation in 2017, I made a rap album and resisted any calls to submit a formally written explanation of the work.

Verbal intelligence

Even as a former high school literature teacher, I never believed the only way – or even the primary way – for people to demonstrate intellect was through reading books. I think that performing a freestyle – that is to say, writing and reciting seemingly spontaneous rap lyrics on the spot – requires levels of intelligence that are often overlooked or racistly cast off as “natural talent” that don’t require studying or practice. For instance, the mind-blowing 10-minute freestyle that rapper Black Thought performed live on New York radio station Hot 97 in 2017 is a master-class demonstration of brilliance that is a result of years of study and practice.

Black Thought performs a 10-minute freestyle on New York radio station Hot 97 in 2017.

In some ways, you might say Kanye West and I are on the same page. Where I disagree with Ye, however, is in his total dismissal of reading books, which he likens to “eating Brussels sprouts.” Rap music is a lot of things, but it includes quite a bit of reverence for literature.

A direct rap response to Kanye West’s dismissive remarks about not reading books, 10 years in advance: “A.R.T. [The Motto],” by A.D. Carson.

Kanye as ‘Gatsby’

Books have a high place in hip-hop. As I’ve pointed out in the various book chapters that I’ve authored on different aspects of rap music – and in the classes that I teach – a wealth of lyrics that contain direct and indirect references to a rich array of literary works. These works span multiple millennia and originate from across the globe.

And long before the book-hating controversy, I once referred to Ye as potentially being hip-hop’s Jay Gatsby, a reference to the central character of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel “The Great Gatsby,” because of the striking parallels that I saw between their lives. The novel contains teachable comparisons to “Graduation” in its use of the flashing-lights metaphor for hope and desire for wealth and class.

While Kanye West professes a disdain for books, the same cannot be said of many of his predecessors and contemporaries.

For instance, in 1996, Tupac Shakur released his 1996 album “The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory” under the alias Makaveli – a variation of the name of author Niccolò Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s 16th-century works “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy” could offer interesting insights into the album and the creative process that Tupac undertook during the final period of his life. For example, Machiavelli famously details his observations on obtaining and keeping political power in “The Prince.” Similarly, Tupac ends his album by talking about his own ascendancy of sorts, shouting out “soldiers with military minds” and detailing foretold rules of war.

What follows is a brief overview of other notable instances in which rap artists refer – either directly or indirectly – to influential literary works written by authors from around the world and throughout the ages.

Black Star’s 1998 ‘Thieves in the Night’

This song name-drops and quotes Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye.” The hook of the song borrows and revises the quote from the novel:

A book cover emblazoned with the words 'The Bluest Eye: A Novel by Toni Morrison'
Toni Morrison’s novel ‘The Bluest Eye.’
Penguin Random House

“… for we were not strong, only aggressive; we were not free, merely licensed; we were not compassionate, we were polite; not good, but well behaved. We courted death in order to call ourselves brave, and hid like thieves from life.”

Noname’s 2021 single ‘Rainforest’

This song directly names the 1961 book “The Wretched of the Earth” by psychiatrist and political philosopher Frantz Fanon. It is a lyrical allusion to the ongoing effects of colonialism.

“Rainforest” by Noname.

KXNG Crooked and Joell Ortiz’s 2022 song ‘Heat Wave’

Crooked makes a passing reference in this song to Plato’s philosophical text “Symposium,” in which characters, including the philosopher Socrates, compete performing improvised speeches. Plato isn’t exactly writing about rap battles, but there are similarities.

“Heat Wave” by KXNG Crooked and Joell Ortiz.

Kendrick Lamar’s 2015 album ‘To Pimp a Butterfly’

There are interesting parallels to Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” throughout the album. The insistent reference to “yams” on the song “King Kunta” evokes the scene from the 1952 novel in which the narrator encounters a vendor selling yams, which remind him of home, so he eats them until they make him sick.

“King Kunta” by Kendrick Lamar.

The Roots’ 2004 album ‘The Tipping Point’

This album borrows its name from a 2000 Malcolm Gladwell book. Gladwell describes a tipping point as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point.” The album cover features a photo of a young Malcolm X, presumably at a tipping point of sorts, before he becomes a world-famous Muslim minister and eventually co-authors the influential 1965 “The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley.”

“The Tipping Point” by The Roots.

Common’s 2000 album ‘Like Water for Chocolate’

Book cover of 'Assata: An Autobiography,' by Assata Shakur.
‘Assata: An Autobiography,’ by Assata Shakur.
Biblio

This album takes its name from the 1989 novel by Mexican author Laura Esquivel. The book uses magical realism to convey the emotions of the main character, Tita, to the people who eat the food she makes while being a caretaker for her mother, which prevents her from fulfilling her true desires.

The album also features a song called “A Song for Assata” that features audio from an interview Common did with exiled Black freedom fighter Assata Shakur, author of the 1989 book “Assata: An Autobiography.”

Dead prez’s 2000 album ‘Let’s Get Free’

This album features many literary illusions and influences. Notably, the lyrics of the song “We Want Freedom” begin with the words, “I Ching,” which is the name of an ancient Chinese text. The group’s logo comprises a symbol, hexagram 46, used in the text that represents the word “army.” Group member stic.man says the symbol is meant to represent “forward motion, progress and adapting in our lives.”

“We Want Freedom” by dead prez.

Rapsody’s 2019 album ‘Eve’

All the titles of the songs on this album are the names of noteworthy women. “Eve” is the first woman named in a major work of literature – the Bible – and several of the other women mentioned are authors, including “Oprah,” “Myrlie,” “Michelle” and “Maya.” The song named for Maya Angelou focuses on themes in Angelou’s work and also quotes from her writing.

“Maya” by Rapsody.

Perhaps Kanye West’s recent remarks about reading will inspire some thoughtful conversation about how American society views reading and determines intelligence. If they do, the archives of hip-hop – whether in book form or music – offer an abundance of ways to take those conversations to greater depths.The Conversation

A.D. Carson, Assistant Professor of Hip-Hop, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, we don’t all need to be alike – in fact, we shouldn’t. But paying attention – and respect – to things that others care about, and the roles those things play in their lives, can open us up to a world of wonder we didn’t know existed. Help us to do that, in ways that work for us, as best we can.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #338

 Posted by at 4:38 pm  Plus, Politics
Oct 022022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I’m not sure when “denial”came to be used to describe a condition, rather than just something a normal person did when falely accused, or a liar did when accurately accused. The first time I was aware of the word in the state-of-mind meaning was from the works of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross; I don’t even remember whether that was directly or indirectly. Now, that seems to pretty much all it means – a stage one passes through while grieving, or the state of belief of an addict that he or she can “take it or leave it,” but always something which is – not exactly involuntary, but not deliberate.

Jared Del Rosso, though he may not be the King of Denial, is here to point out that there are still times when it is very deliberate, and when so exercised, can affect – infect – other people – sometimes one or two, sometimes thousands or millions. What I thought of as the original meaning of denial may not be in common usage any more, but it is still in common use, every day, to whitewash the people who are doing it.
==============================================================

How to get away with torture, insurrection, you name it: The techniques of denial and distraction that politicians use to manage scandal

An image of a mock gallows on the grounds of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is shown during a House committee hearing.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Jared Del Rosso, University of Denver

The U.S. House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection intends to hold another public hearing, likely the last before it releases its official report. The hearing had been scheduled for Sept. 28, 2022 but was postponed because of Hurricane Ian.

Through earlier hearings this past summer, the committee has shown how former President Donald Trump and close associates spread the “big lie” of a stolen election. The hearings have also shown how Trump stoked the rage of protesters who marched to the U.S. Capitol and then refused to act when they breached the building.

The hearings have aired in prime time and dominated news cycles. Still, polling conducted in August by Monmouth University found that around 3 in 10 Americans still believe that Trump “did nothing wrong regarding January 6.”

As a sociologist who studies denial, I analyze how people ignore clear truths and use rhetoric to convince others to deny them, too. Politicians and their media allies have long used this rhetoric to manage scandals. Trump and his supporters’ responses to the Jan. 6 investigation are no exception.

Stages of denial

Commonly, people think of denial as a state of being: Someone is “in denial” when they reject obvious truths. However, denial also consists of linguistic strategies that people use to downplay their misconduct and avoid responsibility for it.

These strategies are remarkably adaptable. They’ve been used by both political parties to manage wildly different scandals. Even so, the strategies tend to be used in fairly predictable ways. Because of this, we can often see scandals unfold through clear stages of denial.

In my previous research on denial and U.S. torture, I analyzed how the George W. Bush administration and supporters in Congress adjusted the forms of denial they used as new allegations and evidence of abuses in the global “war on terror” became public.

For instance, after photographs of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were released in the spring of 2004, Abu Ghraib was described as a deplorable but isolated incident. At the time, there wasn’t serious public evidence of detainee abuse at other U.S. facilities.

Later revelations about the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA black sites changed things. The Bush administration could no longer claim that torture was an isolated incident. Officials also faced allegations that they had directly and knowingly authorized torture.

A museum display shows a wooden board the size of a person below the words 'What is torture?'
An exhibit on torture includes a section on waterboarding in the International Spy Museum in Washington in 2019.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Facing these allegations, Bush and his supporters began justifying and downplaying torture. To many Americans, torture, once deplorable, was rebranded as an acceptable national security tool: “enhanced interrogation.”

As the debate about torture shows, political responses to scandal often begin with outright denials. But rarely do they end there. When politicians face credible evidence of political misconduct, they often try other forms of denial. Instead of saying allegations are untrue, they may downplay the seriousness of allegations, justify their behavior or try to distract from it.

It’s not just Republican administrations that use denial in this way. When the Obama administration could no longer outright deny civilian casualties caused by drone strikes, it downplayed them. In a 2013 national security speech, President Barack Obama contrasted drone strikes with the use of “conventional air power or missiles,” which he described as “far less precise.” He also justified drone strikes, arguing that “to do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties.”

Scandal strategies in play

Americans watched the Jan. 6 insurrection on TV and social media as it happened. Given the vividness of the day, outright denials of the insurrection are particularly far-fetched and marginal – though they do exist. For example, some Trump supporters have claimed that left-wing “antifa” groups breached the Capitol – a claim many rioters themselves have rejected.

Some of Trump’s supporters in Congress and the media have repeated the claim that the insurrection was staged to discredit Trump. But given Trump’s own vocal support for the insurrectionists, supporters usually deploy more nuanced denials to downplay the day’s events.

So what happens when outright denial fails? From ordinary citizens to political elites, people often respond to allegations by “condemning the condemners,” accusing their accusers of exaggerating – or of doing worse things themselves, a strategy called “advantageous comparisons.”

Together, these two strategies paint those making accusations as untrustworthy or hypocritical. As I show in my new book on denial , these are standard denials of those managing scandals.

“Condemning the condemners” and “advantageous comparisons” have been central to efforts to minimize the Jan. 6 insurrection, as well. Some critics of the committee downplay the insurrection by likening it to the Black Lives Matter protests, despite the fact that the vast majority were peaceful.

“For months, our cities burned, police stations burned, our businesses were shattered. And they said nothing. Or they cheer-led for it. And they fund-raised for it. And they allowed it to happen in the greatest country in the world,” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz said during Trump’s second impeachment. “Now, some have cited the metaphor that the president lit the flames. Well, they lit actual flames, actual fires!”

Similar comparisons reappeared amid the House select committee’s hearings. One NFL coach called Jan. 6 a “dust-up” by comparison to the Black Lives Matter protests.

These forms of denial do several things at once. They direct attention away from the original focus of the scandal. They minimize Trump’s role in inciting the violence of Jan. 6 by making the claim that Democrats incite even more destructive forms of violence. And they discredit the investigation by suggesting that those leading it are hypocrites, more interested in scoring political points than in curtailing political violence.

A small group of protesters in a circle, with a man holding a 'Trump won' poster in the middle.
Trump supporters and members of the far-right group Proud Boys gather during a ‘Justice for January 6th Vigil’ in New York on Jan. 6, 2022.
AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

Trickle-down denial

These denials may not sway a majority of Americans. Still, they’re consequential. Denial trickles down by providing ordinary citizens with scripts for talking about political scandals. Denials also reaffirm beliefs, allowing people to filter out information that contradicts what they hold to be true. Indeed, ordinary Americans have adapted “advantageous comparisons” to justify the insurrection.

This has happened before. For example, in a study of politically active Americans, sociologists Barbara Sutton and Kari Marie Norgaard found that some Americans adopted pro-torture politicians’ rhetoric – such as supporting “enhanced interrogation” and defending practices like waterboarding as a way to gather intelligence, even as they condemned “torture.”

For this reason, it’s important to recognize when politicians and the media draw from the denial’s playbook. By doing so, observers can better distinguish between genuine political disagreements and the predictable denials, which protect the most powerful by excusing their misconduct.

Article updated to indicate that the House select committee hearing scheduled for Sept. 28, 2022 was postponed on Sept. 27, 2022.The Conversation

Jared Del Rosso, Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminology, University of Denver

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
AMT, as if it wasn’t already hard enough to determine where truth is. Although Del Rosso’s work may actually make it easier. Certainly he shows that no individual and no group is immune from it. That’s a hard truth but it’s a good one to be aware of if one wants to know the truth.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
 Comments Off on Everyday Erinyes #338  Tagged with: ,