I suppose it was inevitable. When a large and vocal group of people know what they know, there's always the chance one member of that group will decide to act on that knowledge. Remember: You don't have to be right; you just have to think you are.
Since "Black Lives Matter," a message proclaimed on signs carried by protesters, it was only a matter of time before someone would seek to even the score for those lives lost to marauding cops across this nation.
The alleged gunman (Ismaaiyl Brinsley) took out two NYC cops to avenge the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. That's what we're led to believe, anyway, based on his contributions to social media.
"Putting wings on pigs," he said.
An act of desperation designed to place the cherry atop a failed life. He apparently shot his ex-girlfriend in Baltimore, then hopped a bus for the Big Apple, where he went looking for targets.
He probably could have picked better to answer the actions of white cops. The dead officers were Asian and Hispanic. Close enough, I guess. At least they were cops and not Salvation Army bell ringers in uniform.
The gunman then entered a subway station where he apparently shot himself in the head.
Members of his family say he was suicidal.
If so, he again failed to maximize the effect. He should have tossed the weapon away and made a suspicious move in front of the police, forcing them to take his life.
Preferably on camera.
Keep the spiral of violence in motion, see? And widening as it goes. Word of potential copycat shooters has already surfaced. Police forces across the country are on alert.
As long as folks know what they know, some will take action. As long as everything they see proves them right, the closer they are to pulling the trigger. The more this perfect knowledge spreads, the more dangerous the world becomes.
But hey, it's what we do here.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON RACE
In an interview in People magazine entitled "We Can Still Make a Difference" (and reported on the CBS Evening News), Barack Obama and his wife Michelle had some things to say about race in America.
Michelle says she was once mistaken for a school employee. At a black tie affair, the President was mistaken for a waiter.
I'm not sure I'm grasping the problem here. Is it that white folks are apt to think black folks may be employed in some capacity? That doesn't seem so bad.
Is it that the President and the First Lady were not recognized by (presumably) white people as the President and First Lady?
I have a problem with that, too. If you're at some school function, isn't it a lot more likely a given black lady is an employee there and not the First Lady of the most powerful country on the planet? I mean, you might think she looks familiar. You might even think the woman looks just like Michelle Obama. (OMG!) It's still way more likely she's not.
Is that racism? If you're white and you think all black women look like every other black woman, that's not necessarily racism. If you think all black women are skanks and you're not going to take the trouble to try to distinguish one from another, then you're a racist.
Same for the President. I'd need a lot more information about his mistaken-for-a-waiter incident before I'd be willing to call it racism. Sounds more like a merry mix-up, something you'd see on a TV sitcom.
The President says: "There's no black male my age, who's a professional, who hasn't come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their keys."
Okay, here's the scene: An older black man in a suit stands alone at the curb in an otherwise empty restaurant loading zone, looking up the street, waiting for a car. Some jerk pulls up, sees nobody in a red vest around, and makes an assumption about the only guy there.
That's pretty stupid, but for it to be racism the white guy would have to be thinking along these lines: Oh, look, there's a black fellow standing in front of my favorite restaurant. Since no black man would ever be able to afford to eat here (and they wouldn't let him in even if he had the dough), he must be the parking valet. I wonder what happened to his red vest? Probably sold it for crack.
Some of that is racist on the part of somebody.
Michelle Obama says: "When you're raising black kids you have to talk about these issues, because they're real."
If what was reported by CBS typical of the issues she's talking to her kids about, the problems of race in this country seem pretty trivial.
Contrast them with the issue folks are out in the streets of our cities protesting: Racist white cops murdering the black youth of the nation. Over and over, with no relief in sight.
The President has commented, saying recent events (Grand Jury decisions) should prompt a national dialogue on race.
Sounds good, needs to be done.
Hey, take this fun quiz:
1. The shooting of Michael Brown by a white cop and the decision not to prosecute.
2. The death-in-custody of Eric Garner presided over by white cops and the decision not the prosecute.
3. The shooting of the twelve-year-old kid with the pellet gun by a white cop.
4. Protesters in the streets, calling for justice.
Question: Which of these four items is a demonstration of racism?
Answer: No. 4.
In the first three there is no evidence of either racism or police brutality. The fact the protesters don't see that can only be ascribed to the racist position that white cops kill black kids for no reason.
(Folks know what they know and everything they see proves them right.)
Will the President and First Lady be adding this item to their dialogue on race in America? They should.
Michelle says she was once mistaken for a school employee. At a black tie affair, the President was mistaken for a waiter.
I'm not sure I'm grasping the problem here. Is it that white folks are apt to think black folks may be employed in some capacity? That doesn't seem so bad.
Is it that the President and the First Lady were not recognized by (presumably) white people as the President and First Lady?
I have a problem with that, too. If you're at some school function, isn't it a lot more likely a given black lady is an employee there and not the First Lady of the most powerful country on the planet? I mean, you might think she looks familiar. You might even think the woman looks just like Michelle Obama. (OMG!) It's still way more likely she's not.
Is that racism? If you're white and you think all black women look like every other black woman, that's not necessarily racism. If you think all black women are skanks and you're not going to take the trouble to try to distinguish one from another, then you're a racist.
Same for the President. I'd need a lot more information about his mistaken-for-a-waiter incident before I'd be willing to call it racism. Sounds more like a merry mix-up, something you'd see on a TV sitcom.
The President says: "There's no black male my age, who's a professional, who hasn't come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their keys."
Okay, here's the scene: An older black man in a suit stands alone at the curb in an otherwise empty restaurant loading zone, looking up the street, waiting for a car. Some jerk pulls up, sees nobody in a red vest around, and makes an assumption about the only guy there.
That's pretty stupid, but for it to be racism the white guy would have to be thinking along these lines: Oh, look, there's a black fellow standing in front of my favorite restaurant. Since no black man would ever be able to afford to eat here (and they wouldn't let him in even if he had the dough), he must be the parking valet. I wonder what happened to his red vest? Probably sold it for crack.
Some of that is racist on the part of somebody.
Michelle Obama says: "When you're raising black kids you have to talk about these issues, because they're real."
If what was reported by CBS typical of the issues she's talking to her kids about, the problems of race in this country seem pretty trivial.
Contrast them with the issue folks are out in the streets of our cities protesting: Racist white cops murdering the black youth of the nation. Over and over, with no relief in sight.
The President has commented, saying recent events (Grand Jury decisions) should prompt a national dialogue on race.
Sounds good, needs to be done.
Hey, take this fun quiz:
1. The shooting of Michael Brown by a white cop and the decision not to prosecute.
2. The death-in-custody of Eric Garner presided over by white cops and the decision not the prosecute.
3. The shooting of the twelve-year-old kid with the pellet gun by a white cop.
4. Protesters in the streets, calling for justice.
Question: Which of these four items is a demonstration of racism?
Answer: No. 4.
In the first three there is no evidence of either racism or police brutality. The fact the protesters don't see that can only be ascribed to the racist position that white cops kill black kids for no reason.
(Folks know what they know and everything they see proves them right.)
Will the President and First Lady be adding this item to their dialogue on race in America? They should.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
RESISTING ARREST
It would be my guess the average citizen thinks "resisting arrest" means fighting the cops. I probably thought so myself, at some point. (Who can remember?)
In fact, depending on where you live, you could be guilty of this crime by doing anything to hinder or delay a police officer in the lawful performance of his duties. That goes for EMTs as well.
If a cop tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, don't just stand there and say: "Why?"
That's a crime. Turn around and put your hands behind your back before you demand to know why he's arresting you. Could make all the difference.
If you're walking along the street and an ambulance screeches to a stop beside you and the driver asks where he can find some street—and you deliberately point him in the wrong direction—it's possible you've committed the crime of "resisting arrest." (As odd as that sounds.)
That big guy in NYC who was accused of selling loose cigarettes was guilty of resisting arrest because he failed to cooperate with the police. It doesn't matter if he's guilty of the crime of selling loose cigarettes or not.
(It also doesn't matter if in your opinion the selling of loose cigarettes ought not be a crime.)
The guy told the cops to leave him alone. He evaded their hands when they tried to grab of him. His fate was sealed by his own decision. And by "fate" I don't mean his death; I mean what happened next: the take down and arrest. I believe the death to be accidental.
Once you defy the police they will take you into custody in only one posture: on your belly with your hands behind your back.
There are a number of tools and techniques that can be used by cops to get an arrestee into the desired position:
(1) Use a Taser to drop the fellow to the ground, then land on him and wrestle him into position.
(2) Hit him repeatedly with batons until the suspect voluntarily places himself in the approved posture (Rodney King's police adventure—though King was also Tased).
(3) Jump on the guy with multiple personnel and force him into position, pressing him into the pavement to keep him from moving during the cuffing process. The cops call it "swarming."
The third method was used on Eric Garner, the big guy in NYC. During the take down, one of the cops grabbed the man around the neck. It's widely been labeled a "chokehold," but if that's what it was, it was a poor example of one. Garner would've been unconscious at the end of a combat chokehold, and that didn't happen.
Most likely, Garner's breathing problems (aside from his reported asthma) came from lying belly-down on the sidewalk and having a crapload of cops lean their combined weight on him—added to his own obvious bulk. It was brutal, but not illegal. And it all happened because he refused to allow himself to be arrested.
So what's the solution? A rule that says fat guys are not to be arrested for petty crimes because they might not survive the take-down process?
I think people need to learn that arguing with a cop who wants to arrest you is an offense called resisting arrest. That jerking your hands away when cops try to grab you is right on the edge of fighting the police. That once you get this far your arrest is now assured, and it's only a question of how hard they're going to land on you when they put you into position to be cuffed.
And yes, cops do this to white guys, too.
Now folks are in the street protesting a Grand Jury's decision not the indict the cop whose arm was around Garner's neck. The verdict would barely be controversial, except for the fact Garner is black and everybody "knows" white cops murdered him for the crime of being black.
Folks are also angry the Grand Jury did not release the complete evidence in the case. Why would that make any difference? Folks got all the facts from the Michael Brown case—did nothing to change the minds of the folks in the streets.
Facts are useless when you know in your heart what really happened. Knowing stuff without—or in the teeth of—the evidence is what we do here on planet earth.
Hasn't been a problem so far, right?
In fact, depending on where you live, you could be guilty of this crime by doing anything to hinder or delay a police officer in the lawful performance of his duties. That goes for EMTs as well.
If a cop tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, don't just stand there and say: "Why?"
That's a crime. Turn around and put your hands behind your back before you demand to know why he's arresting you. Could make all the difference.
If you're walking along the street and an ambulance screeches to a stop beside you and the driver asks where he can find some street—and you deliberately point him in the wrong direction—it's possible you've committed the crime of "resisting arrest." (As odd as that sounds.)
That big guy in NYC who was accused of selling loose cigarettes was guilty of resisting arrest because he failed to cooperate with the police. It doesn't matter if he's guilty of the crime of selling loose cigarettes or not.
(It also doesn't matter if in your opinion the selling of loose cigarettes ought not be a crime.)
The guy told the cops to leave him alone. He evaded their hands when they tried to grab of him. His fate was sealed by his own decision. And by "fate" I don't mean his death; I mean what happened next: the take down and arrest. I believe the death to be accidental.
Once you defy the police they will take you into custody in only one posture: on your belly with your hands behind your back.
There are a number of tools and techniques that can be used by cops to get an arrestee into the desired position:
(1) Use a Taser to drop the fellow to the ground, then land on him and wrestle him into position.
(2) Hit him repeatedly with batons until the suspect voluntarily places himself in the approved posture (Rodney King's police adventure—though King was also Tased).
(3) Jump on the guy with multiple personnel and force him into position, pressing him into the pavement to keep him from moving during the cuffing process. The cops call it "swarming."
The third method was used on Eric Garner, the big guy in NYC. During the take down, one of the cops grabbed the man around the neck. It's widely been labeled a "chokehold," but if that's what it was, it was a poor example of one. Garner would've been unconscious at the end of a combat chokehold, and that didn't happen.
Most likely, Garner's breathing problems (aside from his reported asthma) came from lying belly-down on the sidewalk and having a crapload of cops lean their combined weight on him—added to his own obvious bulk. It was brutal, but not illegal. And it all happened because he refused to allow himself to be arrested.
So what's the solution? A rule that says fat guys are not to be arrested for petty crimes because they might not survive the take-down process?
I think people need to learn that arguing with a cop who wants to arrest you is an offense called resisting arrest. That jerking your hands away when cops try to grab you is right on the edge of fighting the police. That once you get this far your arrest is now assured, and it's only a question of how hard they're going to land on you when they put you into position to be cuffed.
And yes, cops do this to white guys, too.
Now folks are in the street protesting a Grand Jury's decision not the indict the cop whose arm was around Garner's neck. The verdict would barely be controversial, except for the fact Garner is black and everybody "knows" white cops murdered him for the crime of being black.
Folks are also angry the Grand Jury did not release the complete evidence in the case. Why would that make any difference? Folks got all the facts from the Michael Brown case—did nothing to change the minds of the folks in the streets.
Facts are useless when you know in your heart what really happened. Knowing stuff without—or in the teeth of—the evidence is what we do here on planet earth.
Hasn't been a problem so far, right?
Friday, November 28, 2014
THE WRONG FLAG
Demonstrations continue across the country, protesting the Grand Jury's decision not to prosecute the cop in Ferguson, Missouri. Lots of angry people out there, blocking roads and freeways, taunting the police.
Champions for Michael Brown.
They use his name, spray it onto the fronts of businesses. He's their hero, the new poster boy for police brutality. The symbol of racism in America.
Problem is, he's not.
It reminds me of a demonstration for immigration reform that took place in Los Angeles a few years back. Lots of folk in the street, waving the Mexican flag.
People pointed out that was a pretty stupid thing to do. And they got the message. Next time out, they waved the American flag.
Today's protesters need to learn that lesson. They have an important cause, a vital cause. Racism in America absolutely must be fixed.
But they're waving the wrong flag. Michael Brown is no hero. He's just a thug who fought a cop to avoid arrest for the crime he'd committed minutes earlier. He had plans, was going to college. He knew an arrest now would mess up everything. So he fought it. He had no right to do that. And he was just making matters worse.
At the end, he may have tried the same tactic that had worked in the store. We all saw him on the video, menacing a little guy, coming at him. Out in the street, the cop also backed up when Brown came at him.
But ultimately he had to shoot. You can't let somebody come toward you like that, armed or unarmed. In fact, unarmed is even worse. It defies reason.
You have to shoot unarmed people when they advance at you, despite knowing you have a gun. You simply can't let them get their hands on you.
Brown's mother keeps repeating her son was murdered in cold blood in broad daylight. Well, she's the mother, and mothers never get this stuff right.
We know from the forensic evidence that whatever happened, it wasn't done in cold blood. Not Brown's desperate attack on the cop, and not the cop's final response. Michael Brown was the ringmaster of that circus from start to finish. He made his choices. Bad choices, all of them.
He's not a hero. Stop waving his flag. You're only hurting your cause.
Champions for Michael Brown.
They use his name, spray it onto the fronts of businesses. He's their hero, the new poster boy for police brutality. The symbol of racism in America.
Problem is, he's not.
It reminds me of a demonstration for immigration reform that took place in Los Angeles a few years back. Lots of folk in the street, waving the Mexican flag.
People pointed out that was a pretty stupid thing to do. And they got the message. Next time out, they waved the American flag.
Today's protesters need to learn that lesson. They have an important cause, a vital cause. Racism in America absolutely must be fixed.
But they're waving the wrong flag. Michael Brown is no hero. He's just a thug who fought a cop to avoid arrest for the crime he'd committed minutes earlier. He had plans, was going to college. He knew an arrest now would mess up everything. So he fought it. He had no right to do that. And he was just making matters worse.
At the end, he may have tried the same tactic that had worked in the store. We all saw him on the video, menacing a little guy, coming at him. Out in the street, the cop also backed up when Brown came at him.
But ultimately he had to shoot. You can't let somebody come toward you like that, armed or unarmed. In fact, unarmed is even worse. It defies reason.
You have to shoot unarmed people when they advance at you, despite knowing you have a gun. You simply can't let them get their hands on you.
Brown's mother keeps repeating her son was murdered in cold blood in broad daylight. Well, she's the mother, and mothers never get this stuff right.
We know from the forensic evidence that whatever happened, it wasn't done in cold blood. Not Brown's desperate attack on the cop, and not the cop's final response. Michael Brown was the ringmaster of that circus from start to finish. He made his choices. Bad choices, all of them.
He's not a hero. Stop waving his flag. You're only hurting your cause.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
How do you know what's right? When it fits nicely with whatever is already inside your skull.
The tragedy of those protesting the decision of the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case is that they're undermining their position concerning a very real problem in America. They're doing this by attaching themselves to the wrong guy and the wrong case.
Racism is real, and white cops do appear to come down harder on black folks than they do on whites. Racial profiling, it's called. Guys pulled over for DWB ("Driving While Black").
It's a real problem that desperately needs to be addressed.
But in so far as protesters claim the Grand Jury decision is an outrage, their fight against this very real problem suffers.
Folks know what they know, unfortunately, and this time they know Brown was an innocent victim of white rage, that he was gunned down in the street for "no reason."
Look, maybe that sort of thing happens. But not this time. Not in this case.
Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery of a store. We see him on the surveillance tape shoving and menacing the owner. Brown was a very large man. He clearly knew how to use his bulk to intimidate people.
A few minutes later he and his friend were spotted walking down the middle of the road. The cop only wanted to tell them to get on the sidewalk--until he saw the cigars Brown had stolen and realized those guys fitted the description in the recent robbery, details of which were just then coming in over the radio.
When Brown saw he was about to be arrested, he lunged into the open window of the patrol car and tried to grab the cop's gun. After shots were fired, he ran. The cop pursued. Brown stopped and turned. Maybe he hoped to get the same result as in the store, hoped to intimidate the cop into leaving him alone. Maybe he tried to bulldoze an armed cop in a desperate attempt to avoid arrest. That part we'll probably never know.
Was it reasonable for the Grand Jury to conclude the cop was in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger? No way to say otherwise, really. Until someone gets him on tape bragging he blasted the guy for the hell of it, never once feeling in jeopardy, we'll have to go with what we've got.
A lot of protesters beg to disagree. They "know" what really happened. The problem is, humans always "know" the deep down facts of any case. What we never seem to realize is that this knowledge is cobbled together from a few bits of fact imbedded in a seething mass of dangerous nonsense that just naturally populates the human noggin.
For whatever reason, real or bogus, when human beings get fired up emotionally over what they know is a miscarriage of justice, they can do a great deal of damage. And not just to a few stores or a line of new cars.
As in this case, they can damage their own position, and in the process abandon the moral high ground. That's the real miscarriage of justice here.
The tragedy of those protesting the decision of the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case is that they're undermining their position concerning a very real problem in America. They're doing this by attaching themselves to the wrong guy and the wrong case.
Racism is real, and white cops do appear to come down harder on black folks than they do on whites. Racial profiling, it's called. Guys pulled over for DWB ("Driving While Black").
It's a real problem that desperately needs to be addressed.
But in so far as protesters claim the Grand Jury decision is an outrage, their fight against this very real problem suffers.
Folks know what they know, unfortunately, and this time they know Brown was an innocent victim of white rage, that he was gunned down in the street for "no reason."
Look, maybe that sort of thing happens. But not this time. Not in this case.
Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery of a store. We see him on the surveillance tape shoving and menacing the owner. Brown was a very large man. He clearly knew how to use his bulk to intimidate people.
A few minutes later he and his friend were spotted walking down the middle of the road. The cop only wanted to tell them to get on the sidewalk--until he saw the cigars Brown had stolen and realized those guys fitted the description in the recent robbery, details of which were just then coming in over the radio.
When Brown saw he was about to be arrested, he lunged into the open window of the patrol car and tried to grab the cop's gun. After shots were fired, he ran. The cop pursued. Brown stopped and turned. Maybe he hoped to get the same result as in the store, hoped to intimidate the cop into leaving him alone. Maybe he tried to bulldoze an armed cop in a desperate attempt to avoid arrest. That part we'll probably never know.
Was it reasonable for the Grand Jury to conclude the cop was in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger? No way to say otherwise, really. Until someone gets him on tape bragging he blasted the guy for the hell of it, never once feeling in jeopardy, we'll have to go with what we've got.
A lot of protesters beg to disagree. They "know" what really happened. The problem is, humans always "know" the deep down facts of any case. What we never seem to realize is that this knowledge is cobbled together from a few bits of fact imbedded in a seething mass of dangerous nonsense that just naturally populates the human noggin.
For whatever reason, real or bogus, when human beings get fired up emotionally over what they know is a miscarriage of justice, they can do a great deal of damage. And not just to a few stores or a line of new cars.
As in this case, they can damage their own position, and in the process abandon the moral high ground. That's the real miscarriage of justice here.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
COSBY'S WOES
Several women have popped up recently claiming Bill Cosby got over on them somehow. Sexually, I mean. Possibly rape. I don't know. But this is not the first time such allegations have been made.
Cosby has remained silent. Literally. On a radio interview he kept his mouth shut when asked to comment. The interviewer indicated Cosby was shaking his head.
A spokesman—possibly a lawyer—said these allegations were old and discredited. He said just because they've resurfaced doesn't mean they're true.
Yes. But it doesn't mean they're false, either.
New women are coming out with statements, but it could be argued they are "copycats" of the originals.
But notice Cosby's spokesman uses the word "discredited." He's not saying the allegations were refuted. (They're just allegations at this point; no legal charges have been brought, as I understand it.)
"Discredited" could just mean Cosby laughed at them, or shook his head when asked about them. Or actually denied them. Or said something like: "I will not dignify that question with an answer."
I don't know if Cosby has ever used that phrase in dealing with this mess, but in a fictional setting, at least, only people who have something to hide use those words. It's a lot easier to say "no" than dump all that verbiage—words that are supposed to be taken as a "no" without actually answering the question one way or the other.
The speaker often takes the outraged attitude that comes from denying the allegation. "I shouldn't have to squander my precious time in saying 'no' to this nonsense!"
All the listener hears is: "Yes, I did it. Now, go to hell."
I'm pretty sure if you were in court you would find you do have to dignify the question with an answer.
The spokesman's statement sounds like a denial, but is not. Supporters of Cosby will see it as a denial, though, because it conforms to the picture they have in their minds when the name Bill Cosby comes up.
Those who have personal problems with Cosby—or perhaps some variety of racist—will see the statement as a smokescreen for obvious guilt. Now they "know" he's guilty. For these individuals, even a flat out denial would mean he's guilty.
Ultimately, when dealing with human beings it doesn't matter if you say something or not. They know what you mean. They always know what you mean.
Cosby has remained silent. Literally. On a radio interview he kept his mouth shut when asked to comment. The interviewer indicated Cosby was shaking his head.
A spokesman—possibly a lawyer—said these allegations were old and discredited. He said just because they've resurfaced doesn't mean they're true.
Yes. But it doesn't mean they're false, either.
New women are coming out with statements, but it could be argued they are "copycats" of the originals.
But notice Cosby's spokesman uses the word "discredited." He's not saying the allegations were refuted. (They're just allegations at this point; no legal charges have been brought, as I understand it.)
"Discredited" could just mean Cosby laughed at them, or shook his head when asked about them. Or actually denied them. Or said something like: "I will not dignify that question with an answer."
I don't know if Cosby has ever used that phrase in dealing with this mess, but in a fictional setting, at least, only people who have something to hide use those words. It's a lot easier to say "no" than dump all that verbiage—words that are supposed to be taken as a "no" without actually answering the question one way or the other.
The speaker often takes the outraged attitude that comes from denying the allegation. "I shouldn't have to squander my precious time in saying 'no' to this nonsense!"
All the listener hears is: "Yes, I did it. Now, go to hell."
I'm pretty sure if you were in court you would find you do have to dignify the question with an answer.
The spokesman's statement sounds like a denial, but is not. Supporters of Cosby will see it as a denial, though, because it conforms to the picture they have in their minds when the name Bill Cosby comes up.
Those who have personal problems with Cosby—or perhaps some variety of racist—will see the statement as a smokescreen for obvious guilt. Now they "know" he's guilty. For these individuals, even a flat out denial would mean he's guilty.
Ultimately, when dealing with human beings it doesn't matter if you say something or not. They know what you mean. They always know what you mean.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
THE BOOK IS COMING!
This blog is designed to support an ebook with the same name. Except for a version of the first blog post (START HERE), the book is comprised of all new material, describing the twisted thinking that got us into the mess we're in today. And a suggested solution.
The second half of the book is called A FATAL FLAW, and may open a few eyes about religion. (But probably won't.)
Look for WHAT'S WRONG WITH US on Amazon (it's a Kindle book) in the near future.
The second half of the book is called A FATAL FLAW, and may open a few eyes about religion. (But probably won't.)
Look for WHAT'S WRONG WITH US on Amazon (it's a Kindle book) in the near future.
Friday, November 7, 2014
AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
The only people to catch Ebola in this country were two of the nurses who cared for the guy who came in from West Africa and died in the hospital in Dallas, Texas. That guy did not infect anybody at home, though they were all quarantined for 21 days after his hospitalization.
The nurses who treated him traipsed about here and there for days before becoming symptomatic. Yet they infected nobody and after treatment are now well.
Ebola is a bad, bad disease, but not that easy to catch.
A person in the early stages (fever, etc.) is not infectious. This is not at all like HIV, where an infected idiot can recruit you to his team even though he shows no symptoms and may not even know he's sick.
Not the case with Ebola—when you have it, you bloody well know it!
Fortunately, you have to be really far gone before you can infect anyone, and only then if they come in direct contact with the slobber of your drooling body—blood, sweat, saliva, puke, poop and urine. Baring that, folks can lie next to you in the same room without any harm coming to them. There is no airborne transmission.
A number of states have implemented quarantines for persons exposed to Ebola, even though it's entirely unnecessary. All those exposed to Ebola have to do is check their temperature. An elevated temperature is an early warning sign that tells you when to begin a real quarantine (and treatment).
Before that, there's no risk.
But several state governors have decided they need to be more cautious than that. They don't care about science. They reject science. They know better than any scientist.
They will protect the population of their states with "an abundance of caution." (Which is code for "an idiotic over-reaction.")
These draconian quarantines only fuel the fear of Ebola and stigmatize doctors and nurses who've battled the disease in Africa and elsewhere. The outbreak in Africa must be put down, for the good of us all. But who will want to perform that service now?
Health workers coming back from West Africa, folks who were employed in strictly administrative positions—and never saw, let alone treated, an Ebola patient—are shunned and demonized.
What's next?
Just to be sure we're safe from disease, we'll identify any aircraft approaching the shores of this country from West Africa (or Africa, or anyplace else on earth) and shoot it down when it's far out over the ocean.
After that, anyone who's even heard of Ebola will be tossed directly into the oven by volunteers in hazmat suits—who will then jump into the flames themselves.
Out of an abundance of caution.
The nurses who treated him traipsed about here and there for days before becoming symptomatic. Yet they infected nobody and after treatment are now well.
Ebola is a bad, bad disease, but not that easy to catch.
A person in the early stages (fever, etc.) is not infectious. This is not at all like HIV, where an infected idiot can recruit you to his team even though he shows no symptoms and may not even know he's sick.
Not the case with Ebola—when you have it, you bloody well know it!
Fortunately, you have to be really far gone before you can infect anyone, and only then if they come in direct contact with the slobber of your drooling body—blood, sweat, saliva, puke, poop and urine. Baring that, folks can lie next to you in the same room without any harm coming to them. There is no airborne transmission.
A number of states have implemented quarantines for persons exposed to Ebola, even though it's entirely unnecessary. All those exposed to Ebola have to do is check their temperature. An elevated temperature is an early warning sign that tells you when to begin a real quarantine (and treatment).
Before that, there's no risk.
But several state governors have decided they need to be more cautious than that. They don't care about science. They reject science. They know better than any scientist.
They will protect the population of their states with "an abundance of caution." (Which is code for "an idiotic over-reaction.")
These draconian quarantines only fuel the fear of Ebola and stigmatize doctors and nurses who've battled the disease in Africa and elsewhere. The outbreak in Africa must be put down, for the good of us all. But who will want to perform that service now?
Health workers coming back from West Africa, folks who were employed in strictly administrative positions—and never saw, let alone treated, an Ebola patient—are shunned and demonized.
What's next?
Just to be sure we're safe from disease, we'll identify any aircraft approaching the shores of this country from West Africa (or Africa, or anyplace else on earth) and shoot it down when it's far out over the ocean.
After that, anyone who's even heard of Ebola will be tossed directly into the oven by volunteers in hazmat suits—who will then jump into the flames themselves.
Out of an abundance of caution.
Friday, October 31, 2014
WHY DO CHURCHES HAVE PARKING LOTS?
By "church" I mean mostly Christian churches, a place employed for worshiping God and Jesus and the Bible. I could also include Jewish synagogues here, though the worship of Jesus would be optional. (For most Jews, Jesus shows up in the "close but no cigar" category.)
And let's assume the parking lot of this house of worship is not used exclusively for tailgate parties and jumble sales. And never on the Sabbath for those purposes.
Generally, churches stand empty during the week, then fill up on Sunday. Folks are encouraged to go to church on that day, and many do.
And apparently many of those who heed the call to worship come to church in an automobile (or pickup truck). Their need for a place to park would appear to answer my title question.
But hold up a bit, partner. Church-going critters are supposed to pay some mind to the Bible they've come to worship. And that particular book has printed in it (in several places, even) a set of rules to live by. Those rules are called the Ten Commandments, and were given by God to Moses so he could instruct the children of Israel.
Let's just take a peak at the fourth item on the list:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
That's from the King James version of the Bible.
And by "thou shalt not do any work" the book means do literally nothing. Elsewhere in the Bible it says you can't even kindle a fire in your own "habitations" without breaking that commandment.
And the penalty is death by stoning.
In olden days, orthodox Jews would employ Christian servants to tend to fires and do the cooking and so forth on the Sabbath. The Christians were presumed to be exempt from the wrath of God because the Jewish sabbath was on Saturday, not Sunday. (And if they weren't exempt, who cares?)
I don't know if rich Christians employed Jewish servants to work on Sunday, though that would make sense. I suppose families could trade off services, but that system would quickly break down the next time the Jews were rounded up and kicked out of town.
On the other hand, the rule of "do no work" was supposed to apply to servants and even strangers who might be lurking in the attic, so getting someone else to do stuff for you should also be prohibited.
It's a dilemma, all right. But there may be a loophole.
It has to do with who is being ordered around by God in the Commandments. There's a hint in the Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
It says "wife," not "spouse." The commandment is apparently directed at the man of the house, who is ordered to keep his mitts off the other guy's wife (among other things).
Now, the Fourth Commandment specifically applies to a lot of different folks (and one variety of creatures), including daughters and maidservants, but nowhere does it say anything about the man's wife. That apparently leaves her free to do all the work. In fact, there's even a saying: Woman's work is never done. (Unless you're a female employee, then you have rights.)
Anyway, the dilemma is solved. Put Mom to work cooking and cleaning and chopping wood for the fire and feeding the chickens and milking the cows. (It's true, the cattle are required by God to rest, but I'm pretty sure that means they're not allowed to drag a plow across a field. Letting the milk drain out of a swollen udder can't be considered work.)
There's another question. Who gets punished for breaking the commandment? A man is not supposed to work, nor let his servants and cattle work. But is he responsible for preventing those guys from working? Is he to be stoned to death if one of his servants strikes a match? Is he required to hogtie the hapless "stranger" within his gates to make sure the guy doesn't pull any work-related shenanigans?
Or is everybody (except Mom) on the hook? Punish the man for ordering a servant to work, and stone the servant to death for following that order?
And by the way, is stoning someone to death considered "work"? If so, that could be tricky. You witness an infraction on the Sabbath and mete out a dollop of instant justice, only to take it in the neck for your trouble. The stoning of the stoners: There's a kind of irony in that.
(If the second batch of stoners doesn't delay the punishment a day or so, those guys would be on the hook themselves. If all the local zealots found themselves in a religious heat to get busy right away, it could precipitate a free-for-all stoning event that might decimate the population.)
Another, somewhat random thought: On The Simpsons, Homer often expresses his reluctance to attend church on Sunday. He'd rather lounge around the house in his robe and bear-foot slippers. If only he could convince Marge he considered it "work" to go to church, he'd have a pious excuse to stay home.
(Besides, there's nothing in the Fourth Commandment that says you have to go to church on the Sabbath or any other day.)
But let's get back to the original question about church parking lots. Since operating machinery of any sort would surely be prohibited, folks arriving for church in a car should expect a deadly shower of rocks when they climb out of their vehicle (if stoning is permitted on Sunday).
I suppose you could get Mom to drive, but I would bet simply riding in the car would put everyone in trouble when you're dealing with a stickler like God.
(And if God is not a stickler, some of the folks who enforce his rules certainly are.)
So what's up with the parking lot? Is it some sort of trap to lure the religiously uninitiated?
Here's my advice. If you must drive to Sunday services, be wary of guys circling the parking lot with suspicious bulges in their coat pockets.
Finally, this: If you're a Jew, getting stoned to death over a religious infraction is the worst that could happen to you. Jews don't have eternal damnation waiting to cap things off.
But enthusiastic Christians would like to stone your sinful carcass to death, then enjoy the thought they'd sent you directly to Hell to continue your punishment. Sure sounds like piling on, to me.
And let's assume the parking lot of this house of worship is not used exclusively for tailgate parties and jumble sales. And never on the Sabbath for those purposes.
Generally, churches stand empty during the week, then fill up on Sunday. Folks are encouraged to go to church on that day, and many do.
And apparently many of those who heed the call to worship come to church in an automobile (or pickup truck). Their need for a place to park would appear to answer my title question.
But hold up a bit, partner. Church-going critters are supposed to pay some mind to the Bible they've come to worship. And that particular book has printed in it (in several places, even) a set of rules to live by. Those rules are called the Ten Commandments, and were given by God to Moses so he could instruct the children of Israel.
Let's just take a peak at the fourth item on the list:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
That's from the King James version of the Bible.
And by "thou shalt not do any work" the book means do literally nothing. Elsewhere in the Bible it says you can't even kindle a fire in your own "habitations" without breaking that commandment.
And the penalty is death by stoning.
In olden days, orthodox Jews would employ Christian servants to tend to fires and do the cooking and so forth on the Sabbath. The Christians were presumed to be exempt from the wrath of God because the Jewish sabbath was on Saturday, not Sunday. (And if they weren't exempt, who cares?)
I don't know if rich Christians employed Jewish servants to work on Sunday, though that would make sense. I suppose families could trade off services, but that system would quickly break down the next time the Jews were rounded up and kicked out of town.
On the other hand, the rule of "do no work" was supposed to apply to servants and even strangers who might be lurking in the attic, so getting someone else to do stuff for you should also be prohibited.
It's a dilemma, all right. But there may be a loophole.
It has to do with who is being ordered around by God in the Commandments. There's a hint in the Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
It says "wife," not "spouse." The commandment is apparently directed at the man of the house, who is ordered to keep his mitts off the other guy's wife (among other things).
Now, the Fourth Commandment specifically applies to a lot of different folks (and one variety of creatures), including daughters and maidservants, but nowhere does it say anything about the man's wife. That apparently leaves her free to do all the work. In fact, there's even a saying: Woman's work is never done. (Unless you're a female employee, then you have rights.)
Anyway, the dilemma is solved. Put Mom to work cooking and cleaning and chopping wood for the fire and feeding the chickens and milking the cows. (It's true, the cattle are required by God to rest, but I'm pretty sure that means they're not allowed to drag a plow across a field. Letting the milk drain out of a swollen udder can't be considered work.)
There's another question. Who gets punished for breaking the commandment? A man is not supposed to work, nor let his servants and cattle work. But is he responsible for preventing those guys from working? Is he to be stoned to death if one of his servants strikes a match? Is he required to hogtie the hapless "stranger" within his gates to make sure the guy doesn't pull any work-related shenanigans?
Or is everybody (except Mom) on the hook? Punish the man for ordering a servant to work, and stone the servant to death for following that order?
And by the way, is stoning someone to death considered "work"? If so, that could be tricky. You witness an infraction on the Sabbath and mete out a dollop of instant justice, only to take it in the neck for your trouble. The stoning of the stoners: There's a kind of irony in that.
(If the second batch of stoners doesn't delay the punishment a day or so, those guys would be on the hook themselves. If all the local zealots found themselves in a religious heat to get busy right away, it could precipitate a free-for-all stoning event that might decimate the population.)
Another, somewhat random thought: On The Simpsons, Homer often expresses his reluctance to attend church on Sunday. He'd rather lounge around the house in his robe and bear-foot slippers. If only he could convince Marge he considered it "work" to go to church, he'd have a pious excuse to stay home.
(Besides, there's nothing in the Fourth Commandment that says you have to go to church on the Sabbath or any other day.)
But let's get back to the original question about church parking lots. Since operating machinery of any sort would surely be prohibited, folks arriving for church in a car should expect a deadly shower of rocks when they climb out of their vehicle (if stoning is permitted on Sunday).
I suppose you could get Mom to drive, but I would bet simply riding in the car would put everyone in trouble when you're dealing with a stickler like God.
(And if God is not a stickler, some of the folks who enforce his rules certainly are.)
So what's up with the parking lot? Is it some sort of trap to lure the religiously uninitiated?
Here's my advice. If you must drive to Sunday services, be wary of guys circling the parking lot with suspicious bulges in their coat pockets.
Finally, this: If you're a Jew, getting stoned to death over a religious infraction is the worst that could happen to you. Jews don't have eternal damnation waiting to cap things off.
But enthusiastic Christians would like to stone your sinful carcass to death, then enjoy the thought they'd sent you directly to Hell to continue your punishment. Sure sounds like piling on, to me.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
NO WAR ON TERROR
The U.S. proposes to make a war on terror, but that's not happening. There is no war on terror for the simple reason there is no terror.
If you want to terrorize someone, you put on a horrific mask and shoot at them with blanks or maybe scrape a rubber knife across their throats.
That's terror.
What we have going on these days is war. They're waging war on us in retaliation for our actions against them.
They (and I'm talking radicalized Muslims now) are convinced the U.S. is in a war against all Islam. As a result, they are fighting back as best they can. It's asymmetrical warfare, to be sure. But war, even so.
They're not trying to terrorize us. They're not trying to change our ways. They're trying to kill us, one at a time and in groups. They have their reasons and they're going at it.
Here's the tricky part. If we fight back, we play into their hands.
Nevertheless, we feel justified in going after the ones who are "terrorizing" us. And guess what? They're all Muslims.
From their point of view, all we're doing is killing Muslims (including any "collateral damage" we might inflict on the innocent). And killing Muslims is arguably the definition of waging a war against Islam.
By our actions in response to their actions, we prove their initial actions warranted. They win, not by terrorizing us, but by confirming their whole reason for fighting in the first place.
They know what they know, and they now have all the proof they need.
It's pointless to tell them we're only fighting back. We're fighting--and killings Muslims--and that's all they need to see.
In fact, that's all they can see.
They don't need to see more because what they've already seen does the job. They're done seeing stuff. They need to think no more about it.
Going after ISIS is just more proof of our crimes. Those God-fearing folks are merely trying to establish a chunk of land in this sinful world where they can practice their peace-loving religion. And here we come--the American Monster, the Great Satan--to break up their pious plans.
And why are we doing this? Because we're in a war against Islam, that's why. It's all so clear now!
Which is why the War on ISIS is going to drag more and more so-called Lone Wolves out of the woodwork to attack us here at home.
Folks who think they know what they're doing can be awfully dangerous. Religious folks who think they know they're right may well be unstoppable.
They can be annihilated, perhaps, but not stopped.
And if that happens, all we can do afterwards is say: Look what you made us do!
I've never liked the sound of that.
If you want to terrorize someone, you put on a horrific mask and shoot at them with blanks or maybe scrape a rubber knife across their throats.
That's terror.
What we have going on these days is war. They're waging war on us in retaliation for our actions against them.
They (and I'm talking radicalized Muslims now) are convinced the U.S. is in a war against all Islam. As a result, they are fighting back as best they can. It's asymmetrical warfare, to be sure. But war, even so.
They're not trying to terrorize us. They're not trying to change our ways. They're trying to kill us, one at a time and in groups. They have their reasons and they're going at it.
Here's the tricky part. If we fight back, we play into their hands.
Nevertheless, we feel justified in going after the ones who are "terrorizing" us. And guess what? They're all Muslims.
From their point of view, all we're doing is killing Muslims (including any "collateral damage" we might inflict on the innocent). And killing Muslims is arguably the definition of waging a war against Islam.
By our actions in response to their actions, we prove their initial actions warranted. They win, not by terrorizing us, but by confirming their whole reason for fighting in the first place.
They know what they know, and they now have all the proof they need.
It's pointless to tell them we're only fighting back. We're fighting--and killings Muslims--and that's all they need to see.
In fact, that's all they can see.
They don't need to see more because what they've already seen does the job. They're done seeing stuff. They need to think no more about it.
Going after ISIS is just more proof of our crimes. Those God-fearing folks are merely trying to establish a chunk of land in this sinful world where they can practice their peace-loving religion. And here we come--the American Monster, the Great Satan--to break up their pious plans.
And why are we doing this? Because we're in a war against Islam, that's why. It's all so clear now!
Which is why the War on ISIS is going to drag more and more so-called Lone Wolves out of the woodwork to attack us here at home.
Folks who think they know what they're doing can be awfully dangerous. Religious folks who think they know they're right may well be unstoppable.
They can be annihilated, perhaps, but not stopped.
And if that happens, all we can do afterwards is say: Look what you made us do!
I've never liked the sound of that.
Friday, October 17, 2014
FIRST TIMES
Human thinking is faulty in a lot of ways. Google "cognitive bias" and weep.
Combing a list of such biases is a lot like thumbing through the Merck Manual, a doctor's reference book of diseases. You'll wonder how we manage to get through the day without coming down with something.
But here's one cognitive bias I have yet to come across:
"There's a first time for everything."
This is the sentiment often whipped out to convince someone to do something they'd rather not do. And it's complete nonsense.
It's true, there was a first time for everything that's ever happened—especially those things that keep on happening.
A volcano erupts, over and over throughout history. Rest assured, there was a first time.
The Hawaiian islands are volcanic in origin. There's a hot spot beneath the crust. As plate techtonics drags the ocean floor across that spot, magma may well up and form a new island. It's happened over and over.
For the man who lies about stuff, there was a first lie.
For the multiple murderer, there was a first victim.
For the drunk, there was the first drink. And on multiple occasions, a lot of first drinks.
But for an event that hasn't happened yet, there is not necessarily going to be a first time. Turns out, a lot of stuff will never happen at all.
In the whole scheme of things, it may be there are more things that will never happen than the things that are happening now or will happen in the future.
A phrase related to "there's a first time" is "anything's possible."
Ridiculous.
There has to be trillions of things that are not even remotely possible. I suspect the list of impossible things literally has no end.
So the next time someone tries to convince you to do something by saying "there's a first time for everything," tell them to go straight to hell.
There'll surely be a first time for that, right?
Combing a list of such biases is a lot like thumbing through the Merck Manual, a doctor's reference book of diseases. You'll wonder how we manage to get through the day without coming down with something.
But here's one cognitive bias I have yet to come across:
"There's a first time for everything."
This is the sentiment often whipped out to convince someone to do something they'd rather not do. And it's complete nonsense.
It's true, there was a first time for everything that's ever happened—especially those things that keep on happening.
A volcano erupts, over and over throughout history. Rest assured, there was a first time.
The Hawaiian islands are volcanic in origin. There's a hot spot beneath the crust. As plate techtonics drags the ocean floor across that spot, magma may well up and form a new island. It's happened over and over.
For the man who lies about stuff, there was a first lie.
For the multiple murderer, there was a first victim.
For the drunk, there was the first drink. And on multiple occasions, a lot of first drinks.
But for an event that hasn't happened yet, there is not necessarily going to be a first time. Turns out, a lot of stuff will never happen at all.
In the whole scheme of things, it may be there are more things that will never happen than the things that are happening now or will happen in the future.
A phrase related to "there's a first time" is "anything's possible."
Ridiculous.
There has to be trillions of things that are not even remotely possible. I suspect the list of impossible things literally has no end.
So the next time someone tries to convince you to do something by saying "there's a first time for everything," tell them to go straight to hell.
There'll surely be a first time for that, right?
Monday, October 6, 2014
VACCINES
Last month actor Rob Schneider's State Farm TV commercial was pulled from rotation, the company catching on to the fact the guy's been promoting an anti-vaccine position for years now.
State Farm promotes vaccines as a matter of course, so the fit was found incompatible.
The flap inspired a movie title joke on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson: Deuce Bigalow Gets Polio.
(Actually, the wording was "contracts" polio, but that has too many syllables, so I "fixed" it.)
Rob Schneider's career-making appearances on Saturday Night Live were best known for his portrayal of an annoying character named Richard Laymer, who waxed poetical over office workers using the copy machine in his lonely corner of corporate America.
He apparently now claims he has proof the Centers for Disease Control have been lying about the efficacy and safety of vaccines.
Vaccines, of course, catch a lot of flack, for reasons that go way beyond whatever the vaccine might do or not do.
Some folks don't want to get their daughters immunized from human papillomavirus because they think it sends the message their kids should run out and have a crap-load of sex right away.
Flu vaccines are known to many to "give you the flu," which if true would be ironic. Also, if they get the strains wrong, the flu shot might not help that much against some outlier version of the virus that clobbers the nation. Can't every one of them be winners.
Vaccines against childhood diseases are thought by many to cause autism, though there is no evidence for that. Some versions of the vaccines contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethyl-mercury. This chemical is way different than the methyl-mercury that contaminates fish and by extension people, producing a variety of frightening and long-lasting disabilities.
In fact, it just might be that a revision in the criteria for the diagnosis of autism is mostly to blame for the explosion in cases. That and the idea of the Autism Spectrum, which widens the mouth of the net extensively.
This whole anti-vaccine movement can be seen as a combination of anti-government sentiment (we just know they're lying about stuff, right?) and the notion that Mothers possess a secret (and probably sacred) psychical connection to their offspring that goes far beyond mere space-time dimensions.
Mothers know when their children, however distant, are in trouble. What's more, this supernatural protective force is capable of activating in advance to prevent future troubles.
Mother knows best, they say. I mean, the mothers say.
But mothers are just a subset of all humans, and the fact is, humans tend to have a heightened notion of what they know. (Or what they think they know, which—in the human brain—turns out to be the same thing.)
The big problem is that humans take all this excellent knowledge and control the world with it, mostly through error.
State Farm promotes vaccines as a matter of course, so the fit was found incompatible.
The flap inspired a movie title joke on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson: Deuce Bigalow Gets Polio.
(Actually, the wording was "contracts" polio, but that has too many syllables, so I "fixed" it.)
Rob Schneider's career-making appearances on Saturday Night Live were best known for his portrayal of an annoying character named Richard Laymer, who waxed poetical over office workers using the copy machine in his lonely corner of corporate America.
He apparently now claims he has proof the Centers for Disease Control have been lying about the efficacy and safety of vaccines.
Vaccines, of course, catch a lot of flack, for reasons that go way beyond whatever the vaccine might do or not do.
Some folks don't want to get their daughters immunized from human papillomavirus because they think it sends the message their kids should run out and have a crap-load of sex right away.
Flu vaccines are known to many to "give you the flu," which if true would be ironic. Also, if they get the strains wrong, the flu shot might not help that much against some outlier version of the virus that clobbers the nation. Can't every one of them be winners.
Vaccines against childhood diseases are thought by many to cause autism, though there is no evidence for that. Some versions of the vaccines contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethyl-mercury. This chemical is way different than the methyl-mercury that contaminates fish and by extension people, producing a variety of frightening and long-lasting disabilities.
In fact, it just might be that a revision in the criteria for the diagnosis of autism is mostly to blame for the explosion in cases. That and the idea of the Autism Spectrum, which widens the mouth of the net extensively.
This whole anti-vaccine movement can be seen as a combination of anti-government sentiment (we just know they're lying about stuff, right?) and the notion that Mothers possess a secret (and probably sacred) psychical connection to their offspring that goes far beyond mere space-time dimensions.
Mothers know when their children, however distant, are in trouble. What's more, this supernatural protective force is capable of activating in advance to prevent future troubles.
Mother knows best, they say. I mean, the mothers say.
But mothers are just a subset of all humans, and the fact is, humans tend to have a heightened notion of what they know. (Or what they think they know, which—in the human brain—turns out to be the same thing.)
The big problem is that humans take all this excellent knowledge and control the world with it, mostly through error.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
BOMBS ARE FALLING
So now the bombs are falling on ISIL targets in Syria. A new line has been crossed. Is it going to work?
And by that, I don't just mean: Can the job be done by dropping bombs from U.S. (and other) aircraft and training local fighters to provide the necessary boots on the ground?
There's a bigger issue involved: the so-called War on Terror itself. This activity ("terror") is merely a weapon anyone may pick up and use at any time. All folks need is a reason.
It's classic asymmetrical warfare. You can't take on the enemy in some massive frontal attack, so you jab your knife at the exposed edges. You harass. You annoy. You poke at the Great Satan and do whatever you can. Let Allah grant you his help.
Maybe you can hit a famous building so hard Allah will take it from there and bring the structure to the ground. (In the case of the World Trade Towers, it was something to do with an aviation-fuel fire and a tangle of insufficiently insulated steel beams.)
Rather than clobbering terrorists—before, during, or after an attack—we should consider discovering and short-circuiting the reasons for that attack in the first place.
So why are they attacking us? Why do they hate us?
It's simple: They are deeply religious folk who are defending their religion from attack and scorn.
And yeah, I know, Prime Minister Cameron pointed out ISIL fighters were not true Muslims, that Islam is a religion of peace, that ISIL is lying when they claim a religious reason for their actions.
Nonsense. The man is just raining PC honey on a growing segment of Great Britain. No mainstream politician can afford to be seen as anti-religion, no matter what the religion.
But check this out: No religion whose very name means "submission" can be held entirely blameless if its adherents go on a rampage, looking for a new and wider population to coerce into this holy process. (Or to kill if they refuse.) Ultimately, the radicals want a Global Caliphate: Submission from All.
Christianity is not much better. There is a long and nasty history of worldwide "missionary" work issuing from that particular pack of nonsense.
So how do you stop religious people from acting out, from pressing their case with guns and bombs and steel?
This is a tough one. Humans don't just love their various religions, they are afraid to examine them. (There is literally no way to judge God's response to such an inquiry.) Folks bound up in religions that encourage members to fear God are especially unlikely to look into the details of their beliefs.
(According to the Bible, on one occasion God got so pissed off he murdered everybody on the planet, save eight. You really don't want to offend that guy.)
If you tried to explain to a bunch of religious people the error of their thinking, you could expect them to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la-la-la" until they saw you had stopped talking.
Or they would simply kill you to put an end to the threat of what could be fatal contamination.
Generally, you can't argue people out of their beliefs. Those notions didn't get in there by reason and so can't be removed by that process.
And any attempt to ridicule beliefs would meet with great opposition from Islamists. They appear to be especially touchy in this area. It would be like pouring gasoline on the fire.
Still, this might be a promising area for attack. If you can't utterly destroy a given religion, you may be able to modify certain attitudes within that religion.
(You can, in theory, utterly destroy a religion, but it involves killing [or converting] every member [man, woman, and child], as well as eradicating all sacred texts and artifacts. Even the most rabid Christian missionaries were not able to complete this task in the New World, hard as they tried.)
You can't prove to a Muslim that his religion is false, but maybe you could prove to him the U.S. is not actually in a war against him. Unfortunately, such arguments are becoming more difficult every day and may soon pass the Point of No Return—if they haven't already.
It would be difficult, but perhaps you could get Islamists to mellow out when it comes to "defending" their religion from a myriad of non-lethal and casual threats. How many people were killed because Protestants referred to Catholics as "mackerel snappers"? I would hope not many.
Mild criticism such as the political cartoon in the Danish newspaper (showing Mohammad with a bomb under his turban) should not have caused the furor it did.
On the other hand, those radical Muslims who dream of a Global Caliphate may need to be terminated with prejudice. In fact, they might insist.
In the end, it could take hundreds (or thousands) of years for humans to give up religion altogether.
But don't hold your breath.
Besides, the trouble with religion (or dangerous nonsense of any type) goes much deeper than a simple ignorance of how the universe operates. At base, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the human brain.
Is anybody working on that problem?
And by that, I don't just mean: Can the job be done by dropping bombs from U.S. (and other) aircraft and training local fighters to provide the necessary boots on the ground?
There's a bigger issue involved: the so-called War on Terror itself. This activity ("terror") is merely a weapon anyone may pick up and use at any time. All folks need is a reason.
It's classic asymmetrical warfare. You can't take on the enemy in some massive frontal attack, so you jab your knife at the exposed edges. You harass. You annoy. You poke at the Great Satan and do whatever you can. Let Allah grant you his help.
Maybe you can hit a famous building so hard Allah will take it from there and bring the structure to the ground. (In the case of the World Trade Towers, it was something to do with an aviation-fuel fire and a tangle of insufficiently insulated steel beams.)
Rather than clobbering terrorists—before, during, or after an attack—we should consider discovering and short-circuiting the reasons for that attack in the first place.
So why are they attacking us? Why do they hate us?
It's simple: They are deeply religious folk who are defending their religion from attack and scorn.
And yeah, I know, Prime Minister Cameron pointed out ISIL fighters were not true Muslims, that Islam is a religion of peace, that ISIL is lying when they claim a religious reason for their actions.
Nonsense. The man is just raining PC honey on a growing segment of Great Britain. No mainstream politician can afford to be seen as anti-religion, no matter what the religion.
But check this out: No religion whose very name means "submission" can be held entirely blameless if its adherents go on a rampage, looking for a new and wider population to coerce into this holy process. (Or to kill if they refuse.) Ultimately, the radicals want a Global Caliphate: Submission from All.
Christianity is not much better. There is a long and nasty history of worldwide "missionary" work issuing from that particular pack of nonsense.
So how do you stop religious people from acting out, from pressing their case with guns and bombs and steel?
This is a tough one. Humans don't just love their various religions, they are afraid to examine them. (There is literally no way to judge God's response to such an inquiry.) Folks bound up in religions that encourage members to fear God are especially unlikely to look into the details of their beliefs.
(According to the Bible, on one occasion God got so pissed off he murdered everybody on the planet, save eight. You really don't want to offend that guy.)
If you tried to explain to a bunch of religious people the error of their thinking, you could expect them to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la-la-la" until they saw you had stopped talking.
Or they would simply kill you to put an end to the threat of what could be fatal contamination.
Generally, you can't argue people out of their beliefs. Those notions didn't get in there by reason and so can't be removed by that process.
And any attempt to ridicule beliefs would meet with great opposition from Islamists. They appear to be especially touchy in this area. It would be like pouring gasoline on the fire.
Still, this might be a promising area for attack. If you can't utterly destroy a given religion, you may be able to modify certain attitudes within that religion.
(You can, in theory, utterly destroy a religion, but it involves killing [or converting] every member [man, woman, and child], as well as eradicating all sacred texts and artifacts. Even the most rabid Christian missionaries were not able to complete this task in the New World, hard as they tried.)
You can't prove to a Muslim that his religion is false, but maybe you could prove to him the U.S. is not actually in a war against him. Unfortunately, such arguments are becoming more difficult every day and may soon pass the Point of No Return—if they haven't already.
It would be difficult, but perhaps you could get Islamists to mellow out when it comes to "defending" their religion from a myriad of non-lethal and casual threats. How many people were killed because Protestants referred to Catholics as "mackerel snappers"? I would hope not many.
Mild criticism such as the political cartoon in the Danish newspaper (showing Mohammad with a bomb under his turban) should not have caused the furor it did.
On the other hand, those radical Muslims who dream of a Global Caliphate may need to be terminated with prejudice. In fact, they might insist.
In the end, it could take hundreds (or thousands) of years for humans to give up religion altogether.
But don't hold your breath.
Besides, the trouble with religion (or dangerous nonsense of any type) goes much deeper than a simple ignorance of how the universe operates. At base, there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the human brain.
Is anybody working on that problem?
Thursday, September 18, 2014
FLOATING DEATH, OR: DEATH FROM ABOVE, PART TWO
President Obama's plan to deal with ISIL is drawing a lot of criticism from folks who scoff at our ability to do the job with just air power.
Folks suggest if there are no American boots on the ground, there will be no effective boots from any other source. And no boots, no success.
Training Iraqi soldiers, they say, was unsuccessful in the past and won't work now. In addition, the idea of training "moderate" rebels in Syria to kill ISIL fighters will never work. Plus, they might use our training and weapons against us at some future date.
So, here's my proposal: Boots in the Air.
American boots, that is. Drones (or more properly, dronettes) that can be launched from larger drones. The "mother" drone flies to a battle area, releases a swarm of dronettes, then relays real-time hi-def camera images to guys at consoles in "death" centers nearby (or half a world away). The guys fly the dronettes into action, searching for targets. Control data are relayed by the mother drone to her lethal children.
All you need is a device capable of staying in the air for an hour or so, carrying a quarter pound of C-4 studded with ball bearings and nails. You fly to an ISIL target and explode the dronette. The soldier-pilot goes out for a smoke and a whizz, then cames back in ready to fly a new dronette to a new target.
More sophisticated versions might fire 10mm rockets at targets. (You don't want a lot of recoil in your weapon, so regular guns and bullets might not work.) Figure a few dozen rounds per machine. In a target-rich environment, you might get a chance to expend them all before your fuel runs out.
An even more sophisticated version might illuminate targets with laser light, leading a dozen fire-and-forget rockets to the enemy—all guaranteed hits.
The dronettes would be aware of one another in the sky, jostling slightly to avoid collisions. Ultimately, you could deploy a "pigeon roost" to take in dronettes low in fuel or out of ammo and automatically resupply them with gas and rockets.
The technology to do all this is virtually off-the-shelf right now.
Boots in the Air, baby. Why not?
Folks suggest if there are no American boots on the ground, there will be no effective boots from any other source. And no boots, no success.
Training Iraqi soldiers, they say, was unsuccessful in the past and won't work now. In addition, the idea of training "moderate" rebels in Syria to kill ISIL fighters will never work. Plus, they might use our training and weapons against us at some future date.
So, here's my proposal: Boots in the Air.
American boots, that is. Drones (or more properly, dronettes) that can be launched from larger drones. The "mother" drone flies to a battle area, releases a swarm of dronettes, then relays real-time hi-def camera images to guys at consoles in "death" centers nearby (or half a world away). The guys fly the dronettes into action, searching for targets. Control data are relayed by the mother drone to her lethal children.
All you need is a device capable of staying in the air for an hour or so, carrying a quarter pound of C-4 studded with ball bearings and nails. You fly to an ISIL target and explode the dronette. The soldier-pilot goes out for a smoke and a whizz, then cames back in ready to fly a new dronette to a new target.
More sophisticated versions might fire 10mm rockets at targets. (You don't want a lot of recoil in your weapon, so regular guns and bullets might not work.) Figure a few dozen rounds per machine. In a target-rich environment, you might get a chance to expend them all before your fuel runs out.
An even more sophisticated version might illuminate targets with laser light, leading a dozen fire-and-forget rockets to the enemy—all guaranteed hits.
The dronettes would be aware of one another in the sky, jostling slightly to avoid collisions. Ultimately, you could deploy a "pigeon roost" to take in dronettes low in fuel or out of ammo and automatically resupply them with gas and rockets.
The technology to do all this is virtually off-the-shelf right now.
Boots in the Air, baby. Why not?
Monday, September 15, 2014
DEATH FROM ABOVE
President Obama calls them ISIL, or Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. They used to call themselves ISIS, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Now they call themselves simply the Islamic State.
The name change is crucial.
The Islamic State wants to be the new al-Qaeda. They were originally AQI, or al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were just a splinter group. Now they're looking to be The Group.
Al-Qaeda means the Outpost or the Base. The name is not geographically limited. The Base could be anywhere.
As a name, ISIS (or ISIL) was too limited in scope, anchored to Iraq and the surrounding region.
But the Islamic State? That could be anywhere and everywhere, which is their goal. Ultimately, they want the Islamic State to be worldwide.
Now that al-Qaeda has been decapitated and marginalized, newly radicalized Muslims have to go someplace else. The Islamic State wants to be that someplace else. Now, with the name change, they're properly positioned.
It's estimated they might have 30,000 members. That number can only increase.
In fact, the more of them we kill, the more young men (and women?) will flock in to fill the void. We're about to make them the underdog.
A hero is measured by the size and strength of his opponent. The United States is the Great Satan. We are the biggest and nastiest opponent any hero could ever want.
The more the world sees video of Islamic State pickups disappearing beneath a cloud of dust and explosive destruction, the more angry young men will rush in to avenge the deaths. It's unavoidable.
Every explosion is proof (should any proof be needed) of the War on Islam this country is waging. Muslims are called to defend Islam. As a result, every strike against Islam can only make it stronger. At least, in the short run.
The Islamic State puts out sophisticated recruitment videos showing their triumphs over infidels and non believers. (Killing Shi'ites is okay, because Sunni radicals don't consider them true Muslims.)
Maybe we should be putting out videos of our own. Get Hollywood involved, as we did in WW2.
"Death from Above."
A little something left over from the Vietnam War.
When a member of the Islamic State fires a bullet at your head—or drags his knife across your throat—the fact of your subsequent death is literal proof Allah wanted you dead. After all, nothing happens that is not his will.
We need to suggest that when an Islamic State fighter's machine-gun-toting pickup truck blows up—with no warning; just out of the blue kabloowie—it's the living will of Allah acted out right here on planet Earth.
Death from Above, baby!
And no Star Spangled Banner pumping away on the soundtrack. No Stars and Stripes Forever.
Play Carmina burana by Carl Orff. Play the theme song from the Wrath of God. Make it spooky. Make it supernatural. Make people think twice about joining a group of people that has clearly been targeted by Allah for destruction.
The name change is crucial.
The Islamic State wants to be the new al-Qaeda. They were originally AQI, or al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were just a splinter group. Now they're looking to be The Group.
Al-Qaeda means the Outpost or the Base. The name is not geographically limited. The Base could be anywhere.
As a name, ISIS (or ISIL) was too limited in scope, anchored to Iraq and the surrounding region.
But the Islamic State? That could be anywhere and everywhere, which is their goal. Ultimately, they want the Islamic State to be worldwide.
Now that al-Qaeda has been decapitated and marginalized, newly radicalized Muslims have to go someplace else. The Islamic State wants to be that someplace else. Now, with the name change, they're properly positioned.
It's estimated they might have 30,000 members. That number can only increase.
In fact, the more of them we kill, the more young men (and women?) will flock in to fill the void. We're about to make them the underdog.
A hero is measured by the size and strength of his opponent. The United States is the Great Satan. We are the biggest and nastiest opponent any hero could ever want.
The more the world sees video of Islamic State pickups disappearing beneath a cloud of dust and explosive destruction, the more angry young men will rush in to avenge the deaths. It's unavoidable.
Every explosion is proof (should any proof be needed) of the War on Islam this country is waging. Muslims are called to defend Islam. As a result, every strike against Islam can only make it stronger. At least, in the short run.
The Islamic State puts out sophisticated recruitment videos showing their triumphs over infidels and non believers. (Killing Shi'ites is okay, because Sunni radicals don't consider them true Muslims.)
Maybe we should be putting out videos of our own. Get Hollywood involved, as we did in WW2.
"Death from Above."
A little something left over from the Vietnam War.
When a member of the Islamic State fires a bullet at your head—or drags his knife across your throat—the fact of your subsequent death is literal proof Allah wanted you dead. After all, nothing happens that is not his will.
We need to suggest that when an Islamic State fighter's machine-gun-toting pickup truck blows up—with no warning; just out of the blue kabloowie—it's the living will of Allah acted out right here on planet Earth.
Death from Above, baby!
And no Star Spangled Banner pumping away on the soundtrack. No Stars and Stripes Forever.
Play Carmina burana by Carl Orff. Play the theme song from the Wrath of God. Make it spooky. Make it supernatural. Make people think twice about joining a group of people that has clearly been targeted by Allah for destruction.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
PUNCHING OUT WOMEN
Sometimes it's necessary to punch a woman out.
But not because you find her annoying or clingy or she wants to go dancing when you want to stay home or she burned the toast again at breakfast.
More like: when she's coming at you with an axe in her hands and murder in her eyes. Brother, you are not required by etiquette to take that axe in the face.
Just because she's packing double-X chromosomes doesn't give her the right to kill you.
On the other hand, when murder and maiming is not on the agenda, a guy should keep his hands to himself. For that matter, so should she.
Let's everybody take a breath and step back.
Folks get pumped up. They get heated. They get excited. They get overwrought. It's time to back off.
I've heard it said: "A man should never hit a woman."
That's almost perfectly correct. Better: "Nobody should ever hit anybody."
But we all have a right to defend ourselves. In such a case, the words of every snot-nosed, whiny kid takes on new meaning: "He/she started it!"
If you are attacked, male or female, you should be able to react in an appropriate manner. And yes, the blame goes to the one who started it.
But usually men are bigger, stronger, and tougher than their mates. A little restraint is in order.
If I'm seeing the video right, Ray Rice smacked his fiancee as soon as they got in the elevator. She came at him and he decked her with a left. Her head stuck the railing as she fell. She continued to the floor, out cold. He dragged her unconscious body into the hallway.
Apparently Ray was annoyed at something she did before they got on the elevator. He punished her for it, and that started the fight. When she came at him, he was at best entitled to a gentle push-back. (And maybe not even that.) Clocking the woman was a massive over-reaction.
Janay Rice (she's now his wife) wants everybody to butt out. She says the release of the security footage was intended to embarrass her.
It's a common problem: People are convinced they know what everybody else is thinking, what everybody's secret motives are for their actions.
It's a delusion that seriously complicates life on this planet.
PS: I hope Rice saved up some money. Being out of work can put a lot of stress on a relationship, stress that sometimes breeds domestic violence. They say they're getting counseling. Can they even afford that now?
But not because you find her annoying or clingy or she wants to go dancing when you want to stay home or she burned the toast again at breakfast.
More like: when she's coming at you with an axe in her hands and murder in her eyes. Brother, you are not required by etiquette to take that axe in the face.
Just because she's packing double-X chromosomes doesn't give her the right to kill you.
On the other hand, when murder and maiming is not on the agenda, a guy should keep his hands to himself. For that matter, so should she.
Let's everybody take a breath and step back.
Folks get pumped up. They get heated. They get excited. They get overwrought. It's time to back off.
I've heard it said: "A man should never hit a woman."
That's almost perfectly correct. Better: "Nobody should ever hit anybody."
But we all have a right to defend ourselves. In such a case, the words of every snot-nosed, whiny kid takes on new meaning: "He/she started it!"
If you are attacked, male or female, you should be able to react in an appropriate manner. And yes, the blame goes to the one who started it.
But usually men are bigger, stronger, and tougher than their mates. A little restraint is in order.
If I'm seeing the video right, Ray Rice smacked his fiancee as soon as they got in the elevator. She came at him and he decked her with a left. Her head stuck the railing as she fell. She continued to the floor, out cold. He dragged her unconscious body into the hallway.
Apparently Ray was annoyed at something she did before they got on the elevator. He punished her for it, and that started the fight. When she came at him, he was at best entitled to a gentle push-back. (And maybe not even that.) Clocking the woman was a massive over-reaction.
Janay Rice (she's now his wife) wants everybody to butt out. She says the release of the security footage was intended to embarrass her.
It's a common problem: People are convinced they know what everybody else is thinking, what everybody's secret motives are for their actions.
It's a delusion that seriously complicates life on this planet.
PS: I hope Rice saved up some money. Being out of work can put a lot of stress on a relationship, stress that sometimes breeds domestic violence. They say they're getting counseling. Can they even afford that now?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
SHOOTING UNARMED PEOPLE
Sometimes it's necessary to shoot unarmed people. It all depends on what they're doing at the time.
Say you hear a noise in the middle of the night and you turn on the light to find some guy in your bedroom. You grab your Glock out of the nightstand and point it at him, saying: "Get out or I'll shoot."
You see he's unarmed: no gun, no knife, no frying pan.
You can see he sees your gun.
Even so, with a little grin on his face he starts toward you, calling your bluff.
Shoot him.
Unarmed people who walk smilingly toward a gun are the most dangerous people on the planet. The smile means he's thinking of all the cool things he's going to do to you after he takes that gun away from you.
Shoot the son of a bitch!
You simply cannot let that fellow get close enough to grab your weapon.
Shoot him center of mass. Then run out of there, call 911.
Forget all that crap about putting a knife in his hand. If you were in fear for your life (and you by God should have been), that's all the defense you need.
Shoot him, if you want to live.
And by the way, if the guy says "Don't shoot" as he comes toward you, shoot him anyway. It's just a trick.
Now, if you're on the street in broad daylight and you're a cop, you might have other options. So-called "less than lethal" weapons.
Whether you have time to holster your gun and reach for some other device depends on the situation. If the man is moving toward you, it may be too late. Holstering your weapon might be a signal to the fellow to kick it into high gear.
Fumble with your new, less-than-lethal weapon, you might not have another chance.
Unless some one comes forward with video of the shooting in Missouri, we'll probably never know what actually happened. Everybody has something at stake: the cop, the friend, the more distant witness.
The autopsy shows the guy was hit six times, but that doesn't mean he was shot six times. Some of the wounds might be consistent with multiple wounds by the same bullet: arms hit while protecting the body or face, the bullet passing through.
It would be hard to charge an armed cop without putting your hands in front of you. Yelling "Don't shoot" at the same time might even buy you a half second or so.
Folks do weird stuff in an emergency.
The video of the alleged robbery showed a big fellow using his superior size as a weapon. He menaced the shopkeeper just by walking toward him. If that was in fact the kid who got shot by the cop fifteen minutes later, the events that occurred just before he was stopped might have influenced his attitude.
Would have influenced mine.
Knowing he was about to be arrested might have spurred him to act in a desperate manner. Was his description coming in over the radio at the moment it all went down? If the cop's door was open, the radio volume might well have been enhanced—loud enough for someone outside the vehicle to hear distinctly. They're meant to work that way.
Unfortunately for us all, too many people already know exactly what happened in the middle of that road. At least, they think they do. And that's all the counts on this planet.
Say you hear a noise in the middle of the night and you turn on the light to find some guy in your bedroom. You grab your Glock out of the nightstand and point it at him, saying: "Get out or I'll shoot."
You see he's unarmed: no gun, no knife, no frying pan.
You can see he sees your gun.
Even so, with a little grin on his face he starts toward you, calling your bluff.
Shoot him.
Unarmed people who walk smilingly toward a gun are the most dangerous people on the planet. The smile means he's thinking of all the cool things he's going to do to you after he takes that gun away from you.
Shoot the son of a bitch!
You simply cannot let that fellow get close enough to grab your weapon.
Shoot him center of mass. Then run out of there, call 911.
Forget all that crap about putting a knife in his hand. If you were in fear for your life (and you by God should have been), that's all the defense you need.
Shoot him, if you want to live.
And by the way, if the guy says "Don't shoot" as he comes toward you, shoot him anyway. It's just a trick.
Now, if you're on the street in broad daylight and you're a cop, you might have other options. So-called "less than lethal" weapons.
Whether you have time to holster your gun and reach for some other device depends on the situation. If the man is moving toward you, it may be too late. Holstering your weapon might be a signal to the fellow to kick it into high gear.
Fumble with your new, less-than-lethal weapon, you might not have another chance.
Unless some one comes forward with video of the shooting in Missouri, we'll probably never know what actually happened. Everybody has something at stake: the cop, the friend, the more distant witness.
The autopsy shows the guy was hit six times, but that doesn't mean he was shot six times. Some of the wounds might be consistent with multiple wounds by the same bullet: arms hit while protecting the body or face, the bullet passing through.
It would be hard to charge an armed cop without putting your hands in front of you. Yelling "Don't shoot" at the same time might even buy you a half second or so.
Folks do weird stuff in an emergency.
The video of the alleged robbery showed a big fellow using his superior size as a weapon. He menaced the shopkeeper just by walking toward him. If that was in fact the kid who got shot by the cop fifteen minutes later, the events that occurred just before he was stopped might have influenced his attitude.
Would have influenced mine.
Knowing he was about to be arrested might have spurred him to act in a desperate manner. Was his description coming in over the radio at the moment it all went down? If the cop's door was open, the radio volume might well have been enhanced—loud enough for someone outside the vehicle to hear distinctly. They're meant to work that way.
Unfortunately for us all, too many people already know exactly what happened in the middle of that road. At least, they think they do. And that's all the counts on this planet.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
START HERE
For the last few years I’ve been keeping an eye on
human behavior, and it’s not a pretty picture. I mostly pay attention to
the antics of politicians, since those amusing critters are among the
goofiest. Also, their actions sometimes have an effect on our lives.
I’ve yet to hear a distraught mother claim their dead little brat is in Hell right now, yanking on Satan’s pointy red beard.
Folks seem to think they know stuff. Often, they appear to know stuff that really needs to be categorized as unknowable.
Politicians often claim to know the “real” motives of their rivals, and so feel free to criticize them on the basis of this “fact.”
Republicans, for instance, know President Obama intentionally lied when he told Americans they could keep their current insurance plans under Obamacare. And since they know this “fact,” they have no reason to wonder if maybe Obama was simply too optimistic the insurance companies would not take advantage of the situation by canceling policies and jacking up the price on new ones, a situation the President has no real power to prevent.
But yeah, Obama should have considered this possibility more carefully, along with taking a closer look at the question: Will the friggin’ Website operate properly?
There’s a rule for this, Hanlon’s Razor, which goes: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Here are a few of the things people claim to know (some of them may even be true):
- They know their country is under the protection of God.
- They know Barack Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, born in the shadow of a mullah’s juice box.
- They know there is a vast conspiracy to convert the planet to a One World Government, a process call the “New World Order.”
- They know their religion is the best, and all the others suck.
- They know you can “catch your death of cold” just by getting a chill. (George Washington was bled to death by his doctors when he got a chill.)
- On TV, if you’re outside at night, and you get wet, you’ll be sneezing in the very next scene.
- And while we’re on the subject of medicine, superstitious Africans know you’ll die if they put you in the Ebola isolation hut; relatives drag their loved ones out of there for their own good (often with disastrous results).
- Some white folks know all other races are inferior to theirs.
- Other people still think the world is flat, and that the moon landings were faked.
- A disturbing number of individuals know they’ve been levitated out of their beds into flying saucers, where their poop nozzles were probed by anal-curious space aliens.
- A dangerous number of drunk folk know they’re perfectly capable of driving home from the bar.
- A growing chunk of the world’s population know the United States is waging a war against Islam. And this even before we were tricked by al Qaeda into invading several Muslim countries.
- Most English speakers know the word “forte” (a French word identifying that thing you do best) is pronounced “fortay.” It’s actually pronounced “fort.” Feel free to look it up.
Some of this stuff is decidedly trivial. If a few nutbars want to think the world is flat, let ’em all go to hell – and report back whether or not that place is also flat.
On the other hand, a couple of these goofed-up notions have already gotten a lot of people killed. And it’s only going to get worse.
It’s time to consider what’s going on here, and whether anything can be done to stop it.
Or at least slow it down . . .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)