#EnoughIsEnough

A while back I wrote about gun violence and the Second Amendment. Much of what I said then I still believe. The 2013 me (when I wrote the first post) was less confident in her opinions, at least on big issues. She also didn't like to make waves. She shied away from conflict. The 2016 me, on the other hand, simply doesn't care. Sometimes you have to be decisive and confident. And, dare I say it, strident. There are issues that are impossible to stay silent on.

To the specific issue of gun violence in America. This is my original post. This is an article about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's views of the Second Amendment from the same general time. It's hard to get actual statistics for a variety of reasons. One of the most absurd of these is the ban on the CDC studying the public health effects of firearms. Gun violence in America is an epidemic. In 2016, 1,600 minors have been casualties of incidents involving guns. There have been 150 mass shootings since the start of 2016.

The massacre in Orlando has sparked something more than the resignation that, in my opinion, most people have felt recently. This massacre was a hate crime against the LBGTQ community and against Latinx people. While I may not be terribly well informed about those two communities, I have friends who are. My entire school cohort is more informed on this than I am--something for which I am grateful, because my understanding is broadened. But, as with any increase in knowledge, the capacity to be saddened increases. I am heartsore for these communities. But I am tired of grieving.

On a more hopeful note, there are some members of Congress who feel the same. And are sick of doing nothing, and so are doing something. Sen. Chris Murphy filibustered last week to get a vote in the Senate on gun control bills. Republican-led Senate leadership held the votes, which failed to pass. The bills related to background checks for internet and gun show gun sales and to baring people on no-fly lists from buying guns. While the latter of these measures is not a great bill, it is something. Thirty-seven senators participated by asking, mostly rhetorical, questions of Sen. Murphy. Some also physically stood with him-- Sen. Cory Booker was referenced in multiple speeches for his support. And, yes, I did watch a few hours on C-Span. (I would have watched more but I had to work.) As Cory Booker said, "We allow our inability to do everything to undermine our determination to do something." Which I think is relevant to most everything in the American political system. It is broken in many regards, which makes many people think that unless we completely change the entire system, there is no point in trying.

The general support for Senator Murphy included the vast majority of Senate Democrats (including Independent Sen. King). Unsurprisingly, Sen. Sanders was absent. His record on matters of gun control is vastly different from the Democrat Party platform. (On a side note, this difference is a large reason why I could not support him in the presidential primaries.) All four senators from Minnesota and Massachusetts showed up. So, even though the bills failed to pass, these senators gave me hope. Thoughts, prayers, and moments of silence are no longer acceptable. Without action, they never have been.

Which leads me to the second event that gave me hope this week. The Democrat sit-in in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. John Lewis. Civil disobedience on the floor of the House of Representatives, led by a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. I had to watch (or follow on Twitter while I was at work). Senator Murphy's filibuster was broadcast on the Senate cameras. The sit-in was broadcast on Periscope and Facebook live, via cell phone, for the most part. The Facebook video was provided by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas) and the Periscope video by Rep. Scott Peters (California). When the House adjourns, the cameras turn off. Quick thinking and the presence of technology allowed the general public to be informed and support their representatives. When Speaker Ryan decided to resume activity in the House, the cameras turned back on--to chants of "No Bill No Break" (among other things). It was deafening. It was a clear picture of Congress going about its business while Americans shout for something to be done.

As with the filibuster, Rep. Lewis and others wanted votes on increased background checks and no fly, no buy, but also, I think, on a bill that would allow the CDC to research gun violence as a public health concern. There were comments on the futility of the sit-in. After all, the Republicans hold a majority in the House. But there is broad support among the public for universal background checks and bi-partisan support for the bills. However, even if the outcome was certain failure, Speaker Ryan refused to even allow for a debate. And yes, there are ways to override the majority refusing to bring a bill to vote. But still.

Currently in American politics, Democrats are discussing issues and solutions. They are trying to get things done. They are presenting solutions. Maybe not perfect ones. I forget which representative said it, but he discussed the possibility of infringing on civil liberties with the passage of no fly, no buy. But he suggested that if the civil liberties of persons on the no fly list would be infringed upon by restricting their ability to buy a fire arm, perhaps their civil liberties are being infringed upon by being on the no fly list. And, perhaps the government should re-evaluate the criteria for being placed on the no fly list. As Sen. Booker said, we cannot allow our inability to do everything stop our determination to do something.

A minor point here is that universal background checks and similar regulatory measures are supported by a majority of NRA members, but not by the men who run the organization. Men who decide which politicians receive donations from the NRA. One of the roots of the lack of congressional action on gun control is the presence of vast sums of money in politics. However, action must be taken on gun control, regardless of action on money in politics. Although, reforms in campaign finance would help.

A further point on gun regulation: universal background checks and similar measures are just that: regulations. The Second Amendment is for a "well-regulated militia"--setting aside the militia part, we are still left with "well regulated." Allowing anyone to buy a gun on craigslist, no questions asked, is pretty much the opposite of "well-regulated."

If your point is that criminals will still get guns and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, you are wrong. The "good guy with a gun" story is a myth. And just because we can't stop criminals from getting fire arms, doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. Some one who wants to commit murder can still achieve it regardless of increased gun control laws. But maybe it should be more difficult to acquire a weapon.

One last point. Your "right" to bear arms, including what are essentially weapons of mass destruction, ends when it hits the right of everyone else's' right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."


Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/15/connecticut_s_chris_murphy_democratic_senators_filibuster_on_gun_control.html

http://www.gq.com/story/elizabeth-warren-and-cory-bookers-speeches-gun-violence-filibuster

My last idea has been influenced by this quote.

Update and Such

Hello all. I know I've been lax in writing recently, but life has been busy and rather monotonous. However, I find myself with a little time this weekend so I'm going to write a few posts. This first one will simply be an update. I might make a separate picture update, but as I load a lot of pics to twitter and instagram, and I'm not sure where my card reader is, I might not.

My school year ended well. I'm looking forward to the next year. I applied for a funded research seminar for my thesis and got it. My thesis is going to be about the gaps in modern feminism, specifically relating socialist feminist thought and historical figures. I want to look at actual historical women, how their ideas were erased from second wave feminism and how that erasure continues to impact third wave and modern feminism. It's a big project, but I have a start on it because I wrote my history paper on the general topic. I'm also quite excited for it.

This summer I am working a lot. Not only am I working as a barista, which I generally enjoy, but also I am doing research with a friend/my roommate for a faculty member at Simmons for a new edition of a textbook. Both of these will continue in the fall.

The last part of this update is a bit of a disclaimer. My next few posts will likely be about politics or current events. I know some of you will disagree with me, and I'm willing to discuss differences civilly. But, for some of these topics, I don't care about some opinions and I am in no way obligated to listen. And on some level, I just don't care.



Courtesy of: https://xkcd.com/1357/

On Mothers

I’m told that today is mother’s day.

As though one day a year is enough

To praise not just my mother

But all mothers.

Mother’s day.

What a lame concept.

As though women are just mothers.

My mother is more than that.

Mother’s day.

What capitalist patriarchal hogwash.

If society cherishes mothers so much,

Why are they not extolled?

Sure, in Christianity,

Mary is the Mother of God.

Blessed among women.

And what of the women who are not mothers?

Do we forget them?

Are they unintelligible?

Only to society.

I give thanks almost daily for my mothers.

Not just the woman who birthed me.

But her mother. And my father’s.

And all the way back.

They are not my only mothers.

I am the daughter of every woman

Who had to fight to be heard.

Who was force-fed in prison

For wanting to vote.

Who was forced behind a man

Even when her ideas

And discoveries

Saved us all.

I stand on the shoulders of all womankind.

And I try to pull my sisters up with me.

That we may rise.

"Endings are Rubbish"

I've written about my love of narrative before, and I am sure I will again. My love of reading is genuinely no surprise.

My current 'favorite' book/series is Catherynne Valente's Fairyland series (I have written about them before). And they are wonderful. And I love them. They follow September through Fairyland. (Except for one book, which September eventually shows up in. And the prequel novella, which, chronologically, predates her.) And I shan't ruin them for you. Because I assume you will all go here to read the prequel, if I've not already forced you to.

There are some books that one can finish and move merrily along one's way. Then, there are books one finishes and must redirect one's course slightly. Then, there are books that make one stop and contemplate all of life and what one thought about it. And then, my friends, there are books that not only make one reevaluate life and what it means, but also force one to physically and mentally stop and come to terms with life After.

This doesn't just happen with books, but I find that it happens most often with them.

As you may have guessed, Fairyland is the last of those options. Prior to finishing the last book, Fairyland was in the third category. I wrote a term paper on the first book. And will recommend them to any one who will listen. As I am now doing. But, upon finishing the series, I had to sit almost completely still and my only reaction was "what. how. now what."

There is a Jamie Craig quote that I like: "That moment when you finish a book, look around, and realize that everyone is just carrying on with their lives as though you didn't just experience emotional trauma at the hands of a paperback." I've never read any of Craig's work and the book I finished was hardcover, but that phrase is apt.

The narrator tells us, near the end, that we all know is coming, after all, books run out of pages, that "Endings are rubbish. No such thing. Never has been, never will be. There is only the place where you choose to stop talking. Everything else goes on forever." Which, to be fair, is not a new concept. But it is so eloquently, achingly put that it is almost painful. And so, September's story is not over, I just won't hear the rest. There is always more, and none of us get to know every story.

The Possibility of an Ethical Life

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the possibility of living an ethical life. It is a question that occurs to me every so often, but over the break I decided to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, specifically One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, August 1914, The First Circle, and The Gulag Archipelago. (I read Ivan Denisovich in high school and I was only able to read the first volume of Gulag.) I had a few reasons to read Solzhenitsyn. One, my knowledge of Russian literature and history is truly abysmal (although, maybe if Russian literature was shorter, I would read more). Two, one of my classes this semester is on Socialism and Gender until 1949, so reading about the U.S.S.R. is not the worst idea I’ve ever had. Three, in the United States, socialism and communism are generally misunderstood and the picture of Soviet Russia is flat and shallow and a better understanding of the past leads to a better understanding of the present. This is all rather tangential to the question at hand.

So, how do I get to thinking about living an ethical life?

First, what does ethical mean? Ethics are defined as “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.” So what, then, are morals? Morals are “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” What, then, is the difference? On the show NCIS, the difference is explained thusly: “The ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife, whereas the moral man actually wouldn’t.” The ethical life seems to be different from the moral life. Ethics are determined based on morals and morals are dependent on the individual. Ethics, at least in the general sense, are dependent on the situation (situational ethics) or, at least, ethics take the situation into account.

What happens when one’s morals do not match the ethics of the society within which they live? Is a moral life different from an ethical life? How do the ethics of a society influence ideology? Are they the same?

(I realize I am asking a lot of questions. And they do not necessarily have answers. They only complicate my thinking more.)

Prior to my Solzhenitsyn marathon, my thinking around these questions was based in two different topics: pacifism and capitalism. I’m going to start with pacifism, because I believe it is the easier of the two.

As a historian, I have thought about war and violence a lot, especially because of my focus on the First World War. During high school, I think, I learned about the Just War Doctrine in the Catholic Church. This Doctrine details the conditions for “legitimate defense by military force.” Defense. That means that there is no situation in which military force is justified as an aggressive action. The four conditions are: 1. “The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” 2. “All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;” 3. “There must be serious prospects of success;” 4 “The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destructions weights very heavily in evaluating this condition).” (This information came from the Wikipedia page, which site the 1992 Catechism.)

Now, there are plenty of things I dislike about the Catechism. This is not one of them. Essentially, these conditions, especially the fourth, mean that no modern military defense is just. Historically, the argument can be made that military defense has been justified. (The argument can be made that the First World War was a just war—although seriously mismanaged.) There are many other examples of refusing violence in the Abrahamic religions (and really all religions). We are all taught some version of “Thou shalt not kill.” Given all of this, there is no situation in which violence is acceptable.

Here I make two points. One relates to self-defense, because I have never been in the position in which I would need to violently defend myself or some one else, I cannot completely rule out the need for violent action in this case. Two, pacifism relates only to violence, not anger. Anger can be justified and righteous: remember, there is Biblical precedence for flipping tables (Matthew 21:12). Non-violent action does not necessarily mean peaceful.

Pacifism is therefore a moral stance and it guides my life, which, I think, makes pacifism part of my ethical life. Decision-making based on pacifism is easy in my life. I do not have to make the decisions that would force me to think about compromising my morals.

My thoughts on capitalism and the society in which I live are more complicated. (I know, that shouldn’t be possible given how mixed up I feel about this all at this point.) In a capitalist consumerist culture, almost every decision is an ethical decision.

As a consumer, where I shop includes ethical decisions. I refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby because of their stance on having their employees claim insurance benefits for contraception. It is morally wrong to prevent individuals from choosing how best to live their lives. Acting on that moral belief, I make the ethical decision not to shop there. I won’t eat at Chick-fil-A for many of the same reasons.

Those are easy ethical decisions for me to make—there are other stores at which to buy craft supplies and fast food. There are harder decisions: I dislike the way the government structures subsidies for farms—heavily favoring corn production that make buying heavily processed foods with high amounts of corn syrup cheap and other produce expensive. But I have to eat and I am living on a part-time, barely-above-minimum wage job while paying tuition and rent (even with a government student loan). I would like to support small local farms, to eat in a way that is, at least, not as harmful to the environment as single-crop farming can be. So, while my morals tell me one thing, when I am confronted with specific situations, I must make ethical compromises.

It seems, then, that sometimes, one’s morals and ethics do not match the society in which one lives. How does one act in that situation? I find that depends on the society in which one lives. I can live my version of an ethical life, or at least try to, when the society in which I live allows me to act contrarily to the prevailing ethical code. But, when society does not, is it still possible?

I would like to say yes. But, perhaps not. Or at least, maybe it is possible if only one posses a strength of mind and conviction that I am unable to fathom.

And that brings us to Solzhenitsyn. I really started thinking about the problem of trying to live an ethical life shortly after starting The Gulag Archipelago. Clearly the U.S.S.R. was an authoritarian dictatorship. The concept of “law and order” had nothing to do with justice. One could be arrested for not speaking against someone even though the second person had done nothing wrong. Standing too long at a street corner with the wrong person, whether you talked to them or not—or even knew them—could land you in the Gulag. With millions being imprisoned or just disappearing, how can one live an ethical life? Is not every choice not to protest or resist complicity? Admittedly, there were those who did speak out. But, like in Nazi Germany, they were silenced. So, then, is not merely surviving enough? Is it acceptable to compromise one’s ethics or morals in order to stay alive?

And, again, I am left with more questions.

The best answer I have to all my questions is that it is impossible to know. Despite how it seems, this is not a Yes/No question and accepting a simple answer is unsatisfying. But there is value in trying to live ethically. There is greatness in questioning one’s actions and choices and trying to make the decisions that benefit society as a whole. There is beauty in the struggle.

And in the end, it’s the journey that matters.

A Brief Preface

Hello all! I hope your holidays went well. I know I haven't blogged in a while. I have two reasons for writing this.

One, a brief update. This week I started my spring semester. Things have been going well, but I have only had one class. This upcoming week I have both classes, work, and I am starting my research assistantship. Coincidentally, this week also marks one year since I graduated from York. Last year, when I was in York, I couldn't possibly have imagined I'd be in another graduate program. It helps me remember how it is impossible to know where you are going to be in a year. (However, I know I'll be in Boston next year.) What I do know is that I miss York and my friends dearly.

Two, the preface bit. Over break, I was thinking about ethics and morals and living. So I thought I'd blog about it. Rather than just write it and post it, I felt I should write an update and a warning. This part is the warning. The blog I post in the next few days is rather long (roughly 1,400 words). It is mostly questions and explanations of how I've been thinking. I'm not apologizing. I have learned that most of the time there are not answers to questions, because there really is not Truth, and quite often there are only complications.

For those of you who read the upcoming blog, thanks. And if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.

The Place of Empathy

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of others.

Sympathy: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.

In light of recent events (within the last week or the last decade, depending on your definition), the place of empathy in American/Western society needs to be explored. I'm sure many people more qualified than I have addressed this, but I'm going to any way.

As stated above, empathy and sympathy are very different. Sympathizing with someone is very different than empathizing with them. Sympathizing with or for someone allows one to maintain distance. Empathy demands closeness. It demands one to step into a situation. Of course, we can never know what an exact situation may feel like, but we all know something of loss, of fear, of anger. You can sympathize from a distance. You cannot empathize without getting right up next to the experiences of others. Sympathy is clean. Empathy is messy.

After telling my mother about a customer at work yesterday, she said, "We tend to lack empathy." And we do. Otherwise people would not get snippy at service industry workers. We, as a collective, tend to see ourselves as the center of the universe and cannot imagine others having bad days too. Too often we forget, when we have bad days, other people have them too. It is difficult to imagine others complexly. But it is vital that we do.

Given the tragedies in Syria, Beirut, Brazil, and Paris, empathy is exceedingly important. In the wake of disaster, the only response is empathy, compassion, love. There is no place for fear in the face of terror. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said,

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie. Nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.*

There is no choice. In the face of hate, the only answer is love. To see people as people. Further, the response of some Americans is distressing. That governors want to refuse admitting refugees is disgusting. What happened to "give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to be free"? What happened to the shining city on a hill? What happened to "we are a Christian nation"?

I make references to the supposed Christianity of America for a purpose. I do not believe America was founded on Christian principles (other than those that influenced English Common law). But some people believe it was and it guides their actions. (Thank you pragmatism.) If the United States wants to truly claim its place as a paragon of Christian virtue, than we accept all refugees. Full stop. 

Other than Dr. King, who was a minister, do you know who else called for love? Jesus. So, in denying to love in the face of fear, there exists no Christianity. In response to hate and violence, love is the only answer. There is no second choice. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a call to empathy. Understand that your neighbor, wherever she may live, is just as important and complex as yourself.**

It may sound crazy, but people are people. And the place of empathy is central to that. What one person feels, we all feel. Any violence done to one body is violence done to all bodies.*** We all lose in systems of oppression and fear.

I fear I may have gotten off topic. But, alas, I cannot help it. So, if you lost the plot: Empathy is necessary when dealing with fear. As Fred Rogers reminds us: "Look for the helpers." And, I would add, help. Empathy spurs action. It is impossible to see people as people and then abandon them. But we need to act out of love, not fear, not hate. Americans, and the West more broadly, can afford, in every sense of the word, to help. And we are morally obligated to do so.

*Dr. King is often quoted out of context, and, although I attempt not to do that, I apologize if I have. Also, there is a time and place for action, possibly violent, but in this instance, I think that would be a poor first choice.

**This does not apply only to international issues. Domestically, we must see the killing and violence done to African Americans in the same light as violence done in other parts of the world, although the response must be different. In response to police brutality, love demands opposing power structures and believing, and fighting for, black communities (without appropriating or speaking over their voices). As all things are, this is complicated. But love and empathy first.

***This is an idea I have shamelessly appropriated and expanded upon. I first started thinking about it when one of my friends was giving a homily on processions in Catholicism. He said, "You can't have a procession of one. Either everyone goes, or no one goes," paraphrased. "No man an island" and all that.