Black and White Issues

I can't believe I have to write this post again.

No, you know what? I can. I can believe it because I see racism all the time, most often from people who don't know any better. Sometimes it's well meaning. Sometimes it's ignorant. But it exists, and the more you study it the more you notice it in places you didn't before. It's everywhere, but usually it's quiet and subtle.

And then there are the times everyone can see it and what's been boiling under the surface of American society literally since the day it was founded comes the surface. And it's ugly. And people don't like it.

I'm seeing a lot of social media in reaction to what's happening right now in Baltimore, most of it from middle class white kids who have never been given more than a speeding ticket, and certainly don't wonder if they're going to die every time a police officer talks to them. Violence, they say, isn't the answer.

What is the answer?

Violence may not be the answer, but it's an answer, and it's an answer to a problem most middle-class white Americans will never think about. Kids gun each other down every day in Baltimore, and no one says anything. The crime rates and poverty rates are disproportionately high in the black community, and no one asks why - until someone burns down a pharmacy. And then people talk about it. Not positively, but they talk.

Violence isn't effective? Seems like it might be if the only time you ever consider what life might be like in inner-city Baltimore is when part of it is destroyed.

Maybe the answer would have been to tell the cops who let Grey die in the back of a van that violence isn't the answer. The people I talk to ask me that I give the police the benefit of the doubt. They say that we don't have all the answers. They say that we weren't on the scene and don't know what it was like. They don't extend the same courtesy to the citizens of Baltimore.

Do I agree with the destruction of private property in Baltimore? No. Do I get it? Yeah, I do. The argument I see the most on Facebook is that the black citizens of Baltimore should be following the law and acting peacefully. That's because the law, to many middle class whites, means not running a stop sign or refraining from shoplifting, whereas in some places in this country the law is a protection racket for the people that murder kids. The law let Freddie Grey die. If the law is under no obligation to act peacefully, why should its victims be?

In all these self-righteous posts about doing the proper and legal thing, I see the uncomfortable shadow of paternalism. "Those people are destroying their own neighborhood; they won't accomplish anything that way." In these statements lie the sinister implication that whites, particularly middle class whites, know how to run a country best and are more capable of accomplishing political objectives, whereas poor blacks don't and aren't. Most often these arguments are accompanied by Martin Luther King quotes, because, to a lot of people in this country with a high school education in race, MLK must be the spokesperson for all black people. Let's not talk about Nat Turner. Let's not mention Denmark Vasey or Gabriel. And don't even think about Malcolm X.

Incidentally, here's a quote from Reverend King: "It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

Now why am I not seeing that one in circulation?

Here's a little something I picked up in my six years studying race in this country: black history is horrifically violent, and most of the time, that violence was white on black. A lot of black violence was in response to white violence that was institutional, systematic, and widespread. Accounts of personal brutality against blacks would nauseate your average middle class mallgoer. Watch a video of a lynching sometime. Martin Luther King and peaceful marches are not black history. They are a part of black history. A very very small, if admittedly important, part.

None of this is to say that burning down a CVS is right, because it's not. However, it is to say that there is more going on here than people see or want to see. This is not about Freddie Grey. This is about the long history of police brutality, particularly against poor blacks, that exists in the country, and the refusal to acknowledge it or to hold the police accountable. Context is important.

I don't like Obama. I hate Obama. I think Obama is a horrible human being with a sinister agenda. I think he's petulant, egotistic, and hides behind his popularity like a shield while he plots to do whatever it takes to protect his legacy - and nothing else. But tonight, for the first time, he said something I agree with: "If our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could; it's just that it would require everybody saying, 'this is important; this is significant.' And, that we don't just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns, and we don't just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped, but we're paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids."

I hate Obama. But it takes genuine guts for an American president to say those things. And they're true.

If you don't want to see riots, hold your government and your law enforcement accountable. Don't pretend the problem doesn't exist until a group of people who deal with it every day make you see it in the only way left to them. It's not hard. It doesn't take thinking about it every day day in and day out - it only takes being aware of it. It takes thinking about it for five seconds before you post that pious little status about how you think people whose experiences are nothing like your should act. That's all.

If all we ever do when someone dies at the hands of those who are sworn to uphold the law in this country is blame the reaction to it, the riots won't stop. Riots, as King said, are "the language of the unheard." Perhaps when we learn to listen, that language will no longer be needed.

Survivors

Lately I've been playing a lot of Left 4 Dead. It's a pretty good game, like everything Valve puts out. For those who aren't particularly serious gamers, Left 4 Dead is a zombie survival co-op put out by Valve, arguably the best software company on the planet. I could write an entire post of what makes this game so great: its simplicity, its emphasis on cooperation while retaining the individuality of its protagonists, its endless replayability. However, I'd like to focus more on its storyline which, in classic Valve fashion, is deep, but told largely through the player's experience, rather than explicitly through narrative. (Again, I could write an entire post on why this is a far better method of storytelling, but that's for another day.) Left 4 Dead focuses on the story of four survivors of the zombie apocalypse, who, although carriers, are immune from the virus destroying the world around them.

Surprise politics! I'm using the game's narrative as an analog for the way I feel in a world where Hillary Clinton evokes hope from anyone. See, my favorite character in Left 4 Dead (L4D) is Louis, an IT guy who spends his lunch breaks on the shooting range. (Gee, I wonder why I'm drawn to this character.) The reason I like Louis, besides his background, is that he's always positive even though his world is shit. There's speculation out there that he's this positive exactly because his world is shit and he's trying to help himself cope.

That's how I feel in a world where anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton. Or anyone else.

I come off as one negative motherfucker, but that's only because I think my sarcastic and cynical snipes are funny. In reality, I'm a very positive person and I think good always wins out. But I also think that's despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans are idiots. Sometimes I feel like Louis: a survivor immune to the virus of democracy who nevertheless retains a positive outlook for the future of this country.

But before I can go into why I'm an optimist despite myself, let's look at why democracy is a cancerous, shitty virus. The way democracy works, if you haven't heard, is that the majority gets to decide what to do. Nice, right? Except, as we've established, the majority can do some pretty dumb stuff. Keep in mind that America has always been a republic or democracy of some kind (pick your favorite, because historically you can argue either). And keep in mind that this republican democracy is essentially founded on racism, slavery, and a touch of genocide because it was kind of ok with the majority. Have things gotten better? Sure. But we still have problems - major problems - and we voted the people who caused them into office.

Democracy is the reason I don't vote. I play Left 4 Dead because I know the game is winnable. Democracy isn't. Vote for the Democrats and I lose my guns, my money, and my liberties. Vote for the Republicans and I vote for endless war, plus I could never look my gay friends in the face ever again without feeling guilty. It's a game you can't win, and I don't like losing, so I don't play. And yet, because I choose not to play, I'm subject to the verbal attacks of a million zombies claiming that if I don't vote I can't complain about oppression, and what's more, should do the honorable thing and deport myself.

Speaking of zombies, let's get back to Hillary Clinton. I never thought I would see the day where people would be happy that openly ambitious, smug, horrible human being would get to partially control anything in their lives.

Let's clear this up right now before we proceed further: voting for Hillary because she's a woman is as sexist as voting for Obama because he's black is racist. Period, end of story.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about the 2016 election, because apparently it's time. What in hell makes you think this will be any different? We voted for Bush and we got an endless horror of a war. We voted for Obama and we got more of the same, plus massive executive overreach, domestic spying, and drone strikes on innocent civilians. There's your hope and change. And now someone comes along and promises you the moon again and you believe her? Why?

Really. Give me one good reason why you think it'll turn out different this time.

The zombies in L4D are stupid. You know what you can do to them? You can throw a bomb with a flashing light on it towards them and they'll run towards it until it explodes and they die. You can put fire between you and them to kill them because they'll just keep running at you even though they'll burn to death. You can throw a substance that attracts them to you and gun them down while they crown around it. And they never learn. They're more American than George Washington eating an apple pie while riding a bald eagle.

They're also dangerous, because as stupid as they are, there are a lot of them.

That's why I feel like a survivor.

But here's the nice thing: survivors always win. The zombies don't actually matter in Left 4 Dead because they're mindless, interchangeable NPCs. The mindless NPCs around me who want to vote my rights away because they think it'll be better this time around can't actually hurt me. I'm immune. I don't buy in, I don't vote, I don't play their game. I can be oppressed. I can't be made to do it to myself. The only power politicians like Hillary have is the power to make you believe in them.

Don't.

Logic

I'm glad Leonard Nimoy died today.

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Star Trek fan. I've seen every single episode of every single show. It took me two months of my life. Not two months as in it took me from January to March. I mean if you wanted to watch all the iterations of Star Trek straight through with no sleep, no food, no interruptions of any kind, it would take you two months. That's how many there are. That's how much I've watched. So when I say I'm glad Leonard Nimoy died today, I don't mean I'm glad he died. I'm just glad he died today.

The character Nimoy played is my personal favorite from the Original Series, and probably a lot of people's favorite. I like Spock because he's logical. Nimoy dying on this particular day did logic a great service: it got people to focus on something other than arguing about what color something objectively was.

If some future historian is reading this, let me explain: my countrymen, my people, my civilization were so astoundingly, so amazingly, so unbelievably stupid that, as a collective, they spent the better part of February 27, 2015 arguing about what color a dress was. Yes. They did. I'm sorry. I hate them too. Please don't give up on history just because of this fact.

Let's leave the future historian for a bit. Presumably, he needs some time to claw his eyes and/or Internet-brain interface out of his skull anyway. Now I'm talking to you, present reader. What in holy hell were you thinking? Let's recap what's going on in this particular time period. We have a religious-political extremist group taking over a large portion of the world where, not incidentally, we get a large portion of our most widely used energy source. Net neutrality was just passed, and people still aren't sure what that even means, both literally and for the future. We're in the middle of a decade plus long war that won't end and the leader of our country is ok with drones not only killing people abroad but also with spying on us at home. And you spent your day arguing over what color a dress was?

Fucking really?

Let's get one thing straight: that dress can only be the color it is. That's how light works. Case closed. Let's get something else straight, and I want to be very very clear here: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

Seriously. Who cares? Who. Fucking. Cares?

You know what your problem is? Your problem is that you're willing to argue about what color a fucking dress is because you're too afraid to discuss real problems. You think it's boring or rude to talk about the fact that a sitting president is an accessory to murder but you think it's ok to make a hashtag about a fucking dress?

Oh, right, sorry, future historian. Hashtags are, like, these things people used to use to denote interest in something on the Internet. They usually went away after a week because people from 2015 can't focus on anything even slightly important for more then a week and - oh he's tearing out the brain thing again... Ok...

Back to the present, then. I said Leonard Nimoy's death was a timely victory for logic, and here's why: it got people to quit arguing about something with only one objective outcome. Something is either a certain color or it's not. The same people who are unwilling to argue about something that actually can be argued, like the war, the economy, or net neutrality, are totally ok with arguing about something that literally cannot be argued against. That's fucking stupid. I don't care if it's a joke. It's not funny. Something is either a certain color or it's not. I mean come the fuck on.

Yeah, it's cool our brains work a certain way. Yeah, it's cool how they interpret color. Hey, guess what? Maybe instead of blowing up Facebook and Twitter, you can go read a fucking book to learn about this stuff like the rest of us who maybe took a basic psychology course because we were interested in psychology, not because we wanted to argue about the color of a dress on the Internet.

This is not what the Internet was designed for. It was designed for the viewing of pornography. But after people finished with that (so to speak), it was designed to spread information. I can't tell you how much I've learned over the Internet. About computers, guns, cars, personal finance, cooking, beer, literally anything there's a subreddit for. And sure, I like to laugh at dogs doing funny things as much as the next guy, but we, as a society, have taken it to an extreme when we use it to argue over nothing the way we've been doing.

In fact, let's get back to basics. Go watch some porn. It's better than the mental version of jacking off we as a society have been doing all day.

For all the profanity and crudeness of this post, I think it's a fitting eulogy to a man who portrayed a character as logical as Spock. Because society could use a little logic. I'm going to go watch Amok Time now, in all its cheesy glory, and I'm going to drink rum out of my Starfleet glassware. Here's to you, Leonard.

On Target

As a white, heterosexual male, I don't get discriminated against much, and that's kind of nice. Ideally, I would like to live in a world where nobody is. That seems pretty unlikely, though, because, as I am constantly reminded, people aren't logical. I study slavery and race, and I can tell you that without a shadow of a doubt that racism is illogical. First off, race isn't even real. There's no so thing as race from a biological standpoint. Look it up. Yet, as humans, we not only see race, but act differently sometimes based on a person's race. And we shouldn't. Believe it or not, I've actually been discriminated against due to my race. Luckily for me, that's extraordinarily rare because we happen to live in a country were white people are privileged. But while that's kind of convenient for me, it's pretty crappy for a lot of people, and not good for anyone in the long run, so I'd like it to change. However, just because I rarely get discriminated against for my race, gender, or sexuality doesn't mean that I don't get discriminated against, a fact I was very much reminded of today when I was treated differently than your average person simply because I made the decision to own a gun. Disclaimer time: I am NOT equating this experience to the experiences of those who have suffered due to racism etc. That would be silly and offensive. Being judged for what you buy and for what race you are are fundamentally different things. I did, however, use that particular segue for a reason. In case the recent news from Missouri and other areas of the country hasn't made you aware already, sometimes black people get treated like criminals just because they're black. And that's stupid. Certainly some black people commit crimes. So do some white people. We don't think it's ok to go around treating all blacks as criminals, however. Nor should we. So why do we do it to gun owners? The obvious reply would be because being black doesn't make you dangerous or more likely to commit a crime. Well here's an interesting fact for you: neither does being a gun owner! Some people like golf or tennis. You know what I like? I like guns. I like shooting guns. That picture I chose for this post? That was a five-shot 100 yard group I shot last week. Anyone who shoots regularly can tell it's not perfect, but it's not terrible either. And I'm proud of it. And it was fun to do. Here's something else: if you've never shot before, I bet you couldn't do better. I bet you wouldn't even know how to load and fire the rifle I used, let alone understand zeroing, body position, and breath and recoil management. Even if you read about all that stuff on the Internet, that isn't the same as actually taking the shot and you'd find that out pretty quickly. In fact, I do have shooting experience, but take a look at that shot on the right. That happened because I flinched, anticipating the rifle's recoil. Just a tiny little common mistake, a slight muscle twitch at the wrong time, and look how far off the bullet goes. That's what's so great about the sport. It's all about form, technique, precision, and consistency. And math. If you're thinking that none of that sounds super criminal or threatening, and in fact sounds downright nerdy, you're right. And yet you'd be surprised how I get treated by some people when I casually mention my hobby. Today I was told, by someone who was clearly uncomfortable with guns, that I should change my profile picture on Facebook to attract more employers. My profile picture is me at the range. I am wearing protective goggles and hearing protection. I am pointing the gun in a safe direction. I am properly executing a supported shooting stance. To me this photo depicts an able, component person exercising his skill and knowledge in a disciplined way to achieve his desired aim and doing so in a safe, responsible way. 

To someone who doesn't like guns, it's scary. Because, gun.

Of course, I gently mentioned that, yes, I target shoot as a hobby, and I've never even shot an animal. I was told that that may be true, but there had been a lot of shootings in the news lately, and people were uncomfortable with guns. Maybe. There have been a lot of black people rioting in the news lately. You know something? I still don't find black people scary. Because that would be stupid.

I don't mind if someone doesn't like guns, but it's time this ridiculous stigma about them goes away. My hobby is legitimate, popular, legal, and, yes, even safe. I am not a criminal, nor should I be treated like one because I choose to participate in a sport shared by millions of others. That's not fair, nor does it even make sense. Linking a responsible, safe shooter with a criminal gunman is like linking a safe, responsible driver to a drunk driver because they both have cars. It needs to stop.

Incidentally, while I'm happy to make my picture private (frankly, I thought it already was), I'm not going to change it. It says a lot about me as a person, even if people who don't know anything about me or my hobbies aren't capable of seeing it. That rifle was a graduation gift from my parents. It's a beautiful and well-made piece of equipment. Shooting it relaxes me and makes me proud that I can achieve technical proficiency in a sport that demands it. I like that picture.

This is something I can't retreat from because it's personal to me. I can shrug off someone not liking computers, cars, or beer because when they tell me they don't like computers, cars, or beer, they just don't like them and that's ok and hardly offensive. With guns, though, there's often a judgement attached. If there wasn't, I wouldn't even mind. I have lots of friends who are for gun control, and while I disagree with them, they don't treat me personally like a criminal, so it's not an issue. It's not people who don't like guns that bother me, but people who act like I'm a bad person because I have this hobby I like, especially when that hobby is legal and safe. And I believe that all gun owners should be open and proud about their hobby.

Yes, I own a gun. Yes, I shoot my gun. And yes, I absolutely love it. If someone has a problem with that, the problem is theirs.

Elitism and Mediocrity

One thing I've said in past posts is: you don't play games you can't win, and I stand by that. It's odd, then that I have been breaking it for the past few months, looking for a job in IT. I love computers and technology. It's an interest of mine and has been for some years now. I even enjoyed my last IT job. Thoroughly. However, corporate America is a game I have no mind nor stomach for. At heart, I am an academic and a practical man. There's no room for people like me in an environment in which you are told to follow and fit in.

Of course, some would say that such an attitude is impractical, and it is that notion that lies at the heart of the title of this post, because in these interviews with these small men and women who sit and contemplate the bottom line and view me and presumably all their candidates in this way, I can only think one thing: I am better than that person.

You can't enter an interview with that mindset, for so many reasons, but I do, because I can't help it. Every time I'm asked what my strengths and weaknesses are or where I see myself in five years, I think to myself: "but you wouldn't make it."

What I mean by this is that if we were in a life or death situation, I am better equipped to deal with it than they are. I'm not saying I'm well equipped, or that I'd make it either, but there's a question there, and a possibility. I have taught myself to drive fast, run fast, shoot well. I can prepare my own food and drink. I exercise and eat well. I take care of my body and my mind. Maybe none of that matters in their world, but it does in mine, and mine is the only one that matters, because in my world you live or die by your own merits. So when I try to work under the assumption that a corporate interviewer may be controlling my livelihood in the future, my mind discards that notion as absurd and laughable.

I don't want to put myself out as something I'm not here. I'm no soldier. In an emergency, I'm not sure I'd survive. But I am sure that your average white collar worker wouldn't because they don't have the mind for it. I once wrote an article on why I love the shooting sports. Besides being straight up fun, shooting is pure. You hit the target or you don't. What enters into it isn't how nice a guy you are or if you can make people laugh, whether you can make a sale or how fast you can close a call. What enters into it is your rifle, your technique, and your skill. You put a round on target or you don't. And in a situation where you're called to shoot more than paper, that skill can mean your life. Hit or miss. Live or die. It's a fundamental equation and it's binary and final. That's the way my mind works. That's the practicality I'm talking about.

Does that sound insane? Perhaps, but you have to ask yourself why it's becoming increasingly popular to make your own stuff, and why guns and survival gear sales are surging, why primitivism is back in vogue. This isn't the 1950s where every American house yearns to have a refrigerator, an electric stove, and a smiling, obedient, and thoroughly boring bleach-blond stay-at-home mom in the kitchen. Our manufactured goods are a product of mass production and slavery, and people want an escape from that reality to a truer reality. Making something yourself or learning survival skills are actions which speak to the same root, and that root is the desire to create something relevant to you. If I buy a beer off the shelf, it wasn't made by me for me. I had no control, and no matter how good that beer tastes (and there are some great craft beers out there) it will never taste as good as the one you made yourself, even if the one you made yourself isn't particularly good. In a world where people feel lost, and as if their lives lie in the hands of the state, the corporations, or some other entity, making your own goods or learning to live in the woods is a mark of personal rebellion and rejection of a system which is, by its nature, synthetic.

Still think I'm crazy? What I'm saying isn't new. It was a major tenet in another industrial society: 19th century America. If you think this movement is new, read more Thoreau.

Which brings me back to my original point: applying to IT jobs is, for me, playing a game I can't win. There is no room in a job based on reaction for a fundamentally creative person. I don't react. I create the scenario in the first place. In academia, you live or die on the novelty of your ideas. Certainly your work is based on those who came before you, in more ways than one, but the way in which you interpret history must be new in some way, must be creative, in order to be compelling.

But more importantly, I think, it must be meaningful. It has been my goal for some years to help solve existing racial problems (and if you think that doesn't apply anymore, there's a plane ticket to Missouri I'd like to buy you) by upholding the memory of over four million enslaved men and women. It has been the goal of many of my friends and brothers (both literal and metaphorical) to attempt projects just as meaningful as mine. This is the world in which I live, and when I compare it to solving CEO Johnson's wireless problem again, I laugh, because I see no reality in a world in which CEO Johnson or his wireless problem exist. They are small and feeble and I have more important things to do.

There is no denying what big business has done for this country, for better or for worse. But I can't make it matter to me. That's my bottom line. My strengths are many, my "weakness:" my inability to accept the importance of that which does not matter. Where do I see myself in five years? Not stagnating. Not sitting in an office chair wishing I'd done it differently. Not working for a paycheck, but for a future installment on the future of humanity. I see myself existing.

In Defense of a Riot

The anniversary of a riot is in three weeks. 241 years ago in Boston, a bunch of citizens got pissed off about taxes on tea, so they got together, rubbed burnt cork on their faces, dressed up like Native Americans, and rioted. They went down to the local harbor, smashed up property belonging to a major company, threw it in the water, and left.

The Boston Tea Party is a major event in American history, so much so that an entire political movement has grown up around it. It was by no means the first riot in American history. Previous riots had actually been a lot more destructive. British colonial citizens were guilty of assaulting tax collectors, burning private property, and threatening with bodily harm agents of their government. The most infamous act by American rioters was probably that of tarring and feathering a victim and riding them out of town on a rail. Many citizens suspected of supporting the Crown's taxes were also forced to drink boiling tea (which, as you might imagine, is not particularly pleasant).

White people rioting over tea and taxes. It's an integral part of our national folklore. While some professional historians have attempted to make the civil unrest in early America more nuanced (as they well should), the public image of these riots remains essentially the story of a group of white citizens taking drastic steps to gain liberty from a tyrannical government.

 I'd like to take a brief moment here to make some disclaimers. I am fully aware that the Revolution was not a strictly white endeavor. I am aware that the actions of the colonists and whether or not they were egged on by cultural and social elites has been endlessly debated. I am aware that making comparisons of Ferguson to the Revolution is essentially bad historical practice.

However, while neither strictly true nor untrue, the popular image most American citizens have of the period matters. While I would like most Americans to have the understanding of the American Revolution that professional historians do, they don't. Largely, Americans view the pre-Revolutionary events in Boston as a bunch of white dudes fighting for liberty through unconventional and extralegal means. Again, it is this image that is important, rather than its veracity.

I say the image is important because it is primarily people who invoke this exact image, no matter how flawed, of the Boston Tea Party who are the biggest critics of the Ferguson Riots.

I don't condone looting or destruction of private property. However, I find it deeply ironic that a wing of a major American political party named after one of the most important riots in American history is standing staunchly on the side of law and order in the case of Ferguson, Missouri. The biggest argument I see from the Tea Party, its sympathizers, and even ordinary Republicans is that rioting isn't justified in this case, and that it won't be effective. Instead, say these men and women, the citizens of Ferguson should have used the proper channels.

Putting aside the irony I've attempted to detail above, I think it's important to consider that the entire reason the men and women of Ferguson, Missouri are rioting in the first place is a complete failure of the proper channels those condemning the riots are espousing. The "proper channels" in this case shot an 18 year old boy and then refused to be particularly forthcoming with certain pieces of evidence. There is some evidence that the boy in question was going for the officer's gun or had entered the car, but we can't say for sure, because the police department is being squirrely about what they release. Furthermore, the police story and the eyewitness stories don't match up, and while that's to be expected, questions of why so many shots were fired and in what context these events occurred have not been properly examined. For this exact reason, the actions of the officer who killed Michael Brown will not be further looked into. He may be an innocent man who acted in self-defense. But he also may be a racist murderer, and due to the actions of the courts in Missouri, we simply will never know. And that's a problem.

I'm a big fan of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. However, I'm also a fan of an investigation being based on all the available facts. When a police department is allowed to withhold evidence and then use lack of evidence as a reason to dodge an indictment, it brings up the question of the legitimacy of the "proper channels."

In other words, don't stack the deck against a large group of people and then expect them to play your game.

Of course, as I said before, I'm completely against the destruction and looting of private property, but I think it's important to question this assumed link between the protesters, the rioters, and the looters. What exactly is it that causes those on the right to assume that these are essentially the same people? I've heard the claim, multiple times, that the Ferguson protesters are destroying their own community or that rioting simply isn't the best way to effect change. In this claim is the unstated assumption that the looters in question are looting because they're protesting what happened to Michael Brown, and not simply because they're taking advantage of a situation caused by Michael Brown's shooting and the subsequent legitimate protests and arguably legitimate riots. In this unspoken assumption that equates looters and protesters, I hear an uncomfortable echo of the claim that all people of a certain group act the same way and, as someone who has studied race for six years, I have to ask why that is, and whether, had this been a white neighborhood, the media would be failing to make that distinction.

Regardless of racial motives, the equation of looters with legitimate protesters is problematic because it takes away from the legitimacy of those protests. Holding up a sign, or even torching a police car, have totally different connotations than robbing a Toys R Us. There's no need to assume that those taking advantage of the protests in Ferguson have the same motives and to project the motives of looters on the protesters, and to lump them all in the same group distracts us from the very real grievances those protesters who did not destroy property, or who targeted police and police vehicles, might have.

There's no doubt that the situation in Missouri is a mess, but the bottom line is that those who advocate approaching the indictment decision in a way that does not involve protest do so because they largely live in a community where no protest is necessary. They aren't targeted by the police, don't have a deep-seated distrust of law enforcement and the courts that stems from centuries of systemic abuse, and don't have to deal with the massive social and economic issues caused by that systemic abuse. Middle class whites (or blacks for that matter) can safely advocate not rioting because they will never be placed in a situation that calls for it. No one is going to put 12 bullets into their young men for stealing a pack of cigarettes. None of them fear they're going to be next.

Perhaps rioting isn't the solution. Perhaps the solution is to create the same atmosphere in the lower-class black communities of the South that middle-class whites enjoy. Perhaps the solution would have been for the Ferguson police department to cooperate with an outside investigation and be open with the forensic evidence. Perhaps the solution would have been to try and figure out what really happened to Michael Brown. Perhaps the solution is to not have police outfitted with equipment taken from the arsenal in Battlefield Hardline. Perhaps the solution is to address the concerns of a major community before they feel like rioting is the only option left open to them.

If you want people to use the proper channels, you have to make those channels actually work. Until then, people are going to carve their own channels, and those channels aren't pretty. Ultimately, and this is the key point, you don't have to condone the riots in Ferguson to have expected them. And you don't have to be a social scientist to figure out what that expectation says about the United States, race, and the increasing militarization of America's police forces. Until we address these issues, instead of choosing to ignore them, as the Ferguson Grand Jury did, don't expect Missouri to be the last place such rioting occurs.

The Problem with Voting

On Election Day, a lot of people like to talk about how voting makes us free. I'd like to take a minute to point out why voting makes you, if anything, less free than the man or woman who does not vote.

We believe voting is, at its essence, part of a democratic (or republican) process, and that's true. But we only associate these processes with freedom because we have been conditioned to do so. The basis of any government, however, is still coercion, and the advantages of republican or democratic government do not negate that essential fact. When you vote, you are telling someone else what to do, pure and simple. You are not merely stating that your views are correct, which is generally harmless; you are causing others to live according to your mores. This is not deemed coercive in our society, however, because we assume that, through some intangible "contract," we have agreed to live according to these rules.

An entire essay could be written on the flaws inherent in such a system. Many, including myself, signed no such social contract, and yet we are told we must live according to its tenets nonetheless. However, I would instead like to focus on the fundamental difference between those who do follow this contract, and express it via voting, and those who do not.

When you vote, you are implicitly signing away your rights, regardless of who you vote for. Why? Because you aren't guaranteed to win. The same people who complain about Apple or Microsoft's Terms of Service, bemoaning that they invade your privacy or are restrictive, do not read your government's own Terms of Service. The Terms of Service of democracy state clearly that, should you participate, you must adhere to the decision of the mass and the mob. You risk everything by voting. If you win, you get your way (or so you think; again, an entire essay could be written on that subject). But should you lose, you lose everything.

I say you lose everything because you willingly chose to participate. You agreed that a system in which men and women, by virtue of their numbers, could do things in a manner with which you disagreed. By voting, you legitimated and participated in that system. To put it another way, if you vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome.

Oh yes, I can use that bromide as well as you, though I believe I have more justification. If you voted Republican and want to complain about Obama taking your guns, your money, and your privacy, remember that you agreed to a system under which the winner would be able to do such things. If you're a Democrat and you want to complain about Republican opposition to progress, be it social or scientific, remember that you legitimated and participated in a system that allowed such people to come to power. If you belong to neither party, and bemoan the ills of both, but still vote, remember that you knew the problems inherent in the two-party system, but chose to aid in its perpetuation. Don't tell me that you have the right to complain but that I do not. I don't play games I can't win, and I certainly don't play games in which, regardless of the outcome, millions of people's lives, liberty, and property are directly affected. I don't believe that I have that right.

If you vote, that's fine, but it's hard for me to understand why I shouldn't have a right to complain about the system you put in place and I didn't, and it's hard for me to understand why it makes you free if you willingly partake in a system you know and even admit could result in a lack of freedom for you if you lose, but I'm somehow neglecting my freedom if I refuse to participate in such a system. The reality of it is that you are free to the degree you choose to be. By casting your ballot, you voted away your right to freedom. All government is based on force. Some are just more honest about it than others.