• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

In my day, never was longer.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Second rate reporter says what?

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Republicans in disarray!

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
independence hall with a beautiful orange and rose night sky

Adam L Silverman

You are here: Home / Archives for Adam L Silverman

Adam L. Silverman is a consulting national security subject matter expert specializing in low intensity warfare (asymmetric, irregular, and unconventional warfare, revolution, insurgency, terrorism), civil affairs, psychological operations, and cultural considerations for strategy and policy.

He routinely provides operational support to a number of US Army, DOD, and other US Government elements. Dr. Silverman holds a doctorate in political science and criminology from the University of Florida, as well as masters' degrees in comparative religion and international security. Full professional bio available here: https://balloon-juice.com/adam-silverman-bio/

Adam Silverman has been a Balloon Juice writer since 2015.

Netanyahu’s Historical Revisionism: There is More Here than Meets the Eye

by Adam L Silverman|  October 22, 20152:05 pm| 80 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Silverman on Security

Earlier this week Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu delivered a speech at the 37th World Zionist Congress. His remarks, which included a discussion of contested religious sites such as the Harem al Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as well as settlements also included some very interesting content about the Holocaust. Specifically PM Netanyahu alleged/asserted that the idea behind the Final Solution to eliminate all Jews was not the creation of Hitler and his senior aides and associates, but rather was thought up and pitched to Hitler buy Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin al Husseini was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a member of one of the two most powerful Palestinian families/clans at the time. Haj Amin, who was involved with both the Palestinian resistance to the Jewish settlement of Mandatory Palestine (the Yishuv) and the British Mandatory Authorities, made common cause with Hitler and the NAZIs. However, the idea that Haj Amin came up with the idea for the Final Solution and convinced Hitler it was a better idea than mass deportation is simply fantasy.

And it is the fantastic elements of Netanyahu’s remarks that have received the attention. The Chief Historian at Yad Vashem has made it clear that this was not how the Final Solution was conceived of or decided upon based on the transcripts of Hitler’s meeting with al Husseini. Other’s have pointed out that the meeting actually happened after the Final Solution had begun. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also come out and made it very clear who was responsible. And while Chancellor Merkel’s, all of the actual historians, as well as some Holocaust survivors remarks are a welcome antidote to PM Netanyahu’s revisionist history, I think there is something else going on here.

Netanyahu has always been known as someone that code switches. When he’s speaking in front of one audience he’ll describe an event or his actions or a proposed course of action one way and when he’s speaking before a different group he will switch his language up and address these matters another way. Or, in the same remarks, he’ll go back and forth. In fact he was caught doing this just this week where in the speech to the World Zionist Congress he claimed to have had the fewest settlements created under his prime ministership (largely by splitting this up by his terms of office) and to another group asserting that the most settlements have been built while he’s been prime minister – one of these things can not be true.

Now its not surprising that politicians or other leaders tailor their remarks to their audiences. In the case of Netanhayu, however, it is clearly more deeply purposeful. As the Haaretz reporting linked to above relates, PM Netanyahu is a stickler for writing his own speeches and remarks – he feel’s they are part of history and the historical record. So this is not the case of a hired word smith tailoring an argument to a specific constituency or audience. Rather, I think what happened here is that the “Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem developed the plan to kill all of world Jewry and convinced Hitler to implement it” portion of the speech was not intended for anyone at the World Zionist Congress. It was intended for an American audience of those who seek to equate Islam with genocidal aggression against Jews and Christians.

There are several reasons for this, not least among them is that the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the time that Haj Amin held the position, was an administrative one. Despite attempts to argue otherwise, Haj Amin was not an Islamic cleric or jurisprudential scholar from among the ulamah. He had very little Islamic education – a year at al Azhar in Cairo, but was mentored throughout his life by Rashid Rida. Moreover, after going from being a pan-Arabist to a Palestine Arab nationalist, the British exiled him from Mandatory Palestine in 1937. It was during his exile that he linked up with the NAZIs – the enemy of my enemy is my friend… While it is true that Haj Amin was not a member of the Muslim clergy and had only a limited amount of formal, Islamic religious training, he did become a promoter of Islam in his role as Grand Mufti, which is, itself, a title with religious connotations.

Netanyahu’s remarks make a lot more sense if they were directed at an American audience that has been primed by graphic images and reports of the evils that ISIS is perpetrating in Syria and Iraq, Especially as many Americans still have not established a new normal/reached a new equilibrium fourteen years after the al Qaeda attacks on 9-11-01. Politicians and special interest group leaders still routinely demagogue over issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims – everything from whether new mosques or cemeteries can be built/established to comparative historical/comparative religion material in social studies curriculums. Combine this with the fact that most Americans, including the most devout, tend to know very little factual material about their own, let alone other’s religions, and referring to an Arab and Palestinian nationalist leader by the Islamic religious title that came with his administrative office and asserting that he was the creator of the genocidal plan to kill all the Jews was a political-linguistic dogwhistle.

To most people who actually know the history of Haj Amin al Husseini, which is precious few in the US, it was immediately clear that PM Netanyahu made an incorrect statement. To the vast majority that have heard that ISIS, which claims to represent all of Islam through its new caliphate of the Islamic State, has specifically targeted non-Muslims for death, Netanyahu’s remarks will ring true. It is this latter group, and especially American elected officials, special interest group leaders, and commentators that PM Netanyahu’s remarks were aimed. Those of us who know better heard a serious error made by a hyperbolic politician with serious issues. The majority who don’t heard that in the 1940s an Islamic leader devised the plan for genocide, which reinforces the message that Islam is inherently evil and inherently in opposition, perhaps genocidally so, to all non-Muslims. PM Netanyahu is not a stupid man and he knows and understands Americans and American politicians better, perhaps, than any other foreign leader and some American ones as well. His remarks were not an accident, nor were they a mistake. They were not intended for the ears of those at the World Zionist Congress. They were intended for the ears of those in the US who have been primed since 9-11-01 to think the worst of Islam, Muslims, and Muslim-Americans. PM Netanyahu was providing cover for some of the most toxic ideas currently bounding around American politics and society and he was doing so for his own parochial purposes.

Netanyahu’s Historical Revisionism: There is More Here than Meets the EyePost + Comments (80)

Investigative Report on the Attacks on US Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012

by Adam L Silverman|  October 21, 201511:39 pm| 60 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics

In advance of Secretary Clinton’s appearance tomorrow before the House of Representative’s Select Committee on Benghazi I thought it might make a bit of sense to post the actual, definitive, and germane report on the events at Benghazi. This was produced by the US House of Representative’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is attached at the bottom of this post.

As you may recall this was the result of the 7th investigation into the events of September 11, 2012. The Select Committee on Intelligence’s report was supposed to be the definitive last word on the matter. Of course, because the US House of Representative’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found that there was no there there to incriminate Secretary Clinton or President Obama or anyone from doing anything illegal or unethical, and the conspiracy theories were just that, the GOP majority caucus in the House decided it needed an 8th committee and investigation to get to the bottom of something…

Benghazi Report

Investigative Report on the Attacks on US Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012Post + Comments (60)

Please Allow Me to Introduce the Congressman who Represents Valley Forge

by Adam L Silverman|  October 10, 20151:01 pm| 117 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

TPM posted the MSNBC video of Arizona Congressman Trent Franks telling a reporter that what we need is a Valley Forge American to step up and become Speaker of the House. Fortunately for Congressman Franks, Valley Forge is mostly in the 7th Congressional District of PA so he doesn’t have to look hard for the one man that could fill his requirement.

Without further ado allow me to introduce Congressman Pat Meehan (R-PA) who represents the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, which includes Valley Forge:

440px-Pat_Meehan,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress

I have no idea if Congressman Meehan is interested, nor if he would be a good Speaker of the House. But according to Congressman Franks he is THE only one who can do it.

Please Allow Me to Introduce the Congressman who Represents Valley ForgePost + Comments (117)

Bad Historical Analogy Theater: Jewish Armed Resistance Against the NAZIs

by Adam L Silverman|  October 9, 201511:06 pm| 114 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

Anne Laurie brought our attention to Dr. Carson’s recent comments regarding Jewish Armed resistance, or the lack thereof, against the NAZIs during World War II. Earlier today, between a conference call and doing some other work related stuff I came across Steve M’s much fuller treatment on the topic. Steve traces the history of the assertion that had Jewish Germans been allowed to keep and bear arms, then they would have been able to either provide significant resistance to the NAZIs. This argument originated, as Steve noted, with the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) who did an analysis of the German firearms laws and restrictions – both those from the late 1920s and the latter set from the late 1930s.

I recently dealt with this at another website – this is the unplanned guest post that I have mentioned a couple of times in comments. I want to follow up and address this here too and I’m adapting some of what I had written at the link above, as well as adding some new information. There are really three different issues to be addressed here: 1) is there really a historical analogy between the German context in the interwar period?; 2) what exactly was the context for Jewish Germans and based on that context would more permissive German firearms laws have made any difference?; and 3) was their actually any Jewish Armed resistance against the NAZIs during WW II? I’m not going to take these in order, in fact I’m going to go backwards (and jump around a bit) – it’ll make more sense this way.

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum actually covers the topic of armed Jewish resistance against the NAZIs. This is how it is treated on its website:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005441

and here:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005213

So to does the Yad Vashem in Israel:

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/07/resistance.asp

There was Jewish and non-Jewish armed resistance against the NAZIs. However, most of this resistance came late, after 1942, when it became very, very clear that the Final Solution was NOT simply ethnic cleansing through relocation, but ethnic cleansing through industrial scale extermination. Even where there was armed resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, it was not effective for very long. And while I’m a big fan and supporter of the right of self defense, especially in extremis, in this case it simply would have prolonged the inevitable.

The reason for this is that the NAZIs were first fielding the powers of the state as they consolidated their control, then that of an actual military with the resources of the German state. Ultimately they were also able to utilize the resources of many of the states they had conquered. And all of this would eventually be directed to the support of the military, its needs, and its dual mission of conquering Europe and executing the Final Solution. So we know and can document as a fact there was significant, if somewhat belated resistance. This includes both the Jewish armed resistance and that of both non-Jewish Germans and non-Jewish citizens of other European countries. Some of this is the partisan activity of underground and irregular forces, but it also include the actual armed forces of a number of European states. These actual armies and militaries where unable to stop the NAZIs in one on one fights, so what chance would armed Jewish Germans have really had? Very little.

There are several reasons for this. Despite limiting formal party affiliation for several years out of internal security concerns, the NAZIs still managed to mobilize the vast majority of German society either explicitly or implicitly behind their activities. This is, essentially, the Goldhagen thesis, but even if the cooption of German state, society, and citizenry was not as complete as Goldhagen argues, it was still sufficient to have rendered any real Jewish German resistance futile. The NAZIs had a state and society as a resource, which allowed them to mobilize the power of the state through force – using all elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement/DIME-FIL) to achieve their ends.

Prior to Kristallnacht in November of 1938, and despite being very vocally anti-Semitic, the NAZIs held their cards pretty close to their vests. Kristallnacht was basically an internal, blitzkrieg like pogrom. It is important to note that only 1% of the German citizenry were Jewish – about 500,000 out of a total German citizenry of 67 million. Only a portion of this 1% were emancipated (secular/assimilated as Germans who’s religion just happened to be Jewish as opposed to the very visible ultra-orthodox Jewish Germans). This means that there were less than 500,000 Jewish Germans that might have been acculturated/socialized enough to modern notions of self defense and that might have been willing to resist. Aside from the fact that these are not good odds, and ignoring the fact that Jewish Germans began to flee or go underground or actually engaged in forms of resistance, it ignores a more important concern: there was no Jewish German, let alone Judaic, way of war at that time.

show full post on front page

Bad Historical Analogy Theater: Jewish Armed Resistance Against the NAZIsPost + Comments (114)

One of the things that I have both had to account for operationally in the work I’ve done for the Army, as well as teach US military personnel to think about, is how do people in other societies conceptualize war and/or warfare. It is true that at this time the Jews of the Yishuv in Mandatory Palestine were in the process of developing a concept and understanding of war and warfare, the Jews of Germany had nothing to fall back on. The Rabbinic Judaism that had developed in Europe had little to say about the use of Force – either offensively or defensively – because Jews in Europe were never in control of a political entity. As a result it was simply not a real consideration. So while there was some minimal commentary and analysis in the Talmud based on commandments to the Israelites about the different types of war that they were ordered to undertake to make it to and then capture the Land of Canaan, these were very abstract portions of Judaica.

There were some Jewish German veterans of World War I. Their understanding of war, provided they were involved with the German military long enough and at a high enough level to worry about such things, would have been German, not Jewish. So even had a good portion of that less than 500,000 Jewish Germans been armed (which they weren’t as it wasn’t part of the Jewish German tradition), and had they had advanced warning of Kristallnacht and the beginning of the Final Solution (which they didn’t), there was no context other than sheer survival for Jewish Germans to have acted on. And while sheer survival instinct is powerful, we begin to stretch the counterfactual assertions to argue that uncoordinated Jewish German resistance, that was not widely or uniformly engaged in across a very small minority population, would have yielded positive results. This argument just isn’t logically or historically persuasive. Even had that portion of 1% of Jewish Germans been armed, and all of them situationally aware enough to somehow pick up on what the NAZIs were really planning, and kept their weapons where they could be brought to bear in an emergency, just how many brownshirts are you going to take out in the middle of the night when your store, above which is your home, has just been firebombed? Additionally, there is a bit of victim blaming here. If only Jewish Germans had fought back, had exercised their natural rights to self-defense (ignoring, of course, that Judaism has no concept of natural rights), and had somehow been able to arm themselves in violation of German law, they wouldn’t have gone like sheep to the slaughter. Frankly, that’s just insulting, as well as being a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what actually went on.

Now this discussion of understanding of war or way of war is somewhat abstract, it is still important to understand the dynamic here. It took hundreds of years for the emancipated Jewish Germans to be accepted as Germans. And part of their understanding of their emancipated status was that the religiously based anti-Semitism had been largely left behind so it was safe to assimilate and become Germans that just happened to be Jews. This turned out to not be the case, but we have the actual history and know what actually transpired. Yes there were firearms restrictions on the books. The first batch from the late 1920s were NOT instituted by the NAZIs. Rather they were put in place by the Weimar Republic and applied to all Germans – not just Jewish Germans. It was only the latter NAZI instituted restrictions from 1938 that specifically targeted Jewish Germans.

It is important to remember, as Harcourt does in his article linked to above, that the actual historiography and reality is not as simple as: Jewish Germans were disarmed and they couldn’t fight back. It is for this reason that the ADL issued a statement in 2013 requesting that because the historiography is ambiguous, it is exceedingly unclear how many of the even assimilated Jewish Germans were firearms owners (a fraction of the 1% of all Jewish Germans), that the experience of Jewish Germans in the Holocaust should not be politicized. The historiography makes it very difficult to figure out if the NAZI recodifications beginning after 1938 were symbolic or not and just how the reimposed restrictions were carried out. It therefore becomes impossible to determine if in a coordinated, planned surprise event like Kristallnacht a shocked and terrorized community, even one that that included firearm owners, would have been able to actually respond in any meaningful way as events unfolded. It is because of this that the ADL has asked that these assertions not be used to score political points.

Regardless of the ADL’s request, an armed population of less than 500,000 out of a total population of 67 million was not going to hold off the NAZIs and even pockets of resistance weren’t going to hold out for long. While armed resistance might have bought time for some to escape or slowed things down a bit, what happened in the 1930s in Germany is not analogous to any arguments over the 2nd Amendment here in the US. The historical context is just far too different. The US has not suffered a battlefield defeat in an interstate war followed by the imposition of unconditional surrender with severe and severely disproportionate terms imposed upon America at the cessation of hostilities as was the case with Germany post WW I. These terms were so out of proportion that instead of allowing the WW I allies to win the peace it in fact made the post war peace impossible and set the conditions for future war with Germany in Europe. Moreover, the foundational post WW I German law did not speak to issues of implicit or explicit firearms/weapons ownership, so the creation of laws pertaining to firearms and weaponry through the normal legislative process would not create any sort of constitutional crisis or raise a constitutional concern. The experience of Jewish Germans prior to and during World War II may have much to teach us about implied rights to self defense, and even though self defense is now part of the current Constitutional understanding of the 2nd Amendment as a result of the Heller opinion, the historical reality of Jewish Germans and pre World War II German firearms restrictions cannot be stretched far enough to inform us about 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in the US in 2015. The problem with historical analogies is that they are never perfect and context always matters. In this case the actual historical differences are a bridge too far.

Michigan’s Self Defense Law: Section 780.972 and 780.591

by Adam L Silverman|  October 7, 20153:24 pm| 101 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

Since John posted about the Home Depot Defender earlier, I figured I’d go ahead and check and see what, exactly, the Michigan legislature has to say about all this. Michigan’s self defense laws, passed in 2006, were modeled on Florida’s from 2005. They are primarily codified in Section 780.972 of the Michigan state code:

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

show full post on front page

Michigan’s Self Defense Law: Section 780.972 and 780.591Post + Comments (101)

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

They are also clarified, or further clarified in Section 780.951:

PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) “Domestic violence” means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

(b) “Business premises” means a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure.

(c) “Dwelling” means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.

(d) “Law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force” means a regularly employed member of a police force of a Michigan Indian tribe who is appointed pursuant to former 25 CFR 12.100 to 12.103.

(e) “Michigan Indian tribe” means a federally recognized Indian tribe that has trust lands located within this state.

(f) “Peace officer” means any of the following:

(i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Peace officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.

(ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force.

(iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the legislature as provided by the legislative sergeant at arms police powers act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.

(iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district.

(v) A county prosecuting attorney’s investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.

(vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

(vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.

(viii) A security employee employed by the state pursuant to section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

(ix) A motor carrier officer appointed pursuant to section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d.

(x) A police officer or public safety officer of a community college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that community college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that community college, college, or university.

(g) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.
History: 2006, Act 311, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Cheesecake!

by Adam L Silverman|  October 3, 201511:28 pm| 35 Comments

This post is in: Food

In the comments to the cake post I promised to post my cheesecake recipe. I don’t have any pics of one of my cheesecakes to post. Anyhow, the base recipe is below. Before we get to it, just an item or two:

  1. since this is the base recipe for a plain cheesecake, if you want to change it up, just make this recipe and then add to it whatever you want. For instance, if you want a chocolate swirl cheesecake, then make the ganache recipe from last week and swirl it in before baking. If you want a strawberry cheesecake then either add your preferred strawberry preserve, incorporate it thoroughly, and then bake. For chocolate dipped strawberry cheesecake – add the preserves, bake, and once its cool poor the chocolate ganache over it.  You get the idea.
  2. For a savory cheesecake base just follow this recipe bet do two things: a) leave out the sugar and b) replace the ground graham cracker crust with a ground sourdough bread crust. Then just add your savory ingredients and bake.

Plain (base) Cheesecake Recipe:

3 8 ounce blocks of cream cheese

8 ounces of sour cream

3 eggs

1 cup of sugar

1 teaspoon of vanilla

1 cup of crushed graham crackers

1 tablespoon of melted butter

Preheat oven to 350. Melt the butter and then combine with the crushed graham cracker crumbs to make the base. Cover the bottom of a nonstick cooking sprayed 10 inch spring form pan and pat down until the base of the pan is evenly covered with the graham cracker crust. Place the pan with crust inside into the freezer.

In your stand mixer (or a large mixing bowl for use with a hand mixer) add one 8 ounce block of cream cheese and whip until smooth. Then add one egg and whip until it is incorporated. Repeat with the remaining two blocks of cream cheese and two eggs. Add the sour cream, vanilla, and sugar and mix until incorporated. Pour into the chilled crust. Bake at 350 for one hour. At the one hour mark turn the oven off and let the cheesecake sit in the cooling over for one hour. After the cheesecake has cooled in the oven for one hour, remove and let cool on the countertop for one hour. Then refrigerate until chilled.

Bon appetit!

Cheesecake!Post + Comments (35)

What Exactly is a Mass Shooting

by Adam L Silverman|  October 1, 20158:39 pm| 75 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

In the comments section to Betty Cracker’s original post on the Oregon college shooting several questions were asked about just what exactly makes a mass shooting a mass shooting. While I provided some quick responses in those comment threads, I also said I’d put something more about about it later this evening. Below you’ll find the conceptual review from the preliminary report I was asked to do in 2014 on Soldiers who commit mass shootings. I’ve included the citations, which can now be found at the bottom of the post – and I apologize that I can’t find a way to superscript them. I am not including the sections dealing with the specific cases of Soldiers who have committed mass shootings or attempted them or other types of mass murder. Please remember/keep in mind that this is just the conceptual material that set up what at the time was supposed to be the first, preliminary portion of a much longer research project.

Multiple Homicide, Mass Murder, or Mass Shooting?

There is significant academic debate over exactly what an event, especially a criminal event, is. For instance, there has long been some confusion over whether Ted Kaczynksi, the Unabomber, is a terrorist or a serial killer. Terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.”3  Serial homicide, however, is defined as a multiple form of murder conducted over an extended period of time.4  Given that his actions were the result of untreated mental illness and psychosis a good case can be made for placing him in the serial killer category, rather than within the terrorist one.

A similar question exists for MAJ Nidal Hasan, the first mass shooter at Ft. Hood who killed twelve Soldiers and one civilian on November 5, 2009.5  Hasan, in the most specific sense, committed an act of mass murder, specifically a mass shooting. However, because of his pre-trial statements, information uncovered in the investigation of the attack, and domestic political and media pressure, his crime has been designated to be an act of terrorism according to FBI Director James Comey.6

Another area of debate, largely spurred by the increase in media and its availability in general, and social media in specific, is whether there has been a significant increase in mass shooting multiple homicides or mass murders over time. This is usually due to confusion over the label active shooter as opposed to mass shooting. The former describes an ongoing tactical situation in which an individual both uses a gun in the commission of his or her crime and who attempts to kill multiple people in the commission of said crime and directs law enforcement to neutralize the threat. It can, however, also refer to someone who only shoots and kills one person, which is a single homicide or murder.

As a result it conflates the categories and this conflation is largely a product of media coverage and popular reference. The answer to whether there has been an increase in mass shooting incidents, however, is very straightforward: the number of mass murders by shooter per year is relatively stable at about .18% of all homicides per year.7  Criminologists James Alan Fox and Monica J. DeLauter8, using FBI data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports, have demonstrated that there are approximately twenty to twenty-five mass shootings a year and that this figure is stable over time from 1976 through 2011.

The key theoretical and conceptual issue is to actually define a mass shooting. As South Texas College of Law Assistant Professor Josh Blackman and his co-author Shelby Baird note9 shooting is not a recognized criminological term. Rather, it is a reference to how an act or offense is committed. In the case of attacks committed by firing a gun, depending on the number of victims and the type of attack, it could be a single homicide, a multiple homicide, which encompasses double and triple homicides, as well as serial and mass murder. The last category, mass murder, occurs when a minimum of four victims are killed, by one or a few assailants, within a single event, which can range in time from a few minutes at a single location to several hours at multiple ones and involves the indiscriminate slaughter of strangers.10

Criminologists James Alan Fox and Jack Levin are careful to differentiate mass murder from serial murder, as well as caution that a distinction has to be made between mass murder, to include mass shootings, and similar events that occur during war and would be better categorized as a war crime, crime against humanity, or a mass atrocity. Finally, the minimum of four victims cannot include the murderer himself or herself, should the perpetrator be killed in the commission of the act or commit suicide as part of it.

This largely mirrors the FBI’s definition of the phenomenon.11  Fox and Levin make it clear that these types of events are not simply the indiscriminate killing of strangers. Almost 40% are murders of families by a member of the family (familicide) and mass shootings not involving families, but involving victims and offenders who are acquainted account for almost another 40% of this type of crime.12

The theoretical discussion of what constitutes a mass murder, whether committed by shooting or other means, is a discussion driven by tactical considerations. Another potential way to conceptualize mass murders is to consider these crimes in regards to effects; specifically the effect the perpetrator was trying to achieve. Applying the shorthand military strategy construct of ends, ways, and means to mass murder or attempted mass murder may be useful and help to break down some of the conceptual distinctions that matter to criminologists, but do not significantly impact whether an attacker is an insider threat or not.

The ends, ways, and means model is typically applied to military strategy. The ends are the strategic outcomes or desired effects. The ways are the methods used to achieve the objectives and ends. Means are the resources needed to attain the strategic effect. In short, ends equals ways plus means. By using this strategic construct it may be possible to get past the theoretical discussion focused on tactics – how many killed, how they were killed, where they were killed, and engage the phenomenon in regards to effects – what was the killer trying to achieve (ends), how was he trying to achieve it (ways), and what resources did he use to do so (means).

Conceptual Explanations for Mass Shooters: Towards a Typology of the Mass Shooter

Psychologist Peter Langman13, through case examination of ten mass shooters who targeted schools, has developed a typology of the mass shooter. He was able to identify three broad types: the traumatized, the psychotic, and the psychopathic. Langman describes the traumatized, which encompassed three of the shooters, as coming from broken homes, with parental abuse and criminal behavior. They all suffered physical abuse and two were also sexually abused outside of the home.

Five of the ten shooters were psychotic, falling somewhere on the schizophrenia spectrum and demonstrating schizophrenic and schizotypal personality disorders. Psychotic disorders are defined as “severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perception”.14 T hose suffering from this condition, also referred to as psychosis, lose touch with reality and can suffer delusions and hallucinations. There was no history of abuse, nor were they from broken homes.

The two remaining shooters were psychopathic. Psychopathy is a difficult to identify personality disorder. Psychopaths “lack conscience and empathy, making them manipulative, volatile, and often (but by no means always) criminal”.15  Moreover, these two shooters had coopted two of the other types. In the case of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, the psychopath, coopted Dylan Klebold, who exhibited schizotypal disorder, which was not fully known until his journals were released years after the attack. Andrew Golden, also a psychopath, seems to have brought Mitchell Golden, who had been traumatized, into his plans that left five dead and ten wounded in Jonesboro, AR.

Langman makes it very clear that his typology is NOT meant to explain the attacks, their nature, or the reasons for them. Rather it is intended to help better understand the shooters, but other factors must also be considered to understand the criminogenesis of the mass shooting. Given Langman’s focus on the psychology, and the psychological factors at play in mass shootings, indicates that social – socio-cultural and social behavioral factors must still be considered.

Sociologists Cybelle Fox and David Harding16 posit that mass shootings, for the purposes of their study specifically in schools, are an example of organizational deviance. Essentially, they are a response to the failure, intentional or otherwise, of organizations to live up to their own goals and expectations thereby creating unintentional consequence. Cybelle Fox and David Harding are basically presenting a strain explanation for mass shootings.

Agnew developed a General Theory of Strain, or more commonly Strain Theory, as an update and revision to Merton’s understanding of classic anomie theory. Classic anomie theory, rooted in the work of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, refers to a state of normlessness or the lack of social regulation. For Durkheim this was a key empirical explanation for suicide. Robert Merton, of the Chicago School of Criminology, adapted Durkheim’s theory to explain the concentration of crime in urban areas and among minority groups in general and the overall high(er) crime rates in American society.17 Merton’s work was part of the well known Chicago Neighborhood Studies into crime, deviance, and delinquency conducted by sociologists at the University of Chicago in the 1930s.

Agnew’s18 reformulation suggests that strain, the separation of an individual from a society, group, sub-culture, etc and its norms, values, and mores, occurs under three conditions. The first is when society sets goals to be achieved, but there is no provision of the means to achieve the goals and reap the rewards. The second type of strain occurs when society sets the goal, an individual or group labors and appears to achieve the goal, but the rewards are withheld. The third type of strain occurs when society sets the goal, an individual or group labors and appears to achieve the goal, but rather than getting the reward, they receive a negative or noxious response, such as a punishment.

Strain exists should any of these three conditions be met. At this point when strain has occurred there are only three possible responses. The first is a devaluation of the strain, by devaluing the goal that was supposed to be achieved, but could not be. The second is to direct the strain inward, usually leading to self-destructive behavior. The final response is to direct the strain outward, which can often lead to externally destructive behavior.

It is this last type of strain response that Cybelle Fox and David Harding posit as at the heart of the organizational deviance of mass shootings. Criminologists Jack Levin and Eric Mafdis19, also focusing on school shooters, have proposed a cumulative strain model of mass shootings that also incorporates elements of other criminological theories. They posit that as strain builds up over time, unless outlets to mitigate or devalue it exist, that it can lead to a mass shooting event.

Both Cybelle Fox and David Harding’s and Levin and Mafdis’s conceptualization of a response that occurs because of a buildup of frustration, which is then directed outwards, provides some clues in regards to potential structural drivers of mass murder as an insider threat. These include bullying; exposure to toxic leadership/workplace/educational environments; perceived negative interactions with peers and superiors, as well as an inability to meet or exceed standards in professional, educational, social, or familial settings all have the potential to contribute to an increase in strain and potentially to violent responses to these conditions and situations.

3 Joint Publication 1-02, 15 MAR 2014.
4 James Alan Fox and Jack Levin, “Multiple Homicide: Patterns of Serial and Mass Murder”, Crime and Justice, VOL 23, 1998.
5 “Army Colonel Recommends Trial in Ft. Hood Rampage”, CBS-DFW, 17 NOV 2010, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/11/17/army-colonel-recommends-trial-in-fort-hood-rampage/.

6 Siobhan O’Grady, “FBI Director: al Qaida Inspired Hasan’s Ft. Hood Attack”, The Houston Chronicle, 21 MAY 2014, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/FBI-director-al- Qaida-inspired-Hasan-s-Fort-Hood-5496546.php.
7 Josh Blackman, “No the Number of Mass Shootings has not Tripled since 2008”, Josh Blackman’s Blog, 9 JAN 2014, http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/01/09/no-the-number-of-mass-shootings-has-not- tripled-since-2008/.

8 James Alan Fox & Monica J. DeLateur, Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown,
Homicide Studies, 18 DEC 2013, http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/27/1088767913510297. 9 Josh Blackman and Shelby Baird, “The Shooting Cycle”, Connecticut Law Review, VOL 46, JAN 2014.
10 Fox and Levin, 1998.

11 “Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators”, Federal Bureau of Investigation National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, 2005.
12 Blackman and Baird, 2014.

13 Peter Langman, “Rampage School Shooters: A Typology”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, VOL 14, 2009.
14 “Psychotic Disorders”, National Institutes of Health: Medline Plus, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/psychoticdisorders.html.

15 “What is Psychopathy?” Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/psychopathy.

16 Cybelle Fox and David J. Harding, “School Shootings as Organizational Deviance”, Sociology of Education, VOL 78, JAN 2005.
17 Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie”, American Sociological Review, VOL 3, 1938.
18 Robert Agnew, “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces, VOL 64, 1985.

19 Jack Levin and Eric Mafdis, “Mass Murder at School and Cumulative Strain: A Sequential Model”, American Behavioral Scientist, VOL 52, NO 9, MAY 2009.

 

What Exactly is a Mass ShootingPost + Comments (75)

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 279
  • Go to page 280
  • Go to page 281
  • Go to page 282
  • Go to page 283
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch on Late Night Open Thread: Sam Bigly Fraud Bankman-Fried, Still Grinding His Grifts (Mar 30, 2023 @ 1:53am)
  • piratedan on Late Night Open Thread: Sam Bigly Fraud Bankman-Fried, Still Grinding His Grifts (Mar 30, 2023 @ 1:48am)
  • Steeplejack on Late Night Open Thread: Sam Bigly Fraud Bankman-Fried, Still Grinding His Grifts (Mar 30, 2023 @ 1:26am)
  • YY_Sima Qian on I’ll Never Get Used to It (Mar 30, 2023 @ 1:20am)
  • HumboldtBlue on Late Night Open Thread: Sam Bigly Fraud Bankman-Fried, Still Grinding His Grifts (Mar 30, 2023 @ 1:14am)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup coming up on April 4!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc