When you heard 10 dead in school shooting what was your first thought?

From BBC:

Nine people have been killed and seven injured in a shooting at a college in the US state of Oregon, say police.

The gunman, 26, opened fire at Umpqua Community College on Thursday morning and was killed in a police shootout.

You probably thought it was a lone shooter walking through a school and killing students and teachers. You probably did not think the perpetrator it was a jihadi terrorist. As things stand this morning, you were right.

Chris Harper Mercer, 26, has been identified as the shooter by several media outlets, including the New York Times, CNN, and CBS News, all citing law enforcement sources. At least one injured survivor reports that he asked Christians to stand up and then targeted them. Yet, I have not seen one news source, nor politician, describe this as a terrorist act. ShootingTracker.com lists 294 “mass shootings” so far this year in the U.S. We instantly draw upon our stereotypes to classify these acts as “terrorist” or “deranged.” 

Deconstructed, it’s very difficult to tell the difference between a heinous event like the nine murders yesterday in Oregon and the single murder of Nathan Cirillo on Oct 22, 2014. Place, victim, weapon, religious belief, clothing… Humans love to categorize and we draw upon all sorts of things to place events into categories. But, our categories may not make sense

.

Categories matter. Chris Harper Mercer seems to have posted various clues online. More will come out in the coming days, I’m sure. Still, nobody has yet called this a failure of intelligence agencies because nobody wants to place Mercer into the terrorist category. What is the difference between what Mercer did yesterday and what Ivan Lopez did at Fort Hood in 2014 or what Nidal Mailk Hasan did at Fort Hood in 2009? Very little other than motive – Hasan was a solider of Allah.

Is a motive, conceived in a disturbed mind,  the sole determination of whether we classify an act as terrorist v. deranged?

Is Donald a deeply offensive charlatan or is he merely a deeply offensive buffoon.

Donald Trump has been a success in business – success measured in profit and net worth. Apparently, business acumen does not correlate with intellect. 

Donald Trump has an idiotic, naïve understanding of human nature. Things like our ability to keep secrets and our ability to organize. Either that or he is a bombastic charlatan who is applying his business acumen to getting elected. Does he thinks that polarizing how people see him will be a powerful political tool? Hope so. Otherwise he is merely a deeply offensive buffoon (as opposed to being a charlatan – one who purposely misleads for some personal benefit).

Here is the latest gem from Donald:

"They could be ISIS, I don't know," said Trump, who questioned both the number of men in their ranks and why Syrians were fleeing their country instead of staying and fighting.

"This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe," he later added. "That could be possible."

Um… no. Is there a security risk? Sure. It is likely that some bad people are fleeing Syria secreted amongst the millions of refugees. That’s the thing about a number like “millions” – you get some bad with the good. It’s a really big sample size. You get a wide, representative cross section of a population when your sample size is one million. But, 200,000 in an organized, secret army? That’s a big Trojan Horse. 

That would be the most sophisticated, well trained, secretive, organized force in the history of forces. If the CIA and CSIS and all the intelligence agencies in Europe cannot crack a 200,000 person conspiracy then we might as well give up. We have lost. We are up against an enemy that is so sophisticated that they are capable of containing gossip, rumour, and innuendo on a colossal scale. Can’t be done. Humans talk.


Nice hair, though.

The terrifying fun of going back to school at 50.

Starting my 4^th week at Carleton. Or is it 5^th?
 

I’m not behind yet. Well, at least I don’t think I’m behind yet. I might be. The recurring theme to date is that I have a lot of catching up to do across a broad spectrum.

This experience is deeply humbling. Hearkening back to my undergraduate studies in the 1980s I remember feeling pretty smart. Most of my colleagues did too. Young and idealistic, perhaps. That is not the feeling I now have. Now I feel humbled. I am surrounded by very, very smart and insightful people – professors and students. People who care deeply about what they are studying, thinking, and writing. 

It’s very motivating. Inspiring. And terrifying.

Now forgive me, I have five journal articles and two books to read before Monday. I think there is a probably an assignment due, too but I haven’t looked that far ahead. Oh, and a thesis. Well, I haven’t started that yet. As a matter of fact, the thesis proposal that I have only just started to think about is completely different than what I was intending when I started four weeks ago.You know, maybe I am behind.