Guns

After the tragic shooting yesterday in San Bernardino which left 14 dead and 17 more injured, we are once again throwing around statistics about guns and posturing on gun rights and gun control. It's par for course after every mass shooting.

I'll have to give credit -- Vox.com, better than any media site out there -- mainstream and/or other wise -- gave the most fair and balanced take on gun control numbers, explaining the various methodologies employed in analyzing multi-victim shootings of 4 people or more. Vox, along with the Guardian, posted comparable firearm death rates in the United States and other countries around the world. But that is aside the point.

The New York Daily news, for its December 4th edition, posted a provocative cover late Wednesday night as a rebuke against politicians who posture with "Prayers for...", all the while not really doing much to combat the issue.

There's a far bigger issue than the availability of guns, and that issue gets amplified if you look closer at The Guardian's statistics of firearm ownership and firearm rates around the world. To understand gun violence, you ultimately have to evaluate the sociopolitical climate that readily accepts gun violence as a means to resolve and/or control conflict, whatever it may be.

From the gang-ridden streets of Chicago, to the domestic disputes of Houston, and the unspeakable tragedies of various mass shootings around the country, individual(s) have utilized guns to settle scores, assert dominance, or prove some sort of point. It is the decision-making process that concerns me more than anything, and it is an indication of culture.

Believe it or not, homicide rates in the United States are lower than they were 20 years ago. According to a poll that was sourced by Vox.com, only 12% of Americans actually know that -- most believe that homicide rates are as bad if not worse than years past. Media coverage and social media conversations largely skew perceptions in my opinion, and many may not really remember how bad homicide rates in the United States were.

In the early 1990s, New York would have 2,000 homicides a year; Los Angeles as late as the early 2000s had over 1000 homicides a year; Chicago would clock in anywhere from 600 to 900 homicides a year; and Houston would regularly exceed 500 homicides a year. However, intervention programs, stiffer sentencing, aging, peace, lack of a drug epidemic, and better policing has led to significant drops in homicides. New York and Los Angeles are pacing for fewer than 400 homicides; Houston is pacing for fewer than 300; and Chicago's homicide numbers will still be half of what they were 20 years ago. A lot of that is due to changes in cultural, sociopolitical, and demographic climates.

I never argue in favor of or against gun control. It's an argument that distracts from the real core issues -- social climate, the cultural acceptance of resolving conflict with a gun, and the actual decision-making process. Our discussion really needs to encompass what kind of intervention, outreach, treatment, and cultural changes would be necessary as effective forms of prevention, if any.

The bottom line on Donald Trump

For some, it is fairly easy to be appealed to Donald Trump. After all, he is bringing his brash public personality to politics. He says politically incorrect things. He's appealing to disenchanted, angry white conservatives. He's bringing a brass and controversial style to presidential politics that hasn't been seen since George Wallace ran for the highest office in the land in 1968.

Trump has to be given credit -- he tapped into an upset constituency and he gets a break because he is more of a pop culture icon than an actual politician. As many political pundits keep predicting (and hoping for) his demise -- his support has proven resilient. Even though he says fairly egregious things. Even though he exaggerates. Even though he supports lies. Even though he is unapologetic in his appeal the most xenophobic and racist parts of the Republican Party base.

It should be known that I have no dog in this fight, per se. Clinton isn't centrist enough for my taste. Sanders liberal and progressive politics will just entrench more partisanship in Washington. Kasich is the most likable GOP candidate, but he lacks the political savvy to really stand up against the most extreme elements of the GOP; Cruz is too partisan. Carson is too ignorant.

And then there's Donald Trump.

Trump's success is the manifestation of two things: a much more politically extremist Republican Party and the GOP's inability to stop prostituting conservative anger for votes. He's more or less the endgame monster that the party made when it began to reject effective, centrist governing in the 1970s. Trump is not a game-changer; he is not "shaking things up"; he is proving to lack a degree of maturity that should be expected out of a politician, especially one that is going to be entrusted to most powerful political office on earth.

Trump's success, if you will, so far is because of the emotional statement that his campaign represents. In an election that is short on candidates being effective at actually governing (Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio have no signature legislation; Firiona, Carson, and Trump have zero political experience), it's not surprising that voters are supporting candidates by wearing the hearts on their sleeve. The world and this country is too dynamic to really have an American president that is either drunk on partisanship or drunk on their own ego.

Here's the truth: Trump will be undone due to the primary rules of the Republican Party that favor much more pragmatic candidates. Nomination races are not won so much by popular votes in the primaries as they are by the delegates that are sent to the National Convention. The last five Republican nominees for President -- Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush -- all came from the more pragmatic half of the Republican Party. Moreover, Trump's campaign has little political experience and their battles will be lost due to the GOP's system on delegates.

This is why I maintain that the Republican nominee for President will be either Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich.

I won't go so as far as Donald Trump being the worst thing to ever happen to the Republican Party.  However, his divisive and pandering rhetoric that appeals to the most angry, xenophobic, and racist parts of the Republican Party base is the last thing that the American political scene needs.

American politics has become too partisan, too extremist, too tribal. Politicians care too much about grandstanding, self-aggrandizing, jockeying, and posturing rather than governing and that troubles me. Americans are willing to support candidates on emotion rather than nuanced fact or critical thinking, and it's scary. Trump's candidacy is a manifestation of the most disgusting parts of American politics and he represents a symbol of what is wrong with American politics today -- from politician to constituent.

When the truth becomes useless in politics

All politicians lie. That's par for course. Political campaign seasons are exercises in rhetoric. Appealing to certain constituent bases is par for course, too. It's seen as necessary by pundits and operatives as a way to allow for a campaign to gain some sort of traction. What I am seeing in this 2016 election, at least on the Republican side, is appalling.

Let me first start off by saying, this election is not about "outsiders" versus "insiders" as much of the politicos, the candidates themselves, and some of the voters try to frame it to be. This is clearly about resentment, largely among white, Christian, social and fiscal conservatives that has manifested over an entire presidential term and the politicians (career and amateur) that are aiming to capitalize on said resentment.  

Then again, angry white, Christian, social and fiscal conservatives is a permanent part of the Republican voter base just like unsatisfied social justice liberals is a permanent part of the Democratic voter base. Candidates of both parties campaign relentlessly on ideological discomfort and dissatisfaction, the public eats it up, and the public manages to continuously divide itself into paralyzing hyper-partisan factions that believe that they're right and everybody else is wrong.

I digress.

What you're seeing in the GOP (and I'm picking on them more on than the Democrats because it so brazen) is not too surprising. After all, Richard Nixon successfully used it in his "law and order" campaign that propelled him to victory in 1968 even though he ended up governing as more of a moderate than what would his outward conservatism implied. Ronald Reagan pulled it off with resounding success in 1980, despite the fact he ended up doing, as president, the vast majority of what he complained (spending, raising debt ceiling, racking up debt) about his 1964 career-making speech.

I should say it is not necessarily a symptom of party politics, but rather a reactionary political style. The Democratic Party before 1960 was more reactionary and outwardly racist than the GOP could ever be accused of being and many Democratic politicians -- including George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Strom Thurmond, and James Eastland -- used conservative white resentment as a resistance tactic to the American Civil Rights Movement in the South. But even then, however, governing and legislating took precedent over endless political jockeying. 

This 2016 campaign season has taken on a different tone, however. It's no longer about governing, really. It's emotional. Democrat Bernie Sanders is running a campaign that's an emotional response to perceived unfairness and immorality in capitalism (or, as detractors would say -- an unfulfilled left-wing fantasy). Republican Donald Trump is running a campaign that's an emotional response to an unfulfilled, right-wing fantasy that is deeply rooted in racial and religious discomfort and, yes, resentment.

However, in a political campaign season where lies and exaggerations is apparently wholly permissible (and encouraged) now, its unsurprising that candidates like Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson have managed to gain traction. Both are vociferous in their lying and their immature, armchair approaches to foreign policy, yet they managed to strike a nerve with bitter conservative voters who resent "political correctness", are disgusted with "social justice", and are dismissive of pragmatism. It didn't matter how untrue their statements were. They appeal to these voters' emotions.

But welcome to the Post-Truth Political System -- a clear result (and indictment) of our incessant drive to draw lines in the sand at every turn.  We assemble into partisan factions, and instead of legitimately engaging in problem solving to actually progress with the realities of society, we choose to endlessly try to score ideological points to no real avail. We champion underdogs, conspiracy theories, "outsiders", claim heightened enlightenment because we're going against the "mainstream" grain, but we end up being as foolish, if not more, than the "mainstream" that we rail against. If you really need evidence, feel free to check out the 2016 presidential race.

If you were expecting me to give a nod to Chuck Todd for grilling Donald Trump this past Sunday on Meet The Press, I'm not. Meet The Press is a joke and hasn't been worth a damn since Tim Russert served as moderator.

Protest and progress in Chicago

US Rep Bobby Rush (D - ILL), left, and Rev. Jesse Jackson protest on Black Friday, November 27, 2015 in Chicago ( Credit: NBC News).

Protesters took to the streets on Chicago's Magnificent Mile along the famous Michigan Avenue to protest, what they feel to be, a year long cover-up by city officials and the Chicago Police Department, in the shooting death of 17 year old Laquan McDonald. McDonald was killed last year after CPD officer Jason Van Dyke shot him 16 times while McDonald was in the middle of the street with a knife in his hand. Van Dyke was rightfully charged with first degree murder.

I already know the argument -- "If he didn't do this...", "If he didn't have the knife in the hand...", "If he wasn't being a thug..." It's the usual inductive reasoning that generally follows the vast majority of fatal confrontations between cop and suspect. At the end of the day, the real question that should be asked was whether or not that level of aggression was absolutely necessary. After all, Van Dyke fired most of the shots after McDonald was already laying on the ground.

But officials did not do themselves any favors. The dash cam video basically contradicted the story that CPD told the media 13 months ago. The city paid the family a multi-million settlement (without a law suit) a few months ago in the hopes of sweeping this under the rug in the wake of an election. And the city still tried to prevent the release of the video until they were virtually forced to.

Anyway, protesters demanded, among other things, resignations of key city and Cook County officials, including mayor Rahm Emanuel, CPD superintendent Garry McCarthy, and State Attorney Anita Alvarez. All three more or less said that they weren't resigning, McCarthy being the most adamant, citing the fact he never quit on anything and he has the full support of Emanuel. The City Council Black Caucus also said it would seek a vote of no confidence against McCarthy. In addition, protesters, led by Rev. Jesse Jackson and U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), also demanded a Department of Justice inquiry into, not only the shooting, but the entire Chicago Police Department.

This is the latest chapter between the ugly relationship between the black communities of Chicago and the police department of the nation's third largest city. Really, this is the latest chapter in the mediocre relationship that seems to commonly exist between black communities and law enforcement. But what makes today so...interesting, is what also happened roughly at the same time the protests were taking place.

Chicago Police announced that they have arrested Corey Morgan in connection to the gang war slaying of 9 year old Tyshawn Lee, who was killed on November 2 after being led into an alley by a group of men and shot at point blank range. Morgan is currently being held without bond as prosecutors argued that Morgan would be a continued threat to society, mentioning that he would be willing to kill grandparents, parents, and kids in relation to a shooting weeks earlier that killed his brother and wounded his mother.

McCarthy noted that Morgan committed this act "in concert" with two others -- one who was already in custody but declined to name, and the other being Kevin Edwards, who is still at large. Lee's father, who is a suspected gang member in one of the feuding gangs in Lee's Auburn-Gresham neighborhood, has not been very cooperative with police, even though he denied to the Chicago Tribune some of the allegations against him levied by police -- but stopped short of denying gang membership.

Tyshawn Lee (Credit: ABC7-Chicago)

Chicago has been plagued this year by retaliatory violence, a key reason why Chicago is on pace to surpass last year's homicide numbers. A social commentator on CNN pointed to the cut in funding to Ceasefire Illinois, an anti-violence organization made famous by The Interrupters documentary that relied on employees -- many whom were ex-felons -- to go into the streets as mediators to prevent beefs from becoming deadly. While Northwestern University did note that that violence prevention programs helped curb gun violence in Chicago's neighborhoods, the program has been under considerable scrutiny in recent years due to criminal charges being filed by some of its employees. Chicago Police wasn't too fond of the program either -- McCarthy, in ending its relationship with the organization, cited the fact that the group didn't work close enough to law enforcement.

McCarthy made strong statements at the press conference, saying that the gang has signed their own death warrant and promised an aggressive campaign to wipe out both gangs. Lee's death is widely seen as a new low in Chicago, a city where violence is common as gangs wage war over turf and drug corners in many areas of the city, including the Auburn-Gresham neighborhood on Chicago's south side that is regarded as one of the city's most violent.

I found the juxtaposition fascinating, and I use that term with the utmost neutrality. Tensions between black communities and law enforcement led to a purported "code of silence", in which people will not talk to police out of fear and/or distrust, even if talking would put heinous individuals behind bars. But people, according to McCarthy, did talk to police and he credited the outreach for allowing CPD to arrest Morgan.

Yesterday, we saw two things:

Chicagoan blacks see the McDonald case as a reinforcement of their distrust of the Chicago Police Department and understandably took to the streets to protest what really did amount to a cover-up.

On the other hand, we also saw a glimpse of what can happen when these communities, as slighted as they feel, work with the police to help them capture vile human beings like Morgan that are willing to exact revenge against another gang member by slaying a child.

In the end, however, there has to be honesty on both sides.

Chicago Police and the City of Chicago has to be honest with the public when one of their officers egregiously fucks up and hold him responsible because it is the right thing to do, not because an obvious cover-up unraveled. This is especially true when in many of these black neighborhoods, as Crain's Chicago Business Rich Miller wrote, will see police officers (with guns) more often than their city councilman. CPD must do everything in its power to establish a cooperative relationship with the communities of their police beats -- both rich and poor. In addition, politicians cannot afford to choke off funding for, nor can CPD dismiss the value of, vital anti-violence and violence prevention programs that can make a difference in these communities.

On the other hand, protesters, as angry as they may be, need to understand that they too must do what they can to encourage their communities to cooperate with the police, especially in regards to violence. "Snitches get stitches" or "snitches end up in ditches"... I get that and it is a lot easier said than done. There's also a whole argument to be had about the socioeconomic environment of this poor neighborhoods that facilitates the cycle of violence, but that's a completely different story for a different post. But a positive relationship (well, at least better than the current state of it which is just absolute shit) only works if it's facilitated on both sides.

Since we're demonizing everybody...

After hearing about the same anti-Muslim group posting the names and addresses of "Muslims" and "Muslim sympathizers" in Irving, including an Irving city councilman, I had an epiphany.  I guess it is now the in-thing to do demonize an entire demographic just because of the actions of certain disgusting individuals, and answer for the action of said disgusting individual(s), even if they had no connection with said disgusting individual(s) aside from coming from the same overall demographic.

So...

Allow me demonize every white person in the United States for the actions of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers for the human rights abuses they laid upon blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, and Native Americans including discrimination, bigotry, enslavement, and lynching. I expect them to answer for the actions of their previous generations, despite the fact they had nothing to do with the atrocities of yesteryear and the main perpetrators are either close to dying, just died, or already have been long dead and decomposed into bones and dust.

Allow me to demonize every inner city black person that I can think of because of the violent, disgusting, criminal acts that some inner city black suspects have committed. After all, I expect every inner city black person -- man, woman, child, old, decrepit, doesn't matter -- to answer for the actions of those that bought into the "thug life", even if none of them had anything to do it.

Allow me to demonize every Latino that decided to cross the border as an "illegal" or "undocumented" immigrant, even though there are millions of Latinos in the United States that were actually born here legally, pay taxes, and are productive members of society. Yes, let me demonize them to the point that I am going to paint them as a scapegoat for all "the jobs they took from Americans", how they "burden the taxpayer with more shit", or how they contradict all the values that come with "being an American".

Allow me to demonize every Asian person for being a total pain in the ass to deal with in customer service, despite the fact that there are many factors such as cultural and language barriers that may play a role in said testy transactions, let alone how my own fucked up attitude could actually exacerbate the problem. After all, the ones that are not combative at all have to answer for the ones that are extremely difficult and raise hell over nothing.

Allow me to demonize every Christian for being a representative of a bigoted religion, despite the fact it is how they interpret the central word(s) of Christianity that shape their belief personal system and their lifestyle, even to the point of being a judgmental and inconsiderate human being. The Christians that are charitable and considerate of others, including their civil rights, should have to answer for the ones that will either openly call for the restriction and violation of the civil rights and human rights of others as well as express an irrational fear of those that they blatantly refuse to reasonably attempt to understand.

Allow me to demonize every Jew for being a representative of the great Jewish banking, financial, nationalist conspiracy, which ranges from the historical Rothschild family purportedly juggling entire international finances with their fortune to being annoyingly rich, gilded, and "special". Never mind the fact that there many individuals that are secular Jews, non-religious Jews, and probably even more Jews that debunk the aforementioned stereotypes, yet have to answer for the "stereotypical" Jews that they may have nothing to do with.

Allow me to demonize every Muslim for being a terrorist, even though the clear fucking majority of Muslims in the world are law-abiding individuals that live a life that is pretty common to nearly every other human being on earth. They too fall in love, go to school, get a job, and be productive members of society. However, the actions of a violent fraction of Muslims that justify their horrific actions with a fucked up interpretation of the Qu'ran and political Islam in general should speak for other 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today (and most aren't even Arab!).

Allow me to demonize every fucking cop in the world, despite the irrational and disgusting actions of a few. Allow me to sit here and blatantly ignore the fact that there are many police officers out there that are committed to upholding the law, making a positive impact in their communities, and focus on quality police work instead of bullying entire neighborhoods filled with a demographic they not only fail to understand, but don't even care to attempt to even gain understanding.

In fact...

Allow me to demonize _______________________ for _______________________, and every single fucking one of them should have to speak for the actions that ________________________.
And so on ________________________.

So now, hopefully, after you see the sheer fucking stupidity of demonizing entire swaths of populations, demographics, and professions for the actions of a corrupted few, maybe, just maybe, we can resolve issues with reasoning, education, and critical thought and not irrational fears and foolish conclusions.