BTK = entitlement to the max

i listened to brief excerpts from the BTK killer's testimony yesterday on the radio. he was telling the judge about how we murdered one family and in the course of describing what he did, he said (to the judge), "if you have read anything about serial killers, then you know that when was I was doing XYZ, I was in the XYZ phase..."

Amazing, the guy has admitted to ten murders and he is lecturing the judge on serial killers. That is entitlement.

Also, he is not crazy, he is (and was) very rational. I know that many would describe him as a sociopath and according to the defintion of sociopath, he would fit the profile quite nicely; no conscience, no remorse, etc.

The interesting thing, however is to pay attention to how he makes sense out of what he did. He was extremely rational in plotting and in killing people. His rationality in carrying out what he did is really no different than the rationality that many of us employ in caring out daily tasks. Indeed, the commentator on the radio described him as a "technician" when it came to killing people.

So, mix rationality with entitlement and in most cases you just get a self-centered jerk; in this case, you got one scary bastard who enjoyed killing people.

so much for rationality and entitlement...

over there, over there...

our Prez recently has been talking about how we are "fighting the terrorists over there [in Iraq] so we don't have to fight them here."

The thing that seems to escape him and all of the others in the Admin is that this is precisely what the "terrorists" want us to do! They want to be able to fight us in their land(s), they want to kill as many Americans as they can, and we are, inadvertently playing right into their hands by continuing to provide them with people to be killed. And because the Admin is hell-bent on "staying the course," this is precisely what is going to continue to happen, over, and over, and over again -- there will be absolutely no shortage of willing volunteers to kill Americans.

Ironically, and sadly, by invading Iraq, we will now have to settle for an uneasy truce with the "terrorists" as, at some point we will have to negotiate with them (yes, duly noted that this is already happening) so that we can pull out. If we had not invaded Iraq, we would still have world-wide support to challenge and dismantle their networks; we wouldn't have to settle for negotiating with anyone.

so, if we had not invaded, we would still be in a one-up position; now we will always be in a one-down position because this thing ain't gonna be over anytime soon and there is no way that we can regain our original position.

oh, and as soon as all the other Repubs figure out that they ain't gonna be re-elected because of this war and their gravy train is pulling into the retirement station, they are gonna cut and run as quick as they can, leaving Georgie out in the cold.

(note that I use the term "terrorist" not because I agree with the notion of a "war on terror" and a terrorist under every bed; I use it because this is how the Admin is framing the conflict).

saying sorry is easy when you're not corrupt

I was listening to NPR this morning and one of their editors came on the air to apologize for a freelance commentator who apparently had been plagarizing others' work (too bad, I liked the guy, Gabe Wisdom). The editor gave the facts of what happened, stated what NPR did in response, and aplogized for the entire event.

made me think...

if you honestly made a mistake in doing your job, and you have nothing to hide about your behavior which led up to the mistake (and afterwards, your response to the mistake), then you have no reason NOT to apologize for it...it was a mistake. You were doing your job to the best of your ability, something happened, you noticed it, took responsible action, and are sorry for any fall-out. pretty simple.

if, however, you are not being straight with what you were doing when the "mistake" occurred, and if you were not straight about what you did about it, then you can't apologize as it would open you up to all kinds of scrutiny, lawsuits, you name it. most people understand that mistakes occur and that if you can demonstrate that you took reasonable action to respond to them, then they are going to be accepting of it.

if you are dishonest with them, and deny what happened, or deny the outcomes of what happened, then that seems to be a sure sign that you are "cooking the books" regardless of what the "books" are.

if it can't stand the scrutiny of daylight, there is something very, very wrong.

common sense, eh?

i think

i screwed up my formatting...

subverting, yet again

i have a wild idea about starting an online journal or database of sociological applications that anyone could use. like, if someone wanted to know how to change the culture of an organization, or how to assist someone in changing him or herself, etc. here is how i envision the format for the entries:

Name of intervention

Purpose of intervention

Potential uses

Sociology behind it (theory, concept, research, etc.)

How to do it (list steps and brief commentary)

Limitations

Cautions

References

seems simple enough. i'm sure that someone will get upset about it, though; accuse me of rocking the applied sociological boat by doing something like that. i know this sounds strange, but i think that applied sociologists should be developing applications for people to use. but, then again, i know that i have some strange ideas.

troy duster

president of the american sociological association, prolific intellectual, wise man interviewed about the senate's decision yesterday to publicly apologize for their lack of intervention in lynchings during the last two centuries. well worth a listen.

the jackson verdict

some were speculating during the trial that jackson would have a hard time as it was an all-white jury. i think this was to his advantage. why? that county is pretty wealthy and i suspect if it is like other wealthy counties in the u.s., most, if not all of the weatlh is in the hands of whites. so...an all white jury, in a wealthy county could probably relate to the idea that someone is out there trying to steal your money and/or set you up so that they can sue you. in short, i bet that they could relate to a poor person (the accuser and his mother) preying on a naive wealthy person (jackson). wealthy people are fearful of being victims; the evidence seems to indicate that jackson was "set up" by the mom.

so, if michael was a poor black man, it would have in all likelihood, worked against him. but, michael is a very wealthy, international celebrity with millions of fans, so his wealth and his status, in this case helped him.

so, the speculating after the trial begins (and ends, i don't plan on saying anything else about it).

i understand road rage

i don't agree with it, but i understand it.

consider the amount of frustration that current urban living consists of. consider, also, how due to our "it wasn't me!" attitudes about responsibility and accountability, there is no way to vent our frustrations over others' mistakes.

now, someone cuts you off, someone runs a red light in front of you...tangible, immediately identifiable blame ready and able to be laid on that person. and what happens? all of that simmering frustration finds a focal point to come out. and you get? road rage.

no timing, no cry (sung to the Bob Marly tune)

the other day, out of the blue, my seven year old said, "dad, i've never seen you cry." that's true. i don't know that i have cried in seven years or if i have she was too young or was not around.

she then asked me why.

my first thought...no time. i don't have time to cry. crying takes time, energy, space, etc. all of those are in short supply now. i get up, i take my triglyceride medication, make my daily ayurvedic tea, make my lunch, settle disputes among the kids, take a shower, go to work, get home and repeat of much of the morning, just different names for similar tasks.

and we don't watch TV except on rare occasions.

i wonder how anyone who is a parent has time to cry?

we're going to have a book burning!

the following list was posted on a sociology list; my response follows:

I think the "giveaway" in this list is in the title...the notion of associating "dangerous" with a book. An exploding book, perhaps, one that secretes poison upon contact with human flesh, perhaps, but the information, knowledge and ideas in a book being dangerous???? Wow, better get those parking lot bonfires started, cause there be a lot of book burnin' going on soon.

Surprised that the Sinclair Lewis novel, It Can't Happen Here, isn't on the list; it is a fictional accounting of how the US becomes a fascist country (written 70 years ago).

Required reading, IMO.

That said, I agree with XXX that we are lacking in our ability to empirically demonstrate our overall worth. Note the fairly recent discussion in Teaching Sociology about the "core" of sociology. My takeaway was that, in some respects, we have no clothes. At best, we are a practice VS a science. Not too bad, IMO, but not what we promote to the world at large.

Yes, we use empirical methods to collect and analyze social data, but do we have any well-founded theoretical propositions and/or axioms that we teach as the foundation(s) of sociology? The closest I have seen is exchange theory ala Homans, network exchange theory, and possibly network analysis. These theories have some possibilities of testing and building on axioms as is the case in other sciences.

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of regurgitating the 3 perspectives in Intro classes? Isn't it odd that we still talk about Durkheim, Marx, and Weber as if they are deities? This would be like modern physics touting Newton as the preeminent natural scientist (which he was, but physics has moved well beyond Newton by now). Granted, natural science predates (at least in the West) social science by a century or two, but they have moved on considerably more quickly than we have. It's like we are stuck in the 19th century. Some of the best material about things social I have read of late comes from outside the discipline. That strikes me as odd.

In any event, I will continue to promote membership in the reality-based community.

huh?

I just read the following (from the AP) and found it interesting. Sec. Rumsfeld apparently cited this as a defense for how the Administration is responding to allegations of detainee abuses; the ironic part is that I think it substantiates the allegations, just by the sheer number of investigations. In short, IMO, evidence of a systemic problem:

"Yes, there have been instances where detainees have been mistreated while in U.S. custody, sometimes grievously, but consider these facts," Rumsfeld said Wednesday. "To date there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees" since Sept. 11, 2001.

I just wonder when these Admin guys will figure this out; actually, I should save myself the energy...they never will.

a progressive post...

to a sociology list.

RE: What is being progressive?

I think what defines “progressive” is irrelevant. I suspect that many people would consider me “progressive,” “liberal,” etc. I don’t use those labels in addressing myself. I don’t think that they are useful. If I do use a label to describe myself, I use terms like, “sane,” “reasonable,” etc. I know that these can be debated about me, but I do strive to be those things.

I think that being “sane” and “reasonable” is taking into consideration all of the known data of a phenomena, being respectful of others, and not pretending that I know everything there is to know about something. In past times, this was known as “humility.” Now a dirty word, I think. I also think it is worthwhile to consider how actions have consequences and paying attention to what those consequences might be prior to taking action; being aware of the limitation of resources, etc.; making judgments based on all of the above with the hope of having the best impact on the greatest number. Again, to me this kind of approach seems sane and reasonable; apparently now this kind of thinking is considered “liberal.” Go figure. But seemingly traditional American values (that I try to adhere to and naively expect others to do the same) like respect, honesty, integrity, accountability, and personal responsibility are also apparently now “liberal” values, too. Go figure again.

So, what constitutes “being progressive” is irrelevant, IMO. What matters is how people act. What can I say? I think pragmatism got it right.

RE: politics, religion, values…to answer your question, I do those things that you mention and am not in conflict with my religious belief system. I suspect that some would argue that I have a very “liberal” and/or “progressive” religious belief-system. I consider myself a Hindu-Buddhist-Jesus (-ist?), although when asked what my “religion” is, I will deny affiliation with any; all of that makes complete sense to me and does not run counter to my “beliefs.” I was raised Catholic, but the whole no birth-control, “homosexuality is bad”-thing is just ridiculous, IMO. Although, I do have to admit that my presence on this earth is entirely due to the rhythm method, so I guess I do, on some level, owe the Catholic Church for my corporeal existence (man, what a freaking institution to be beholden to!!!). I agree with their stance on the death penalty, war and abortion, however (I do think that abortion is the taking of a life; I do not think it is my role to pass judgment on those who do that, however).

So, yes, IMO, one can be spiritually/politically/religiously “progressive” all at the same time. In fact, the people I admire the most are those who did/do precisely that.

But, hey, I’m just a damn liberal sociologist and my opinion ain’t worth @#$%!

you know that saying...

that you get what you pay for? well, you also get what you over-pay for, too. and you are stuck with it.

triple-XXX consumption

i was thinking over the weekend how easy it is to just buy things that bring pleasure, i.e., food, movies, stereos, cars, entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, etc. essentially, the purchase of those things is what consitutues much of our economy. if you think about it, all of the "base" pleasures are legal to purchase except...sex. illegal to buy that one.

i wonder why? that one would make billions for companies/corporations for a long, long, time. i would say that morals are involved, but then i remember that we are talking about making lots of money, so it can't be morals, has to be something else.

in any event, you read it here first; someday, probably soon, buying sex will be legal.

Jesus...exasperated

Couple of weeks ago in my Sunday school class, one of the members called the apostles, "knuckleheads," because they never really got what Jesus was really all about. They kept thinking that he was going to get rid of the Romans for them.

I started dwelling on this and soon imagined a scenario with the apostles standing around Jesus, after his resurrection and Thomas saying, "That's pretty cool that I can stick my hand in your side, and you know, all the miracles were really neat, but when are you going to do something about these Romans?" And Jesus going, "Forget about the %$#@! Romans, okay??? I'm freaking God, do ya get it??? You're talking to God right now, in the flesh! So, forget about the ^%$#@! Romans!!!"

That would've been a hoot.

when i grow up and am called before the senate...

i hope i can deliver just like George did.

A suggestion for ending “frivolous” legislation

(I sent the following to Common Dreams, but they didn't publish it)

Recently in Texas there was a state bill introduced by Rep. Al Edwards (D) to ban “overtly sexually suggestive” cheerleading. The bill passed the state House, but apparently is not going to make it out of the state Senate this year.

Now, as a parent with daughters, I am not in favor of “sexy” cheerleading either. I think there is plenty of time to be “sexy” in one’s life and I support anyone being so when they have reached adulthood, not when they are eleven or twelve.

I don’t, however think that the state legislature needs to pass legislation to ban it. There are many more pressing issues in Texas than cheerleading (believe it or not). I think that communities can set and enforce standards of behavior just as well, if not better than legislation, and in this case, I would be much more in favor of communities advocating for “clean” (or whatever the opposite of “sexy” is) cheerleading than the state legislature passing legislation banning it.

As such, I think that this bill constitutes “frivolous” legislation.

That said, I think that we need a sure-fire way of reducing, if not completely eliminating frivolous legislation (given that our current state and national leaders are pressing for banning frivolous medical lawsuits, I am sure that this will be an easy sell).

Here is my suggestion: Anyone proposing legislation banning and/or regulating specific behavior needs to sign a sworn affidavit stating that she or he has not ever in the past, does not currently, nor ever will in the future, engage in, support, nor advocate the behavior proposed to be banned. This would, of course, be a public document and would become public record along with the proposed legislation. Anyone voting in favor of the bill would have to sign a similar affidavit. Those legislators that base their proposals and/or their votes on religious grounds, would, in addition to the affidavit, be encouraged to swear on the Holy Book (of their choice) to the same. Their swearing to same would also become public record.

I know what you are thinking. Brilliant! Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Why didn’t any legislators think of this before? Darned if I know. I would think that anyone in public office, local, state, or national would be thrilled about affirming their virtuosity in such a public, tangible manner. Maybe they just needed an affirmation from their public. If so, here it is.

life...

i realized the other day that life, including the life that we experience, has been going on, on our planet for who knows how long. an unbroken chain that we are inextricably linked to and are a part of. consider that it doesn't really matter how it began. the fact that it has been around, and we are the direct descendents of whom/whatever, is just amazing. even more amazing thinking that we started out as one-celled organisms.

that same life that started millions of years ago is the same life that we experience today. my ancestors came from the sea and the life that they had, they passed on to their descendents, etc., until that life became my grandparents, my parents, and then me.

just amazing.

the secret memo...

i have posted a couple of things to a sociology list on the "secret memo" from MI-6 that documents the Bush Adminstration already having determined that they were going to invade Iraq in July of 2002. Note this was before they told us, "we have no plans to invade Iraq." In sum, they lied to us and there is hard, tangible evidence that they lied to us.

some other thoughts about the memo that i posted today:

My last word on the memo…I think I would have more respect for politicians and their minions if they would just admit that they were lying. Like, “yeah, we lied, and chances are, we’ll probably continue lying to you when we see fit, so get over it.” The fact that they lie really wouldn’t be news; what would be news is that anyone of them would admit openly that they are lying. At least then we would know where they stand. And at this point, given the apparent national apathy, most people wouldn’t care enough to do anything about it, anyway.

One other thing along these lines; I also think that it would be nice for death penalty proponents to admit that what they really want to see is the SOB who did the crime die. We have enough evidence to know that the death penalty doesn’t deter murder. Case in point…the man who shot his way out of the Atlanta court room in March. GA is a death penalty state, and he is going to be prosecuted with the hopes of getting the death penalty. Now, was he deterred by thinking about the death penalty when he was pulling the trigger and killing those four (?) people? No, he was thinking about getting away; I’m sure that the notion of the potential consequences of his actions didn’t come into play at that particular point in time. Consider, he is in the courtroom, he gets the gun from a police officer, he shots people in the courtroom, he is in the very place where someone would sentence him to the death penalty and he is NOT DETERRED BY THE DEATH PENALTY!!!!!!!

As I have mentioned before, of all of the felons I worked with, there wasn’t one that was deterred by the thought of potential consequences when committing the crime (obviously or they wouldn’t be felons!!!). They all thought that they wouldn’t get caught, that’s why they did it. Most felons aren’t stupid. Careless, arrogant, maybe, but they go to some length not to get caught. In that sense, the “law” had no deterrent effect. Others have argued that laws, in all likelihood, have a deterrent effect on people who are less likely to commit crimes in the first place.

Maybe some day we will have a rational and reasonable society. If evolution determines this, it doesn’t bode well for the human species.

extreme apathy

Post to a sociology list...

I think I posted on this list sometime back an analysis I did, before the Iraq War, of how the reasoning for the war didn’t make any sense; it just didn’t add up according to what the CIA, FBI, and others were reporting (and the lack of finding any WMD’s by the UN). Now, of course we know that there were no WMD’s, thus invalidating the original stated reason for the invasion.

Turns out, the reason that it didn’t make sense was because of something that was not known to the public…the Administration had already decided to invade Iraq to remove Saddam by at least July of 2002. All that was needed was some reason for doing so; apparently, at least according to the memo that was released to the British press last week, terrorism and WMD’s were the reason(s). It all becomes clear when the facts are known.

See this article here.

Now, this memo has been made public, I don’t know to what extent, since I don’t watch TV, but I know that I have heard reports of it on the radio and on the internet. Curious, isn’t it? If the memo is indeed real, then the decision to invade Iraq was already made when statements about using diplomacy, giving Saddam one last chance, etc., were being promulgated on the airwaves. In other words, it seems pretty apparent to me that we intentionally were not being told the real reason for the invasion and this deceit/manipulation was deliberate. Sad, yes? Of course, we are jaded, we KNOW that the gov’t lies, it has done so for years.

I have a feeling that this memo will blow over (I guess it already has since it is NOT front page news anywhere, except maybe in the UK) and life will go on. IMO, this is evidence for something that is truly disconcerting about the American population. I know that some will say that we were mislead and we continue to be mislead by the media, the gov’t, etc., and that the population isn’t to blame. True, I suspect we are. This does not mean, however that we cannot find out things about what is happening if we really want to…obviously the release of this memo is tangible evidence of that.

I think our collective lack of response to this really quite devastating information is indicative of something even sadder than the fact that our gov’t wasn’t truthful with us about a war that has cost thousands of lives. We, as a nation, as a collective, don’t care. Sure, there are large numbers of people that do care. But, apparently, there aren’t enough because this is NOT front page news. We have tangible evidence that we were mislead, and there is no significant collective response. It is a blip on the news, nothing else. We just don’t care.

I say this not to provoke anything. I say it because it is an observation I am making about what in the future, I am sure, will be a critical point in history.

This is really interesting to me as a sociologist, and as a member of the collective that we know as America. The former because of the social dynamics that may be driving this indifference and the latter because this is not the America I was raised in.

Fascinating.