Revenge Embedded in Culture and Media, Banned by Law

Revenge is popular at the movies. Liam Neeson has practically banked his career on revenge flicks after starting out as a “serious” actor in Schindler’s List, Michael Collins and other Oscar-worthy films. More actors have jumped on the revenge bandwagon such as Sean Penn and others:

Revenge Movies Offer Mythic Middle-Aged Protectors

Revenge is one of the oldest human emotions and drives stories even from ancient times. It is a primal urge to right a wrong and see a villain get his/her comeuppance. In olden days, taking the “law” into one’s hands was the only way to get justice as there was no law nearby or available. But with the advent of the industrial age and the rise of crowded urban areas, governments asserted their power and frowned on revenge as it was extra-legal and out of the control of elites and the powerful. The function of modern law is not necessarily to achieve justice or enforce ethics and morality, but rather to keep a lid on things on society. Keeping the peace and harmony of society is the paramount value, as how else can business and capitalism function? But by removing revenge as a tool of getting justice, many people feel powerless and project onto the film screen to live vicariously through the vengeance-taker.

Revenge can be seen as a moral imperative; that is we must get justice on a wrong-doer otherwise that person will commit wrongs upon others. The psychopath must be taken down a notch to know they cannot get away with their damaging actions with impunity. There are many things that are perfectly legal, but are not ethical, and therefore there is no legal recourse against someone who knows how to skirt those lines (and it’s not hard either). Twitter and other social media can ban revenge porn postings:

Twitter Takes Steps To Combat Stolen Nudes And Revenge Porn

But it’s not going to stop it. Wronged people will find a way to get revenge, and if it’s not through posting nudes of someone on Twitter then they will find other sites or other methods. With no legal outlet for getting justice, don’t be surprised when people become outlaws to get the satisfaction of a balanced and just order. In the meantime, they will continue to flock to revenge movies to satisfy their primal desire vicariously and then manifest motivation to get revenge in their real life.

Fake Schools, Real Babies and the American Dream

The Feds busted a few “schools” that enrolled students, mostly from Asia, giving them I-20 student visas, but didn’t require the students to attend classes. In essence, the students were paying tuition for a visa to visit and then live in the US:

Feds: 3 collected millions in fraudulent school scheme

The silliest part of the article is when the Feds accuse the schools of being a national security threat because terrorists could be using these student visas as cover. Puhleazee. First, the students were mostly from China and Korea, which are hardly terrorist hotbeds. Second, any student issued an I-20 student visa has already gone through a vetting process by the US government and its law enforcement apparatus. If there were any suspected terrorists among the “student” applicants, then they would have been flagged and denied well before entry. This accusation is just another federal government smokescreen to make this fraud into something it’s not really about, and play security theater (which they love).

So what is it really about? It’s about money and people from overcrowded countries wanting to come chase this thing called the American Dream. These people feel it’s a human right to live where they want to live. For most of human history, people picked up and went wherever they wanted to start new lives. It’s only in the past century that nation-states have established strict rules and regulations at the borders to keep people out. And it doesn’t work very well still. Why? Because people don’t want to live on top of each other in super crowded conditions. South Korea is an advanced country with modern amenities, but it’s also really packed with people. And that includes even the countryside (I’ve been there). Koreans come to the US not because they’re fleeing any terrible conditions in Korea, except the lack of breathing room (physically and socially). This is even doubly so for Chinese, who live in a packed country where most people live on the eastern seaboard. Even though China has made great economic strides, many Chinese want to come to the US for the space, and the opportunity to one day own a house that is not physically attached to anyone else. That’s the real American Dream in 2015: some breathing room, as economically China and South Korea are on parity with the US these days.

Some Chinese are so driven to realize this dream that pregnant mothers arrange to come to the US to give birth so the child gets US citizenship. Recently some entrepreneurs offered services that arranged for a fee to bring Chinese women to the US to give birth but they were busted by the Feds who claimed this was fraud. How is it fraud? As far as I can see, the women and the entrepreneurs played by the rules. They came to the US and gave birth, and by US law, the baby gets citizenship. That’s the rules of the game, and they played it fair and square. If the Feds don’t like it, then change the law so not all babies born in the US are citizens, instead tie citizenship to the birth of the mother as many countries do. The companies offering these services should not be shut down and arrested, the fault is not in their business plan, the fault is in the structure of citizenship law itself. Change the law and don’t punish the entrepreneurs.

Daylight Saving Times Should End (and the problem of political inertia)

Daylight saving time arrived this past weekend and 70 countries around the world sprang one hour forward for spring. John Oliver on Last Week Tonight did a nice, short piece on the history of daylight savings time and why it should “no longer be a thing”:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Daylight Saving Time – How Is This Still A Thing? (HBO)

Besides debunking the myth of it starting to benefit farmers, the piece also illustrates why a social policy put into place 100 years ago is oftentimes not relevant today due to tectonic technological and societal change. Yet, it’s still with us due to political inertia. Once a law or policy is put on the books, it is very difficult for politicians to muster any will to remove these laws when they are no longer necessary or wanted. The Republicans talk the talk about freedom, but they use their power only to deregulate for corporations and businesses. Some of that is necessary (particularly for small businesses), but why don’t they deregulate the policies that restrict individuals? Instead they go along with more laws regulating individuals, taking away the freedom to make choices, face consequences, and solve one’s own problems/issues (for example, Republicans have been major proponents for so-called “revenge porn” laws).

As for daylight savings time, why not just spring forward forever? Does anyone really enjoy sudden early darkness when we fall backward? Reset the time zones so sunrise is 6:30 or 7:00 AM, and let darkness fall later in the day. It’s self-evident that this change should be made, but political inertia won’t allow it. Every time a law gets passed, it’s hard to get rid of, so lawmakers should think hard before doing anything, and perhaps  spend their time undoing the damage to individual freedom that previous lawmakers have done. That would be progress, but instead we stand still in time’s past.

Criminal Culpability in Urging Someone to Commit Suicide

A teenage girl has been criminally charged with encouraging her “friend” to commit suicide:

Teen Charged with Allegedly Urging a Friend to Kill Himself

Seeing the photos of the two friends, I assumed (before reading the article), that the boy egged on the girl to kill herself. Actually, it was the other way around, and the girl allegedly urged the boy to commit suicide (seemingly by carbon monoxide poisoning). As the article notes, she was an honor student, as if that would normally qualify her for good behavior awards. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter and faces significant time behind bars if convicted after not only egging him on to “do it” but also for sickeningly decrying on her social media accounts that his suicide was such a terrible tragedy. No doubt, if the story is accurate, that she’s an awful person with a lack of empathy but a dollop of solipsism that mark her as a potential sociopath.

But should her behavior be illegal and punishable by law? Many people do heinous things to others including lying, cheating, teasing, belittling, etc. but they don’t get arrested. Should make we illegal all this boorish behavior? Should someone be held culpable for someone’s suicide when suicide itself is, by definition, a solitary act? What about when someone commits suicide after a romance unravels? Or after a friend betrays a friend’s secrets to others? It is reminiscent of revenge porn, where a boorish and tacky act is increasingly outlawed by criminal law (when this type of behavior would previously have fallen under civil law). If we are going to be held responsible for every single word we say or publish, then we are all going to be held to a very high standard for our own words, all the time. And if we hold young people, who are not the most rational or filtered before communicating, then almost everyone growing up today will be guilty of some kind of “thought-to-speech crime.” What we need is not more laws criminalizing behavior (even if it is repugnant) that results in individuals (or his/her families) running to the state to solve every problem and issue they face, but an emphasis on developing and maintaining a resolute stance when faced with a nasty jerk. When you commit suicide, you allow the bastard who egged you on to feel victory. Don’t succumb and let the bastard win, fight back and persevere while standing on your own as a resolute individual. Don’t get mad, don’t get sad, get even.

Same Old Story: Lack of Agency and Narrative Drives Young Men to the Extreme

A young immigrant man in New York was arrested at JFK Airport on his way to Syria to join ISIS:

In Brooklyn, Eager to Join ISIS, if Only His Mother Would Return His Passport

Aside from the comical implication of a mother taking away her son’s passport so he couldn’t join the world’s most notorious terrorist organization, the larger issue is what drives young men around the world to seek out and join ISIS (women also join but I believe their motivations are different from the men). The New York Times story sets up the subject as a kind of a “loser” relegated to a job chopping onions and tomatoes in a basement, while quietly seething about the permissive moral culture around him. The article posits that this combination led him to want to join ISIS, but I believe there is something else driving these men because not all of them were “losers and misfits.” The story broke yesterday that the so-called “Jihadi John” who ostensibly beheads captives for ISIS is a Kuwaiti who used to live in London with a middle class lifestyle. The NYT ran a video story a month ago of a Malaysian imam who enjoyed a good, stable life with the respect of his community, who left it all behind to join ISIS (and eventually died in the fighting):

The Jihadist In Our Family

They all came from different backgrounds but ended up in the same place fighting for an organization that most of us consider heinous and troglodyte. This is actually nothing new, but has happened throughout human history where men of fighting age (and some too young or old) go off and join an outfit fighting for a cause. And that’s the key here, it’s for a cause that has established a grand narrative at odds with the prevailing one (democratic capitalism in today’s world). All these men felt their life had little or no cause, and that their agency was limited to effect change. From a young age, we are taught that we can be anything we want but then when reaching adulthood, we realize that many of us will not be able to reach that rarefied air  where agency, wealth and power reside. Instead we can only reach a middling level for not everyone can reach the highest rung, even if we try our mightiest and best (not everyone can be above average). ISIS gives a sense of purpose to these men that they cannot or can no longer find in their home cultures/countries. There is no grand narrative for them to live out, no sense of higher purpose to achieve or strive for. Instead ISIS preys on this insecurity and provides a disturbingly twisted but attractive and romantic narrative. Young men in other countries rushed to join the Communist revolutions in Russia and China in the 20th century, even though it proved disastrous. ISIS does the same, and when ISIS fails (which it will), there will be some other grand narrative to take its place for young men to “escape” lives that they perceive to be without or with little meaning, agency or value.

Record Number of US Citizens Giving Up Citizenship

And the numbers of US citizens renouncing citizenship reached over 3,000 last year, even though the fees to do so went well over $2,000:

Americans Ditch Their Passports

Whenever you read the message boards to this type of story, the common reaction of US-based Americans is “good riddance” and “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” This is a churlish, childish and counter-productive reaction. These Americans are not traitors, they are simply tired of double-taxation (yes, ironic, considering that is why the original colonists fought for independence). Americans are some of the only citizens in the world (though China is starting to do this as well) that pay taxes in their country of residence, and to the US government as well. Now, they do not have pay US taxes if their income is under about $95,000 but they still have to file and, for many, that is an expensive proposition. Many US expats are not bankers or financiers; instead many are teachers, middle managers for global companies or small business owners. They make well under the threshold but requiring them to hire an accountant (usually back in the US because there are few licensed CPAs overseas) means paying anywhere from $400 to $1000. That’s just unfair, and there should be a simpler way for these Americans such as a simple one-page waiver form to file.

In principle, when living overseas you are not using the services of the government so you should not be subject to taxation to one’s home country. Europeans are astounded to learn that Americans have to pay tax on their overseas salary. Then again, Europeans get national health insurance if they pay home taxes, while Americans get nothing except an order to pay and register for Obamacare.

It used to be $400 to renounce citizenship, and now it’s $2,400. There’s no reason for it to be that high except to fleece an about-to-be former citizen one last time. It should cost $40 to renounce citizenship, or even be free. It’s petty and tacky to charge so much for trying to leave a club. It bespeaks more about the crassness and coarseness of the US government than of the citizens trying to leave US behind for greener pastures elsewhere. Just let them go with minimum fuss, and let go of the currently vindictive system.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150213.htm

The Other Side of Revenge Porn

Most debate on revenge porn (when an ex posts nudes of a former significant other, usually a girlfriend) centers around the guys who do it being jerks and the women who consent to have their picture being taken and/or sending selfies being foolish and getting just desserts. But there are a couple other ways to look at the issue.

First, revenge is one of the oldest human motivational needs, and today a plethora of Hollywood movies are based on this ancient thirst. It is no surprise in a culture steeped in revenge-storytelling that many people would like to get even as well. One reason people seek revenge is they have no discourse within the framework of the legal system. If you buy a $10,000 diamond ring for a woman as an engagement promise, she doesn’t legally have to give it back if she breaks it off since it was a gift. Ethically she should return it since she’s not keeping her promise, but she is under no legal obligation to do so. When a relationship goes sour, the one leaving can oftentimes make out like a bandit with money and items milked from the victim over the years, and they do not have to be returned or remunerated. And this says nothing of cheating and adultery, which are both legal but judged as unethical (and even immoral) by most. There is simply no legal remedy for those who come out on the wronged side of an ended relationship. This is one of the primary reasons why revenge porn exists.

Second, revenge can be seen as a moral imperative. If someone wrongs you, then you must seek retribution. To do otherwise, would make you a weakling who meekly got abused and never stood up for oneself. In addition revenge serves a deterrent effect. That is, if a psychopath goes one relationship after another abusing others by cheating, lying and theiving, he/she may think twice if one of the victims gets sweet revenge. It is morally imperative to punish the transgressor since failure to do so will mean the psychopath will accrue more victims until someone stands up to him/her.

Revenge porn may seem tacky and even abhorrent, but it might also be the only way for some to get a measure of justice not available in the legal system. Pass laws against it if you like, but it won’t be going away anytime soon unless you want to make cheating and adultery punishable under criminal law again.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150207.htm

Former NFL Star Loses Job Over Solicitation Arrest

Retired NFL star Warren Sapp was arrested for soliciting a prostitute and misdemeanor assault in Phoenix after covering the Super Bowl for the NFL Network:

Ex-NFL Star Arrested on Prostitution Charge

Prostitution should be legal. Two consenting adults exchanging money for a service should not be illegal. It’s an absurd waste of taxpayer money and police resources. Prostitution should be legal, regulated, taxed and zoned. Critics say prostitution is demeaning work so it should be illegal. But cleaning toilets is demeaning work but it’s legal. Trafficking is bad, which is why the work should be regulated and licensed. Agency should not be taken from adults to choose a line of work they desire. There would be less violence and sexual assult if prostitution were legal as men would then have a legal and safe way to release their pent-up sexual angst and aggression. The misdemeanor assault charge against Sapp is troubling, but it sounds like a minor scuffle, and not an NFL style tackles. And he denies it any case. The NFL Network is cowardly to fire him before the courts pronounce a verdict. Presumably Sapp was doing fine in his job, having worked for the network since 2008. It’s easy to fire an employee immediately upon any minor transgression. It would be brave if they stood by him in this difficult situation to ascertain what really happened through due process. Unfortunately, with the glare of the mass media spotlight, companies fire first and ditch due process. So much for the admonition about being the first to cast stones…

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150205.htm

Senator Tillis Washes His Hands of Restaurant Regulations

Newly elected North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis made an interesting point about government regulations and the invisible hand of the free market.

Senator Says Restaurant Employees Shouldn’t Be Required to Wash Their Hands

Tillis’s point is if the government did not require restaurants to mandate hand washing after employee bathroom use then restaurants that did not require hand washing of their own accord would soon go out of business. This is because the public would reject any restaurant if it didn’t require its employees to wash their hands after doing their lavatory business. He is perhaps correct in this, though it assumes that the public would eventually be able to discover, or figure out on its own, that a restaurant did not require hand washing. Just because a sign was not posted in the bathroom would not necessarily mean that the restaurant owner didn’t require employees to wash. And a posted sign that required employee hand washing would not mean the decree is necessarily enforced by the management (though this could be a problem in the current legal regime anyway).

But the gap in the Senator’s thinking is this: if the goverment no longer required restaurant employees to wash their hands (the sign itself does not really make a difference), then some restaurants would become lax in employee hand washing (the punishment of fines being persuasive), thus leading to the increased chance of employee fecal matter making its way into customer entrees. This in turn would lead to the increased chance of disease. In the main Tillis is right, less laws would be better but his target is wrong. There should be less laws restricting individual freedom, and I would gladly vote for a politician who promised to remove as many laws as possible from the books that restrict the rights of the individual (and there are way too many). But when it comes to a public health issue, then there probably needs to be government regulation that could significantly decrease the chance of disease spreading in the community. If requiring restaurant employees to wash their hands increases the good of public health significantly, and it seemingly does, then the law is worth its muster (especially for the small price to business owners of posting signs in bathrooms and reminding/supervising employees to follow the rule). But when it doesn’t pass this test then it should be examined and perhaps fall aside. Tillis had a point, but he used a wrong example. Of courese, this won’t stop the media from having a field day making fun of him and missing any larger issue/point.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150204.htm

Private Figures Should Keep Their Good Reputation Until Conviction

As mentioned here at McCarthyism.com a few days ago about the theatrics of the SOTU, here’s another prime example:

Sulkowicz Let Down by Obama Speech

New York Senator Kristen Gillenbrand invited as her guest Emma Sulkowicz who has gained fame as a performance artist carrying her mattress around Columbia University in New York City to bring awareness to the issue of campus sexual violence. The article is also a good example of how being able to talk back using the comments section is an interesting way to see a newstory through other people’s eyes (whether you agree or not with their viewpoints). The premise of bringing Sulkowicz to the SOTU to raise awareness seemed to fail as most people in Congress and government did not know who she was or why she had gained a certain degree of fame. Sulkowicz was disappointed that Obama did not call attention to campus sexual assaults, but really it would be impossible for the President to speak on every serious issue facing the country/world within the short of amount of time alloted for the speech (and shorter attention spans of the public). That is not to downplay the issue of campus sexual assaults, but only to say there are probably other issues that grab the attention of everyone in the country such as jobs, war, health care and the economy.

But what is most worrisome about Sulkowicz’s case is the accompanying theatrics itself. When a woman makes a charge of being raped, her identity is shielded by the media unless she publicizes it herself, as Sulkowicz did. That’s fine. The problem is the guy she accused of raping her has had his name splashed all over the media even after he was exonerated by the police. To be accused of rape or sexual assault is one of the most harmful statements to a person’s reputation. It should be a law that people suspected of a crime should not have their reputations destroyed before receiving due process. Sulkowicz’s continuing to accuse a classmate of rape after his exoneration (which means there was not enough evidence for an indictment, but does not mean she is necessarily lying either) is libelous; but it is the media’s fault in printing his name in the first place. The law should be that printing a suspect’s name before a conviction (even under indictment) should be illegal with stiff monetary penalties for publishing the person’s name. The infamous perpetrator walks done by police for the media cameras should also be illegal; they harken back to the barbaric time of locking people in stocks for public embarrassment. If people are truly innocent until proven guilty, then grant them the dignity of privacy and reputation until they are convicted by a court of law; the current system is a sham and a shame of justice.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150125.htm