Prison abolition

I am sure it is because of the recent primaries, but I have been seeing a lot of extreme position slogans being floated around. 

I want to get more into the overall issue next week, but for now I have seen some good discussions around prison abolition. That can be a good introduction.

One reason I find the discussion interesting is that in the past I did not see a lot of honest engagement; the people in favor would not accept any compromise and the people against dismissed the people in favor as unreasonable and out of touch.

To be fair, the discussions I am seeing are not the two sides engaging. Instead, the people who are confused are asking questions and the people who are against are answering, but they are giving substantive answers with sources, something that I hadn't seen before.

Prison abolitionists are not wrong that the current system is corrupt. Privately-owned systems that can be run for profit, which crimes are pursued and prosecuted, the privilege that money buys, the racism, and the way it encourages some of the worst people to get jobs where they can act on their worst impulses... this is all bad. 

Those wrongs may be more related to dominator culture than the concept of prison itself.

Current discussions have primarily focused on two points.

One is that prison abolitionists believe that by creating a more just society the need for prisons will be eliminated.

No, the evidence doesn't really support that. Epstein gets mentioned as an example, but there are others.

With those goals, the need for prisons should be seriously reduced in ways that make life better for everyone. I love that. 

However, there is plenty of evidence that rich people do terrible things all the time. This is not due to a lack of resources. 

Okay, maybe a rich person has the food, shelter, health care, and educational opportunities they need, but they never received love or any instruction in ethics or integrity... I get that can cause problems and I can have some sympathy, but I don't see how you can legislate a fix for that.

I certainly don't agree that having lots of privilege should keep you out of prison for crimes where prison is appropriate.

The other question that came up was what to do with murderers. 

I had never seen an answer to this before; the closest was an insistence that murders wouldn't happen.

I had seen suggestions that in more nomadic societies the remedy was banishment, which could easily be a death sentence. I don't think that works with these high populations. The other answer is just killing them, in a very civilized way that would not devolve into vigilantism or endless revenge or purges.

You can read something here, if you want: 

https://x.com/ChristianityOn/status/2083221114331844653 

That's pulling from Mariame Kaba, whom I did follow once and then stopped. Even so, she's not on my "never believe again" list; she's more "take with a grain of salt."

That did not come up on the topic of murder, but on the topic of rape and her continuing support of serial rapist Malcolm London.

You know, I have never found a good summation of that whole story. There are parts here and there, like the missing stair warning. There is the privacy of victims to consider and legal liability, because even some of the victims don't want him to go to jail; they want him to stop doing it. I get it. Here are two things that give an idea:

https://x.com/so_treu/status/1296585551500529665  

https://www.tumblr.com/transformharm/626907682811576320/statement-by-mariame-81920 

Maybe there is a spot in between the "never" and the "grain of salt" and Kaba needs to go there. I didn't used to need such an elaborate filing system.

Anyway, here's what I know from watching some "circle way" material from New Zealand: when there is a lack of understanding and economic problems and chances to make amends, you can build empathy and a sense of community to prevent future crimes. That will probably be most effective with property crimes. Working to make sure people's needs can be met will work well with that.

People who like hurting others and dominating others are really good at learning how to mimic empathy to manipulate people and extend their crimes.

It's not even uncommon. I couldn't remember Hugo Schwyzer's name, so my search describing what he did brought up two others. 

It wasn't even an extensive search.

When their unmet need is exerting control over someone else, when they get a charge from having a respected public facade and then privately being abusive... your ideal society is not going to fix that.

It might be more humane to put them in prison than to kill them. If you do nothing, I promise they will continue raping. 

Okay, they do that now, and it is barely prosecuted and punished now... there are limits to what the system can do, but if the response is going to be "Poor baby! Thank you for admitting it," that system will only perpetuate abuse. 

There are people who are manipulative. If you try and fix everything by extending understanding and sympathy, the system will end up favoring the abusive ones. It's not good or right, but it's how it works.

That's why I keep harping on dominator culture; if you don't understand that it will hamper your understanding of everything else.  

What if you just hate the people?

Yesterday's post was about combining care for humans and non-humans. 

Some people find it easier to care for animals than humans... I don't think that's right, but I get it.

Some people really seem to hate humans and I want to use that to explore extreme thinking.

Actually, I don't know if some of the attitudes are based in hatred for humans; maybe it's contempt, or maybe there is something against animals.

A proposed Oregon ballot initiative recently failed. Claiming to fight animal cruelty, it was also going to stamp out hunting, fishing, ranching, pest control... a lot of interactions with animals would be classified as cruelty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-ballot-measure-that-would-have-criminalized-hunting-and-fishing-fails-to-qualify-for-vote/ 

An interesting point in the article, referring to some Florida legislation, is that "wildlife policy must be driven by science rather than "emotions or feelings." 

There is a trend toward vibes-based politics now; it has some weaknesses.

You will also see people say they are going on science when the science doesn't back it up. That's something worth considering.

My desire to have pets is largely emotional. 

If I decide to become vegetarian or vegan, that would probably be largely emotional and that can be valid. 

It shouldn't shove logic or kindness out the door.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a shelter in Norfolk, Virginia that doesn't turn away any animals. 

They also kill a lot of those animals.

https://blogs.duanemorris.com/animallawdevelopments/2026/02/05/petas-shelter-kill-rate-is-down-but-still-deadly/ 

It is true that shelters are full and that many will say that they can't take any more. I have still known volunteers to call other shelters looking for a spot and to relent and take in the "just one more"... I have seen a lot of love and caring shown for animals by people who are more interested in giving companion animals a good life than in giving them a good death.

(Though PETA members are probably not kidnapping pets most of the time: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-taking-pets/) 

PETA's philosophy of enjoying animals at a distance seems to want to remove those interactions, but can we?

I know there can be a lot of issues. I certainly know of birds and reptiles who bonded with their owners even if never having been in captivity might have been better.

However, the dogs and the cats really want to be with us. That is very clear.

Yes, it is human breeding that got them there, but there are cows that need to be milked daily and sheep that need to be sheared regularly. Taking away their humans would be cruel.

Domesticated animals have needs. If we want to break that bond, then what? Killing them all at once? Gradually letting them die out?

There are problems that are caused by humans that need human solutions. That means the human race simply disappearing -- even if that sounds good to some -- isn't a cure-all. 

If human encroachment has messed up the balance in the food web, that can fix itself over time, but sometimes human intervention can fix things more smoothly. 

Feedlots are a terrible way of raising food, bad for the animals, the people, and the environment. 

Is that because eating meat is bad and shouldn't be done? Or are there better ways of doing it but greed and capitalism get it done that way?

(Is the real problem dominator culture?)

I do eat meat, and when I want beef I try and get it from a local, non-factory farmed source. 

I have had to decide to just not eat veal.

It's more complicated than "Meat is Murder" and fixing the existing issues would be more complicated, but I know things can be better if we have the will to make it so.

And if it seems weird that today's examples involved so much death, that should make more sense when we get to tomorrow's examples. 

For the animals to be okay, the people need to be okay

This is sort of a continuation of Thursday's post. 

I had said the two topics would not be overtly political, but I might have hinted at politics in the post on libraries, at least with one of the links.

Here we go with cats.

It's been a while, but I have seen complaints about people (usually white people) showing more compassion for animals than people.

There is some truth to that. 

Sometimes it may not be so much people versus animals as people versus an individual animal. Presenting an individual, especially a vulnerable one, affects people more, even if it is part of an appeal for a larger group.

I always felt a little guilty when I saw those complaints, because I love animals so much. I love people a lot, too, and try and respond and help, but an animal in trouble does in fact squeeze my heart (just in case our house full of rescued animals did not tip you off already).

What I want to do here is try and bring the two sides together. 

For the animals to be okay, the people need to be okay.

One of the areas where that disagreement comes up is people getting inordinately angry when homeless people have pets.

"It's not fair to the animals!" 

"Oh, so you're saying that homeless people don't deserve companionship?" and sometimes "But you're okay with the person living on the streets?"

Those are fair responses, and the initial point of it being a hard life for animals on the street is also fair. Maybe even points made that sometimes it is exploitative, with people using the animal to get more handouts can be fair, though I think the need for love and companionship is the bigger issue. 

You know what would solve everything? Getting those people into housing. It would be better for them and for the animals. What a neat idea!

"You shouldn't have pets if you can't afford them!"

Yes, they say this about children too, except maybe when they first came it was fine and then things went terribly wrong and finances changed, but there is still a living being needing assistance.

You will sometimes see cases of donations being requested for an animal who is only being treated because the owner surrendered them.

You might think that sounds like a  heartless owner and then a vet or rescue group stepping in. That might be how it goes sometimes, but sometimes you might have a cat that needs a $10,000 procedure, and you are asking about payment plans or credit, but those aren't being allowed so you are being advised to surrender the cat. That makes you a bad owner, but not having the $10,000 ready to go also makes you a bad owner. Then the choice is whether you lose the cat to death or to another family.

That assumes they will find another family. 

Here's the thing; we have connections with a few rescue groups and they are all pretty full. There are not enough homes. If people are willing to step in and make payment happen for a surrendered cat that they then hope can find a home, what if we helped the people who already love the cat with the medical needs?

No, people need to be punished for being poor. Everyone knows that.

Let me point out that is a true story, and also that it did not happen to us. The biggest vet bill we have ever faced was $5000 (for a greyhound with a bad reaction during a dental cleaning) and I charged it. I'm not sure I've ever had a card that would have absorbed $10,000. Care Credit might, but they need to leave room for other lenders. Pet insurance might come through, but usually you have to pay out of pocket first and then get reimbursed. Theoretically Hannah solved those things, but that seems to have left a lot of complaints and lawsuits.

(Speaking of caring about humans, having medical technology that can save and improve lives but that no one wants to pay for... that's not just a pet problem.)

The bond is real. It is something where it has taken a while, but emergency shelters and domestic violence shelters are starting to take it into account too. 

It would help even more if we worked to reduce domestic violence and forest fires and climate change-induced disasters... there are a lot of things we could do to make the world and society better that would help both humans and animals.

Because of Greater Good, I am aware of some Ukrainian groups that rescue pets found in the war zones and try and give them medical care and get them new families.

Wouldn't it be great if that weren't necessary?

I am only saying that not only is there room to care about both people and animals, but that doing so is actually more effective for helping everyone.

Okay, but what if you really hate people?

It turns out I have some thoughts on that. Maybe not the ones you'd expect. 

Disability Pride Month: July songs

Going way back in time, to the second Family Blood book, the band's rhythm guitarist (sometimes bass player) has a badly injured arm and struggles with not being able to play. 

(The drummer has a pretty bad injury too, but there's not as immediate a need for him to be able to pound on the drums, plus the new bass player is dead. Vampires, man; they'll mess you up.)

Trying to be able to work out some way he can play something, his mind goes to guitarists with injuries. First he thinks of James Hetfield's burns when Metallica played in Montreal:

https://www.loudersound.com/music/albums/when-did-james-hetfield-catch-on-fire-metallica-guns-n-roses 

(We watched that VH1: Behind the Music a lot, as well as the Def Leppard one, which will also be pertinent.)

Back to our injured guitar player, Hetfield is his first thought, but Hetfield got better; what if he doesn't?

Then he thinks about Django Reinhardt, working through his permanent burn injuries, and Tommy Iommi losing the tips of two fingers on his fretting hand, and having to change how he played for that.

I felt that scene a lot. Maybe that's weird for someone who is a terrible guitar player, but I still felt the emotions and struggle.  

Cory White (Coalesce, The Esoteric) liked my book. He can play.

My point is that it felt pretty personal.

I remember years ago reading about a band who often ran into accessibility issues at venues. I couldn't find that article. There were some others, including this one that gave me three of the musicians: 

https://batec-mobility.com/en/disabled-musicians-icons-from-beethoven-to-today/

You will see that Metallica is not in there. As Papa Het was only temporarily unable to play and still sang during that time, I did not use him. 

Similarly, Elton John had seizures for a time, but it may have been due to his drug use. That's okay, he's got a song in August. Musicians who can no longer hear because of not protecting their ears are also not included. (The cause of Beethoven's deafness is not certain, but may be from lead poisoning.)

Also, I did not include mental illness as a disability; Joy Division is in there because of Ian Curtis' epilepsy. Also, putting "Love Will Tear Us Apart" right after "Love Will Keep Us Alive" seemed kind of cheeky; love is versatile! 

Joe Walsh has autism, apparently combined with some ADHD and OCD.

That drug abuse thing... sometimes it's self-medication. Hank Williams' spina bifida and the back pain it caused may have been a big part of his alcohol abuse. 

I could have used several more autism cases, mostly self-diagnosed. I don't judge for that, as it is often hard to get diagnosed. Sometimes the balance between including or excluding was how much I like the song.

Having Ray Charles' version of "America the Beautiful" on July 4th was a bit of a protest, because of some flack that people gave to his version. Jose Feliciano's "No Dogs Allowed" is specifically about his service dog not being allowed in England without a 6-month quarantine. (Their dog policies are ridiculous.)

The other thing that struck me was how much effort there was toward concealment. Paul Stanley's hair always covered his microtia. It was very hard to know that Prince had seizures.   

So, if there are people and bands listed here where you don't know how they ended up in this list..., I thought about putting notes on everyone, but maybe it's better to make that something that people have to pursue on their own. None of it is impossible to find.

Though, I do feel like knowing Iggy Pop has scoliosis explains a lot about the way he dances.

Daily songs: 

7/1 “Ode to Joy” from the 4^th Movement of Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony, performed by the National Arts Centre Orchestra, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and London Philharmonic Choir
7/2 “Minor Swing” composed by Django Reinhardt and Stéphane Grappelli, performed by The Quintet of the Hot Club of France
7/3 “Hey Good Lookin’” by Hank Williams
7/4 “America the Beautiful” performed by Ray Charles
7/5 “No Dogs Allowed” by Jose Feliciano
7/6 “Heart of Gold” by Neil Young
7/7 “Lovely Day” by Bill Withers
7/8 “Higher Ground” by Stevie Wonder
7/9 “White Rabbit” by Jefferson Airplane
7/10 “Love Will Keep Us Alive” by Eagles
7/11 “Love Will Tear Us Apart" by Joy Division
7/12 “Smoky Mountain Rain” by Ronnie Milsap
7/13 “Rock And Roll All Nite” by KISS
7/14 “Iron Man” by Black Sabbath
7/15 “Lust For Life” by Iggy Pop
7/16 “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince
7/17 “Same Ol’ Situation” by Mötley Crüe
7/18 “Money’s Too Tight (To Mention)” by Simply Red
7/19 “Brass Monkey” by Beastie Boys
7/20 “Angel Eyes” by Jeff Healey
7/21 “When Love and Hate Collide” by Def Leppard
7/22 “Everything to Everyone” by Everclear
7/23 “Vivo por Ella” by Andrea Bocelli feat. KAROL G
7/24 “Factory” by The Vines
7/25 “So Young” by Portugal. The Man
7/26 “Litost” by X Ambassadors
7/27 “Colors” by Halsey
7/28 “Heaven” by The AutistiX
7/29 “TACHI” by Langui, A93, Young Gipsy
7/30 “Moziki” by Staff Benda Bilili
7/31 “Girls Can Fly” by Katcross

Notes on the clowder

In February we lost Mavis.

I generally say that we should not go looking for cats, because they find us, but Mavis was an exception.

We'd had just one cat, who came to us shortly after the last of our starter group of five cats died. Over the course of Max's life, we had also gotten a dog who needed to be separated from the cat, but she was older and giving her two rooms that Jack couldn't go in worked. 

Max's death in 2013 left a hole. No cats found us for a few months so Maria gave up and we located a cat with a magnificent tail and a certain aloofness, where if she only had two rooms and was not getting constant attention, she would be okay with that. THEN the other cats started finding us. 

ETA: Maria took exception to this description because Julie was the one who first spotted Mavis. This is true, but my memory is of her telling us every day that it was too sad without a cat and we needed a cat and let's get a cat -- despite all of my promises and reminders that cats are good at finding us -- so I think she is being unnecessarily modest about her role in the process. 

Her death left us with only five. There were people who were so judgmental when we had "only" four that we did not tell when two more came to us is 2022. This announcement may be controversial, but now we have seven.

It's only 2 1/3 cats per person. 

Maybe it's because it was Mavis specifically whom we lost, but Maria couldn't handle it again.

She found a beautiful cat, Princess, at a sanctuary in Sherwood.

We went for a visit. Princess was lovely and sweet, as many cats there were, but there was also one really shy Siamese and one kind of hostile Siamese. Plus, another household was interested in Princess.

Well, maybe we should let them adopt Princess and take these other two.

We were going to come back in a month so I could get finished with school. (Another area where there were some twists.)

First of all, the one family never came back for Princess. We were praying for her to find a home every night, because we didn't want her to not have a home just because there seemed to be other cats that needed us more. 

Princess has stunning eyes and is very friendly... she seemed very adoptable, especially compared to the one you had to pull out from under a couch to pet or the one that would hit you when you tried to pet.

Then, the shy one made a friend. Could we take three and go to eight? But the friend had a special diet, and if the shy one was opening up, maybe a little more time would give him more options.

The next thought was that we could take the standoffish one, give her a month to adjust, and if that worked out we would return for Princess.

Who were we fooling?

We brought them both home together, but it's been a journey. 

This turned out to be good. Princess had someone to hide with for her first couple of days. Then her greater desire to socialize and eat helped give a bridge to Toyota.

Funny thing about that; Toyota is not actually standoffish. She is possibly shy, but she has really wanted attention. Unfortunately, she needs to rub against everything else just out of reach until you can maybe get close enough to pet her.  

One of the easiest times to pet her now is when she is eating, which is when we were first able to pet Max, Mavis's predecessor.

Princess may be a little less helpful here, because she is in the mode where she is so ecstatic to be the center of attention that she will rush in when we are trying to pet other cats, including the one who needs a long flirting period before you can touch her.

Mavis would sometimes hit other cats to keep them in line (like the queen she was). We thought maybe we needed that kind of energy and Toyota would bring it.

Princess has hit Toyota a couple of times now, and Francis yesterday, just to make sure all the petting goes to her.

Cats. 

It is still an adjustment period.

However, it is relatively harmonious. Francis and Figaro were both hesitating to take snacks for the first few days, but are recovering. 

Lilly Belle is staying up top a little more, but not to an extreme.

Gigi might be a little extra clingy, but there are worse things than a needy cat.

Unsurprisingly, Ashley is taking it best and has even shared bed space with both of the newcomers at the same time. She is a very good girl.

So, yeah, we have seven cats now.

Fight me. 

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2018/10/on-this-national-cat-day.html