Orlando, IS, and The Crusade for Mental Illness

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the Facebook hottakes are too numerous to mention. To preserve my own dignity, I've decided to blog about it so I can get it off my chest with no risk of anyone reading it.

If you're not familiar with the situation, what appears to be a mentally deranged man shot up a gay club in Orlando and left 53 people, including himself, dead. These early reports we're seeing now seems to suggest he was doing it on behalf of the Islamic State.

Since the incident, everyone and their brother has come out with things we should do, things we should say, people we should blame. Most have been vague platitudes and kind words on Facebook. Many have been diatribes against the usual suspects: The NRA, Islam, Homosexuals. And who gets to make proclamations here is even up for grabs. Take for example Owen Jones, who in the clip below just walked out of the study because the other two weren't gay enough to comment on the incident.

I have a "friend" on Facebook who wrote "I swear if anyone comes out with #NotAllStrightPeople I'm going to scream." Which was funny because in my casual review of the news, I haven't seen anyone blame straight people int he first place.  While I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Jones that the shooter probably didn't know the first thing about Islam, he's wrong to suggest that the issue in play here is homosexuality. Just as he claims the massacre will be co-opted in the anti-Terrorism fight, I believe he's co-opted the incident for his own agenda. It's hard to say exactly what that is, but it seems to me that he's making this an issue about homosexuality when it's clear to me the issue at hand is mental illness.

And more importantly, lets say what this isn't about: Religion; Guns; and Gays. They're all symptoms of the same disease. And whenever a tragedy happens people use their own world view to make sense of things. But the facts remain the same. If we didn't arrest Salinger because of Mark David Chapman, then blaming Islam on this one is ludicrous And frankly, taking guns away from people doesn't seem to me to solve the problem. That the man could buy a weapon while on the no-fly list is ridiculous. That he was on the no-fly list because he was a terrorist sympathizer is even more disappointing. The government doesn't function right now. And at least 53 people are dead because of it.

I fear currently that too many people will think the issue is Islam and homosexuality and won't give this the proper weight it deserves. Because the truth is that those people who are estranged from reality have a position. And the severity of that position isn't something they can control. What justification they use is irrelevant. And all this is to say that tomorrow, someone who shouldn't be allowed to drive can buy a weapon and shoot up your favorite bar, or workplace, or church. The only question we're waiting on now is how many more shootings will take place before we actually do something about mental illness.

Crossing the Rubicon: Brock Turner and the Future of Consequences

A great deal of hay is being made about Brock Turner, the Stanford Swimmer who raped a woman, got a lenient sentence because of the impact a longer sentence would have on him, and whose father penned a letter to the judge asking for a lenient sentence.

You can find a longer version of the letter online, but after reading these choice highlights, I have to tell you that not only do I believe that this father is completely out of touch with reality, but I read into it larger societal implications.

First off, the appeal to a judge in the first place is abhorrent. This is the justice system. You're not buying a house. Appeals to anyone's emotion in a matter of legality is an affront to the nation of laws that America was always meant to be. He was found guilty by a jury of peers. While I'm not fond of the judicial reasoning on this, the system is working as it should, and the judge will be held responsible for the verdict. Secondly, the general emotional well being of a criminal is not anyone's concern. I'm sure everyone feels badly that they are being punished.

But the thing that bothers me most about this letter is the estrangement from the gravity of the situation. Snacks? The word on its own is juvenile. Why bring it into the discussion of justice for a rapist. The thrust of the argument is all too touchy-feely for me to even consider as a serious argument: His smile, the snacks, the phrase happy-go-lucky...is this man an adult or is he the host of a children's television show.

Why the whole thing makes me cringe, aside from the obvious, is the cluelessness with how easy his kid got it. There was a time where rape was met with gelding. And while that might be considered cruel and unusual punishment, 6 months in jail isn't.

Finally, the man strikes me as having absolutely no sense of forethought. Specifically because of the element of time he brought into it. And because he seems to be completely clueless as to what rape is. For one thing, why does time matter? If I'm to stab you in the heart, you'd die a lot more quickly than 20 minutes. Should I get less than 6 months because it took me 3 seconds to commit the act? Situations aside, we can agree that time isn't a factor.

Beyond this, to equate rape with eating steaks is lunacy. No one cares if you can eat steak. If the rape were to be conducted on the father himself, would he feel the same way? The point isn't the questions. Everyone most likely thought the same thing when they read about this case. The point is, why isn't he thinking about this? His child, his grief, the time of the separation - that's all fair game if he spoke his statement. But he wrote it. He had to have thought about it. He got an envelope, and a stamp, and put it in his mailbox. And still he felt like snacks and swimming superseded someone having another person inside of them when they weren't conscious.

The stand we make here is about a lot of things, but beyond them all is boundaries and consequences. And that's what this father doesn't understand. You can't negotiate your way out of things. That's assumed by the upper classes, but the internet isn't letting this one go, and they're aiming to unseat the judged that the father thinks is too harsh. I personally want to see this end with the justice the digital vigilantes seek. Because while I can't align myself with them all the time, this is one area where we seek the same outcome for different reasons. In the end, the main concern is justice. In an America that seems to be comping loose at the frayed ends of sanity, we need hard lines now more than ever. As Caesar can tell you, once you cross the Rubicon, there's no going back.