Sunday, November 30, 2014
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Nixonian
Jay Nixon (D-For Dumbass) is not covering himself in glory. It is difficult to find any public figure in Missouri who has, frankly. But buried at the end of this piece is the nugget that Nixon will call the Assembly into special session to fund the overtime for police officers that the wave of protests have necessitated.
Nixon has proven himself to be the sort of moral coward that refuses to engage a fundamentally flawed system for fear of losing his job (see Schumer, Chuck for another example of this especially craven form of "Democrat"). Here's a pro top, Jay: You're not going to get re-elected. You are - along with odious, neo-facist Robert McCulloch - the face a giant, oozing pustule of a broken system. Since you're a Democrat, you're going to be associated with the looting no matter how hard you embrace "law and order" (so Nixonian of you!). No one in the rural and suburban white community is going to give you a pass on uppity Negroes marching through the streets and shutting down the traffic of their metropolis.
And if you think African American voters are going to do anything for you....
So, you need more funding for the people who have been manning the barricades? Fine, but how about including some funding - spread out over several years - for body cameras for police?
How about addressing the fundamental problem that your state, in the city of Ferguson, has exposed: Police are more likely to shoot black men than anyone else and police are rarely held accountable for shooting anyone.
There wasn't even a dash-cam in Darren Wilson's car. We have no record of what transpired, though we have plenty of questions. If Darren Wilson was doing his job and doing it well, then a camera on his body would answer those questions.
For years, the advocates of a greater surveillance state have hid behind the logic of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
But this logic applies ten fold to the people whom we implicitly license to kill on our behalf.
So, Jay Nixon, are you prepared - for the first time in this sad, angry saga - to lead?
I'm not holding my breath.
Nixon has proven himself to be the sort of moral coward that refuses to engage a fundamentally flawed system for fear of losing his job (see Schumer, Chuck for another example of this especially craven form of "Democrat"). Here's a pro top, Jay: You're not going to get re-elected. You are - along with odious, neo-facist Robert McCulloch - the face a giant, oozing pustule of a broken system. Since you're a Democrat, you're going to be associated with the looting no matter how hard you embrace "law and order" (so Nixonian of you!). No one in the rural and suburban white community is going to give you a pass on uppity Negroes marching through the streets and shutting down the traffic of their metropolis.
And if you think African American voters are going to do anything for you....
So, you need more funding for the people who have been manning the barricades? Fine, but how about including some funding - spread out over several years - for body cameras for police?
How about addressing the fundamental problem that your state, in the city of Ferguson, has exposed: Police are more likely to shoot black men than anyone else and police are rarely held accountable for shooting anyone.
There wasn't even a dash-cam in Darren Wilson's car. We have no record of what transpired, though we have plenty of questions. If Darren Wilson was doing his job and doing it well, then a camera on his body would answer those questions.
For years, the advocates of a greater surveillance state have hid behind the logic of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
But this logic applies ten fold to the people whom we implicitly license to kill on our behalf.
So, Jay Nixon, are you prepared - for the first time in this sad, angry saga - to lead?
I'm not holding my breath.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Black Friday
I am engaged in my annual Black Friday protest of staying home and eating leftovers. I've been doing this for years - a man ahead of my time.
But then I read stories like this one and realize it's not really a joke. We have always lived in a messed up world. And while we fix some problems, we wind up creating new ones.
How in the world can we live in a world where we let the Waltons treat their workers like dirt while they become rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice?
But then I read stories like this one and realize it's not really a joke. We have always lived in a messed up world. And while we fix some problems, we wind up creating new ones.
How in the world can we live in a world where we let the Waltons treat their workers like dirt while they become rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice?
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Race Or Alibi?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-darren-wilsons-story
Increasingly, people are calling Darren Wilson's testimony unbelievable. The scuffle in the car seems especially improbable. The provocation on the street seems especially improbable.
The simplest explanation is that Wilson ordered them on to the sidewalk, they refused to comply and maybe lipped off a little. He threw his SUV into reverse - angry at being disrespected - and clipped Brown. He then kicked open his door, which hit Brown and snapped back at Wilson. Wilson grabbed Brown. They scuffled at the car window. Wilson shot Brown, who fled, most likely striking Wilson in an attempt to get away. Wilson fired shots at Brown, who turned, staggered and was shot as he fell.
That's what seems most plausible to me.
Marshall suggests that Wilson's testimony reveals the aura of threat that Wilson felt from a large black man. And certainly we see more and more evidence that simply being a black male represents a threat to police that they feel comfortable addressing with lethal force.
But I think a simpler explanation is that Wilson was saying what he was saying because an officer may use lethal force to protect his life if he feels threatened. So all Wilson had to do was paint a picture of Brown as a threat, and he was covered by the law.
Put another way: Wilson got into the situation because Brown was young, black and disrespectful. His testimony, however, would've been the same if Brown was a large white man. Wilson was establishing his legal alibi.
As I've said, we've basically given cops a de facto license to kill.
Increasingly, people are calling Darren Wilson's testimony unbelievable. The scuffle in the car seems especially improbable. The provocation on the street seems especially improbable.
The simplest explanation is that Wilson ordered them on to the sidewalk, they refused to comply and maybe lipped off a little. He threw his SUV into reverse - angry at being disrespected - and clipped Brown. He then kicked open his door, which hit Brown and snapped back at Wilson. Wilson grabbed Brown. They scuffled at the car window. Wilson shot Brown, who fled, most likely striking Wilson in an attempt to get away. Wilson fired shots at Brown, who turned, staggered and was shot as he fell.
That's what seems most plausible to me.
Marshall suggests that Wilson's testimony reveals the aura of threat that Wilson felt from a large black man. And certainly we see more and more evidence that simply being a black male represents a threat to police that they feel comfortable addressing with lethal force.
But I think a simpler explanation is that Wilson was saying what he was saying because an officer may use lethal force to protect his life if he feels threatened. So all Wilson had to do was paint a picture of Brown as a threat, and he was covered by the law.
Put another way: Wilson got into the situation because Brown was young, black and disrespectful. His testimony, however, would've been the same if Brown was a large white man. Wilson was establishing his legal alibi.
As I've said, we've basically given cops a de facto license to kill.
The Oppositional Defiant American Male
I've been mulling over a challenge that Martin Longman has placed before Democrats: How does the Left appeal to white men?
The midterm dynamic is what it is, but there has to be an effort to blunt this dynamic. If Democrats are going to win back the House before 2022, they need to win more white male votes than they have been. Appeals to economic populism have not shown to have the sort of traction among men that they frankly should have.
Rather than think of what might appeal to white men, why not see what drives them away from liberal politics? I say this as someone with a life long experience of being a white male, though I'm certain my experience is not typical. Also, please note that I will be speaking in gender stereotypes, because I'm talking about large groups.
I think a key psychological aspect of the Y chromosome is oppositional thinking to authority. It defines a great deal of behavior we associate with young men, in particular. If you tell me to do "X", then I'll do "Y". You can probably enlist evolutionary biology to explain this, as men were needed to be risk takers and boundary pushers to help in survival. The hunters needed to push over the horizon, while the gatherers needed to protect the young, the weak and the elderly left behind.
So, you get men who feel the need to challenge authority.
When I think of Teanderthals, what I see is a giant, plaintive whine against a paternalistic state. From the point of view of the Teanderthals, paternalism is bad, unless they are the fathers. They are fine with paternalistic relationships with women and minorities, but they are most definitely NOT fine with a state that acts paternally towards them.
The ACA is a great example of a benign form of paternalism that comes across as tyranny to white men. This is the same demographic that won't go to the doctor for regular checkups. This is the same demographic that responds to global warming with "coal rolling".
Now, this is not unique to right wing males. The Left is also anti-authoritarian, they just define authority differently. It's corporate power or the security/surveillance state.
The fact is that on either extremes (and I'll define that as roughly the 15%-20% of the population on either end of the spectrum) you will find a great deal of hostility to authority.
But you're not going to win over Teanderthal votes anyway, so why bother?
I would argue that it's about denying the non-Teanderthal white men with easy targets.
Two things that come to mind are "trigger warnings" and the new California university sexual conduct codes. These are well-meaning attempts to address problems, especially the epidemic of sexual violence in universities.
But the minute you create "rules" you create authority. And you create an impulse to defy that authority.
One of the greatest successes the Left has had is actually exactly what the Right has accused the Left of doing: indoctrinating students in our schools in certain liberal ideas: tolerance, diversity and acceptance. What works better than rules is the education of people as to why behaviors are important.
While there have been instance of successful prohibitions - the "N" word - they don't work as well as education. Because while we say the "N" word, your oppositional figure is going to say, "Well, how come blacks can use that word and I can't?" And if all you've offered them is a prohibition rather than an education, then you've just created an opponent instead of an ally.
Recently, we had a speaker come to address the student body. He was transgender and had gone to Exeter (a rival school) when he came out as male. He was a remarkably engaging and empathetic speaker, witty and open. For me personally, I've come a long way on LGB issues, but the T was always one I had trouble understanding. Transgender is pretty rare, so my experience was pretty limited. I didn't feel icky about transgender issues, I just didn't understand them.
That was education. Now, you can combine some prohibitions with education if done right. We've told our students that the use of "gay" or "fag" as an insult is unacceptable, but we've also explained why. Same goes for "retarded". I've used all those terms in my life. I don't use them anymore (at least not as a slurs), but I always responded better to explanations than prohibitions.
One of the reasons why, I think, young people are much more liberal on the culture wars is that they have been educated on why discriminating against minority groups is bad. Why can't a gay couple get married? The recent breakthrough on marriage equality is not a case of the Left prohibiting something, but the Right prohibiting something. And it isn't working for them either.
So, taking the sexual violence crisis as an example, how do you educate young men about proper sexual respect? Rather than legislating sexual conduct, as California is trying to do, how do you educate young men that not only are the responsible for their own sexual behavior, but those of their friends? And probably some prohibitions are necessary. Maybe it's time the all-male fraternity died. Especially if the entire system gets put on warning and fails to live up to its responsibilities.
But when trying to reach men who WANT to rebel, maybe you need to show them why they should change certain behaviors rather than demanding it.
As Charlie Pierce said, the great thing about #occupy was that they were shouting at the right buildings. The worst thing about #occupy was its obsession with political correctness. Meetings would degenerate over the use of generalized male pronouns.
To me, the challenge of reaching out to white men is get them to shout at the right buildings. It won't work to hector them or lecture at them.
You don't need to win over many white men. The Left is crushing it with minorities and single women. But you need to erode the GOP advantage, and at the very least, you need to stop driving them away by screaming about hetero-normative language and gender imperialism. If you try and educate and converse with them, you'll stop driving some of them away.
And maybe then, they will start shouting at the right buildings.
(I thought this post would be better. I've been germinating this idea for over a week. I'm pretty disappointed at the final product...)
The midterm dynamic is what it is, but there has to be an effort to blunt this dynamic. If Democrats are going to win back the House before 2022, they need to win more white male votes than they have been. Appeals to economic populism have not shown to have the sort of traction among men that they frankly should have.
Rather than think of what might appeal to white men, why not see what drives them away from liberal politics? I say this as someone with a life long experience of being a white male, though I'm certain my experience is not typical. Also, please note that I will be speaking in gender stereotypes, because I'm talking about large groups.
I think a key psychological aspect of the Y chromosome is oppositional thinking to authority. It defines a great deal of behavior we associate with young men, in particular. If you tell me to do "X", then I'll do "Y". You can probably enlist evolutionary biology to explain this, as men were needed to be risk takers and boundary pushers to help in survival. The hunters needed to push over the horizon, while the gatherers needed to protect the young, the weak and the elderly left behind.
So, you get men who feel the need to challenge authority.
When I think of Teanderthals, what I see is a giant, plaintive whine against a paternalistic state. From the point of view of the Teanderthals, paternalism is bad, unless they are the fathers. They are fine with paternalistic relationships with women and minorities, but they are most definitely NOT fine with a state that acts paternally towards them.
The ACA is a great example of a benign form of paternalism that comes across as tyranny to white men. This is the same demographic that won't go to the doctor for regular checkups. This is the same demographic that responds to global warming with "coal rolling".
Now, this is not unique to right wing males. The Left is also anti-authoritarian, they just define authority differently. It's corporate power or the security/surveillance state.
The fact is that on either extremes (and I'll define that as roughly the 15%-20% of the population on either end of the spectrum) you will find a great deal of hostility to authority.
But you're not going to win over Teanderthal votes anyway, so why bother?
I would argue that it's about denying the non-Teanderthal white men with easy targets.
Two things that come to mind are "trigger warnings" and the new California university sexual conduct codes. These are well-meaning attempts to address problems, especially the epidemic of sexual violence in universities.
But the minute you create "rules" you create authority. And you create an impulse to defy that authority.
One of the greatest successes the Left has had is actually exactly what the Right has accused the Left of doing: indoctrinating students in our schools in certain liberal ideas: tolerance, diversity and acceptance. What works better than rules is the education of people as to why behaviors are important.
While there have been instance of successful prohibitions - the "N" word - they don't work as well as education. Because while we say the "N" word, your oppositional figure is going to say, "Well, how come blacks can use that word and I can't?" And if all you've offered them is a prohibition rather than an education, then you've just created an opponent instead of an ally.
Recently, we had a speaker come to address the student body. He was transgender and had gone to Exeter (a rival school) when he came out as male. He was a remarkably engaging and empathetic speaker, witty and open. For me personally, I've come a long way on LGB issues, but the T was always one I had trouble understanding. Transgender is pretty rare, so my experience was pretty limited. I didn't feel icky about transgender issues, I just didn't understand them.
That was education. Now, you can combine some prohibitions with education if done right. We've told our students that the use of "gay" or "fag" as an insult is unacceptable, but we've also explained why. Same goes for "retarded". I've used all those terms in my life. I don't use them anymore (at least not as a slurs), but I always responded better to explanations than prohibitions.
One of the reasons why, I think, young people are much more liberal on the culture wars is that they have been educated on why discriminating against minority groups is bad. Why can't a gay couple get married? The recent breakthrough on marriage equality is not a case of the Left prohibiting something, but the Right prohibiting something. And it isn't working for them either.
So, taking the sexual violence crisis as an example, how do you educate young men about proper sexual respect? Rather than legislating sexual conduct, as California is trying to do, how do you educate young men that not only are the responsible for their own sexual behavior, but those of their friends? And probably some prohibitions are necessary. Maybe it's time the all-male fraternity died. Especially if the entire system gets put on warning and fails to live up to its responsibilities.
But when trying to reach men who WANT to rebel, maybe you need to show them why they should change certain behaviors rather than demanding it.
As Charlie Pierce said, the great thing about #occupy was that they were shouting at the right buildings. The worst thing about #occupy was its obsession with political correctness. Meetings would degenerate over the use of generalized male pronouns.
To me, the challenge of reaching out to white men is get them to shout at the right buildings. It won't work to hector them or lecture at them.
You don't need to win over many white men. The Left is crushing it with minorities and single women. But you need to erode the GOP advantage, and at the very least, you need to stop driving them away by screaming about hetero-normative language and gender imperialism. If you try and educate and converse with them, you'll stop driving some of them away.
And maybe then, they will start shouting at the right buildings.
(I thought this post would be better. I've been germinating this idea for over a week. I'm pretty disappointed at the final product...)
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Chuck Schumer Can Go Fuck Himself
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/schumer-obamacare-the-wrong-problem
Obamacare was designed to fix structural problems in the economy and in the fiscal health of the government. The idea that they "picked the wrong thing" to focus on is stupid. I mean, Fox News level stupid.
First of all, you had the majorities. As we saw in '93-'94, you have to take advantage of those majorities when you have them. And if you wanted a bigger stimulus, why the fuck didn't you pass one?
This is why millions of Americans went decades without health insurance. Because Chuck Schumer, who gets health insurance through his job, thinks that Congress can't do both things at once.
The reason Democrats got crushed in 2010 and 2014 is because Democratic voters stay home. And who was in charge of the DSCC? Who kept sending me "booga-booga" emails about losing the Senate to raise money and depress enthusiasm?
The ACA is a monumental bill. It's an accomplishment that hopefully over time will be recognized as fundamentally restructuring America's relationship with health insurance and its government.
Sorry we didn't help your Wall Street buddies more, Chuck.
Obamacare was designed to fix structural problems in the economy and in the fiscal health of the government. The idea that they "picked the wrong thing" to focus on is stupid. I mean, Fox News level stupid.
First of all, you had the majorities. As we saw in '93-'94, you have to take advantage of those majorities when you have them. And if you wanted a bigger stimulus, why the fuck didn't you pass one?
This is why millions of Americans went decades without health insurance. Because Chuck Schumer, who gets health insurance through his job, thinks that Congress can't do both things at once.
The reason Democrats got crushed in 2010 and 2014 is because Democratic voters stay home. And who was in charge of the DSCC? Who kept sending me "booga-booga" emails about losing the Senate to raise money and depress enthusiasm?
The ACA is a monumental bill. It's an accomplishment that hopefully over time will be recognized as fundamentally restructuring America's relationship with health insurance and its government.
Sorry we didn't help your Wall Street buddies more, Chuck.
Two Thoughts About Ferguson
When we see the smoldering remains of Ferguson's main street, we should think about two separate problems that got us there. Separate problems, but problems that overlap.
The first problem is the endemic and persistent poverty present that plagues many African American communities. Poverty has a cyclical nature. It is generational and feeds off itself. Paul Tough wrote an excellent book called How Children Succeed and it chronicles how trauma in childhood significantly messes up a child's brain. Now "trauma" can be quite broad and applies to people throughout the socioeconomic spectrum. But the prevalence of pervasive childhood trauma is a great indicator of later cognitive and behavioral problems. Damaged children make for damaged adults.
We should then look at how damaging poverty is. And it's pretty damaging. A 2009 study by Gary Evans and Michelle Schamberg studied working memory in children. They looked at allostatic load. Bruce McEwen first proposed allostasis, which is way a body manages stress. So, for instance, you nearly get into a car wreck. Your body gets flooded with adrenaline, your heart pounds, you shake. But you get over it a few hours later as your body "flushes out" that stress response. But if you are constantly exposed to stress, you build up an allostatic load. What Evans and Schamberg found was that allostatic load was the best predictor of performance on short term memory. The higher it was, the poorer kids did on the test. Short term memory is a great indicator of certain types of cognitive abilities.
In other words, what we think of as "genetic advantage" - the upper middle class kids just have favorable genetic advantages that allow them to excel - is really a product of their environment. The brain is a very malleable thing in early childhood and if you pile poverty onto that process - with all the stress that poverty brings - you damage that brain.
And that damage is most prevalent in the last part of the brain to develop: the pre-frontal cortex. And it is in the pre-frontal cortex that judgment resides. That part of the brain may not finish developing until someone is 25. This is why college students think jumping from the roof of their garage into the pool is a good idea.
The problem is that poverty and its attendant stress makes it hard for the judgment centers of the brain to develop. And the results can be seen in everything from 16 year old mothers to the looting in Ferguson last night. Let's remember that 16 year old moms are not unique to the African American community but are prevalent in most poor communities regardless of race. And 16 year old mothers are going to face stress in trying to raise a child when they themselves are children, and that only perpetuates this cycle. The stress they feel is passed on to their children.
So when we talk about the legacy of poverty in this country - whether we are talking about urban African Americans or Appalachian whites or Hispanics along the Rio Grande or Native Americans on reservations - we are talking about a form of environmental brain damage.
The second point is that of the police. What was most shocking about Ferguson was that the grand jury - with all the questions about what really happened - decided not to let a trial sort out the conflicting stories. But given the current state of US law, it's pretty hard to convict a policeman for the use of lethal force.
This is tied, at least in part, to our unreasonable fears about crime.
Violent crime is falling in this country and has been for the last 20 years. But we live in a world where the news follows the age old maxim of "If it bleeds, it leads." If you watch the news - or hell, if you watch CSI or any police procedural - you are bombarded with the idea that we live in a world of menace, violence and death, when in fact, the world has never been safer.
That fear of violent crime has led us to militarize our police force and inculcates in them a feeling of being under siege. Certainly, your average police officer spends most of his time dealing with the most troubled elements of society. The corrosive effect of that, combined with the environment of fear, leads to a siege mentality. It also increases that allostatic load in the police. Utah recently found that the leading cause of violent death is the police. Utah is not an especially violent place, yet the police feel they need to use lethal force more than gangs or even perpetrators of domestic violence.
So we have a system that puts stressed out police into stressed out communities and basically gives them carte blanche to use deadly force.
Everything we saw in Ferguson is a product of this flawed system. The looters burning their own community are simply giving free rein to their anger over their long term prospects. The police with sniper rifles tossing tear gas into violent and peaceful protesters alike are simply responding to the siege they feel.
Ultimately, we might be able to see some police reform. Body cameras would be an excellent place to start. They would help with evidence collection and exonerate innocent cops, while holding bad cops accountable. All of this would help ease tensions between police and the communities they patrol. And while police violence is increasingly prevalent in minority communities, it exists in white communities, too. Because this isn't a racial issue - or shouldn't be - maybe we can see this needed reform.
If we are going basically allow the police to shot people and almost never be brought to trial, then we need to demand more accountability from the police. This could unite Paulite libertarians and African American civil rights activists.
But we will continue to ignore the pervasive and corrosive effects of poverty that continues to weigh heaviest on minority communities. Because the pictures of African Americans looting stores and burning buildings will create a comfort level in turning away. There will be millions of people who think, "They deserve this. Let them rot. They don't deserve my help."
We will continue to see a cycle of poverty, handed down from generation to generation, from teen parent to teen parent. Exceptional individuals will make it out from time to time, to give lie to the fact that a poverty-riddled environment is a poor environment to grow up in.
And we will ignore the overwhelming links between poverty, race and childhood development and watch another generation be blighted before our eyes. And our willingness to turn away from our fellow American in this is overwhelmingly a question of race. Not the racism of the burning cross or the lynch mob, but the racism of the great mass of people who sit by and let the cross burn and the body to swing from the tree.
John Stuart Mill said, we "should know that bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing."
And yet, doing nothing seems to always be the preferable course when the evil is being done to the poor. While that's not unique to America, the elements of race are our special curse. A curse we are eager to turn away from and pretend it's not there.
The first problem is the endemic and persistent poverty present that plagues many African American communities. Poverty has a cyclical nature. It is generational and feeds off itself. Paul Tough wrote an excellent book called How Children Succeed and it chronicles how trauma in childhood significantly messes up a child's brain. Now "trauma" can be quite broad and applies to people throughout the socioeconomic spectrum. But the prevalence of pervasive childhood trauma is a great indicator of later cognitive and behavioral problems. Damaged children make for damaged adults.
We should then look at how damaging poverty is. And it's pretty damaging. A 2009 study by Gary Evans and Michelle Schamberg studied working memory in children. They looked at allostatic load. Bruce McEwen first proposed allostasis, which is way a body manages stress. So, for instance, you nearly get into a car wreck. Your body gets flooded with adrenaline, your heart pounds, you shake. But you get over it a few hours later as your body "flushes out" that stress response. But if you are constantly exposed to stress, you build up an allostatic load. What Evans and Schamberg found was that allostatic load was the best predictor of performance on short term memory. The higher it was, the poorer kids did on the test. Short term memory is a great indicator of certain types of cognitive abilities.
In other words, what we think of as "genetic advantage" - the upper middle class kids just have favorable genetic advantages that allow them to excel - is really a product of their environment. The brain is a very malleable thing in early childhood and if you pile poverty onto that process - with all the stress that poverty brings - you damage that brain.
And that damage is most prevalent in the last part of the brain to develop: the pre-frontal cortex. And it is in the pre-frontal cortex that judgment resides. That part of the brain may not finish developing until someone is 25. This is why college students think jumping from the roof of their garage into the pool is a good idea.
The problem is that poverty and its attendant stress makes it hard for the judgment centers of the brain to develop. And the results can be seen in everything from 16 year old mothers to the looting in Ferguson last night. Let's remember that 16 year old moms are not unique to the African American community but are prevalent in most poor communities regardless of race. And 16 year old mothers are going to face stress in trying to raise a child when they themselves are children, and that only perpetuates this cycle. The stress they feel is passed on to their children.
So when we talk about the legacy of poverty in this country - whether we are talking about urban African Americans or Appalachian whites or Hispanics along the Rio Grande or Native Americans on reservations - we are talking about a form of environmental brain damage.
The second point is that of the police. What was most shocking about Ferguson was that the grand jury - with all the questions about what really happened - decided not to let a trial sort out the conflicting stories. But given the current state of US law, it's pretty hard to convict a policeman for the use of lethal force.
This is tied, at least in part, to our unreasonable fears about crime.
Violent crime is falling in this country and has been for the last 20 years. But we live in a world where the news follows the age old maxim of "If it bleeds, it leads." If you watch the news - or hell, if you watch CSI or any police procedural - you are bombarded with the idea that we live in a world of menace, violence and death, when in fact, the world has never been safer.
That fear of violent crime has led us to militarize our police force and inculcates in them a feeling of being under siege. Certainly, your average police officer spends most of his time dealing with the most troubled elements of society. The corrosive effect of that, combined with the environment of fear, leads to a siege mentality. It also increases that allostatic load in the police. Utah recently found that the leading cause of violent death is the police. Utah is not an especially violent place, yet the police feel they need to use lethal force more than gangs or even perpetrators of domestic violence.
So we have a system that puts stressed out police into stressed out communities and basically gives them carte blanche to use deadly force.
Everything we saw in Ferguson is a product of this flawed system. The looters burning their own community are simply giving free rein to their anger over their long term prospects. The police with sniper rifles tossing tear gas into violent and peaceful protesters alike are simply responding to the siege they feel.
Ultimately, we might be able to see some police reform. Body cameras would be an excellent place to start. They would help with evidence collection and exonerate innocent cops, while holding bad cops accountable. All of this would help ease tensions between police and the communities they patrol. And while police violence is increasingly prevalent in minority communities, it exists in white communities, too. Because this isn't a racial issue - or shouldn't be - maybe we can see this needed reform.
If we are going basically allow the police to shot people and almost never be brought to trial, then we need to demand more accountability from the police. This could unite Paulite libertarians and African American civil rights activists.
But we will continue to ignore the pervasive and corrosive effects of poverty that continues to weigh heaviest on minority communities. Because the pictures of African Americans looting stores and burning buildings will create a comfort level in turning away. There will be millions of people who think, "They deserve this. Let them rot. They don't deserve my help."
We will continue to see a cycle of poverty, handed down from generation to generation, from teen parent to teen parent. Exceptional individuals will make it out from time to time, to give lie to the fact that a poverty-riddled environment is a poor environment to grow up in.
And we will ignore the overwhelming links between poverty, race and childhood development and watch another generation be blighted before our eyes. And our willingness to turn away from our fellow American in this is overwhelmingly a question of race. Not the racism of the burning cross or the lynch mob, but the racism of the great mass of people who sit by and let the cross burn and the body to swing from the tree.
John Stuart Mill said, we "should know that bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing."
And yet, doing nothing seems to always be the preferable course when the evil is being done to the poor. While that's not unique to America, the elements of race are our special curse. A curse we are eager to turn away from and pretend it's not there.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Scenes From America
What I'm watching on CNN is heartbreaking.
The lack of indictment is a joke. Fine.
But then the police went to tear gas. And that empowers the worst elements of the crowd. And those worst elements have certainly had their moment. The looting and the vandalism are just infuriating. There is a very clear and strong message: We can no longer have two different justice systems for blacks and whites.
And yet the actions of looters and vandals have trampled any hope of that.
Why did they wait until night to announce this? Whose fucking idea was that?
Who let lose the tear gas?
Where were the community figures who wanted peaceful protests?
Our system is broken.
The lack of indictment is a joke. Fine.
But then the police went to tear gas. And that empowers the worst elements of the crowd. And those worst elements have certainly had their moment. The looting and the vandalism are just infuriating. There is a very clear and strong message: We can no longer have two different justice systems for blacks and whites.
And yet the actions of looters and vandals have trampled any hope of that.
Why did they wait until night to announce this? Whose fucking idea was that?
Who let lose the tear gas?
Where were the community figures who wanted peaceful protests?
Our system is broken.
This Is Dumb
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7275177/chuck-hagel-resigns-defense
They are getting rid of Hagel, because they only hired him to give cover to the withdrawal from Afghanistan and cutting military budgets. That was his job.
The idea - forcefully articulated in Fisher's analysis - that Obama's Afghanistan and ISIS policies are "failing" is just plain dumb. Obama's Afghanistan policy is to get out. We are getting out. His ISIS policy is to degrade ISIS and roll back their advances. That's what's happening.
The old "elite" foreign policy had the advantage of patience. But the 24 hour new cycle makes everyone expect immediate results. Why haven't we destroyed ISIS/the Taliban/Ebola/Putin/cooties/all evil in the world?
Hagel was brought in to give cover to withdrawal and budget cuts. He did that. Now he's gone.
The bigger issue was his ability to manage the department, not policy, which Fisher correctly notes comes from the White House.
They are getting rid of Hagel, because they only hired him to give cover to the withdrawal from Afghanistan and cutting military budgets. That was his job.
The idea - forcefully articulated in Fisher's analysis - that Obama's Afghanistan and ISIS policies are "failing" is just plain dumb. Obama's Afghanistan policy is to get out. We are getting out. His ISIS policy is to degrade ISIS and roll back their advances. That's what's happening.
The old "elite" foreign policy had the advantage of patience. But the 24 hour new cycle makes everyone expect immediate results. Why haven't we destroyed ISIS/the Taliban/Ebola/Putin/cooties/all evil in the world?
Hagel was brought in to give cover to withdrawal and budget cuts. He did that. Now he's gone.
The bigger issue was his ability to manage the department, not policy, which Fisher correctly notes comes from the White House.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Arizona?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/flake-move-beyond-benghazi
Jeff Flake wants to pass immigration reform and drop Benghazi. Meanwhile, Huckleberry Closetcase continues to flog Chris Steven's dead body for television appearances.
Graham clearly has his trembling, sweaty fingers on the pulse of the GOP in a way that Flake does not.
How long until we get a real patriot to primary this RINO?
(Also, can we go three weeks with Graham on the TV? Please?)
Jeff Flake wants to pass immigration reform and drop Benghazi. Meanwhile, Huckleberry Closetcase continues to flog Chris Steven's dead body for television appearances.
Graham clearly has his trembling, sweaty fingers on the pulse of the GOP in a way that Flake does not.
How long until we get a real patriot to primary this RINO?
(Also, can we go three weeks with Graham on the TV? Please?)
Over The River And Through The Woods...
Getting away for a week of relaxation and catching up on grading.
Eventually, I'm going to write that long post on what Democrats can do to appeal to white male voters.
But not today.
Eventually, I'm going to write that long post on what Democrats can do to appeal to white male voters.
But not today.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Benghazi!!!!1!!!!111
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/republican-benghazi-investigation-debunks-conspiracy-theories-clears-obama-hillary
In a shocking development, the seventh investigation of the tragic attacks in Benghazi has concluded - along with the previous six investigations - that there is no scandal there. While Darrell Issa's committee hasn't concluded, frankly, I think we can all guess that they are just trying to run out the clock until Hillary officially wins the nomination.
When Hillary ran in 2008, I naively thought that Obama would be a better nominee and President, because he didn't bring that Clinton baggage with him. There would be no lingering questions about Vince Foster and Whitewater and Lewinsky and the various other sundry bullshit scandals that the GOP has tried to create over the years.
But it really doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. It never will. The Risen Christ could win the 2016 nomination and the GOP will call into question whether the loaves and fishes constitute violation of campaign finance law and whether the Sermon on the Mount represent Alinsky-ite communistic thinking.
Yes, politics ain't beanbag, but the GOP has taken the nastiness to a new level. Scandals are fair game, but manufactured ones are not.
In a shocking development, the seventh investigation of the tragic attacks in Benghazi has concluded - along with the previous six investigations - that there is no scandal there. While Darrell Issa's committee hasn't concluded, frankly, I think we can all guess that they are just trying to run out the clock until Hillary officially wins the nomination.
When Hillary ran in 2008, I naively thought that Obama would be a better nominee and President, because he didn't bring that Clinton baggage with him. There would be no lingering questions about Vince Foster and Whitewater and Lewinsky and the various other sundry bullshit scandals that the GOP has tried to create over the years.
But it really doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. It never will. The Risen Christ could win the 2016 nomination and the GOP will call into question whether the loaves and fishes constitute violation of campaign finance law and whether the Sermon on the Mount represent Alinsky-ite communistic thinking.
Yes, politics ain't beanbag, but the GOP has taken the nastiness to a new level. Scandals are fair game, but manufactured ones are not.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Hey, Bill...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-oreilly-jose-antonio-vargas-immigration-entitlement
I would bet my dog that Bill O'Reilly's ancestors were undocumented, too.
Because we didn't start documenting immigrants until the 1920s, and we did that out of naked, avowed racism.
Most citizen's ancestors came here under an immigration system that did not put any restrictions on them coming here. America did not start keeping out ANY immigrants until the 1880s, when they excluded Chinese on racial grounds. And then they started putting quotas on Eastern Europeans, because Slavs and Jews were considered a degradation of America's "Nordic" blood stock.
In the 1960s, they greatly relaxed those quotas, but they also moved to a system that documented and restricted immigration from the Western hemisphere for the first time.
And Bill? They really hated the Irish back in the 19th century. Maybe as much as people hate on Hispanics now.
Meanwhile, in other news involving Mexicans...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/protest-march-mexican-students-violence
Since institutionalizing true democracy about 14 years ago, Mexico has suffered from poor voter turnout, anemic civil society and a lack of trust in government. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Mexico uses the same, FUBAR Madisonian system of government that we do.)
But there is perhaps some hope that Mexicans are fed up with poor governance and rampant corruption and are ready to take control of their country.
This could be a very hopeful moment for Mexico in the long run, even if it seems scary right now.
I would bet my dog that Bill O'Reilly's ancestors were undocumented, too.
Because we didn't start documenting immigrants until the 1920s, and we did that out of naked, avowed racism.
Most citizen's ancestors came here under an immigration system that did not put any restrictions on them coming here. America did not start keeping out ANY immigrants until the 1880s, when they excluded Chinese on racial grounds. And then they started putting quotas on Eastern Europeans, because Slavs and Jews were considered a degradation of America's "Nordic" blood stock.
In the 1960s, they greatly relaxed those quotas, but they also moved to a system that documented and restricted immigration from the Western hemisphere for the first time.
And Bill? They really hated the Irish back in the 19th century. Maybe as much as people hate on Hispanics now.
Meanwhile, in other news involving Mexicans...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/protest-march-mexican-students-violence
Since institutionalizing true democracy about 14 years ago, Mexico has suffered from poor voter turnout, anemic civil society and a lack of trust in government. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Mexico uses the same, FUBAR Madisonian system of government that we do.)
But there is perhaps some hope that Mexicans are fed up with poor governance and rampant corruption and are ready to take control of their country.
This could be a very hopeful moment for Mexico in the long run, even if it seems scary right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)