You Are What You Watch (?)

I'm not really one of those people who believe that children somehow ingest whatever they see on TV and have it dictate how they live their lives. Research does demonstrate that media influences children's behavior, but it tends to do so to a minor degree. In other words, if a child watches a violent cartoon, he or she might act more aggressively, but is unlikely to emulate the behavior directly - children can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and act accordingly.

What's interesting is that this is apparently not the case with adults. We, seemingly, cannot tell the difference between TV shows and our real life. Frighteningly, the places where we can't tell the difference seem to be right at the point where reality and fantasy shouldn't collide. A place where guns, torture, and phobias meet. 

Three examples of this scariness: "24", Zero Dark Thirty, and Homeland

I'll begin with the show 24 because it's the most egregious of the three, and because it kind of sets up what I mean about the other two. I'm not going to go into a full scale explanation of the show, because pretty much everyone knows what it's about, but suffice to say the "anything it takes" philosophy dominates the main character, Jack Bauer's, personality - up to and including the torture of potential terrorists.

So let's start with the practical reasons why this is bad.

First, torture like that shown in 24 doesn't work. Folks like John McCain are living proof that you can be tortured and never give up an ounce of valuable information. Even if you give up information, you could lie to get the torture to stop or because you don't like the people who are torturing you. You could also give up information and have it be of no use whatsoever. You could accidentally (or not so accidentally) die.

But who cares, right? It's just a TV show. 

Except no. The head of the United States Military Academy had to go speak to the producers of 24 to say "cut this shit out because you're screwing up my recruits." Ok, that's not really a quote - but it does capture the gist of what he was getting at. U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, had to go to Hollywood to explain why the show was having a negative effect by telling people (and specifically soldiers) that it's OK to sacrifice American law if it means saving Americans. Let me repeat that for you slowly. 

He. Had. To. Go. And. Explain. It.

That's what's really scary to me. People don't "get" why this is a bad thing - especially those making the films and televisions shows. And if you think that it got solved after 24, think again. Just last week the Director of the CIA came out against the movie Zero Dark Thirty because of it's portrayal of "enhanced" interrogation techniques as the definitive mechanism by which they were able to find the intelligence which they used to track and kill Osama bin Laden - which, incidentally, is not the case. But that wont stop adults from either refusing to acknowledge this idea, or recognizing the fact that the movie took significant artistic license. And that, to me, is really scary.

The new show homeland is similarly framed (in some ways) but has an issue that is slightly different than problematic violence. Instead of demonstrating that breaking laws and using ineffective torture techniques is acceptable, the show uses stereotypes of Islam to imply that Muslims are a problem. And, at least in the most recent season, it tends to treat all different types of Muslims as potential threats. Of course, I don't think that the producers of the show are out to smear Islam or Muslims, at least I sincerely hope not, but this type of presentation, given the facts presented regarding the impact of both 24 and Zero Dark Thirty, is concerning.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we can or should do about this. Obviously many people found 24 entertaining, and I have many good friends who have recommended Homeland. I think that it's this, more than anything else, that's disturbing. There is no conversation - at least a truly public conversation - about what message these shows present and how we, as a society, can address the negative aspects. I'm certainly not suggesting censorship or even that the shows change their method or message, but I do think that they need to engage the conversation as much as the rest of us. After all, I don't believe that those who make shows that wish to dramatize the protection of our people want to jeopardize other aspects of the American lifestyle.

Guns R US

The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has reignited the debate about gun control in a way that few other things could have. The tragedy of 20 children being killed is incredibly hard (especially as a parent) to comprehend, and so I'm at least a little sympathetic to the knee-jerk reaction of gun-enthusiasts suggesting that guns could have had a place in stopping something like a school shooting. I have, however, grown pretty tired of the overall argument that they're making which, when boiled down, essential is "more guns = more protection."

This argument is a poor one for a couple of reasons. The first is that it reduces to the absurd fairly quickly. It's like MAD theory writ small. So one of the easiest ways to combat it is to point out the fact that if everyone in the world had an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, we probably wouldn't be any more safe from nuclear war. And by probably I mean we'd all be ash by now. The second reason this argument fails is that, at least in one mass shooting (Arizona's, where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot), there were people with guns present who were unable to stop the violence. In fact according to this article, one of the people carrying very nearly shot the wrong guy.

A slightly better (though only very slightly) version of this idea was just proposed by the NRA in their incredibly insensitive post-Sandy Hook press-conference (or demagogathaon). The basic idea is that if we 1) train school administrators to keep/use weapons and 2) have an armed guard (or police officer) in every school in America, we'd be safe.

This falls apart as an argument fairly quickly. As I pointed out to a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook, when I couldn't stand his inane gun-babble anymore, lots of places have armed guards and security and still experience violence fairly regularly. In 2011, for instance, there were over 1000 bank robberies, many of them in banks that had armed guards. Few people died (3), but this was primarily because people weren't going there to kill anyone. Had they been doing so, given the 1000 tries they had, I'm fairly certain they could have succeeded. Lest this seem like an "apples-to-oranges"  argument, I would also point out that the purpose of mass-shootings is rarely the specific people who are killed, but instead simply the mass-killing itself. This means that "target softness" is an important consideration (probably) to a would-be mass-murderer, but all that means is that if we put guards in a school, they'll go to the theater. So unless we're prepared to put a guard in every building in the country, this isn't really going to solve the problem. And really, if the buildings are guarded, but not every park, playground and basketball court, then the problem remains.

So you'll probably notice that I've just been shooting down "solutions" and providing none of my own. The reason is that I'm not convinced there is a solution to be had. In reality, though obviously cognizant of the tragedy in Sandy Hook, I'm not convinced there is a real "problem" in the sense that this is something happening regularly enough, and in a systematic enough way, that it requires a major policy solution. Research suggests that homicides taking place at school are a very small percentage (2%) of the overall number of homicides against youth.

If, however, we collectively feel we need to address the problem of gun violence generally, I think reasonable standards of gun control are a good start, though some research suggests that gun control legislation only has mild effects (judging primarily by concealed carry requirements and the Brady Handgun Bill). In part, however, questions of what "works" are secondary to the question of what we want our country to be like. I, personally, don't think people should be able to walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle with no background check, no mental health evaluation, no waiting period, etc. I know there are people out there who feel that we must have access to these weapons for "protection" from "them." By "them" they usually mean the government, which is silly because unless you have tanks and jets, the government pretty much has you outgunned. That said, in principle, I don't disagree that people should be able to have guns - I just don't see why we can't impose the same burdens that we do on drivers (at least) on gun owners.

Finally, I do agree with the idea of an assault weapons ban and a ban on things like high-capacity magazines. I don't know that this will do much to reduce violence, but I do know that I'm much more comfortable with fewer people having access to those military-type weapons and accessories. I think of the number of people with mental illness (26.2%) and the number of weapons-per-person (9 guns for 10 people) and then try to imagine a reasonable joint distribution and I don't like what I come up with. Given the fact that mass-shooters are generally mentally ill, the real issue seems to be the access these people have to weapons - their own or someone else's.

In short, while gun control may not be the "answer" to the problem, I think it's reasonable to not want to live in a place where so many people arm themselves with weapons of war. Additionally, I think a realistic look at the evidence suggests that while general levels of gun violence in America are high, the number of shootings (and violence in general) in schools is comparatively low. In any event, the solution to the problem, if a problem does indeed exist, is almost certainly not more guns - nor is it the posting of armed guards - which may do nothing to reduce the violence, just displace it. If everyone agrees that the people who carry out attacks like this have significant mental health problems (unlike terrorists, who generally are using the violence to send a political message and are sane), the real solution is to either assist with mental health in the US or to (at least) limit the ability of those with mental illness to access weapons.

The Fiscal Cliff

John Boehner has the hardest job in D.C. It doesn't help that he is also a self-serving prick, most concerned with maintaining his position as Speaker -  but really, his job is hard. He's got nutso people to his right (not that there's a whole lot of room to his right these days) and he's got a bunch of people with a substantial amount of political capital on his left. He's stuck between a rock (in the case, the fiscal cliff) and a hard place (loosing his speakership).

I'm not that sympathetic really. The Republicans, under Boehner's leadership, brought us to this point with their ridiculous obstructionism throughout the first four years of President Obama's administration. It's also hard to be sympathetic to a party that will only even talk about raising taxes on people making over a million dollars. It's also hard to be sympathetic to Boehner himself after 2 years of him refusing, as Speaker, to stand up to his party's own right-wing nuttery.

All this (though indisputably true in my opinion) doesn't answer the question of what to do about the "fiscal cliff" that the Republicans seem hell-bent on running off of.

Here's my answer:

Just jump off. Boehner first.

I know I'm not the first to make this argument, and I know that it risks another recession, downgrading our credit rating, etc. But we're talking politics, and politics is not about economics - it's about public perception. Yes, sometimes the two intersect, but generally speaking, politicians only care about the economy insofar as it affects their chances of reelection. Otherwise, nowhere near this much ink would have been spilled over something that is going to be so trivial as raising taxes on 1% of the population - or cutting funding for things like NPR.

There are benefits to be had by going over the cliff. First, we institute painful cuts from "outside." Neither party has to take responsibility for the cuts themselves so everyone saves face (they'll play "blame-the-other-side," which always works with your base). Second, everyone then gets to vote on a huge tax cut. Everyone loves a tax cut, especially the public, so that's good for politicians. Third, because the cuts mentioned above are already implemented, it's a hell of a lot easier to keep some of them. Fourth, we now have a "bank" of savings (that's totally fake, of course, but it'll look real on paper) that we can spend on something that we really need, like a large amount of stimulus for the economy (hopefully in the right areas like infrastructure).

And, just as a bonus, Boehner will probably loose his speakership meaning someone who can actually whip might get the position, meaning there might actually be a possibility for legislation next session.