Oh, good, a nice juicy chunk of political nonsense that doesn't involve Donald Trump!
The latest outrage: a political cartoonist from the Washington Post (Ann Telnaes) depicted Republican hopeful Ted Cruz's young daughters as dancing monkeys.
In the cartoon, Cruz is dressed as a kind of Santa-suited organ grinder; the monkeys are similarly attired. That they are "dancing" probably comes across better in the animated gif version.
Cruz is of course outraged, saying his kids are off limits. In fact, he's so far up on that high horse he's going to need a ladder to get safely down again. He thinks, apparently, the cartoon is about his kids.
He's wrong.
It's about how he turned his kids into dancing monkeys for political gain. If he hadn't done what he did, nobody would even know those monkeys were supposed to be his kids. (They're not labeled.)
The cartoon is in response to a television ad Cruz released that used his kids to attack Hillary Clinton over the "missing emails" flap. The eldest girl even takes on the persona of Clinton, saying she could do whatever she wanted with her personal email server and no one would be the wiser. (Insert bossy finger wagging here.)
I'd be surprised if that kid has developed an opinion of Clinton or the email issue, independent of her dad. And for that reason, it's reasonable to portray her as a monkey on a string, doing the bidding of her organ-grinding father.
The cartoonist could also have portrayed the daughters as marionettes, with Cruz holding the strings. The problem there is that the girls would have to have been drawn to resemble Cruz's kids, so you know who they are and what is going on in the picture. Organ-grinder monkeys are generic and require no further explanation.
On the other hand, the puppet version would have removed the "racist" ammunition from its Republican critics.
Cruz is Hispanic, see, and such people are frequently (and viciously) depicted as monkeys. Apparently. According to Republican critics. Or, at least, according to one particular Republican critic.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist, stretched herself mightily to produce ten reasons why the cartoon was inappropriate.
She appears to see nothing wrong with Cruz's political commercial, calling it "well written and well produced." In fact, she says the very fact it was well written and well produced was the reason some people objected to it.
(Clearly the only folks who might get upset are Democrats afraid the excellent quality of the ad meant it could be used effectively against them.)
Cruz (and Hemingway) see Telnaes's cartoon as merely an attack on the children—and call this unfair. Hemingway points out nearly all politicians use their children in their ads, so the fact Cruz used his does not make them fair game.
The use of the children per se is pretty much their only objection (along with the obvious racist stink about the monkey part).
At no time does Cruz (or Hemingway) recognize that the cartoon is not actually an attack on the children.
(Human beings see what they see and know what they know. You can't change that with dynamite.)
It's true many (most) politicians use their children in their campaign media, but usually they are just there as props in the image that portrays the man's family. They're displayed as living proof the guy possesses sperm and a willingness to use it. (Or, in the case of female politicians, once-viable eggs.)
But this is not what Cruz did. He put his kids to work, with a script, and had them (or at least the eldest one) act out a story skewering his Democratic rival.
We know the cartoon wasn't an attack on the kids because they're not shown as caricatures of themselves. One is bigger than the other, that's all. (Going with the "puppet-on-a-string" version would probably have required some amount of caricaturization.)
The kids are shown as monkeys because Cruz turned them into monkeys. For political gain. That's the point of the cartoon. The attack is on Ted Cruz, not his children.
My conclusion: It's a legitimate cartoon and should not have been removed.
And by the way, if Cruz attempts to use this flap (Cartoon-gate) to raise money, the drawing should be reissued, but now the monkeys are holding out buckets with dollar signs on 'em.
You reap what you sow, Ted.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
CONFIDENCE MAN
I hate the way NASA does their countdown announcement for exotic hardware blasting off into space. They can't just count down to zero and say "lift-off." They have to follow those words with a commercial for the flight: "Three-two-one, liftoff of the blah blah blah mission to explore the blah blah blah in conjunction with blah blah blah."
And so on.
Not a clean announcement of a spacecraft headed outside the atmosphere.
C'mon, NASA, just say "liftoff" and let us enjoy the spectacle in peace. Stop blabbing all over the thing!
But it's a tradition, okay? It's the way they do it. You can't mess with the pattern.
There's a similar tradition with the announcement of beauty pageant winners. They can't just name the winner. They have to pare it down to the final two and let 'em stare at each other until the name of the "first runner-up" is announced.
By process of elimination, we are now supposed to know the woman not mentioned is the actual winner.
In some contests I've seen, they strip out various third, second, and first runners-up, leaving just two contestants standing. One is the winner. The other is the ultimate loser, a woman who's not even a variety of runner-up. She's nothing. She's dog food.
That's gotta hurt.
You may be aware of the glitch at the recent Miss Universe pageant. The show's host, Steve Harvey, got it down to the last pair of ladies, then pronounced one of them the winner. He failed to see the fine print on the inside of the envelope. The one he named, Miss Colombia, was meant to be the first runner-up, not the winner.
All kinds of confusion and embarrassment followed, and so forth. The announced "winner" had to stoop a bit so the crown could be snatched off her head and schlepped over to the "true" winner, Miss Philippines.
The newly de-crowned loser said afterward that everything happens for a reason, so she was okay with the outcome.
Nonsense.
Stuff happening "for a reason" is a staple of the supernatural world, the one thought to be governed by unseen forces (or cosmic personalities).
God, it is supposed, runs the show in his best mysterious fashion, which is why you can't complain.
(I mean, seriously, don't complain. That guy is wired-up wrong and likely to go off on you in the worst way.)
For his part, Donald Trump, who used to own this beauty pageant, said this sort of mistake could never happen if he were in charge.
A ridiculous statement, of course.
The only way he could have prevented Harvey's mistake would be to have a sniper in the rafters, green-lighted to shoot at the first errant quiver of the host's lips. Is he about to say a word starting with a "c" and not the "p" he is supposed to pronounce?
Blam! Off with his head!
Assuming the sniper deal was not Trump's first choice for preventing errors, you'd have to ask what he really had in mind.
And I think I know his answer, based on previous "solutions" he's offered to reporters when they ask how he plans to accomplish his goals: "Good management."
This is not actually a statement about something real. It merely expresses Mr. Trump's confidence in his abilities.
He knows (or thinks he knows) he can do stuff and he wants you to rest assured all is in good hands.
You name it, can he do it? You bet he can! In spades!
That's his message.
His other message: Nobody else can do anything because they're all a bunch of pathetic lying losers.
Good management is harder to define than bad management. It's easier to compile a list of actions not to take if you want success.
Good management is mostly one thing: paying attention.
Or hiring good folks and telling them to pay attention.
Success in one area tends to give you the confidence that you know what you're doing. But success in the real world is never guaranteed.
Stuff happens. Bad stuff. Sometimes spectacularly bad stuff.
Especially when you're dealing with human beings, who are often unpredictable. Or the weather, which is frequently less predictable than folks would like to think, despite all that technology.
Still, confidence can be good. Sometimes it's all you've got. It may keep you from standing paralyzed when things need to be done.
Confidence can also be disastrous. Fools rush in, and so forth. Reality is a tricky bitch.
Hiring a guy who "knows" he has what it takes to get the job done is probably better than kidnapping some guy at random and putting a gun to his head, just to see what he can accomplish for you.
But super-confidence, of the sort Donald Trump waves about so casually, can make a man as dangerous as the fellow with no earthly idea how to get done what folks what him to do.
Super-confidence tends to blind a person to his imperfections.
It can even make the court jester think he's the king.
And so on.
Not a clean announcement of a spacecraft headed outside the atmosphere.
C'mon, NASA, just say "liftoff" and let us enjoy the spectacle in peace. Stop blabbing all over the thing!
But it's a tradition, okay? It's the way they do it. You can't mess with the pattern.
There's a similar tradition with the announcement of beauty pageant winners. They can't just name the winner. They have to pare it down to the final two and let 'em stare at each other until the name of the "first runner-up" is announced.
By process of elimination, we are now supposed to know the woman not mentioned is the actual winner.
In some contests I've seen, they strip out various third, second, and first runners-up, leaving just two contestants standing. One is the winner. The other is the ultimate loser, a woman who's not even a variety of runner-up. She's nothing. She's dog food.
That's gotta hurt.
You may be aware of the glitch at the recent Miss Universe pageant. The show's host, Steve Harvey, got it down to the last pair of ladies, then pronounced one of them the winner. He failed to see the fine print on the inside of the envelope. The one he named, Miss Colombia, was meant to be the first runner-up, not the winner.
All kinds of confusion and embarrassment followed, and so forth. The announced "winner" had to stoop a bit so the crown could be snatched off her head and schlepped over to the "true" winner, Miss Philippines.
The newly de-crowned loser said afterward that everything happens for a reason, so she was okay with the outcome.
Nonsense.
Stuff happening "for a reason" is a staple of the supernatural world, the one thought to be governed by unseen forces (or cosmic personalities).
God, it is supposed, runs the show in his best mysterious fashion, which is why you can't complain.
(I mean, seriously, don't complain. That guy is wired-up wrong and likely to go off on you in the worst way.)
For his part, Donald Trump, who used to own this beauty pageant, said this sort of mistake could never happen if he were in charge.
A ridiculous statement, of course.
The only way he could have prevented Harvey's mistake would be to have a sniper in the rafters, green-lighted to shoot at the first errant quiver of the host's lips. Is he about to say a word starting with a "c" and not the "p" he is supposed to pronounce?
Blam! Off with his head!
Assuming the sniper deal was not Trump's first choice for preventing errors, you'd have to ask what he really had in mind.
And I think I know his answer, based on previous "solutions" he's offered to reporters when they ask how he plans to accomplish his goals: "Good management."
This is not actually a statement about something real. It merely expresses Mr. Trump's confidence in his abilities.
He knows (or thinks he knows) he can do stuff and he wants you to rest assured all is in good hands.
You name it, can he do it? You bet he can! In spades!
That's his message.
His other message: Nobody else can do anything because they're all a bunch of pathetic lying losers.
Good management is harder to define than bad management. It's easier to compile a list of actions not to take if you want success.
Good management is mostly one thing: paying attention.
Or hiring good folks and telling them to pay attention.
Success in one area tends to give you the confidence that you know what you're doing. But success in the real world is never guaranteed.
Stuff happens. Bad stuff. Sometimes spectacularly bad stuff.
Especially when you're dealing with human beings, who are often unpredictable. Or the weather, which is frequently less predictable than folks would like to think, despite all that technology.
Still, confidence can be good. Sometimes it's all you've got. It may keep you from standing paralyzed when things need to be done.
Confidence can also be disastrous. Fools rush in, and so forth. Reality is a tricky bitch.
Hiring a guy who "knows" he has what it takes to get the job done is probably better than kidnapping some guy at random and putting a gun to his head, just to see what he can accomplish for you.
But super-confidence, of the sort Donald Trump waves about so casually, can make a man as dangerous as the fellow with no earthly idea how to get done what folks what him to do.
Super-confidence tends to blind a person to his imperfections.
It can even make the court jester think he's the king.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
AH, CRAP!
Early readers of this morning's post (MORE FROM DONALD J TRUMP) will have noticed the error near the bottom, when I used "nonsecular" instead of "secular."
I made the correction a few minutes later, but a mistake like this leaves a bad taste in my noggin. I hate it when I manage to say exactly the opposite of what I mean to say.
I'm reminded of the TV show Sports Night: one of the anchors suffered the same mental glitch when speaking to (I think) Hillary Clinton. He realized it later, when it was too late and there was nothing he could do about it.
I've found that trying not to make mistakes is not a foolproof method of avoiding them. And still I try.
Trump, on the other hand, makes a lot of mistakes, but can find no fault in them. Mexico sends their rapists, the debate moderator was on the rag, a reporter with a question was "ranting and raving like a madman," Jersey City was packed with celebrating Muslims as the Twin Towers came down, a reporter's neurological disorder is gleefully mimicked (though Trump can't remember meeting the guy). [They definitely had.]
Turns out, if you have a problem with any of Trump's outrageous statements it must be because you heard it wrong. The man stands behind them a hundred percent. And he's not a racist. (He's the least racist fellow anybody every met, or so he thinks.)
I guess all we can hope is that Trump will split from the Republican party, thus handing the election to the Demos. Don't we need at least a little humility in the White House?
I made the correction a few minutes later, but a mistake like this leaves a bad taste in my noggin. I hate it when I manage to say exactly the opposite of what I mean to say.
I'm reminded of the TV show Sports Night: one of the anchors suffered the same mental glitch when speaking to (I think) Hillary Clinton. He realized it later, when it was too late and there was nothing he could do about it.
I've found that trying not to make mistakes is not a foolproof method of avoiding them. And still I try.
Trump, on the other hand, makes a lot of mistakes, but can find no fault in them. Mexico sends their rapists, the debate moderator was on the rag, a reporter with a question was "ranting and raving like a madman," Jersey City was packed with celebrating Muslims as the Twin Towers came down, a reporter's neurological disorder is gleefully mimicked (though Trump can't remember meeting the guy). [They definitely had.]
Turns out, if you have a problem with any of Trump's outrageous statements it must be because you heard it wrong. The man stands behind them a hundred percent. And he's not a racist. (He's the least racist fellow anybody every met, or so he thinks.)
I guess all we can hope is that Trump will split from the Republican party, thus handing the election to the Demos. Don't we need at least a little humility in the White House?
MORE FROM DONALD J TRUMP
The leading Republican candidate for President is famous for proposing to uproot all illegal "Mexicans" in America and dump them on the far side of a humongous wall along our southern border.
Now, following the terror mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Trump has released a new solution: No Muslims would be allowed into this country for pretty much any reason. Okay, maybe heads of state and suchlike, but can we really trust those bastards?
(I'm thinking Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State, need not apply.)
Okay, fine, but remember: One of the two shooters in San Bernardino was American, born and raised. His high-school buddy bought the long guns used in the assault.
Does it make sense to keep Muslim tourists out of the country when the place is already infested with legions of those guys?
You just know ISIS will redouble efforts on social media to radicalize American Muslims, hoping to get them to go into malls and movie theaters to slaughter their fellow citizens.
What better reason to drop a monkey wrench into the thoughts of an otherwise law-abiding Muslim-American than a stigmatizing ban on all Muslim visitors?
Remember, these folks are already steeped in religion, the most unrealistic chunk of nonsense embedded in human life. How hard would it be to push 'em over the edge and into violent jihad?
So maybe Trump should have the American Muslims hold hands with the "Mexicans" as they march toward the one-way gap in that giant wall. Good-bye and good luck.
In the meantime, ISIS is hauling in dough hand over fist, selling black market oil and cultural artifacts raided from ancient ruins and the museums of captured cities. Couldn't they put a little of that wealth to work buying non-religious mercenaries? American-bred thugs already have the weapons and the necessary lack of impulse control.
Trump says he wants his (clearly ineffective) ban on Muslims to give our representatives a chance to figure out "what the hell is going on."
Seriously?
Is it possible Trump has no idea what's going on?
It's transparently simple. The United States (and other countries) have determined that the Islamic State has to go, so we're bombing them and supporting local ground troops in an effort to blast 'em off the face of the earth.
ISIS, for their part, is fighting back with whatever tools at its disposal.
That's it, folks. Simple warfare.
Asymmetrical warfare, to be sure, but not that hard to understand.
Which brings us to gun control, again.
Once more Obama would like to "do something" about the ease with which folks can get guns in this country.
Congress refuses to go along, as usual. They won't even keep guns out of the hands of guys on the no-fly list.
Gun critters are convinced that any attempt to regulate access to guns is the thin edge of a wedge designed to separate all Americans from all guns forever.
They know this is true, pretty much the same way everybody knows everything: automatically and without interference from tedious reasoning.
Being human is great! You don't have to waste even a moment thinking about the stuff you already know to be true. What a relief!
The fact is, restricting legal access to guns might not make that much difference. There are already something like three hundred million guns loose in the country, held in private hands. And 40% of all gun sales are private sales, unregulated and unfettered by liberal meddlers.
A person with an apocalypse-based reason to hump a gun into a venue crowded with soft targets will always be able to get supplied. After all, it's their God-given right.
What to do? Maybe we could try this: Whenever people gather, have a designated shooter ready to defend them. Like the designated driver in every booze party or bar-hopping expedition.
Post a designated shooter near the door, ear cocked for the first hint of the cry "Allahu Akbar."
But remind him or her to be ready to cap any secular gunmen coming through the door.
We still have those, don't forget. Trump's hysterical plan is, unfortunately, far from foolproof.
As usual.
Now, following the terror mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Trump has released a new solution: No Muslims would be allowed into this country for pretty much any reason. Okay, maybe heads of state and suchlike, but can we really trust those bastards?
(I'm thinking Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State, need not apply.)
Okay, fine, but remember: One of the two shooters in San Bernardino was American, born and raised. His high-school buddy bought the long guns used in the assault.
Does it make sense to keep Muslim tourists out of the country when the place is already infested with legions of those guys?
You just know ISIS will redouble efforts on social media to radicalize American Muslims, hoping to get them to go into malls and movie theaters to slaughter their fellow citizens.
What better reason to drop a monkey wrench into the thoughts of an otherwise law-abiding Muslim-American than a stigmatizing ban on all Muslim visitors?
Remember, these folks are already steeped in religion, the most unrealistic chunk of nonsense embedded in human life. How hard would it be to push 'em over the edge and into violent jihad?
So maybe Trump should have the American Muslims hold hands with the "Mexicans" as they march toward the one-way gap in that giant wall. Good-bye and good luck.
In the meantime, ISIS is hauling in dough hand over fist, selling black market oil and cultural artifacts raided from ancient ruins and the museums of captured cities. Couldn't they put a little of that wealth to work buying non-religious mercenaries? American-bred thugs already have the weapons and the necessary lack of impulse control.
Trump says he wants his (clearly ineffective) ban on Muslims to give our representatives a chance to figure out "what the hell is going on."
Seriously?
Is it possible Trump has no idea what's going on?
It's transparently simple. The United States (and other countries) have determined that the Islamic State has to go, so we're bombing them and supporting local ground troops in an effort to blast 'em off the face of the earth.
ISIS, for their part, is fighting back with whatever tools at its disposal.
That's it, folks. Simple warfare.
Asymmetrical warfare, to be sure, but not that hard to understand.
Which brings us to gun control, again.
Once more Obama would like to "do something" about the ease with which folks can get guns in this country.
Congress refuses to go along, as usual. They won't even keep guns out of the hands of guys on the no-fly list.
Gun critters are convinced that any attempt to regulate access to guns is the thin edge of a wedge designed to separate all Americans from all guns forever.
They know this is true, pretty much the same way everybody knows everything: automatically and without interference from tedious reasoning.
Being human is great! You don't have to waste even a moment thinking about the stuff you already know to be true. What a relief!
The fact is, restricting legal access to guns might not make that much difference. There are already something like three hundred million guns loose in the country, held in private hands. And 40% of all gun sales are private sales, unregulated and unfettered by liberal meddlers.
A person with an apocalypse-based reason to hump a gun into a venue crowded with soft targets will always be able to get supplied. After all, it's their God-given right.
What to do? Maybe we could try this: Whenever people gather, have a designated shooter ready to defend them. Like the designated driver in every booze party or bar-hopping expedition.
Post a designated shooter near the door, ear cocked for the first hint of the cry "Allahu Akbar."
But remind him or her to be ready to cap any secular gunmen coming through the door.
We still have those, don't forget. Trump's hysterical plan is, unfortunately, far from foolproof.
As usual.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
SHOOTING IN CHICAGO
Now there are demonstrations in Chicago, following the release of the video of a young black man (Laquan MacDonald) shot by police some thirteen months ago. The family has already been compensated millions of dollars, and the cop (Jason Van Dyke) was recently charged with first-degree murder. (The protests are at least partly about the delay in charging him.)
Van Dyke says (through his lawyer) he was in fear for his life, which was why he discharged his weapon sixteen times from just a dozen feet away. It's said he was reloading when his partner stepped up to kick a knife away from the guy dying on the ground, ending the incident.
Sixteen times. That's a lot of fear.
It's the level of fear you'd expect if the cop was facing a maniac coming at him with a bloody axe.
Or maybe a charging grizzly bear.
I don't know what really happened in this case. Maybe the cop just plain went nuts. On the other hand, I suspect a lot of people know for sure Van Dyke was simply a racist getting his rocks off. (There had been complaints of him using the n-word, but he'd never been disciplined.)
There were five other cops on the scene, none of which fired a round. Maybe that's why there were so many shots from Van Dyke. He was making up for the lack of action from his fellow officers. I don't know.
About the only remaining question—and the one I've heard nobody talk about—is what the cops should have done in this situation.
I assume walking the streets of Chicago with a knife in your hand is illegal, so the cops probably had to do something about the guy. But what?
Something "less-than-lethal" sounds promising.
They could have shot him with a Taser, but that doesn't always work. Recently a guy loaded up on cocaine was Tased an extravagant number of times with little result. (More controversy there—he later died, but probably from the cocaine.)
The cops had no Taser, but according to reports they were waiting on a unit that had one. In the meantime they were trying to corral the guy with the knife, to keep him from walking off.
Another option might have been a bean-bag gun, but the cops didn't have one of those, either. Bean-bag guns are like shotguns, but with special rounds and loads inside. They're usually carried in the trunk of a squad car (maybe a sergeant's car)—when they exist at all. They're pretty rare.
What else? Pepper spray? Something that squirts a tight stream from a safe distance? Maybe. Might just make their guy take off running, though.
Or what about batons? Go up to MacDonald and have at him, try to knock the knife out of his hand. Maybe whack him on the back of the head.
Thing is, I'm not sure all cops get ninja training for dealing with knife guys. Traditionally, cops are more about shooting.
And by shooting, I mean shoot to kill.
Cops are trained to aim at center of mass. They only go for head shots when they suspect the guy is wearing body armor. Shooting knives or guns out of people's hands is a stunt reserved for white-hat TV cowboys from the fifties.
(There was that famous video of a sniper shooting the gun out of the hand of a hostage-holding fellow who was sitting in a chair, dangling the handgun below his knees. Famous and extremely rare.)
Pretty much the only other option would be to just let the guy walk away with the knife in his hand, trust that he wouldn't cause any more trouble down the road.
No doubt the guy's mother would endorse that response. Mothers all know their kids are no threat to anyone for any reason. Their answer is always: Leave the poor guy alone, why don't you?
(Mothers, being human, are just naturally full of crap 24/7.)
The fact is, the cops had been following the young man for some time, after a report of his trying to break into parked cars. He'd refused many times to drop his weapon (a three- or four-inch folding knife), actually using it at one point to slash a tire on a police SUV. The autopsy showed PCP in his system. Realistically, there wasn't a chance in the world those cops were going to let him wander off into the night.
All that said, I hope you get I'm not suggesting Van Dyke acted properly in this case. Sixteen times is way overboard. Some very serious nonsense must have been going on in that guy's head.
Van Dyke's lawyer said—as they always do—when all the facts are known the cop would be exonerated.
(The other back-shooting cop's lawyer said the same thing.)
That's one attorney with his work cut out for him. I can't think of any scenario that would justify this shooting, short of convincing evidence the cop recognized the black kid as a dangerous space alien notorious for taking a lot of rounds without going down.
Not likely to fly, in court. Especially since the majority of bullet hits were delivered with the guy lying on the pavement.
Van Dyke says the young man lunged at him with the knife, but I saw nothing like that on the video. The cop fired just six seconds after getting out of his squad car, MacDonald in the process of walking away.
This incident is yet another example of why the cops need some special tools to handle suspects like MacDonald. Some sort of sticky-tape shooter that wraps the man up like a mummy. Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt.
Not foolproof, of course. Asshole cops will always find a way to abuse any technology. (And there will probably always be asshole cops.) But it has be a better way than what we've got now.
They could've used it on that cocaine-addled guy from a week or so ago. Or on any number of guys, really, from Michael Brown up to now, or going back to Rodney King.
Or going back to everybody. It's a long, long list.
There'd still be outraged public demonstrations, of course. But they'd all be about the use of mummy tape on unarmed (or armed) black guys. And the fellows the cops used it on could play a starring role in the protests.
I'd call that progress.
Van Dyke says (through his lawyer) he was in fear for his life, which was why he discharged his weapon sixteen times from just a dozen feet away. It's said he was reloading when his partner stepped up to kick a knife away from the guy dying on the ground, ending the incident.
Sixteen times. That's a lot of fear.
It's the level of fear you'd expect if the cop was facing a maniac coming at him with a bloody axe.
Or maybe a charging grizzly bear.
I don't know what really happened in this case. Maybe the cop just plain went nuts. On the other hand, I suspect a lot of people know for sure Van Dyke was simply a racist getting his rocks off. (There had been complaints of him using the n-word, but he'd never been disciplined.)
There were five other cops on the scene, none of which fired a round. Maybe that's why there were so many shots from Van Dyke. He was making up for the lack of action from his fellow officers. I don't know.
About the only remaining question—and the one I've heard nobody talk about—is what the cops should have done in this situation.
I assume walking the streets of Chicago with a knife in your hand is illegal, so the cops probably had to do something about the guy. But what?
Something "less-than-lethal" sounds promising.
They could have shot him with a Taser, but that doesn't always work. Recently a guy loaded up on cocaine was Tased an extravagant number of times with little result. (More controversy there—he later died, but probably from the cocaine.)
The cops had no Taser, but according to reports they were waiting on a unit that had one. In the meantime they were trying to corral the guy with the knife, to keep him from walking off.
Another option might have been a bean-bag gun, but the cops didn't have one of those, either. Bean-bag guns are like shotguns, but with special rounds and loads inside. They're usually carried in the trunk of a squad car (maybe a sergeant's car)—when they exist at all. They're pretty rare.
What else? Pepper spray? Something that squirts a tight stream from a safe distance? Maybe. Might just make their guy take off running, though.
Or what about batons? Go up to MacDonald and have at him, try to knock the knife out of his hand. Maybe whack him on the back of the head.
Thing is, I'm not sure all cops get ninja training for dealing with knife guys. Traditionally, cops are more about shooting.
And by shooting, I mean shoot to kill.
Cops are trained to aim at center of mass. They only go for head shots when they suspect the guy is wearing body armor. Shooting knives or guns out of people's hands is a stunt reserved for white-hat TV cowboys from the fifties.
(There was that famous video of a sniper shooting the gun out of the hand of a hostage-holding fellow who was sitting in a chair, dangling the handgun below his knees. Famous and extremely rare.)
Pretty much the only other option would be to just let the guy walk away with the knife in his hand, trust that he wouldn't cause any more trouble down the road.
No doubt the guy's mother would endorse that response. Mothers all know their kids are no threat to anyone for any reason. Their answer is always: Leave the poor guy alone, why don't you?
(Mothers, being human, are just naturally full of crap 24/7.)
The fact is, the cops had been following the young man for some time, after a report of his trying to break into parked cars. He'd refused many times to drop his weapon (a three- or four-inch folding knife), actually using it at one point to slash a tire on a police SUV. The autopsy showed PCP in his system. Realistically, there wasn't a chance in the world those cops were going to let him wander off into the night.
All that said, I hope you get I'm not suggesting Van Dyke acted properly in this case. Sixteen times is way overboard. Some very serious nonsense must have been going on in that guy's head.
Van Dyke's lawyer said—as they always do—when all the facts are known the cop would be exonerated.
(The other back-shooting cop's lawyer said the same thing.)
That's one attorney with his work cut out for him. I can't think of any scenario that would justify this shooting, short of convincing evidence the cop recognized the black kid as a dangerous space alien notorious for taking a lot of rounds without going down.
Not likely to fly, in court. Especially since the majority of bullet hits were delivered with the guy lying on the pavement.
Van Dyke says the young man lunged at him with the knife, but I saw nothing like that on the video. The cop fired just six seconds after getting out of his squad car, MacDonald in the process of walking away.
This incident is yet another example of why the cops need some special tools to handle suspects like MacDonald. Some sort of sticky-tape shooter that wraps the man up like a mummy. Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt.
Not foolproof, of course. Asshole cops will always find a way to abuse any technology. (And there will probably always be asshole cops.) But it has be a better way than what we've got now.
They could've used it on that cocaine-addled guy from a week or so ago. Or on any number of guys, really, from Michael Brown up to now, or going back to Rodney King.
Or going back to everybody. It's a long, long list.
There'd still be outraged public demonstrations, of course. But they'd all be about the use of mummy tape on unarmed (or armed) black guys. And the fellows the cops used it on could play a starring role in the protests.
I'd call that progress.
Monday, November 16, 2015
DON'T PRAY FOR PARIS
I'm not saying you shouldn't sympathize with the French for what happened in Paris on Friday. I'm just pointing out the irony of prayer.
Prayer suggests a target audience—a god of some sort that will process the request and act accordingly.
There's no evidence of such an entity.
The fact is—like the attacks on 9/11—the bloodletting in Paris occurred largely because god exists in the minds of men...and nowhere else.
The guys who perpetrated the attacks acted (and died) in sure and certain hope of a reward in Paradise. They died knowing they were doing god's will.
Praying to god now—for anything—suggests there's a possibility those men were right.
Positing a god who provides men with instructions for action requires you grapple with the possibility that god is not—as usually believed by everyone—on your side.
Otherwise, why did your god permit these attacks? Does god really hate the Parisians? Or does he love them, but wishes them to learn some sort of blood-based lesson?
France is one of the most secular nations of the Eurozone. Were these attacks god's way of criticizing that trend?
Draw your own conclusions.
People know what they know, and they can't be wrong—as far as they know. Every event proves something to somebody. You only have to open your eyes to be rewarded with confirmation that all your closely held notions are correct—whatever they happen to be.
This nifty delusion is what makes us human.
It also makes us the source of unbelievable horror and carnage.
ACTS OF TERROR
I don't think the attacks on Paris were acts of terror. I think they were low-level acts of war. Simple as that.
The Islamic State feels put upon and under attack (and they're right about that). As a result, they're fighting back. They're doing the best they can to right the wrongs they've suffered. As any self-respecting nation will.
If you don't recognize their legal right to do so, what do they care? Their rights don't come from your opinion, they come from god himself. Refute that!
You say they're delusional, but they know they're not. And everything they see proves them right.
Human beings, baby. Ya gotta love 'em.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Individuals with guns and bombs can be killed or otherwise dealt with. Plots can be ferreted out and quashed, at least theoretically.
(The Paris attackers had good "operational security" which made a warning difficult. There are more and more encrypted messaging apps out there. Perhaps in the future only the most inept plotters will be found out ahead of time. All others will be free to spring their attacks from a place of ultimate secrecy.)
Bombing ISIS will galvanize other Muslims to fill the bloody boots of the dead. It's inevitable. But keep it up long enough, who knows: Maybe the flow of volunteers will slow and then stop.
Perhaps, with great effort and expense, ISIS can be wiped out. But other Islamic groups are likely to spring up to carry on the work of creating a global Caliphate. The numbers of the fallen will make this necessary.
Can there be any end to it?
One sure way of preventing future attacks is to eliminate them at the source: humans.
Kill all the humans and this will stop. Guaranteed.
(Unfortunately, it will be hard to know for certain, after we're gone. But since humans are both the perpetrators and the intended targets, I think we can be pretty sure of success. Of course, automated systems might survive us, raining fire upon the empty cities. Entertainment for rats and cockroaches.)
A less decisive action would be to go after the irritant that lies behind a large measure of turmoil on this planet. And I don't mean Islam. (Christianity is also drenched in the blood of its victims.)
I'm talking about the idea of god itself.
Let's be clear. I'm not saying the banishment of this ridiculous and primitive concept will eliminate all forms of conflict on the planet. Folks can still fight over the sovereignty of countries, over ethnic and racial concerns, even over vital resources like water, food, and fire wood.
But at least some of that stuff is demonstrably real.
Please note I'm not proposing an assault on god, merely on the belief in god. If there is such a thing as god—or indeed trillions of well-hidden deities—I presume him or her safe from our puny weapons.
The belief in god, however, is just a notion held by human beings. It's protected by the flimsiest of citadels—the human brain. If nonsense can be created, it can also be destroyed.
You may wonder, would the gods object?
Should one or more gods exist, I suppose they might fight back. Or perhaps they could offer a compromise to apparent extinction. Maybe they could agree to monitor the dodgier results stemming from a belief in god.
Unless, of course, they enjoy our pain.
In that case, all bets are off. The gauntlet is loosed, the real war begun in earnest.
But perhaps the gods will lean back and let it happen, let the belief in their existence be extinguished. After all, only a rather pathetic sort of god would ever admit a desire (let alone a need) to be worshipped. This craven behavior is beneath a deity, after all.
A well-informed and reasonably intelligent god should have no objection to a war mounted against belief in the Unknowable. Such a god might even enjoy the end of all those pesky prayers from the peanut gallery.
Maybe catch up on his reading or something.
On the other hand, maybe god is not only a needy jerk but a passive-aggressive personality. In that case there will be no obvious push-back when we try to eliminate a belief in him.
But after that, everybody goes to hell.
Fair enough. We can only hope hell will be bad. Should we fail in our mission to expunge the notion of a supernatural universe, we'll want to be able to detect the difference between hell and the sort of life cut out for us in a future dominated by runaway religious crap.
Prayer suggests a target audience—a god of some sort that will process the request and act accordingly.
There's no evidence of such an entity.
The fact is—like the attacks on 9/11—the bloodletting in Paris occurred largely because god exists in the minds of men...and nowhere else.
The guys who perpetrated the attacks acted (and died) in sure and certain hope of a reward in Paradise. They died knowing they were doing god's will.
Praying to god now—for anything—suggests there's a possibility those men were right.
Positing a god who provides men with instructions for action requires you grapple with the possibility that god is not—as usually believed by everyone—on your side.
Otherwise, why did your god permit these attacks? Does god really hate the Parisians? Or does he love them, but wishes them to learn some sort of blood-based lesson?
France is one of the most secular nations of the Eurozone. Were these attacks god's way of criticizing that trend?
Draw your own conclusions.
People know what they know, and they can't be wrong—as far as they know. Every event proves something to somebody. You only have to open your eyes to be rewarded with confirmation that all your closely held notions are correct—whatever they happen to be.
This nifty delusion is what makes us human.
It also makes us the source of unbelievable horror and carnage.
ACTS OF TERROR
I don't think the attacks on Paris were acts of terror. I think they were low-level acts of war. Simple as that.
The Islamic State feels put upon and under attack (and they're right about that). As a result, they're fighting back. They're doing the best they can to right the wrongs they've suffered. As any self-respecting nation will.
If you don't recognize their legal right to do so, what do they care? Their rights don't come from your opinion, they come from god himself. Refute that!
You say they're delusional, but they know they're not. And everything they see proves them right.
Human beings, baby. Ya gotta love 'em.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Individuals with guns and bombs can be killed or otherwise dealt with. Plots can be ferreted out and quashed, at least theoretically.
(The Paris attackers had good "operational security" which made a warning difficult. There are more and more encrypted messaging apps out there. Perhaps in the future only the most inept plotters will be found out ahead of time. All others will be free to spring their attacks from a place of ultimate secrecy.)
Bombing ISIS will galvanize other Muslims to fill the bloody boots of the dead. It's inevitable. But keep it up long enough, who knows: Maybe the flow of volunteers will slow and then stop.
Perhaps, with great effort and expense, ISIS can be wiped out. But other Islamic groups are likely to spring up to carry on the work of creating a global Caliphate. The numbers of the fallen will make this necessary.
Can there be any end to it?
One sure way of preventing future attacks is to eliminate them at the source: humans.
Kill all the humans and this will stop. Guaranteed.
(Unfortunately, it will be hard to know for certain, after we're gone. But since humans are both the perpetrators and the intended targets, I think we can be pretty sure of success. Of course, automated systems might survive us, raining fire upon the empty cities. Entertainment for rats and cockroaches.)
A less decisive action would be to go after the irritant that lies behind a large measure of turmoil on this planet. And I don't mean Islam. (Christianity is also drenched in the blood of its victims.)
I'm talking about the idea of god itself.
Let's be clear. I'm not saying the banishment of this ridiculous and primitive concept will eliminate all forms of conflict on the planet. Folks can still fight over the sovereignty of countries, over ethnic and racial concerns, even over vital resources like water, food, and fire wood.
But at least some of that stuff is demonstrably real.
Please note I'm not proposing an assault on god, merely on the belief in god. If there is such a thing as god—or indeed trillions of well-hidden deities—I presume him or her safe from our puny weapons.
The belief in god, however, is just a notion held by human beings. It's protected by the flimsiest of citadels—the human brain. If nonsense can be created, it can also be destroyed.
You may wonder, would the gods object?
Should one or more gods exist, I suppose they might fight back. Or perhaps they could offer a compromise to apparent extinction. Maybe they could agree to monitor the dodgier results stemming from a belief in god.
Unless, of course, they enjoy our pain.
In that case, all bets are off. The gauntlet is loosed, the real war begun in earnest.
But perhaps the gods will lean back and let it happen, let the belief in their existence be extinguished. After all, only a rather pathetic sort of god would ever admit a desire (let alone a need) to be worshipped. This craven behavior is beneath a deity, after all.
A well-informed and reasonably intelligent god should have no objection to a war mounted against belief in the Unknowable. Such a god might even enjoy the end of all those pesky prayers from the peanut gallery.
Maybe catch up on his reading or something.
On the other hand, maybe god is not only a needy jerk but a passive-aggressive personality. In that case there will be no obvious push-back when we try to eliminate a belief in him.
But after that, everybody goes to hell.
Fair enough. We can only hope hell will be bad. Should we fail in our mission to expunge the notion of a supernatural universe, we'll want to be able to detect the difference between hell and the sort of life cut out for us in a future dominated by runaway religious crap.
Monday, November 9, 2015
EMBELLISHMENTS
Now that Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson is running neck and neck with Donald Trump, reports are starting to surface that Carson might have embellished a few points in the life he reported in his book, Gifted Hands.
He says he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, though it turns out he never really applied.
Critics also note there's no such thing as a scholarship to this institution. Folks get in by congressional appointment. In exchange for a free education, students are obligated to a term of military service.
Carson claims to have had a violent temper, that he tried to attack his best friend with a knife.
I don't know the details, but it's been hard to turn up people in Carson's past who have any notion of his violent nature.
Also, the words "tried to attack" suggest there was no actual attack, no blood. Certainly no police report.
Carson could have reacted to these media reports by explaining the discrepancies, perhaps agreeing the words he used were open to another, more exalted interpretation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, he might have said.
In the case of West Point, apparently somebody informed him that with his grades and so forth he'd have no trouble getting a free ride at that school. I have yet to hear who it was who made this prediction. (I haven't read the book.) Was it General Westmoreland?
It doesn't matter. The point is, Carson's response came right out of the Politicians' Playbook: Blame the media for bringing up all this trivial nonsense. Blame them for attempting to assassinate his character.
For a guy running on the "outsider" ticket, this was probably a bad move. Turns out the guy is a politician after all.
At a press conference, Carson suggested the next thing he's going to hear is some kindergarten teacher revealing young Ben peed in his pants.
While no one can be sure that report won't happen, it would not be the same sort of "attack" we've seen so far. What's going on is that certain inaccuracies are being brought to light. Carson is not being accused of failings in a general sense.
(I think we all pee our pants a little from time to time; that equipment is not foolproof.)
Carson shouldn't have to worry about the "peed his pants" story unless he spontaneously issues a claim he never in his life peed his pants. Once he makes such a bizarre statement, however, the gloves come off. Expect the search to begin for that kindergarten teacher with a long memory.
It may be that Carson, like a lot of human beings, simply cannot see the difference between what he said happened and what actually happened.
Far as he's concerned, he's got a good story and he's sticking to it.
Reminds me of why Brian Williams is no longer the anchor of the NBC Nightly News.
It went like this: There was an incident in a war zone--Iraq, 2003. Williams was flying in an Army helicopter that chanced upon another Chinook that had been brought down by RPG fire. In his story, Williams reported the helicopter "in front of us" had been hit. He failed to mention he meant an hour in front his 'copter. After telling the story a couple of times (on Letterman, etc.), those holes jumped the gap from one aircraft to another, miraculously (and dramatically) appearing in the chopper Williams had occupied. For this embellishment, the folks at NBC handed the guy a pretty severe time-out.
Carson's life story is sufficiently amazing at face value. He probably doesn't need to punch it up.
On the other hand, parts of Trump's life story suffer from certain attitude problems.
("My dad gave me a small loan of a million dollars." Perhaps some of Trump's supporters don't see the problem. Others might wish they could use the words "small loan" and "a million dollars" in the same sentence and have it feel just right. Well, guys, maybe someday...)
Ben Carson is at a particular disadvantage. Black folks in this country always have a plausible reason to explain why they're being attacked: racism. This societal failing is very alluring. It explains so much.
Apparently.
No need to look further, right?
The easy path is always wide and inviting. And just as hard to ignore. I don't believe Carson has played that card yet to explain why the media is after him, probably because he doesn't want to sound like a racial victim.
But he was very fast to conclude those guys were after him, not simply applying a little professional scrutiny to his story.
Due diligence, man. It's the sort of thing they do to everybody running for president.
Why ascribe more sinister motives?
He says he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, though it turns out he never really applied.
Critics also note there's no such thing as a scholarship to this institution. Folks get in by congressional appointment. In exchange for a free education, students are obligated to a term of military service.
Carson claims to have had a violent temper, that he tried to attack his best friend with a knife.
I don't know the details, but it's been hard to turn up people in Carson's past who have any notion of his violent nature.
Also, the words "tried to attack" suggest there was no actual attack, no blood. Certainly no police report.
Carson could have reacted to these media reports by explaining the discrepancies, perhaps agreeing the words he used were open to another, more exalted interpretation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, he might have said.
In the case of West Point, apparently somebody informed him that with his grades and so forth he'd have no trouble getting a free ride at that school. I have yet to hear who it was who made this prediction. (I haven't read the book.) Was it General Westmoreland?
It doesn't matter. The point is, Carson's response came right out of the Politicians' Playbook: Blame the media for bringing up all this trivial nonsense. Blame them for attempting to assassinate his character.
For a guy running on the "outsider" ticket, this was probably a bad move. Turns out the guy is a politician after all.
At a press conference, Carson suggested the next thing he's going to hear is some kindergarten teacher revealing young Ben peed in his pants.
While no one can be sure that report won't happen, it would not be the same sort of "attack" we've seen so far. What's going on is that certain inaccuracies are being brought to light. Carson is not being accused of failings in a general sense.
(I think we all pee our pants a little from time to time; that equipment is not foolproof.)
Carson shouldn't have to worry about the "peed his pants" story unless he spontaneously issues a claim he never in his life peed his pants. Once he makes such a bizarre statement, however, the gloves come off. Expect the search to begin for that kindergarten teacher with a long memory.
It may be that Carson, like a lot of human beings, simply cannot see the difference between what he said happened and what actually happened.
Far as he's concerned, he's got a good story and he's sticking to it.
Reminds me of why Brian Williams is no longer the anchor of the NBC Nightly News.
It went like this: There was an incident in a war zone--Iraq, 2003. Williams was flying in an Army helicopter that chanced upon another Chinook that had been brought down by RPG fire. In his story, Williams reported the helicopter "in front of us" had been hit. He failed to mention he meant an hour in front his 'copter. After telling the story a couple of times (on Letterman, etc.), those holes jumped the gap from one aircraft to another, miraculously (and dramatically) appearing in the chopper Williams had occupied. For this embellishment, the folks at NBC handed the guy a pretty severe time-out.
Carson's life story is sufficiently amazing at face value. He probably doesn't need to punch it up.
On the other hand, parts of Trump's life story suffer from certain attitude problems.
("My dad gave me a small loan of a million dollars." Perhaps some of Trump's supporters don't see the problem. Others might wish they could use the words "small loan" and "a million dollars" in the same sentence and have it feel just right. Well, guys, maybe someday...)
Ben Carson is at a particular disadvantage. Black folks in this country always have a plausible reason to explain why they're being attacked: racism. This societal failing is very alluring. It explains so much.
Apparently.
No need to look further, right?
The easy path is always wide and inviting. And just as hard to ignore. I don't believe Carson has played that card yet to explain why the media is after him, probably because he doesn't want to sound like a racial victim.
But he was very fast to conclude those guys were after him, not simply applying a little professional scrutiny to his story.
Due diligence, man. It's the sort of thing they do to everybody running for president.
Why ascribe more sinister motives?
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
BUILDING THE GUN WALL AND OTHER IMPRACTICAL PROJECTS
Mr. Trump famously wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. He says: "We either have a border or we don't."
Well, at least he gives us a choice.
I think the answer is this: We don't have a border.
Because if by border you mean a line you can't cross without permission, then no country has a border.
Of course some lines are harder to cross than others, but they're all quite crossable. It's just a matter of putting up the right level of resources.
In olden times, rural prisons had what they called the "dead line." If a prisoner crossed that line, he would be shot dead. Simple as that.
Far as I know, Trump hasn't mentioned arming the Wall.
But he does plan to round up everybody in the country who doesn't belong here legally. Ejected people could then join the queue on the far side of the Wall and petition to get back in.
Critics say rounding up all those people—and there are millions and millions of them—would be a logistical nightmare. Add to that, many of the "illegal" adults have legal children—citizens of the U.S. by virtue of their birth here.
(Trump would like to plug that loophole, too.)
In any case, he says the whole family must be deported, including the legal members. Maybe that would make it easier for some of them to get back in at a later date.
Speaking of logistical nightmares, here's another one: Rounding up all the guns in this country.
Every time some whack-job goes into a school with a knapsack full of guns and ammo, gun owners gird themselves for an assault on their Second Amendment rights.
For them, every adjustment of the term "legal weapon" is the thin edge of a wedge that threatens to separate them from all their guns.
Though the vast majority of Americans support stricter background checks for folks seeking to buy a gun, a rabid fringe of the NRA sees this as just another attempt to confiscate all weapons from all people.
If the law says crazy people can't own guns, who gets to say who's crazy and who's not? Maybe in the future the desire to own a gun will be defined as "crazy."
Consequently, for NRA true believers, every road leads to total confiscation.
Give a human being a little push, and he almost always ends up at the farthest edges of imagined horror. Fortunately, whatever you imagine can be used as a legitimate argument against whatever it is you're fighting.
Gun owners like to point out the possession of guns prevents governmental tyranny. They'll say stuff like: If the Jews had been armed, there would have been no Holocaust.
Nonsense.
Cops routinely round up armed criminals, usually just before dawn, in well-planned raids employing overwhelming force. As a result, our prisons are overstocked with bad guys whose guns did them no good when the time came.
Oddly, a program to arm German Jews might have ended in world domination—by the Nazis.
(Armed Jews would have meant the authorities needed more effort to grab 'em up, a complicated process that might have delayed the start of the war, giving the German military more time to prepare. Hand the soldiers another five or ten years to get ready, they might have gone all the way. In this scenario, Nevil Chamberlain becomes the hero of World War Two. His appeasement of Hitler gave the lunatic the confidence to start the war early, before he'd amassed enough men and equipment to make it to the end. But I digress.)
Here's the problem for the "more background check" people: That guy behind the Oregon college shooting owned more than a dozen guns, all purchased legally. His background was checked, and he was found worthy.
School shootings come in clusters, like teen suicides. Think of the decay of radioactive materials: You know a certain number of nuclei are going to eject an alpha particle, you just can't predict which ones.
No question, guys: There will be more shootings.
Confiscating all guns in this country might prevent shooters from having their way, but it wouldn't stop lunatics armed with framing hammers and gasoline or whatever came to hand when the urge hit them.
Fact is, a determined man could do a lot of damage with a good pair of motorcycle boots.
As long as human beings are willing to act on the nonsense that rolls around inside their noggins, there will be murder and mass killings.
And the gun nuts are right: If everybody in that college classroom had been armed, there would have been fewer deaths. On the other hand, arming everybody all the time is just as impractical as disarming everybody forever.
Does that mean nothing can be done?
Here's a modest proposal: Teach gun safety in school—and be ever on the look-out for signs of aberrant behavior among students. Vet those guys from an early age, redoubling your efforts in the teen years, when schizophrenia tends to crop up.
We also need to do a better job clamping down on bullies—those guys carry the school-shooting germ into our society. Just as bullies at work (including management) help create workplace shootings.
Or maybe we need some sort of TSA-like screening in every place where monsters and victims congregate.
It's the cost of doing business as human beings in an overcrowded world.
Well, at least he gives us a choice.
I think the answer is this: We don't have a border.
Because if by border you mean a line you can't cross without permission, then no country has a border.
Of course some lines are harder to cross than others, but they're all quite crossable. It's just a matter of putting up the right level of resources.
In olden times, rural prisons had what they called the "dead line." If a prisoner crossed that line, he would be shot dead. Simple as that.
Far as I know, Trump hasn't mentioned arming the Wall.
But he does plan to round up everybody in the country who doesn't belong here legally. Ejected people could then join the queue on the far side of the Wall and petition to get back in.
Critics say rounding up all those people—and there are millions and millions of them—would be a logistical nightmare. Add to that, many of the "illegal" adults have legal children—citizens of the U.S. by virtue of their birth here.
(Trump would like to plug that loophole, too.)
In any case, he says the whole family must be deported, including the legal members. Maybe that would make it easier for some of them to get back in at a later date.
Speaking of logistical nightmares, here's another one: Rounding up all the guns in this country.
Every time some whack-job goes into a school with a knapsack full of guns and ammo, gun owners gird themselves for an assault on their Second Amendment rights.
For them, every adjustment of the term "legal weapon" is the thin edge of a wedge that threatens to separate them from all their guns.
Though the vast majority of Americans support stricter background checks for folks seeking to buy a gun, a rabid fringe of the NRA sees this as just another attempt to confiscate all weapons from all people.
If the law says crazy people can't own guns, who gets to say who's crazy and who's not? Maybe in the future the desire to own a gun will be defined as "crazy."
Consequently, for NRA true believers, every road leads to total confiscation.
Give a human being a little push, and he almost always ends up at the farthest edges of imagined horror. Fortunately, whatever you imagine can be used as a legitimate argument against whatever it is you're fighting.
Gun owners like to point out the possession of guns prevents governmental tyranny. They'll say stuff like: If the Jews had been armed, there would have been no Holocaust.
Nonsense.
Cops routinely round up armed criminals, usually just before dawn, in well-planned raids employing overwhelming force. As a result, our prisons are overstocked with bad guys whose guns did them no good when the time came.
Oddly, a program to arm German Jews might have ended in world domination—by the Nazis.
(Armed Jews would have meant the authorities needed more effort to grab 'em up, a complicated process that might have delayed the start of the war, giving the German military more time to prepare. Hand the soldiers another five or ten years to get ready, they might have gone all the way. In this scenario, Nevil Chamberlain becomes the hero of World War Two. His appeasement of Hitler gave the lunatic the confidence to start the war early, before he'd amassed enough men and equipment to make it to the end. But I digress.)
Here's the problem for the "more background check" people: That guy behind the Oregon college shooting owned more than a dozen guns, all purchased legally. His background was checked, and he was found worthy.
School shootings come in clusters, like teen suicides. Think of the decay of radioactive materials: You know a certain number of nuclei are going to eject an alpha particle, you just can't predict which ones.
No question, guys: There will be more shootings.
Confiscating all guns in this country might prevent shooters from having their way, but it wouldn't stop lunatics armed with framing hammers and gasoline or whatever came to hand when the urge hit them.
Fact is, a determined man could do a lot of damage with a good pair of motorcycle boots.
As long as human beings are willing to act on the nonsense that rolls around inside their noggins, there will be murder and mass killings.
And the gun nuts are right: If everybody in that college classroom had been armed, there would have been fewer deaths. On the other hand, arming everybody all the time is just as impractical as disarming everybody forever.
Does that mean nothing can be done?
Here's a modest proposal: Teach gun safety in school—and be ever on the look-out for signs of aberrant behavior among students. Vet those guys from an early age, redoubling your efforts in the teen years, when schizophrenia tends to crop up.
We also need to do a better job clamping down on bullies—those guys carry the school-shooting germ into our society. Just as bullies at work (including management) help create workplace shootings.
Or maybe we need some sort of TSA-like screening in every place where monsters and victims congregate.
It's the cost of doing business as human beings in an overcrowded world.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
TRUMPS OF DOOM
Donald Trump's time as front runner seems to be over, this in spite of his closest rival's anti-Muslim stumble.
It's probably for the best, really.
Trump is a loud mouth bully, in public. It may be we've had hotheads in the office of President before, just as we've had other human types: drunks, paranoids, depressives, leches.
Generally, however, our top leaders have seen fit to indulge themselves only in private. There's no indication Trump will rein himself in just because he's standing in front of a Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel.
Trump seems to see things differently than the rest of us.
When Univision anchor Jorge Ramos tried to ask him a question at a press conference, Trump repeatedly told the man to sit down. He even had the guy removed (at least temporarily). Asked about it later Trump characterized the fellow as "ranting and raving like a madman." Is that what you saw?
More importantly, does Trump honestly think it happened that way?
Trump shoots off his mouth repeatedly, then backs off and blames the listener for misinterpreting his remarks. He seems to have no verbal control whatsoever.
Does he simply talk that way, or is that his honest take on events? Does he say what he thinks, then, when his people point out his political gaff, is forced to backpedal?
Drama queen or delusional?
Either way, can he be allowed to front this country, with his self-satisfied Mussolini-like nod to the adoring crowds? (That Mussolini thing didn't work out so well for him or his country--though he did, for a while, make Italy great again.)
A while back one of Trump's fawning supporters stood up to ask about our training foreign fighters in dangerous parts of the world. He prefaced his question (for some reason) by pointing out we all know Obama is a Muslim--as well as a foreigner.
As Trump listened to the prefacing remarks, he nodded and muttered "right," apparently agreeing to the assertion of Obama as Muslim.
As for the question of Obama's foreign birth, Trump will now only say he no longer talks about that. He clearly is convinced Obama was born in Kenya, but doesn't want to get in trouble for saying so.
And he's not alone. A recent CNN poll found that 28% of Republicans think Obama is not a U.S. citizen by birth, a situation which, if true, would disqualify him for the office of President.
Forty-three percent think the man is Muslim.
Among Democrats, that number drops to 15%.
(Independents take the middle ground: only 29% think Obama is Muslim.)
For himself, Obama says he didn't grow up Christian, but chose to be one as an adult.
Frankly, I find that troubling. I can see how a child indoctrinated with that nonsense can live into adulthood without shaking it loose. But what does it say when a grownup consciously chooses it from the smorgasbord of religious poop? Doesn't Obama realize Christianity is an end-of-the-world cult that has for two thousand years failed to perform its mission?
As for Republicans, maybe thinking Obama is Muslim gives them cover to hate the man for something other than being black. Might not be PC, but it's definitely an improvement.
TRUMP'S WALL
The man is now famous for wanting to oust all illegals and, to keep them out, put up an enormous wall along our border with Mexico
Which he will some how force Mexico to pay for.
I've heard others mention a companion wall along the Canadian border. That makes sense. When one route is blocked, folks look for another way to get where they want to go.
And let's not neglect America's coastline. The Coast Guard is kept busy in California and Florida dealing with folks arriving in small boats. (And submarines.)
Clearly, what we need is a dome. America needs to be put under glass, hermetically sealed, wrapped in a cocoon of translucent Kevlar.
Better: Stealth mode. Make the country disappear beneath an invisible dome.
After a while, the "huddled masses" will stop even trying to find their way into what will become a mythical sanctuary. Eventually, people may forget there ever was a real America.
Now that's safety from intrusion!
C'mon, Mr. Trump, don't just make America Great Again.
Make America Fabled!
It's probably for the best, really.
Trump is a loud mouth bully, in public. It may be we've had hotheads in the office of President before, just as we've had other human types: drunks, paranoids, depressives, leches.
Generally, however, our top leaders have seen fit to indulge themselves only in private. There's no indication Trump will rein himself in just because he's standing in front of a Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel.
Trump seems to see things differently than the rest of us.
When Univision anchor Jorge Ramos tried to ask him a question at a press conference, Trump repeatedly told the man to sit down. He even had the guy removed (at least temporarily). Asked about it later Trump characterized the fellow as "ranting and raving like a madman." Is that what you saw?
More importantly, does Trump honestly think it happened that way?
Trump shoots off his mouth repeatedly, then backs off and blames the listener for misinterpreting his remarks. He seems to have no verbal control whatsoever.
Does he simply talk that way, or is that his honest take on events? Does he say what he thinks, then, when his people point out his political gaff, is forced to backpedal?
Drama queen or delusional?
Either way, can he be allowed to front this country, with his self-satisfied Mussolini-like nod to the adoring crowds? (That Mussolini thing didn't work out so well for him or his country--though he did, for a while, make Italy great again.)
A while back one of Trump's fawning supporters stood up to ask about our training foreign fighters in dangerous parts of the world. He prefaced his question (for some reason) by pointing out we all know Obama is a Muslim--as well as a foreigner.
As Trump listened to the prefacing remarks, he nodded and muttered "right," apparently agreeing to the assertion of Obama as Muslim.
As for the question of Obama's foreign birth, Trump will now only say he no longer talks about that. He clearly is convinced Obama was born in Kenya, but doesn't want to get in trouble for saying so.
And he's not alone. A recent CNN poll found that 28% of Republicans think Obama is not a U.S. citizen by birth, a situation which, if true, would disqualify him for the office of President.
Forty-three percent think the man is Muslim.
Among Democrats, that number drops to 15%.
(Independents take the middle ground: only 29% think Obama is Muslim.)
For himself, Obama says he didn't grow up Christian, but chose to be one as an adult.
Frankly, I find that troubling. I can see how a child indoctrinated with that nonsense can live into adulthood without shaking it loose. But what does it say when a grownup consciously chooses it from the smorgasbord of religious poop? Doesn't Obama realize Christianity is an end-of-the-world cult that has for two thousand years failed to perform its mission?
As for Republicans, maybe thinking Obama is Muslim gives them cover to hate the man for something other than being black. Might not be PC, but it's definitely an improvement.
TRUMP'S WALL
The man is now famous for wanting to oust all illegals and, to keep them out, put up an enormous wall along our border with Mexico
Which he will some how force Mexico to pay for.
I've heard others mention a companion wall along the Canadian border. That makes sense. When one route is blocked, folks look for another way to get where they want to go.
And let's not neglect America's coastline. The Coast Guard is kept busy in California and Florida dealing with folks arriving in small boats. (And submarines.)
Clearly, what we need is a dome. America needs to be put under glass, hermetically sealed, wrapped in a cocoon of translucent Kevlar.
Better: Stealth mode. Make the country disappear beneath an invisible dome.
After a while, the "huddled masses" will stop even trying to find their way into what will become a mythical sanctuary. Eventually, people may forget there ever was a real America.
Now that's safety from intrusion!
C'mon, Mr. Trump, don't just make America Great Again.
Make America Fabled!
Saturday, September 26, 2015
FACING THE REAL HEAT
Pope Francis is visiting America right now. It's clear from his speeches he's concerned about how we humans live on this planet, decrying our "selfish and boundless thirst" for money, among other failings.
He's also worried about the future of the world, urging countries to work to curb Global Warming.
I find that last part odd.
No Catholic—no Christian of any stripe—should give a crap about the world of the future. Instead, when the subject comes up, they should shake their heads and say, "What future?"
After all, Christianity began as an end-of-the-world cult.
"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
That was the message delivered by Jesus of Nazareth. Identical (in the King James version) to the words of John the Baptist.
Get your house in order, those guys are saying. This worldly scaffold is about to be yanked out from under your feet by God himself.
Game over, man!
According to the Gospels there would be signs of the approaching cataclysm, but the actual event would come as a surprise. Like a thief in the night.
One major-league sign had to have been the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Shortly after that depressing event we find the creation of the stories that came to be known as the New Testament, stories which laid out the prediction of the end of the world. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Logically, the world as we know it should simply not have survived the fall of the Second Temple. And yet, here we are. Hanging on by a thread, as usual.
And the Bishop of Rome is worried Climate Change will make life difficult for us humans in the years and centuries to come.
Did I miss the memo? Did the Catholic Church give in to the pressure of reality and abandon the central message of its Holy Redeemer? Recall the fellow's words at the end of the Book of Revelation: "Surely I come quickly."
In the ancient world, Christians were persecuted in some measure because they refused to participate in the community around them. They claimed it was unnecessary to get involved, owing to the world's eminent destruction.
Even today there are Christian congregations (mostly of the Born Again variety) that madly wave predictions of the end of the world. Several groups, Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses, evolved (directly or indirectly) from the failed Millerite sect in the 1840s—an End of the World movement that came a cropper.
(Let's face it—they all do.)
For years the Watchtower folks used to recalculate the onset of End of Days. I think they've stopped doing that, at least, officially.
Picking up their fallen banner, other Christian groups emerge from time to time, armed with the Date Certain. They shine in the media for a moment, then fade back into the woodwork when it turns out their prediction fails to perform with the promised finality.
For its part, the Catholic Church hasn't been talking up the End of the World, which is a major shift from the early days. Is this a tacit admission its foundation is on shaky ground?
Based, as it is, on notions since proven to be nonsense, Christianity has got to be one of the flimsiest of the world's major religions. Fortunately, the Christian church is packed wall-to-wall with human beings, and those folks have no problem adjusting their unalterable doctrine to new circumstances.
(Usually, they don't even know they're doing it.)
But there are other ways of smoothing things out. I've heard of a Christian group that thinks the world did end in the first century A.D., just as Jesus said it would. (I find that concept hard to reconcile with my perception of so-called reality. How 'bout you?)
According to science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick there was no actual failure to fulfil a first century apocalypse because we're still in the first century. He suggests the modern world we see about us is an illusion.
How would that work?
I suppose it could be like the famous story by Ambrose Bierce ("An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"), where a hanged man hallucinates an escape from his executioners and a reunion with his beautiful wife, all in the brief time it took him to drop through the slack in the rope that broke his neck.
(By the way: Spoiler alert!)
Perhaps we've been dropping through the slack for two thousand years now. And yeah, when the shock finally hits, it will come like a thief in the night.
(It certainly did to Peyton Farquhar!)
The Pope, at least, seems unconcerned.
On the other hand, he does ask virtually everybody he meets to pray for him. Is the man hedging his bets?
He's also worried about the future of the world, urging countries to work to curb Global Warming.
I find that last part odd.
No Catholic—no Christian of any stripe—should give a crap about the world of the future. Instead, when the subject comes up, they should shake their heads and say, "What future?"
After all, Christianity began as an end-of-the-world cult.
"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
That was the message delivered by Jesus of Nazareth. Identical (in the King James version) to the words of John the Baptist.
Get your house in order, those guys are saying. This worldly scaffold is about to be yanked out from under your feet by God himself.
Game over, man!
According to the Gospels there would be signs of the approaching cataclysm, but the actual event would come as a surprise. Like a thief in the night.
One major-league sign had to have been the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Shortly after that depressing event we find the creation of the stories that came to be known as the New Testament, stories which laid out the prediction of the end of the world. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Logically, the world as we know it should simply not have survived the fall of the Second Temple. And yet, here we are. Hanging on by a thread, as usual.
And the Bishop of Rome is worried Climate Change will make life difficult for us humans in the years and centuries to come.
Did I miss the memo? Did the Catholic Church give in to the pressure of reality and abandon the central message of its Holy Redeemer? Recall the fellow's words at the end of the Book of Revelation: "Surely I come quickly."
In the ancient world, Christians were persecuted in some measure because they refused to participate in the community around them. They claimed it was unnecessary to get involved, owing to the world's eminent destruction.
Even today there are Christian congregations (mostly of the Born Again variety) that madly wave predictions of the end of the world. Several groups, Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses, evolved (directly or indirectly) from the failed Millerite sect in the 1840s—an End of the World movement that came a cropper.
(Let's face it—they all do.)
For years the Watchtower folks used to recalculate the onset of End of Days. I think they've stopped doing that, at least, officially.
Picking up their fallen banner, other Christian groups emerge from time to time, armed with the Date Certain. They shine in the media for a moment, then fade back into the woodwork when it turns out their prediction fails to perform with the promised finality.
For its part, the Catholic Church hasn't been talking up the End of the World, which is a major shift from the early days. Is this a tacit admission its foundation is on shaky ground?
Based, as it is, on notions since proven to be nonsense, Christianity has got to be one of the flimsiest of the world's major religions. Fortunately, the Christian church is packed wall-to-wall with human beings, and those folks have no problem adjusting their unalterable doctrine to new circumstances.
(Usually, they don't even know they're doing it.)
But there are other ways of smoothing things out. I've heard of a Christian group that thinks the world did end in the first century A.D., just as Jesus said it would. (I find that concept hard to reconcile with my perception of so-called reality. How 'bout you?)
According to science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick there was no actual failure to fulfil a first century apocalypse because we're still in the first century. He suggests the modern world we see about us is an illusion.
How would that work?
I suppose it could be like the famous story by Ambrose Bierce ("An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"), where a hanged man hallucinates an escape from his executioners and a reunion with his beautiful wife, all in the brief time it took him to drop through the slack in the rope that broke his neck.
(By the way: Spoiler alert!)
Perhaps we've been dropping through the slack for two thousand years now. And yeah, when the shock finally hits, it will come like a thief in the night.
(It certainly did to Peyton Farquhar!)
The Pope, at least, seems unconcerned.
On the other hand, he does ask virtually everybody he meets to pray for him. Is the man hedging his bets?
Monday, September 14, 2015
FEELING THE HEAT
Depending on your age, I think you can expect Climate Change to have an impact on your life. Either from the thing itself (formerly called Global Warming), or from attempts to do something about it.
This impact may come in the form of actual weather: hotter summers, more violent storms, rising ocean levels, and so forth.
Or it may come in the form of job or life changes: getting fired off that polluting job, finding yourself with a new job with an improved carbon footprint.
And that goes whether or not you believe in the premise of Climate Change. (There's a lot of debate, though most of it takes place between civilians, not scientists.)
One of the big questions batted about: Are humans responsible for causing Global Warming?
That sounds like a fun question, but you can forget it. Doesn't matter (probably) whether we're responsible or not.
There are but four questions that count:
1. Is Climate Change really happening?
2. If it's happening, is it a bad thing?
3. If it's bad, is there anything we can do to change it?
4. Should we try to change it?
In answering question number three, we might touch on our responsibility for Climate Change. A new question: If we're doing something that's making it happen, can we reverse the process by simply not doing that thing anymore?
It may turn out we are responsible, but just stopping the bad thing we're doing won't have much impact on it. Or, reversing our bad ways will fix the problem, but not in the time frame necessary. (We took a long time to make things bad; it might take even longer to fix it.)
Ignoring the most controversial question ("Did we create the problem?") may have a good effect. It may turn out the solution lies in another direction, some brand-new technology that might get overlooked if we concentrate on merely revising our current habits.
Also, obsessing over our past technological mistakes (if we are to blame—and let's face it, we probably are) might make us shy away from any form of technology, even though it could actually fix the problem.
Folks thinking: It's demon-monster technology that got us into this mess, so let's move away from all that. We need to try something "spiritual" now. (Or some such crap.)
Could be fatal thinking.
For instance, if we had the technology to scrub carbon from our smoke stacks and tail pipes, it might work so well folks would be encouraged to gas-up and go! (Until we finally deplete petroleum resources.)
Or maybe some new kind of coal-fired machinery will do the trick. We'd never find out if the technology thought police prevented us from even looking into it.
It may turn out there is no solution to Climate Change, only ways of adapting to it. Canada will have a longer growing season, and that's good for them. Maybe those guys should be encouraged to come up with a coping mechanism the rest of us can endorse.
(Getting humans well away from an actively shrinking coastline might do wonders for the health of the oceans. We just need coral reefs that can handle the warmer water.)
Of course, all the debate over what exactly to do about Climate Change is lost on those folks who deny it's happening at all. Forget the question of man's involvement. Forget even the possibility this is a natural phenomenon we need to give in to and learn to enjoy.
These folks take the amazing position nothing at all is happening.
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling most of these head-in-the-sand guys are religious. And I get the feeling they deny Climate Change because it's not mentioned in the Bible—and therefore can't be real.
Which brings me to one of my favorite hypothetical questions for religious folks: If you had to choose, would you rather worship God or the Bible?
There could be a perfectly fine god presiding over a universe in which the Bible is just another book full of nonsense written by deluded human beings. In fact, I would argue one could end up with an even better god than the jerk described in the Old Testament, the sort of self-righteous a-hole you literally have to fear.
(But maybe religious folk think fearing god is a natural—and necessary—part of the package.)
Defending a belief in any god is very difficult. Defending a belief in a literal Bible has got to be virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, Global Warming offers a great opportunity to devout Christians. What an excellent Sign of the Coming Apocalypse! All of a sudden the whole damned (well, mostly damned) planet is going haywire!
Bible thumpers should be in the forefront, promoting Climate Change, stirring up hope for a fast-approaching End.
But maybe if they did that more people would take the problem seriously—and be scared enough to do something about it. That's the last thing Christians need, for their wonderful Sign of End-times to wink out under a barrage of unholy solutions.
Without a clear sign, Jesus might never come back.
Anyway, that's the way the human mind works. When the world presents you with evidence that contradicts what you "know" to be true, just ignore it.
And if you can't ignore it, deny this evidence has any impact on the contents of your perfect noggin.
And if that doesn't work, you can always lash out and punish the evildoers for waving the evidence in your face.
Or change the subject.
Forget Climate Change, guys! What about Iran getting the atom bomb? Why isn't anybody talking about that?
And so forth.
But don't worry. A proper human being is unlikely to notice any evidence that challenges the truth packed so haphazardly into his or her brain. Chances are it's going to be business as usual, all the time, right to the end.
We're just lucky that way.
[There's more about human thinking and the disaster of religion in the book What's Wrong With Us, available in Kindle ebook format. Double-click the cover image on the right to go to Amazon and download a free sample.]
This impact may come in the form of actual weather: hotter summers, more violent storms, rising ocean levels, and so forth.
Or it may come in the form of job or life changes: getting fired off that polluting job, finding yourself with a new job with an improved carbon footprint.
And that goes whether or not you believe in the premise of Climate Change. (There's a lot of debate, though most of it takes place between civilians, not scientists.)
One of the big questions batted about: Are humans responsible for causing Global Warming?
That sounds like a fun question, but you can forget it. Doesn't matter (probably) whether we're responsible or not.
There are but four questions that count:
1. Is Climate Change really happening?
2. If it's happening, is it a bad thing?
3. If it's bad, is there anything we can do to change it?
4. Should we try to change it?
In answering question number three, we might touch on our responsibility for Climate Change. A new question: If we're doing something that's making it happen, can we reverse the process by simply not doing that thing anymore?
It may turn out we are responsible, but just stopping the bad thing we're doing won't have much impact on it. Or, reversing our bad ways will fix the problem, but not in the time frame necessary. (We took a long time to make things bad; it might take even longer to fix it.)
Ignoring the most controversial question ("Did we create the problem?") may have a good effect. It may turn out the solution lies in another direction, some brand-new technology that might get overlooked if we concentrate on merely revising our current habits.
Also, obsessing over our past technological mistakes (if we are to blame—and let's face it, we probably are) might make us shy away from any form of technology, even though it could actually fix the problem.
Folks thinking: It's demon-monster technology that got us into this mess, so let's move away from all that. We need to try something "spiritual" now. (Or some such crap.)
Could be fatal thinking.
For instance, if we had the technology to scrub carbon from our smoke stacks and tail pipes, it might work so well folks would be encouraged to gas-up and go! (Until we finally deplete petroleum resources.)
Or maybe some new kind of coal-fired machinery will do the trick. We'd never find out if the technology thought police prevented us from even looking into it.
It may turn out there is no solution to Climate Change, only ways of adapting to it. Canada will have a longer growing season, and that's good for them. Maybe those guys should be encouraged to come up with a coping mechanism the rest of us can endorse.
(Getting humans well away from an actively shrinking coastline might do wonders for the health of the oceans. We just need coral reefs that can handle the warmer water.)
Of course, all the debate over what exactly to do about Climate Change is lost on those folks who deny it's happening at all. Forget the question of man's involvement. Forget even the possibility this is a natural phenomenon we need to give in to and learn to enjoy.
These folks take the amazing position nothing at all is happening.
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling most of these head-in-the-sand guys are religious. And I get the feeling they deny Climate Change because it's not mentioned in the Bible—and therefore can't be real.
Which brings me to one of my favorite hypothetical questions for religious folks: If you had to choose, would you rather worship God or the Bible?
There could be a perfectly fine god presiding over a universe in which the Bible is just another book full of nonsense written by deluded human beings. In fact, I would argue one could end up with an even better god than the jerk described in the Old Testament, the sort of self-righteous a-hole you literally have to fear.
(But maybe religious folk think fearing god is a natural—and necessary—part of the package.)
Defending a belief in any god is very difficult. Defending a belief in a literal Bible has got to be virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, Global Warming offers a great opportunity to devout Christians. What an excellent Sign of the Coming Apocalypse! All of a sudden the whole damned (well, mostly damned) planet is going haywire!
Bible thumpers should be in the forefront, promoting Climate Change, stirring up hope for a fast-approaching End.
But maybe if they did that more people would take the problem seriously—and be scared enough to do something about it. That's the last thing Christians need, for their wonderful Sign of End-times to wink out under a barrage of unholy solutions.
Without a clear sign, Jesus might never come back.
Anyway, that's the way the human mind works. When the world presents you with evidence that contradicts what you "know" to be true, just ignore it.
And if you can't ignore it, deny this evidence has any impact on the contents of your perfect noggin.
And if that doesn't work, you can always lash out and punish the evildoers for waving the evidence in your face.
Or change the subject.
Forget Climate Change, guys! What about Iran getting the atom bomb? Why isn't anybody talking about that?
And so forth.
But don't worry. A proper human being is unlikely to notice any evidence that challenges the truth packed so haphazardly into his or her brain. Chances are it's going to be business as usual, all the time, right to the end.
We're just lucky that way.
[There's more about human thinking and the disaster of religion in the book What's Wrong With Us, available in Kindle ebook format. Double-click the cover image on the right to go to Amazon and download a free sample.]
Monday, September 7, 2015
STANDING UP FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Kim Davis, the elected clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, has gone to jail for contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
She is defying the U.S. Supreme Court on religious grounds.
As I understand it, most of the Republican candidates for President are standing behind her, saying its a matter of supporting her religious liberty.
Davis can't be fired. She has to be impeached by the state legislature. And apparently she also can't quit her job when her deeply held religious beliefs make it impossible for her to perform her duties.
Wow, is she in a pickle!
One of the problems is that gay people actually exist, but there's no evidence god exists, or (if he does exist) no evidence he holds opinions on any issue.
There are books, of course, that purport to speak for god on a variety of subjects, but there's no proof any of those books reliably do what they claim to do.
Kim Davis's belief that a proper marriage is between a man and a woman prevents her from marrying another woman, that's clear. But is it right her beliefs are responsible for stopping other people of whatever sexual persuasion from getting married?
If she were a Roman Catholic of a few years ago, working at McDonald's, could she refuse to sell hamburgers on Friday? And keep her job?
(Davis says she is obeying God's Law. Is that official? Does God now pay her salary?)
How is it that the woman's "religious liberty" trumps everybody else's liberty of whatever nature? Do religious notions always win out over mundane concerns? Does the imaginary just naturally triumph over the real?
Maybe.
No one will let you make up stuff and do what you want, but if you can find some ancient text and offer a "plausible" interpretation, maybe you're on your way. Be the next Jim Jones. The next David Koresh. Gather up your followers. Stockpile weapons. And don't forget lots of Kool-Aid for the inevitable show-down with earth-bound authorities.
I wonder how old the text has to be? The Bible clearly works wonders for this purpose. And the Quran. What about the Book of Mormon? Science and Health?
The Catcher in the Rye?
Protesters flock to support Kim Davis, though large numbers of them are simply anti-gay. Signs promise the Wrath of God, and so forth.
(The wrath of god is often invoked by agitated humans, but all we usually see is the wrath of the more dedicated protester. The problem with god is that he never seems to raise a hand to his "enemies." Fortunately, there are plenty of devout humans willing to step up and portray the Hand of God.)
So where do we go from here?
Davis is not the only local authority refusing to issue licenses to gay couples or perform ceremonies for those sexual rebels. Maybe the federal government will have to step up and offer special licenses.
Are we headed for a new Civil War?
She is defying the U.S. Supreme Court on religious grounds.
As I understand it, most of the Republican candidates for President are standing behind her, saying its a matter of supporting her religious liberty.
Davis can't be fired. She has to be impeached by the state legislature. And apparently she also can't quit her job when her deeply held religious beliefs make it impossible for her to perform her duties.
Wow, is she in a pickle!
One of the problems is that gay people actually exist, but there's no evidence god exists, or (if he does exist) no evidence he holds opinions on any issue.
There are books, of course, that purport to speak for god on a variety of subjects, but there's no proof any of those books reliably do what they claim to do.
Kim Davis's belief that a proper marriage is between a man and a woman prevents her from marrying another woman, that's clear. But is it right her beliefs are responsible for stopping other people of whatever sexual persuasion from getting married?
If she were a Roman Catholic of a few years ago, working at McDonald's, could she refuse to sell hamburgers on Friday? And keep her job?
(Davis says she is obeying God's Law. Is that official? Does God now pay her salary?)
How is it that the woman's "religious liberty" trumps everybody else's liberty of whatever nature? Do religious notions always win out over mundane concerns? Does the imaginary just naturally triumph over the real?
Maybe.
No one will let you make up stuff and do what you want, but if you can find some ancient text and offer a "plausible" interpretation, maybe you're on your way. Be the next Jim Jones. The next David Koresh. Gather up your followers. Stockpile weapons. And don't forget lots of Kool-Aid for the inevitable show-down with earth-bound authorities.
I wonder how old the text has to be? The Bible clearly works wonders for this purpose. And the Quran. What about the Book of Mormon? Science and Health?
The Catcher in the Rye?
Protesters flock to support Kim Davis, though large numbers of them are simply anti-gay. Signs promise the Wrath of God, and so forth.
(The wrath of god is often invoked by agitated humans, but all we usually see is the wrath of the more dedicated protester. The problem with god is that he never seems to raise a hand to his "enemies." Fortunately, there are plenty of devout humans willing to step up and portray the Hand of God.)
So where do we go from here?
Davis is not the only local authority refusing to issue licenses to gay couples or perform ceremonies for those sexual rebels. Maybe the federal government will have to step up and offer special licenses.
Are we headed for a new Civil War?
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
UNDOING GOD'S WORK
After the Twin Towers fell, an Islamic cleric went on television here in the U.S. and said the only way those buildings could have come down was if Allah wanted them to come down.
God's Will, baby.
At this point the guy conducting the interview might have leaned forward and punched the bearded fellow in the face.
Standing over the Imam (the guy sprawling on the floor, bleeding onto the dusty linoleum), the interviewer could then say: "Would you look at that? God must have wanted you punched in the nose! Let's see if he wants you kicked in the nads."
But enough pointless nostalgia.
Continuing its war on ancient artifacts (and rival Shiite mosques), ISIS recently blew up the 2000-year-old Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra, Syria. They also murdered the curator of antiquities, after first trying to get him to reveal the location of booty ISIS could sell to collectors.
Since the charges went off okay and the temple turned to dust, God must have wanted that place destroyed. All pre-Islamic shrines have to go, of course, and there's a long damned list.
The question I have, why did God let those pagan bastards build their temples in the first place? Was it just some kind of cosmic joke? ("Ha-ha! Wait till ISIS gets a load of this thing!")
Missionary Christians had their own technique. They'd come into some virgin territory, packing a big fat heaping of God's holy word, and raze the local shrine. They'd then build their church atop the ruins.
That way, stubborn non-believers couldn't sneak off into the jungle, find the vine-covered remains of their sacred temple, and start up worshipping again. (I wonder how many newly-minted Christians knelt in the usurping church and prayed secretly to a dog-headed she-goat or some such pagan entity.)
True Muslims have a duty to spread Islam whenever possible. Along the way, other (false) religions need to be suppressed, their works destroyed. Adherents have to see the light and convert.
Technically, Christians can remain faithful to their own religion (and alive) by paying a tax (the jizya) and admitting to subjugation by their Muslim overseers.
ISIS practices a back-to-basics version of Islam. No compromises are permitted. Old time punishments are dictated: chopping off hands and feet, stoning, beheading, crucifixion, and so forth. That's Sharia law.
The other, more nurturing side of Sharia is a commitment to the welfare of the people of the Caliphate. Food, housing, clothing, healthcare—all to be provided free.
No wonder they have avid fans. The Caliphate is dedicated to well-run government services. Woe to the incompetent. Off with the heads of corrupt officials!
In fact, ISIS is so strict they find fault with brother Muslims. Mostly upstart, more "modern" members of the Shiite variety, but others, as well. Anyone caught voting in an election, for instance. To ISIS, only God's governance is to be recognized.
As a result, ISIS is hard at work excommunicating large numbers of people for various offenses against brutal, old-time religion. Turning former "Muslims" into apostates. And the penalty for apostasy is death.
(On a Sunni Web site I visited, Shiite Muslims are not even considered a kind of Muslim.)
Good news for Islam, Shia is a minority of its population (though Iraq and Iran are almost pure Shiite). Obliterating that wing of the Temple of Islam shouldn't be fatal to the religion.
And it has to be done!
Remember: Every throat cut is a vote from God to cut that throat. It must be nice to get clear confirmation you're on the right path.
(And if you can't quite slice all the way through the guy's neck, maybe that's just God's way of telling you to use a sharper knife next time.)
Members of ISIS are human beings, of course, and subject to the same fatal mental flaw. Everything they do is the right thing to do (as far as they know), every thought in their heads is perfectly fine and true, and everything they see is proof they're following the word of God.
Following it right down to the end of the world—which is fast approaching, apparently. ISIS expects a major battle at Dabiq (in northern Syria) against the "armies of Rome." In the absence of Centurions, I should imagine American ground pounders will do.
The problem is, massing armies against ISIS is exactly what those dickheads want. And if the armies turn out to be American, it will only offer more proof the U.S. is in a long-standing war against Islam.
But there may be another way to defeat them.
An Islamic Caliphate is like a shark. If it doesn't move forward—expand—it dies. Or, at the very least, its legitimacy, its life in the light of God's favor, is open to question.
ISIS must continue to win territory and adherents or it risks falling into disrepute. That alone might be enough to bring about its downfall.
And if ISIS whithers and dies, it can only be because of the will of God. (That wily bastard.) Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'm looking forward to it.
[For a detailed account of ISIS and its hopes and dreams, see Graeme Wood's article in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic. You may also want to check out the follow-up, including Wood's critics.]
God's Will, baby.
At this point the guy conducting the interview might have leaned forward and punched the bearded fellow in the face.
Standing over the Imam (the guy sprawling on the floor, bleeding onto the dusty linoleum), the interviewer could then say: "Would you look at that? God must have wanted you punched in the nose! Let's see if he wants you kicked in the nads."
But enough pointless nostalgia.
Continuing its war on ancient artifacts (and rival Shiite mosques), ISIS recently blew up the 2000-year-old Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra, Syria. They also murdered the curator of antiquities, after first trying to get him to reveal the location of booty ISIS could sell to collectors.
Since the charges went off okay and the temple turned to dust, God must have wanted that place destroyed. All pre-Islamic shrines have to go, of course, and there's a long damned list.
The question I have, why did God let those pagan bastards build their temples in the first place? Was it just some kind of cosmic joke? ("Ha-ha! Wait till ISIS gets a load of this thing!")
Missionary Christians had their own technique. They'd come into some virgin territory, packing a big fat heaping of God's holy word, and raze the local shrine. They'd then build their church atop the ruins.
That way, stubborn non-believers couldn't sneak off into the jungle, find the vine-covered remains of their sacred temple, and start up worshipping again. (I wonder how many newly-minted Christians knelt in the usurping church and prayed secretly to a dog-headed she-goat or some such pagan entity.)
True Muslims have a duty to spread Islam whenever possible. Along the way, other (false) religions need to be suppressed, their works destroyed. Adherents have to see the light and convert.
Technically, Christians can remain faithful to their own religion (and alive) by paying a tax (the jizya) and admitting to subjugation by their Muslim overseers.
ISIS practices a back-to-basics version of Islam. No compromises are permitted. Old time punishments are dictated: chopping off hands and feet, stoning, beheading, crucifixion, and so forth. That's Sharia law.
The other, more nurturing side of Sharia is a commitment to the welfare of the people of the Caliphate. Food, housing, clothing, healthcare—all to be provided free.
No wonder they have avid fans. The Caliphate is dedicated to well-run government services. Woe to the incompetent. Off with the heads of corrupt officials!
In fact, ISIS is so strict they find fault with brother Muslims. Mostly upstart, more "modern" members of the Shiite variety, but others, as well. Anyone caught voting in an election, for instance. To ISIS, only God's governance is to be recognized.
As a result, ISIS is hard at work excommunicating large numbers of people for various offenses against brutal, old-time religion. Turning former "Muslims" into apostates. And the penalty for apostasy is death.
(On a Sunni Web site I visited, Shiite Muslims are not even considered a kind of Muslim.)
Good news for Islam, Shia is a minority of its population (though Iraq and Iran are almost pure Shiite). Obliterating that wing of the Temple of Islam shouldn't be fatal to the religion.
And it has to be done!
Remember: Every throat cut is a vote from God to cut that throat. It must be nice to get clear confirmation you're on the right path.
(And if you can't quite slice all the way through the guy's neck, maybe that's just God's way of telling you to use a sharper knife next time.)
Members of ISIS are human beings, of course, and subject to the same fatal mental flaw. Everything they do is the right thing to do (as far as they know), every thought in their heads is perfectly fine and true, and everything they see is proof they're following the word of God.
Following it right down to the end of the world—which is fast approaching, apparently. ISIS expects a major battle at Dabiq (in northern Syria) against the "armies of Rome." In the absence of Centurions, I should imagine American ground pounders will do.
The problem is, massing armies against ISIS is exactly what those dickheads want. And if the armies turn out to be American, it will only offer more proof the U.S. is in a long-standing war against Islam.
But there may be another way to defeat them.
An Islamic Caliphate is like a shark. If it doesn't move forward—expand—it dies. Or, at the very least, its legitimacy, its life in the light of God's favor, is open to question.
ISIS must continue to win territory and adherents or it risks falling into disrepute. That alone might be enough to bring about its downfall.
And if ISIS whithers and dies, it can only be because of the will of God. (That wily bastard.) Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'm looking forward to it.
[For a detailed account of ISIS and its hopes and dreams, see Graeme Wood's article in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic. You may also want to check out the follow-up, including Wood's critics.]
Monday, August 24, 2015
WHO'S TO BLAME FOR ISIS?
There's been this question floating about recently. Reporters want to pester Jeb Bush to see if he will admit his brother (W.) made a big mistake invading Iraq after 9/11. And whether or not that mistake led directly to ISIS.
Apparently the majority of Americans now see the invasion as unprofitable, possibly even wrong on some grounds or other. (Even before the advent of ISIS.)
And clearly, the power vacuum caused by our eventual withdrawal blew open the door for various radical factions, including ISIS. In addition, the civil war in Syria sucked various fighters together in a witches' brew of unhappy but aggressive folks.
But reporters want to concentrate on a single, simple question. (Oh how we love simple questions. We think these simple answers will solve many things that are wrong with our lives.)
The question: Did George W. Bush pave the way for ISIS?
Aside from slapping a guilty verdict on some fellow in order to make ourselves feel better about things, there is an implication that assigning blame might teach us something that will prevent future gaffs and other, inevitable crises.
We think (hope) we can mend the process of politics in order to avoid new disasters. We aim to fix our errant ways so we can lead better, more comfortable lives.
Is that a reasonable goal?
I'll tell you the answer in a moment. First, let's get back to the question of ISIS.
Blaming W. for ISIS is facile and juicy in an election year (they're all election years now). If Iraq had never been invaded, would ISIS exist today? Maybe.
Here's a more far-reaching and provocative question: Would ISIS exist today without the religion called Islam?
Surely (if I may call you that), some armed entity could be expected to be roaming the deserts and towns of Iraq following the exit of American troops. Power vacuums just naturally suck folks in and give them the hope of setting up their own regimes.
(There's only two strategies for avoiding this situation: Don't invade other peoples' countries; or—if you do—never leave. Can you guess the one I like best?)
ISIS, however, has the added kick of being a determined mass of deeply religious folks. (Politicians throughout the West are proficient at denying ISIS draws any potency from religious fervor. Come on!)
ISIS performs various brutalities for specifically religious reasons. Sharia law, and all that. Should a woman suffer a wardrobe failure that leads to her rape, she would absolutely be dumped into a pit and have a bulldozer push a pile of stones on top of her.
You can set your watch by their predictable behavior.
No question, Islam (or a misinterpretation of it) is the power behind the throne. Sure, humans are brutal a-holes, but they perform their best work when driven (excused) by deeply-held religious beliefs.
Given half a chance, humans will aways misinterpret divine instructions in order to free up work for the sharp knife, the well-stocked bench of torture implements, the stack of tinder-dry firewood, the cauldron of boiling oil.
("No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Really? Hate to tell you, but it's in our blood to behave this way.)
If you feel I'm being too harsh on Islam, please recall that Christianity is also a vast, gurgling heap of baseless and dangerous crap.
Which brings us to the lowest level of human behavior: the fundamental flaw in our brains that urges us to create systems of supernatural nonsense.
We just naturally gravitate to pulsating clouds of baloney gas. We refuse to believe the universe is an uncaring machine operating on simple laws of physics.
We need the universe to possess a personality—preferably a benign one—so that we can be protected from evil and rewarded when we display the ability to step back from murdering our fellow man.
(We also want to be rewarded when we step up to murder particular groups of our fellow man, those pointed out in our sacred texts as needed killing.)
A disturbing number of people want nothing more out of life but an opportunity to prove exactly how effed-up they are. And I mean effed-up in God's name.
To return to the question ("Can we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future?"), the answer is: Not bloody likely.
We seem to lack the ability to learn such things. We do, however, pack a talent for figuring out better and faster ways of getting the horror done.
Not the answer we were looking for, of course, but an answer nevertheless. Sometimes you just have to make do.
By the way, here's the answer to the title question: W. didn't create ISIS. He just made it extremely easy for the group to work its magic on the region.
President Obama didn't help, either, in his reluctance to get involved in Syria. But interfering in a civil war is a mug's game. (Remember Viet Nam?) And half the folks fighting Bashar al-Assad were (and are) members of al-Qaeda backed groups. And who wants to help them?
The enemy of my enemy is still some kind of enemy.
[For more on faulty human thought processes, see the book What's Wrong With Us, available in Kindle ebook format.]
Apparently the majority of Americans now see the invasion as unprofitable, possibly even wrong on some grounds or other. (Even before the advent of ISIS.)
And clearly, the power vacuum caused by our eventual withdrawal blew open the door for various radical factions, including ISIS. In addition, the civil war in Syria sucked various fighters together in a witches' brew of unhappy but aggressive folks.
But reporters want to concentrate on a single, simple question. (Oh how we love simple questions. We think these simple answers will solve many things that are wrong with our lives.)
The question: Did George W. Bush pave the way for ISIS?
Aside from slapping a guilty verdict on some fellow in order to make ourselves feel better about things, there is an implication that assigning blame might teach us something that will prevent future gaffs and other, inevitable crises.
We think (hope) we can mend the process of politics in order to avoid new disasters. We aim to fix our errant ways so we can lead better, more comfortable lives.
Is that a reasonable goal?
I'll tell you the answer in a moment. First, let's get back to the question of ISIS.
Blaming W. for ISIS is facile and juicy in an election year (they're all election years now). If Iraq had never been invaded, would ISIS exist today? Maybe.
Here's a more far-reaching and provocative question: Would ISIS exist today without the religion called Islam?
Surely (if I may call you that), some armed entity could be expected to be roaming the deserts and towns of Iraq following the exit of American troops. Power vacuums just naturally suck folks in and give them the hope of setting up their own regimes.
(There's only two strategies for avoiding this situation: Don't invade other peoples' countries; or—if you do—never leave. Can you guess the one I like best?)
ISIS, however, has the added kick of being a determined mass of deeply religious folks. (Politicians throughout the West are proficient at denying ISIS draws any potency from religious fervor. Come on!)
ISIS performs various brutalities for specifically religious reasons. Sharia law, and all that. Should a woman suffer a wardrobe failure that leads to her rape, she would absolutely be dumped into a pit and have a bulldozer push a pile of stones on top of her.
You can set your watch by their predictable behavior.
No question, Islam (or a misinterpretation of it) is the power behind the throne. Sure, humans are brutal a-holes, but they perform their best work when driven (excused) by deeply-held religious beliefs.
Given half a chance, humans will aways misinterpret divine instructions in order to free up work for the sharp knife, the well-stocked bench of torture implements, the stack of tinder-dry firewood, the cauldron of boiling oil.
("No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Really? Hate to tell you, but it's in our blood to behave this way.)
If you feel I'm being too harsh on Islam, please recall that Christianity is also a vast, gurgling heap of baseless and dangerous crap.
Which brings us to the lowest level of human behavior: the fundamental flaw in our brains that urges us to create systems of supernatural nonsense.
We just naturally gravitate to pulsating clouds of baloney gas. We refuse to believe the universe is an uncaring machine operating on simple laws of physics.
We need the universe to possess a personality—preferably a benign one—so that we can be protected from evil and rewarded when we display the ability to step back from murdering our fellow man.
(We also want to be rewarded when we step up to murder particular groups of our fellow man, those pointed out in our sacred texts as needed killing.)
A disturbing number of people want nothing more out of life but an opportunity to prove exactly how effed-up they are. And I mean effed-up in God's name.
To return to the question ("Can we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future?"), the answer is: Not bloody likely.
We seem to lack the ability to learn such things. We do, however, pack a talent for figuring out better and faster ways of getting the horror done.
Not the answer we were looking for, of course, but an answer nevertheless. Sometimes you just have to make do.
By the way, here's the answer to the title question: W. didn't create ISIS. He just made it extremely easy for the group to work its magic on the region.
President Obama didn't help, either, in his reluctance to get involved in Syria. But interfering in a civil war is a mug's game. (Remember Viet Nam?) And half the folks fighting Bashar al-Assad were (and are) members of al-Qaeda backed groups. And who wants to help them?
The enemy of my enemy is still some kind of enemy.
[For more on faulty human thought processes, see the book What's Wrong With Us, available in Kindle ebook format.]
Friday, August 14, 2015
DEALING WITH IRAN
Well, they hammered out a deal with Iran over nukes, and now the fun begins.
Seems like all Republicans are against it. The thing is, you can't really tell what that means. If President Obama is for something, Republicans tend to be against it. On principle.
(The Principle of Knee-jerk Political Objection.)
So, is it really a bad deal?
It's designed to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for ten years. The anti-deal ads on TV say Iran will then be able to produce a bomb in two months.
Really?
Even if that's true (and I doubt it), that means Iran won't have a bomb for ten years and two months. That's better than nothing, right?
Question: How long will it take them to get a bomb without this deal? Two months? Three?
Obama says the alternative to this agreement is some kind of war. Republicans say they never suggested war as an alternative. So I guess their solution would have to be a better deal. But is it possible to get a better deal right now?
The Republicans seem to assume they could force through a better deal if they were allowed to send in some tough-ass negotiators. (Donald Trump could do it, but he's too busy insulting Rosie O'Donnell and the like.) Problem is, it would probably take a Republican President to get 'er done. And the election is still quite a ways off. Do we even have that much time?
(Also, can they get a Republican elected?)
One of their objections to the deal is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Republicans point out if we reduce or eliminate sanctions, Iran would have more money to pursue its hobby.
To me, it sounds like limiting Iran's vexing behavior is a separate deal. First things first, I say. Nukes up front, terrorism later.
Because there's a fundamental difference.
Iran doesn't need to have the bomb (and they keep insisting they aren't even trying to make one). But they appear to have a driving need to turn the crank on the terror machine.
Mainly because they don't see it as a terror machine. Rather, it's a Holy War Against the West (America and Israel, mostly). This they are pledged to do. They might well claim Allah himself insists they man that crank day and night.
After all, Islam must be defended and bolstered and spread around the world. Folks who know this and want to help are often in the minority in their region and lack resources. Iran feels compelled to take up the slack and slip them a few bucks or the occasional shipment of arms.
Another Republican objection: They see the nuke deal as a temporary band-aid. They believe that as soon as those ten years clock down, Iran is virtually guaranteed to get the bomb. As if it were a prize for playing the game.
But I don't think there's anything in the deal that prevents the U.S. from reinstating sanctions as soon as time runs out. Further deals might well be in the offing.
Maybe in some future pact Iran will have to give up all nuclear facilities. We could make 'em go entirely Green: wind and solar power or nothing.
Also, we could simply cheat—if that's what it takes to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
Nobody is going to be bound by a deal that guarantees Iran the bomb. Especially not Israel.
In the past Israel has bombed Iranian facilities thought to be furthering progress toward an atomic bomb. I doubt they would hesitate to do so in the future. The deal reached with Iran should, at the very least, give Israel time to prepare their inevitable assault.
And if we're willing to be tricky enough to end Iran's nuclear threat once and for all, here's a devious path:
Forget deals. Just double the sanctions every year until the Iranians go nuts and start shooting. Then we'd be free to react in what used to be called a nuclear spasm—and turn the whole country into a parking lot paved with radioactive green glass.
(Maybe by then ISIS will have the bomb. Does anybody wanna try negotiating with those assholes?)
Iran is what it is—and the problem it presents—because of the nonsensical ideas carried about in the heads of the people who inhabit the country.
(That goes for the U.S. as well, unfortunately. American noggins are packed with a competing set of nonsensical ideas.)
Ideas have no measurable mass, yet they are the very devil to lift. People know what they know and they can't be wrong. Everything they see proves them right.
It can get pretty messy.
[For more on how this mental situation complicates life on our planet, see the book What's Wrong With Us. Amazon Prime members should be able to borrow the Kindle ebook edition for free.]
Seems like all Republicans are against it. The thing is, you can't really tell what that means. If President Obama is for something, Republicans tend to be against it. On principle.
(The Principle of Knee-jerk Political Objection.)
So, is it really a bad deal?
It's designed to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for ten years. The anti-deal ads on TV say Iran will then be able to produce a bomb in two months.
Really?
Even if that's true (and I doubt it), that means Iran won't have a bomb for ten years and two months. That's better than nothing, right?
Question: How long will it take them to get a bomb without this deal? Two months? Three?
Obama says the alternative to this agreement is some kind of war. Republicans say they never suggested war as an alternative. So I guess their solution would have to be a better deal. But is it possible to get a better deal right now?
The Republicans seem to assume they could force through a better deal if they were allowed to send in some tough-ass negotiators. (Donald Trump could do it, but he's too busy insulting Rosie O'Donnell and the like.) Problem is, it would probably take a Republican President to get 'er done. And the election is still quite a ways off. Do we even have that much time?
(Also, can they get a Republican elected?)
One of their objections to the deal is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Republicans point out if we reduce or eliminate sanctions, Iran would have more money to pursue its hobby.
To me, it sounds like limiting Iran's vexing behavior is a separate deal. First things first, I say. Nukes up front, terrorism later.
Because there's a fundamental difference.
Iran doesn't need to have the bomb (and they keep insisting they aren't even trying to make one). But they appear to have a driving need to turn the crank on the terror machine.
Mainly because they don't see it as a terror machine. Rather, it's a Holy War Against the West (America and Israel, mostly). This they are pledged to do. They might well claim Allah himself insists they man that crank day and night.
After all, Islam must be defended and bolstered and spread around the world. Folks who know this and want to help are often in the minority in their region and lack resources. Iran feels compelled to take up the slack and slip them a few bucks or the occasional shipment of arms.
Another Republican objection: They see the nuke deal as a temporary band-aid. They believe that as soon as those ten years clock down, Iran is virtually guaranteed to get the bomb. As if it were a prize for playing the game.
But I don't think there's anything in the deal that prevents the U.S. from reinstating sanctions as soon as time runs out. Further deals might well be in the offing.
Maybe in some future pact Iran will have to give up all nuclear facilities. We could make 'em go entirely Green: wind and solar power or nothing.
Also, we could simply cheat—if that's what it takes to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
Nobody is going to be bound by a deal that guarantees Iran the bomb. Especially not Israel.
In the past Israel has bombed Iranian facilities thought to be furthering progress toward an atomic bomb. I doubt they would hesitate to do so in the future. The deal reached with Iran should, at the very least, give Israel time to prepare their inevitable assault.
And if we're willing to be tricky enough to end Iran's nuclear threat once and for all, here's a devious path:
Forget deals. Just double the sanctions every year until the Iranians go nuts and start shooting. Then we'd be free to react in what used to be called a nuclear spasm—and turn the whole country into a parking lot paved with radioactive green glass.
(Maybe by then ISIS will have the bomb. Does anybody wanna try negotiating with those assholes?)
Iran is what it is—and the problem it presents—because of the nonsensical ideas carried about in the heads of the people who inhabit the country.
(That goes for the U.S. as well, unfortunately. American noggins are packed with a competing set of nonsensical ideas.)
Ideas have no measurable mass, yet they are the very devil to lift. People know what they know and they can't be wrong. Everything they see proves them right.
It can get pretty messy.
[For more on how this mental situation complicates life on our planet, see the book What's Wrong With Us. Amazon Prime members should be able to borrow the Kindle ebook edition for free.]
Monday, August 3, 2015
MORE TROUBLE IN CINCINNATI
On July 19, not far from the University of Cincinnati, a young college cop pulled over a black man (Samuel DuBose) for not having a front license plate on his car.
Things went pear-shaped after that, and the young cop (Ray Tensing) shot and killed DuBose.
Despite the fact the encounter was caught on body-cam, there seems no variety of opinion concerning who was responsible for the killing.
"Without question a murder," says Hamilton County Prosecutor, Joe Deters. Tensing "should never have been a police officer," he says.
(Actually, Deters is against the very concept of university cops. What the hell do universities know about running a police force?)
Officer Tensing was suspended after the incident. He was then indicted for murder and involuntary manslaughter. After which he was promptly fired. He's out right now on a million dollar bond.
All because he murdered a guy for not having a front plate.
A "chicken-crap traffic stop," Joe Deters says. About the most asinine thing he'd ever seen, he says.
(Worse than the cop who shot the guy in the back as he ran away? Maybe Deters never saw that one.)
In this case, and we all can see it on the video, Ray Tensing asks DuBose repeatedly to produce a drivers license. DuBose can't do it, keeps asking why he was stopped in the first place.
(As if being grabbed up in a chicken-crap traffic stop meant you didn't need to produce a license.)
Officer Tensing tells the guy if he can't come up with the proper paperwork, he needs to slip out of his seat belt. There's an implication there, that DuBose will shortly be out of his vehicle, possibly in cuffs. In any case, he's done driving for a while.
DuBose responds by keying his ignition and putting his car in gear. Tensing had previously opened the driver's side door. DuBose reaches out to pull it shut again. He's had enough of this "asinine" conversation and is preparing, quite calmly and deliberately, to drive off.
This may be where Prosecutor Joe Deters nodded off. DuBose is moving so calmly and nonchalantly he seems to have put Deters into a hypnotic trance. Perhaps Deters sees whats going on, but he can detect in DuBose's action no threat to the officer. No threat at all.
In fact, what just happened was this: DuBose transformed his inert vehicle into a lethal weapon. Just like that, everything changed. Deters missed it.
Now here's where young Officer Tensing betrays his lack of experience. Procedure dictates he jump back from the car, to avoid injury to himself.
Procedure: Step back and let the man drive away, then return to the unit and radio in the beginning of Part Two of the encounter—the high-speed chase.
Sure, doing it this way makes it possible for DuBose to crash into whatever comes into range, perhaps killing innocent drivers and pedestrians.
But that's on him, see? The officer is in the clear. Procedure doesn't require any heroics on his part. Just step back and let nature take its course.
But he chose instead to reach into the car, in an attempt to turn off the ignition and grab the keys, keep DuBose from driving off. He yells "Stop!" several times and also pulls his service weapon, points it in the man's face.
Here's where Tensing made his next two mistakes. He yelled "Stop!" but failed to add those magic words: "—or I'll shoot!"
If you don't yell "—or I'll shoot," you're not allowed to actually shoot. That's the law.
Or maybe it isn't. I'm a little hazy on that point.
In any case, Tensing gave the fellow almost no time to react to the gun in his face before pulling the trigger.
On the other hand, there wasn't a lot of time to play around with here. The motor was running, the car was in gear, and the only thing keeping that thing from zooming off was DuBose's foot on the brake pedal.
In these desperate circumstances, one might cut Tensing a little slack on the matter of whether the car was in motion just before he fired his weapon or just after. He suggests his left hand may have been threaded through the steering wheel in its grab for the keys. DuBose had only to lift his foot and Tensing would be dragged away, possibly killed under the wheels of the car.
This was a very vulnerable position, to be sure.
But it's one he put himself into when he violated Procedure: Jump back and let the guy drive off.
Maybe you can see why he might have tried to end the matter right here, rather than proceed to Part Two and whatever mayhem that could lead to.
End this here, he may have been thinking.
Nonsense, say many others. Tensing was thinking one thing only: Shoot the black guy!
For no reason.
Just like the guy's mom said on TV: That cop shot her son for no reason.
It's always for "no reason."
(And by "no reason" they mean: Because that white cop was a racist.)
And after a year or so of these sorts of events, some caught on video, some not, a lot of folks seem to have settled on the black view: White cops shoot black guys for no reason.
White prosecutors agree. Tensing "purposely killed" DuBose, says Joe Deters.
Well, yeah. Tensing is not claiming his gun went off accidentally. But he violated Procedure, okay? Step back and let the guy drive off. That's what you do. That's what real police officers do, right?
What do universities know about policing? Stopping a man for a missing front license plate!
Maybe we should follow the Prosecutor's implied suggestion and remove all these chicken-crap laws from the books. Clearly this is not a time to have a bunch of excuses out there for white cops with murder in their eyes to stop black guys on the road.
No more chicken-crap laws. And for almost all of the rest of the laws—the more reasonable, less chicken-crappy laws—just document the violation on video and mail the guy a bill.
For the real bad stuff, the driver leaned out the window blasting away with his MAC-10, simply light him up with your Hellfire missile and be done with it.
Case closed.
And let the grieving mother say anything she wants.
That's always going to happen.
[For more information on how humans think, check out the Kindle ebook, What's Wrong With Us. There's a link on the right-hand side of this page. Just double-click the book cover to go to Amazon.]
Things went pear-shaped after that, and the young cop (Ray Tensing) shot and killed DuBose.
Despite the fact the encounter was caught on body-cam, there seems no variety of opinion concerning who was responsible for the killing.
"Without question a murder," says Hamilton County Prosecutor, Joe Deters. Tensing "should never have been a police officer," he says.
(Actually, Deters is against the very concept of university cops. What the hell do universities know about running a police force?)
Officer Tensing was suspended after the incident. He was then indicted for murder and involuntary manslaughter. After which he was promptly fired. He's out right now on a million dollar bond.
All because he murdered a guy for not having a front plate.
A "chicken-crap traffic stop," Joe Deters says. About the most asinine thing he'd ever seen, he says.
(Worse than the cop who shot the guy in the back as he ran away? Maybe Deters never saw that one.)
In this case, and we all can see it on the video, Ray Tensing asks DuBose repeatedly to produce a drivers license. DuBose can't do it, keeps asking why he was stopped in the first place.
(As if being grabbed up in a chicken-crap traffic stop meant you didn't need to produce a license.)
Officer Tensing tells the guy if he can't come up with the proper paperwork, he needs to slip out of his seat belt. There's an implication there, that DuBose will shortly be out of his vehicle, possibly in cuffs. In any case, he's done driving for a while.
DuBose responds by keying his ignition and putting his car in gear. Tensing had previously opened the driver's side door. DuBose reaches out to pull it shut again. He's had enough of this "asinine" conversation and is preparing, quite calmly and deliberately, to drive off.
This may be where Prosecutor Joe Deters nodded off. DuBose is moving so calmly and nonchalantly he seems to have put Deters into a hypnotic trance. Perhaps Deters sees whats going on, but he can detect in DuBose's action no threat to the officer. No threat at all.
In fact, what just happened was this: DuBose transformed his inert vehicle into a lethal weapon. Just like that, everything changed. Deters missed it.
Now here's where young Officer Tensing betrays his lack of experience. Procedure dictates he jump back from the car, to avoid injury to himself.
Procedure: Step back and let the man drive away, then return to the unit and radio in the beginning of Part Two of the encounter—the high-speed chase.
Sure, doing it this way makes it possible for DuBose to crash into whatever comes into range, perhaps killing innocent drivers and pedestrians.
But that's on him, see? The officer is in the clear. Procedure doesn't require any heroics on his part. Just step back and let nature take its course.
But he chose instead to reach into the car, in an attempt to turn off the ignition and grab the keys, keep DuBose from driving off. He yells "Stop!" several times and also pulls his service weapon, points it in the man's face.
Here's where Tensing made his next two mistakes. He yelled "Stop!" but failed to add those magic words: "—or I'll shoot!"
If you don't yell "—or I'll shoot," you're not allowed to actually shoot. That's the law.
Or maybe it isn't. I'm a little hazy on that point.
In any case, Tensing gave the fellow almost no time to react to the gun in his face before pulling the trigger.
On the other hand, there wasn't a lot of time to play around with here. The motor was running, the car was in gear, and the only thing keeping that thing from zooming off was DuBose's foot on the brake pedal.
In these desperate circumstances, one might cut Tensing a little slack on the matter of whether the car was in motion just before he fired his weapon or just after. He suggests his left hand may have been threaded through the steering wheel in its grab for the keys. DuBose had only to lift his foot and Tensing would be dragged away, possibly killed under the wheels of the car.
This was a very vulnerable position, to be sure.
But it's one he put himself into when he violated Procedure: Jump back and let the guy drive off.
Maybe you can see why he might have tried to end the matter right here, rather than proceed to Part Two and whatever mayhem that could lead to.
End this here, he may have been thinking.
Nonsense, say many others. Tensing was thinking one thing only: Shoot the black guy!
For no reason.
Just like the guy's mom said on TV: That cop shot her son for no reason.
It's always for "no reason."
(And by "no reason" they mean: Because that white cop was a racist.)
And after a year or so of these sorts of events, some caught on video, some not, a lot of folks seem to have settled on the black view: White cops shoot black guys for no reason.
White prosecutors agree. Tensing "purposely killed" DuBose, says Joe Deters.
Well, yeah. Tensing is not claiming his gun went off accidentally. But he violated Procedure, okay? Step back and let the guy drive off. That's what you do. That's what real police officers do, right?
What do universities know about policing? Stopping a man for a missing front license plate!
Maybe we should follow the Prosecutor's implied suggestion and remove all these chicken-crap laws from the books. Clearly this is not a time to have a bunch of excuses out there for white cops with murder in their eyes to stop black guys on the road.
No more chicken-crap laws. And for almost all of the rest of the laws—the more reasonable, less chicken-crappy laws—just document the violation on video and mail the guy a bill.
For the real bad stuff, the driver leaned out the window blasting away with his MAC-10, simply light him up with your Hellfire missile and be done with it.
Case closed.
And let the grieving mother say anything she wants.
That's always going to happen.
[For more information on how humans think, check out the Kindle ebook, What's Wrong With Us. There's a link on the right-hand side of this page. Just double-click the book cover to go to Amazon.]
Friday, July 24, 2015
SANDRA BLAND
We're left with little but questions.
Why did the Officer Encinia ask Bland to put out her cigarette, if he was just seconds from letting her go with a warning?
And why did she refuse, pointing out she was in her own car?
Tragically, her statement led directly to the next part: Okay, get out of the car. A command she repeatedly refused, apparently, forcing a confrontation.
Police officers are, of course, persons of authority. They don't like having their authority challenged, even over what may start out to be a trivial matter.
A spokesman for the police said officers should perform their duties with courtesy. But faced with a flat refusal to obey, how does courtesy proceed?
Are we to imagine the officer calling in the fire department to cut the roof off the woman's car so she could be airlifted—with careful courtesy—by rescue 'copter?
The woman had just been accepted for a job at a university only a few hundred yards (it is reported) from the traffic incident. Was she riding the high of that triumph when she decided to throw a spanner into the machinery of that officer's day?
Bland had previously posted activist videos about police abuse. Was she thinking of the Black Lives Matter movement, unwilling to give an inch to a white cop? Unwilling to take any guff at all?
Did she see this incident as her personal example of police brutality, eager to see where the escalation might lead? As she was led off in cuffs she can be heard speaking enthusiastically about her coming day in court.
Some critics question the traffic stop itself.
Failure to signal a lane change is a pretty rinky-dink crime spree. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate, on-the-books infraction, one from which a ticket might possibly arise. Critics claim the police are nitpicking chumps to bother with this law. They wonder why it's a crime at all.
But consider this: Should signaling lane-changes cease to be a legal mandate, who's to the say the appropriate police response to a breach of good manners might not be to stop a driver and—in the name of public safety—remind him or her of that which is just common sense: Let other drivers know what you intend to do so you don't freak 'em out.
In regard to the Bland stop, however, critics know the enforcement of this so-called traffic infraction was just an excuse for a white officer to get a black woman in his power. With tragic but predictable results.
That's Act One in the drama. Sandra Bland's death in custody only brings up more questions.
Three days later. What was she still doing in jail? The figure of $5,000 comes up. Was she having trouble coming up with the bond?
Though she had admitted attempting suicide before, the jailers failed to put her under suicide watch.
At least this is one mistake Bland's family cannot fault. They claim to have no knowledge of any previous suicide attempt. No sense in trying to prevent a suicide that was simply not in the offing, right?
Bland posted a video talking of depression and PTSD. Her family denies she was depressed. Either Bland is lying, or the family is suffering from a lack of knowledge. Hard as that might be for them to believe.
The family wants an independent autopsy, perhaps expecting to find fingerprints on the woman's neck. Or a bullet hole in the back of her head. I don't think they're going to be happy with the results. It doesn't matter. Disappointing data can easily be ignored.
(That's how we humans traditionally handle unruly facts.)
After all, it's well known white cops are itching to murder black people whenever and wherever. And they don't need a reason.
But if it turns out Bland needed a reason, despite her "ecstasy" over getting the new job, maybe it was this: That job might just vanish in the light of her arrest. Perhaps she saw her happy future melting away.
(Did Michael Brown see his eminent college future disappear in the eyes of a policeman determined to arrest him for the crime he'd just committed?)
In the unlikely event the cops didn't murder Sandra Bland, we have to answer the question: Why did she do it?
Could it be she felt the pressure to take one for the team? To add her name to the list of the infamous? To venture just one small step toward that glorious day when black folks can reach the tipping point and come the ultimate conclusion: It's time to burn this country to the ground for its own good.
And make it happen for reasons that are far too obvious to bother examining. When you know you're right, go ahead and do what you gotta do.
Hey, that's human behavior at its finest!
Why did the Officer Encinia ask Bland to put out her cigarette, if he was just seconds from letting her go with a warning?
And why did she refuse, pointing out she was in her own car?
Tragically, her statement led directly to the next part: Okay, get out of the car. A command she repeatedly refused, apparently, forcing a confrontation.
Police officers are, of course, persons of authority. They don't like having their authority challenged, even over what may start out to be a trivial matter.
A spokesman for the police said officers should perform their duties with courtesy. But faced with a flat refusal to obey, how does courtesy proceed?
Are we to imagine the officer calling in the fire department to cut the roof off the woman's car so she could be airlifted—with careful courtesy—by rescue 'copter?
The woman had just been accepted for a job at a university only a few hundred yards (it is reported) from the traffic incident. Was she riding the high of that triumph when she decided to throw a spanner into the machinery of that officer's day?
Bland had previously posted activist videos about police abuse. Was she thinking of the Black Lives Matter movement, unwilling to give an inch to a white cop? Unwilling to take any guff at all?
Did she see this incident as her personal example of police brutality, eager to see where the escalation might lead? As she was led off in cuffs she can be heard speaking enthusiastically about her coming day in court.
Some critics question the traffic stop itself.
Failure to signal a lane change is a pretty rinky-dink crime spree. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate, on-the-books infraction, one from which a ticket might possibly arise. Critics claim the police are nitpicking chumps to bother with this law. They wonder why it's a crime at all.
But consider this: Should signaling lane-changes cease to be a legal mandate, who's to the say the appropriate police response to a breach of good manners might not be to stop a driver and—in the name of public safety—remind him or her of that which is just common sense: Let other drivers know what you intend to do so you don't freak 'em out.
In regard to the Bland stop, however, critics know the enforcement of this so-called traffic infraction was just an excuse for a white officer to get a black woman in his power. With tragic but predictable results.
That's Act One in the drama. Sandra Bland's death in custody only brings up more questions.
Three days later. What was she still doing in jail? The figure of $5,000 comes up. Was she having trouble coming up with the bond?
Though she had admitted attempting suicide before, the jailers failed to put her under suicide watch.
At least this is one mistake Bland's family cannot fault. They claim to have no knowledge of any previous suicide attempt. No sense in trying to prevent a suicide that was simply not in the offing, right?
Bland posted a video talking of depression and PTSD. Her family denies she was depressed. Either Bland is lying, or the family is suffering from a lack of knowledge. Hard as that might be for them to believe.
The family wants an independent autopsy, perhaps expecting to find fingerprints on the woman's neck. Or a bullet hole in the back of her head. I don't think they're going to be happy with the results. It doesn't matter. Disappointing data can easily be ignored.
(That's how we humans traditionally handle unruly facts.)
After all, it's well known white cops are itching to murder black people whenever and wherever. And they don't need a reason.
But if it turns out Bland needed a reason, despite her "ecstasy" over getting the new job, maybe it was this: That job might just vanish in the light of her arrest. Perhaps she saw her happy future melting away.
(Did Michael Brown see his eminent college future disappear in the eyes of a policeman determined to arrest him for the crime he'd just committed?)
In the unlikely event the cops didn't murder Sandra Bland, we have to answer the question: Why did she do it?
Could it be she felt the pressure to take one for the team? To add her name to the list of the infamous? To venture just one small step toward that glorious day when black folks can reach the tipping point and come the ultimate conclusion: It's time to burn this country to the ground for its own good.
And make it happen for reasons that are far too obvious to bother examining. When you know you're right, go ahead and do what you gotta do.
Hey, that's human behavior at its finest!
Monday, July 13, 2015
ALIENS AMONG US
Donald Trump is surging in the Presidential polls, riding his anti-Mexican ticket. Many Republican candidates deplore his stance (while envying his numbers), but a few applaud his ability to get the subject in front of the American public.
Apparently, vast numbers of Americans have never heard of the problem of illegal immigrants and our dangerously porous borders. Trump is out to change all that.
One thing is certain: Soon as they found out about it, a whole lot of Americans came out solidly against it.
Trump says a great number of these illegal Mexicans are rapists and criminals. Fortunately for him, a 5-time deported Mexican shot a woman in San Francisco—a so-called sanctuary city.
Here's another thing we know for sure. From now on, every time some illegal alien messes up, the case will prove Trump right. And it's inevitable—there will always be some screw-ups. Each and every one is a feather in Trump'
s bizarre hair.
(I've heard the crime rate actually decreases as the rate of illegals increases, but let's not let stuff like that get in the way of a good story.)
It's a perfect situation: Folks know what they know and everywhere they look they find proof to back them up. We're really good at this. Doesn't matter what you think you know, proof is on its way!
Trump's most twisted notion has so far gone unchallenged: He says the Mexican government itself is responsible for sending legions of defective people to the U.S.
The image I get, they've set up catapults on the border and are slinging their worse citizens our way—a kind of Sinaloa Airlift.
In a post script to his message of doom, Trump allows that some of them might be "good people."
Sounds like he's saying they're not all criminals. That would be weird, because technically they are all criminals. That's the "illegal" part of "illegal alien."
Maybe Trump thinks as long as they're breaking the law to get here, it's a short hop to literally committing crimes against American citizens.
(The crimes they commit against other illegal aliens are of course irrelevant.)
The fact of illegal immigration is a major and legitimate problem that needs addressing. But now, thanks to Trump, it's been reduced to a question of how bad those people are and how many gibbets we need to construct.
Demonizing a class of people for the purposes of political gain is a standard move among demagogues. Just ask Hitler how well it works in a free society beset by woes.
When economies turn sour, it's always handy to find your scapegoat and put him to work electing you to office.
Apparently, vast numbers of Americans have never heard of the problem of illegal immigrants and our dangerously porous borders. Trump is out to change all that.
One thing is certain: Soon as they found out about it, a whole lot of Americans came out solidly against it.
Trump says a great number of these illegal Mexicans are rapists and criminals. Fortunately for him, a 5-time deported Mexican shot a woman in San Francisco—a so-called sanctuary city.
Here's another thing we know for sure. From now on, every time some illegal alien messes up, the case will prove Trump right. And it's inevitable—there will always be some screw-ups. Each and every one is a feather in Trump'
s bizarre hair.
(I've heard the crime rate actually decreases as the rate of illegals increases, but let's not let stuff like that get in the way of a good story.)
It's a perfect situation: Folks know what they know and everywhere they look they find proof to back them up. We're really good at this. Doesn't matter what you think you know, proof is on its way!
Trump's most twisted notion has so far gone unchallenged: He says the Mexican government itself is responsible for sending legions of defective people to the U.S.
The image I get, they've set up catapults on the border and are slinging their worse citizens our way—a kind of Sinaloa Airlift.
In a post script to his message of doom, Trump allows that some of them might be "good people."
Sounds like he's saying they're not all criminals. That would be weird, because technically they are all criminals. That's the "illegal" part of "illegal alien."
Maybe Trump thinks as long as they're breaking the law to get here, it's a short hop to literally committing crimes against American citizens.
(The crimes they commit against other illegal aliens are of course irrelevant.)
The fact of illegal immigration is a major and legitimate problem that needs addressing. But now, thanks to Trump, it's been reduced to a question of how bad those people are and how many gibbets we need to construct.
Demonizing a class of people for the purposes of political gain is a standard move among demagogues. Just ask Hitler how well it works in a free society beset by woes.
When economies turn sour, it's always handy to find your scapegoat and put him to work electing you to office.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
STUPID AND VIOLENT
Let's take a squint at Dylann Roof, the presumed Charleston church shooter.
I read the document thought to be his "manifesto," something he whipped together in great haste: full of typos and ellipses. Perhaps he thought he wouldn't survive his adventure in racial action.
(Maybe now he'll have time to correct and clarify.)
He says he was changed by the Trayvon Martin case. He noted the firestorm of media coverage and wondered what the big deal was. George Zimmerman was obviously "in the right."
(And I think it's true. Zimmerman was a self-righteous goofball channeling both Paul Blart and Jack Reacher, acting out of his depth. He put himself in a position he could only get out of by shooting Martin. But since everything he did was close enough to legal, he could not properly be convicted of premeditated murder. Now we must wonder if he's learned anything from his experience.)
Anyway, the whole case got Roof thinking. He did some Internet research and found a great deal of evidence that black people are stupid and violent.
Duh.
Of course they're stupid and violent. They're human beings. We invented stupid and violent.
What is Roof himself, if not stupid and violent?
It's said he almost called off his attack because the black people were so kind to him in that church. Unfortunately, his sketchy research kept him on track.
(He should never have gone into a church. Religious people are supposed to be kinder and nicer than non-religious people and must act accordingly—whether they want to or not.)
Roof makes some interesting points in his manifesto. He says black people are raised to be more racially aware than whites. That would appear to be true.
Black kids (even President Obama's kids) have to experience the "conversation," wherein they are instructed how to behave around white cops—lest they be shot or beaten or arrested for no reason. White kids are not subjected to the conversation.
(Unless you count being warned to be careful around black folks, who—it is alleged—all carry straight razors.)
"Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior." [sic]
I've never done a study of it, but I'm willing to believe the three traits mentioned are more prevalent in the prison population than out. For blacks and whites.
Whether these traits show up more often in the black population than among whites, I have no idea. It's tempting to use this measure to explain the disproportionate number of blacks in American prisons, but there are a lot of other factors likely to weigh in, possibly to dominate the equation.
Roof is probably right when he suggests any attempt at a scientific study of the differences between blacks and whites would likely get the researcher fired. And that's a shame. If differences exist but are kept hidden, they can never be addressed, possibly to the detriment of us all.
Roof champions segregation not only because it keeps white folks away from all those black monsters out there but because it keeps white folks from descending to the sub-human level of the blacks, culturally.
He's also concerned about schools in "bad" (i.e., black) neighborhoods where whites might be forced to attend. Schools designed to deal with lower IQs, lower impulse control, and higher levels of testosterone would presumably have less time left over to teach stuff.
Roof has problems with the school instruction he received, noting that when white folks do bad things (to blacks and others), it's because the perpetrators are white. When whites do good things (like invent civilization), it's never because they're white.
On the other hand, whenever a black man does something noteworthy, the fact he's black is considered a major deal.
When you come down to it, Dylann Roof's main plea is for renewed segregation. He's says it's not too late, that an American population only 30% white could "take it back completely."
What isn't clear is how killing nine black Bible students is a step on that path. Maybe he needed to do some more research.
I read the document thought to be his "manifesto," something he whipped together in great haste: full of typos and ellipses. Perhaps he thought he wouldn't survive his adventure in racial action.
(Maybe now he'll have time to correct and clarify.)
He says he was changed by the Trayvon Martin case. He noted the firestorm of media coverage and wondered what the big deal was. George Zimmerman was obviously "in the right."
(And I think it's true. Zimmerman was a self-righteous goofball channeling both Paul Blart and Jack Reacher, acting out of his depth. He put himself in a position he could only get out of by shooting Martin. But since everything he did was close enough to legal, he could not properly be convicted of premeditated murder. Now we must wonder if he's learned anything from his experience.)
Anyway, the whole case got Roof thinking. He did some Internet research and found a great deal of evidence that black people are stupid and violent.
Duh.
Of course they're stupid and violent. They're human beings. We invented stupid and violent.
What is Roof himself, if not stupid and violent?
It's said he almost called off his attack because the black people were so kind to him in that church. Unfortunately, his sketchy research kept him on track.
(He should never have gone into a church. Religious people are supposed to be kinder and nicer than non-religious people and must act accordingly—whether they want to or not.)
Roof makes some interesting points in his manifesto. He says black people are raised to be more racially aware than whites. That would appear to be true.
Black kids (even President Obama's kids) have to experience the "conversation," wherein they are instructed how to behave around white cops—lest they be shot or beaten or arrested for no reason. White kids are not subjected to the conversation.
(Unless you count being warned to be careful around black folks, who—it is alleged—all carry straight razors.)
"Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior." [sic]
I've never done a study of it, but I'm willing to believe the three traits mentioned are more prevalent in the prison population than out. For blacks and whites.
Whether these traits show up more often in the black population than among whites, I have no idea. It's tempting to use this measure to explain the disproportionate number of blacks in American prisons, but there are a lot of other factors likely to weigh in, possibly to dominate the equation.
Roof is probably right when he suggests any attempt at a scientific study of the differences between blacks and whites would likely get the researcher fired. And that's a shame. If differences exist but are kept hidden, they can never be addressed, possibly to the detriment of us all.
Roof champions segregation not only because it keeps white folks away from all those black monsters out there but because it keeps white folks from descending to the sub-human level of the blacks, culturally.
He's also concerned about schools in "bad" (i.e., black) neighborhoods where whites might be forced to attend. Schools designed to deal with lower IQs, lower impulse control, and higher levels of testosterone would presumably have less time left over to teach stuff.
Roof has problems with the school instruction he received, noting that when white folks do bad things (to blacks and others), it's because the perpetrators are white. When whites do good things (like invent civilization), it's never because they're white.
On the other hand, whenever a black man does something noteworthy, the fact he's black is considered a major deal.
When you come down to it, Dylann Roof's main plea is for renewed segregation. He's says it's not too late, that an American population only 30% white could "take it back completely."
What isn't clear is how killing nine black Bible students is a step on that path. Maybe he needed to do some more research.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
MORE OF THE SAME
The news keeps bringing the same stories around time after time, with slight variations or additions.
Now we find out folks in Cleveland have asked a judge to weigh in on the case of the kid with the "toy" gun. The judge is a black man, as it turns out. He recommends the cops be charged, the shooter with murder.
For that charge to begin to make sense, several things have to be in place: It has to be common knowledge (and a fact) that white cops (or maybe all cops) have an innate (and possibly supernatural) sense of when a gun is real or not. This uncanny sense must operate even when the "gun" in question is a replica that literally cannot be told from its real counterpart without being handled.
And of course, having "sensed" the gun to be fake, the white cop has but a fraction of a second to come to the following conclusion: Now I can murder a black kid for no reason and get away with it!
Both these items must be true for even an un-premeditated chance of a lifetime lottery-winning moment of racial murder.
I don't buy it, but apparently a vast number of people know all of this is true. They know it's so clearly and incontrovertibly true that if they don't get their indictments they can only conclude the white justice system is stiffing them again.
Last week video surfaced of a white cop attempting to do something with an unruly crowd of mostly black teenagers that got out of hand at a pool party in McKinney, Texas.
The cop seemed to be alone out there, running around like a madman trying to bring order. Apparently fights had broken out over who was allowed into the pool area on a hot muggy day.
He's seen trying to arrest a young black girl in a bikini, attempting to force her face down to the grass. When some boys swarmed over to interfere, the cop jumped up and pulled his weapon on them.
As usual, civilians are ignorant of police procedures.
The girl seemed unwilling to assume the necessary position (on her belly with her hands behind her back). At this point, a lone cop has only two options: walk away or physically force the girl into position.
Maybe the cop should have thrown up his hands and said: "Okay, I give up. You folks go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm gonna go get me an iced tea or something."
Attempting to make the second choice (force the subject into position to be cuffed) is always problematical when there are other people around. Physically forcing someone to the ground looks aggressive and brutal. It's an action that might easily provoke others to intervene, escalating the situation.
A more recent video shows a cop wrestling with a teen runaway, attempting to put him in custody. The cop used a Taser on the fellow to subdue him. More brutality, obviously. And, in some bizarre cosmic mix-up, the kid was white.
Every time something like this happens—and is caught by the camera of the ubiquitous smart phone—viewers are going to form the same popular conclusion: Cops are out of control!
And yes, some of them are out of control. Cops who give an arrestee a "rough ride" in the paddy wagon, then ignore his pleas for medical attention. Cops who would shoot a fleeing man in the back because they don't want to break a sweat chasing him down.
But the majority of cops are not out of control. They're simply performing their jobs as they have been trained.
The problem is, a lot people misunderstand the sort of unavoidable physical confrontation that cops are forced into by folks who refuse to be arrested. You can't just say: "If the guy doesn't want to be arrested, let him go."
Sometimes the cops enter a gray area. Classic example: Rodney King. A man who didn't want to be arrested. A man who fought the police.
The cops Tased him, and when that didn't work they pounded on him with batons. They kept hitting him until he co-operated by lying flat out on his belly with his hands behind his back.
(That's not exactly how it ended, but you can see the baton-wielding cop stop hitting King and reach for his cuffs the instant King complied.)
But you could ask: Shouldn't the cops have found a way to end this thing a little earlier? Were they having too much fun beating the guy? Were they taking advantage of the rules to punish King for giving them a hard time?
On the other hand, if King had remained in the vehicle following the chase (he was the passenger), things may well have turned out differently. If he hadn't fought with the cops, the beating would likely not have occurred.
Unless, of course, the cops were a bunch of white racists just itching to lay into some hapless black guy with batons.
Unfortunately, a large number of people seem to know that was exactly what happened that night: Racist cops grabbing an opportunity to rough up the black guy.
More and more people nowadays seem to harbor such knowledge. They can't get it out of their heads. Every day a new video surfaces that proves their knowledge to be true (as if it needed proving; once it's in your head, it's golden).
The list of examples can never get smaller, only larger. People know what they know and they can't be wrong. Everything they see proves them right.
It's how we roll.
The real question is: How the hell did we manage to get this far without self-righteously murdering every one of our neighbors in just payment for their despicable crimes? This planet should long ago have been given back to the animals from whence we so unprofitably sprung.
For some reason, we've decided to prolong the torture before the inevitable kill. Maybe it just feels right.
Now we find out folks in Cleveland have asked a judge to weigh in on the case of the kid with the "toy" gun. The judge is a black man, as it turns out. He recommends the cops be charged, the shooter with murder.
For that charge to begin to make sense, several things have to be in place: It has to be common knowledge (and a fact) that white cops (or maybe all cops) have an innate (and possibly supernatural) sense of when a gun is real or not. This uncanny sense must operate even when the "gun" in question is a replica that literally cannot be told from its real counterpart without being handled.
And of course, having "sensed" the gun to be fake, the white cop has but a fraction of a second to come to the following conclusion: Now I can murder a black kid for no reason and get away with it!
Both these items must be true for even an un-premeditated chance of a lifetime lottery-winning moment of racial murder.
I don't buy it, but apparently a vast number of people know all of this is true. They know it's so clearly and incontrovertibly true that if they don't get their indictments they can only conclude the white justice system is stiffing them again.
Last week video surfaced of a white cop attempting to do something with an unruly crowd of mostly black teenagers that got out of hand at a pool party in McKinney, Texas.
The cop seemed to be alone out there, running around like a madman trying to bring order. Apparently fights had broken out over who was allowed into the pool area on a hot muggy day.
He's seen trying to arrest a young black girl in a bikini, attempting to force her face down to the grass. When some boys swarmed over to interfere, the cop jumped up and pulled his weapon on them.
As usual, civilians are ignorant of police procedures.
The girl seemed unwilling to assume the necessary position (on her belly with her hands behind her back). At this point, a lone cop has only two options: walk away or physically force the girl into position.
Maybe the cop should have thrown up his hands and said: "Okay, I give up. You folks go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm gonna go get me an iced tea or something."
Attempting to make the second choice (force the subject into position to be cuffed) is always problematical when there are other people around. Physically forcing someone to the ground looks aggressive and brutal. It's an action that might easily provoke others to intervene, escalating the situation.
A more recent video shows a cop wrestling with a teen runaway, attempting to put him in custody. The cop used a Taser on the fellow to subdue him. More brutality, obviously. And, in some bizarre cosmic mix-up, the kid was white.
Every time something like this happens—and is caught by the camera of the ubiquitous smart phone—viewers are going to form the same popular conclusion: Cops are out of control!
And yes, some of them are out of control. Cops who give an arrestee a "rough ride" in the paddy wagon, then ignore his pleas for medical attention. Cops who would shoot a fleeing man in the back because they don't want to break a sweat chasing him down.
But the majority of cops are not out of control. They're simply performing their jobs as they have been trained.
The problem is, a lot people misunderstand the sort of unavoidable physical confrontation that cops are forced into by folks who refuse to be arrested. You can't just say: "If the guy doesn't want to be arrested, let him go."
Sometimes the cops enter a gray area. Classic example: Rodney King. A man who didn't want to be arrested. A man who fought the police.
The cops Tased him, and when that didn't work they pounded on him with batons. They kept hitting him until he co-operated by lying flat out on his belly with his hands behind his back.
(That's not exactly how it ended, but you can see the baton-wielding cop stop hitting King and reach for his cuffs the instant King complied.)
But you could ask: Shouldn't the cops have found a way to end this thing a little earlier? Were they having too much fun beating the guy? Were they taking advantage of the rules to punish King for giving them a hard time?
On the other hand, if King had remained in the vehicle following the chase (he was the passenger), things may well have turned out differently. If he hadn't fought with the cops, the beating would likely not have occurred.
Unless, of course, the cops were a bunch of white racists just itching to lay into some hapless black guy with batons.
Unfortunately, a large number of people seem to know that was exactly what happened that night: Racist cops grabbing an opportunity to rough up the black guy.
More and more people nowadays seem to harbor such knowledge. They can't get it out of their heads. Every day a new video surfaces that proves their knowledge to be true (as if it needed proving; once it's in your head, it's golden).
The list of examples can never get smaller, only larger. People know what they know and they can't be wrong. Everything they see proves them right.
It's how we roll.
The real question is: How the hell did we manage to get this far without self-righteously murdering every one of our neighbors in just payment for their despicable crimes? This planet should long ago have been given back to the animals from whence we so unprofitably sprung.
For some reason, we've decided to prolong the torture before the inevitable kill. Maybe it just feels right.
Friday, May 29, 2015
CLEVELAND
Things are heating up in Cleveland, following the acquittal of a white cope who helped end a massive police chase of a car containing a black couple who refused to comply to an order to stop.
The cop apparently jumped onto the hood of the car and fired fifteen times into the windshield. The car was also hit by other officers, some 137 times altogether. The judge seemed to say it was impossible to say whether the guy on trial killed the couple--or even hit them himself. (I have to assume the wounds were through and through, or ballistics would answer that question.)
A relative of the couple said she could see that the dead folks had made a mistake in fleeing the police, but that their action was not a capital offense. They didn't deserve the death penalty.
I believe she's missing the point.
If you jump in front of a cop and wave a knife in his face, you're likely to get shot dead. Despite the fact brandishing a knife is not a death-penalty offense.
You have to allow for the possibility the cop might fear for his own safety and act accordingly. He also has to consider it's his job to deal with you and your knife. If he lets you stab him to death, that leaves you free to go off and maybe stab somebody else.
If a cop has a moment to think, and room to move behind him, he might draw his weapon but back up, ordering you to drop the knife. Yeah, that sometimes works.
If you're driving along the road and a cop car lights you up, you need to stop. Failing to do so suggests to the cop you have something to hide. Maybe a weapon.
Run from the cops, they will chase you.
The longer you evade in a vehicle, the more cop cars you accumulate behind you. We see this on TV almost every day.
Trying to get a two-ton chunk of rolling metal to stop ain't easy. And that thing can kill people. If the black couple didn't have a gun, you can't say they didn't have a weapon. The car itself is a weapon.
As I understand it, there were something like a hundred cops surrounding that car at the end of the pursuit. Lot of adrenaline out there, guys pumped up, ready for action.
I think it would be an oversimplification to say they all fired at the car out of hatred for black folks.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying white cops can't be a bunch of racist assholes. Of course they can. I'm just saying we can't be absolutely sure that's what happened in this case.
Protesters, of course, know different.
And that attitude of certainty fuels the problem. It is not impossible the black couple failed to stop because they were worried what a bunch of white cops would do to them if they did.
This is an atmosphere ripe for escalation. Black folks confront white cops trying to get them to over-react. Cops are getting assassinated in their cars.
Everybody is acting on what they are convinced is rock-solid evidence of incontrovertible truth.
Being human, we're almost completely wrong about all of it. But we can't help it. We're wired to get things wrong and not to notice we're doing it.
The other Cleveland story stoking the heat: The kid shot dead with a "toy" gun in his hand. Folks want action taken against the murdering cops.
First, take a step back.
That gun was a "toy" in only one sense, that it was incapable of firing real bullets. It looked exactly like a semi-automatic pistol. No orange end piece on the muzzle, the way the law requires. It might just as well have been a real but unloaded gun.
On the news I've heard it referred to as a plastic pellet gun. It's not clear if reporters mean the gun was plastic or that it fired plastic pellets. The latter, I suspect. A plastic gun might not be able to handle the pressure necessary to fire a pellet.
On the CBS network news, Scott Pelley likes to call it a "toy pellet gun." As opposed to a real pellet gun? I don't think there is such a thing as a "toy" pellet gun.
The item is always labeled a toy, but only occasionally is it shown on the screen. In the approximately two seconds that elapsed between the time the cop car arrived and the fatal shot was fired, it would be impossible to tell if the gun was real or not. Cops have to assume guns that look real are real. And full of bullets. It's the only safe and reasonable thing to think.
Will the mother get prosecuted for letting her kid roam the city with what looked exactly like a real gun?
Don't hold your breath.
She's lucky: Her kid was black and the cop was white. Now that's the only issue on the table. Her part in this tragedy will never come under scrutiny.
The cops also made a mistake that day. They pulled up too close to the kid, which meant their response had to be super fast. The kid was right there, walking toward the cruiser. There was no time for the cops to take cover, giving the boy a chance to drop the weapon.
Cops need new technology. They need sci-fi style "phasers"--set in the default position to stun. Knock a guy out and you can disarm and cuff him at your leisure. The phaser should be a cop's primary weapon. Any gun that fires lead slugs should be held in reserve. See a threat, draw the phaser and put the bad guy on the ground.
The technology of policing can always be improved. That's easy. The hard part will be to get humans to stop being so stupid. That'll probably take forever.
Or at least, until we stop being human.
The cop apparently jumped onto the hood of the car and fired fifteen times into the windshield. The car was also hit by other officers, some 137 times altogether. The judge seemed to say it was impossible to say whether the guy on trial killed the couple--or even hit them himself. (I have to assume the wounds were through and through, or ballistics would answer that question.)
A relative of the couple said she could see that the dead folks had made a mistake in fleeing the police, but that their action was not a capital offense. They didn't deserve the death penalty.
I believe she's missing the point.
If you jump in front of a cop and wave a knife in his face, you're likely to get shot dead. Despite the fact brandishing a knife is not a death-penalty offense.
You have to allow for the possibility the cop might fear for his own safety and act accordingly. He also has to consider it's his job to deal with you and your knife. If he lets you stab him to death, that leaves you free to go off and maybe stab somebody else.
If a cop has a moment to think, and room to move behind him, he might draw his weapon but back up, ordering you to drop the knife. Yeah, that sometimes works.
If you're driving along the road and a cop car lights you up, you need to stop. Failing to do so suggests to the cop you have something to hide. Maybe a weapon.
Run from the cops, they will chase you.
The longer you evade in a vehicle, the more cop cars you accumulate behind you. We see this on TV almost every day.
Trying to get a two-ton chunk of rolling metal to stop ain't easy. And that thing can kill people. If the black couple didn't have a gun, you can't say they didn't have a weapon. The car itself is a weapon.
As I understand it, there were something like a hundred cops surrounding that car at the end of the pursuit. Lot of adrenaline out there, guys pumped up, ready for action.
I think it would be an oversimplification to say they all fired at the car out of hatred for black folks.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying white cops can't be a bunch of racist assholes. Of course they can. I'm just saying we can't be absolutely sure that's what happened in this case.
Protesters, of course, know different.
And that attitude of certainty fuels the problem. It is not impossible the black couple failed to stop because they were worried what a bunch of white cops would do to them if they did.
This is an atmosphere ripe for escalation. Black folks confront white cops trying to get them to over-react. Cops are getting assassinated in their cars.
Everybody is acting on what they are convinced is rock-solid evidence of incontrovertible truth.
Being human, we're almost completely wrong about all of it. But we can't help it. We're wired to get things wrong and not to notice we're doing it.
The other Cleveland story stoking the heat: The kid shot dead with a "toy" gun in his hand. Folks want action taken against the murdering cops.
First, take a step back.
That gun was a "toy" in only one sense, that it was incapable of firing real bullets. It looked exactly like a semi-automatic pistol. No orange end piece on the muzzle, the way the law requires. It might just as well have been a real but unloaded gun.
On the news I've heard it referred to as a plastic pellet gun. It's not clear if reporters mean the gun was plastic or that it fired plastic pellets. The latter, I suspect. A plastic gun might not be able to handle the pressure necessary to fire a pellet.
On the CBS network news, Scott Pelley likes to call it a "toy pellet gun." As opposed to a real pellet gun? I don't think there is such a thing as a "toy" pellet gun.
The item is always labeled a toy, but only occasionally is it shown on the screen. In the approximately two seconds that elapsed between the time the cop car arrived and the fatal shot was fired, it would be impossible to tell if the gun was real or not. Cops have to assume guns that look real are real. And full of bullets. It's the only safe and reasonable thing to think.
Will the mother get prosecuted for letting her kid roam the city with what looked exactly like a real gun?
Don't hold your breath.
She's lucky: Her kid was black and the cop was white. Now that's the only issue on the table. Her part in this tragedy will never come under scrutiny.
The cops also made a mistake that day. They pulled up too close to the kid, which meant their response had to be super fast. The kid was right there, walking toward the cruiser. There was no time for the cops to take cover, giving the boy a chance to drop the weapon.
Cops need new technology. They need sci-fi style "phasers"--set in the default position to stun. Knock a guy out and you can disarm and cuff him at your leisure. The phaser should be a cop's primary weapon. Any gun that fires lead slugs should be held in reserve. See a threat, draw the phaser and put the bad guy on the ground.
The technology of policing can always be improved. That's easy. The hard part will be to get humans to stop being so stupid. That'll probably take forever.
Or at least, until we stop being human.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)