And they wonder why they're hated

Said the man taking a video of a police "incident" from his front porch in Tallahassee, Florida.  Apparently a woman walking down a narrow residential street with no sidewalks had inquired something of a police officer, one of a great many who had congregated, their cars lining a narrow suburban lane with lights flashing to arrest three people for being suspicious.  Apparently there was a complaint about a drug deal, but of course no one would know except the officers.  Why not ask about an operation of that size in front of your house? 

But we're only citizens.  Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to obey, to be chased away or be tased in the back while calmly walking from the scene, as requested,  face smashed violently into the pavement,  dragged away in chains for not responding submissively enough to suit a cop assuming the right  to chase her away from a public place she had the right to be.  Sounds suspiciously like a case of the right to stand one's ground against an armed attacker Liberals love to hate.

But of course we don't have the right when it comes to the police.  Ignoring the traditional copscreaming, the verbal abuse and threats we associate with the swashbuckling and bullying style of public relations some cops practice, the woman simply jerked her arm when someone behind her grabbed it -- perhaps something either you or I might have done as a reflex.  After all, there was no "stop, you're under arrest" nor any cause for one.

She wasn't a young woman, perhaps old enough to be your mother or even your grandmother.  She was no threat to anyone, or at least no threat to any sane one -- anyone not in an ecstatic froth of  arrest frenzy so common to police action. Is it an act to justify the systemic disrespect for the citizens they're supposed to serve? Is it necessary to work up courage before shoving women into a police car, like Viking berserkers, like headhunters before a raid?  Are they cowards or do they just love the art of the tantrum? 

And they wonder why they're hated.

Ask yourself  if the constitution and rules of common decency gives a policeman the right to shoot your mother in the back because she isn't walking fast enough to please him -- perhaps because he doesn't want witnesses to what he's doing?  Ask yourself why a cop can assume the right to talk to anyone in such a fashion -- someone not even a suspect.

I think there are bigger questions than the issue of racism. I think we need to remember, before we fools rush in to frame this only in terms of racism, that if they can do this to anyone whether it's because she is black, or lives in a less than affluent neighborhood, or asks an inconvenient question or for no damned reason at all other than he's a cop and he has a gun and he can get away with it -- we need to remember that if he can do that to her, he can do that to you.  It's a crime against all of us. It's a crime against liberty and justice and what ought to be the American way.

Yes, the officer has been suspended, but would he have been without the video?  It's been said countless times that God didn't make all men equal, Sam Colt did.  True or not, the pocket video recorder has made our word the equal or superior word to that of authority.  Video can exonerate, it can damn, it can set us free. It can shine light on ugliness and falsehood as well as on truth.  I wholeheartedly support equipping the police with cameras, but I'm starting to believe that there should be a recognized, guaranteed right to keep and bear video cameras because they are necessary for the benefit of a free society.

FREE SPEECH, HATE SPEECH, AND THE COMPANY WE KEEP

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Our country is unique in practicing the most liberal form of free speech among Western democracies. Yet even in America, the right to free speech is by no means absolute. All rights have limitations; freedom imposes requisite responsibilities; civil and criminal laws govern our conduct. The right to free speech does not include:

Defamation, fraud, imminent incitement of lawless actions, perjury, pornography, sedition, theft of intellectual property, or violations of national security, as examples.

Our European counterparts across the pond enjoy similar freedoms. All member nations of the European Union are signatories to a convention on human rights that guarantees free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to associate, to assemble, and to demonstrate. Yet, here too are notable exceptions:

Free access to information does not abrogate a personal right to privacy. Hate speech, the propagation of hate groups, the denigration of any nation or any race or any ethnic group, any attempt to infringe upon the civil rights of any group, any promoter of genocide or any denial of a history of genocide … these are examples of prohibited speech punishable by law.

Our country does not impose such restrictions. In America, hate speech – no matter how abhorrent - is legal. Hate groups are free to associate, assemble and demonstrate in the streets. A rabid rabble may denigrate any nation or any race or any ethnic group at will. Holocaust denial - no matter how repugnant - is legal. There is no statutory right to privacy in our Constitution.

Political speech removes many restraints normally imposed under civil law. Defamation is legal. Deception, fraudulent attack ads, demagoguery, fear mongering, opponents demonizing opponents with half-truths and outright lies … these have become standard operating procedure. Money has become the currency of political speech; wealthy donors now wield more power and influence than voters; and ‘pay for play’ – formerly known as ‘graft’ – masquerades under cover of Super PACS. Yet, even political speech has limits: An informal code of community standards – and public disapproval - serves as a check on intemperate political speech.

As a medium of free speech, the Internet is the most uninhibited and unregulated of all - where anything goes. Trolls hiding beneath anonymous monikers will hijack and commandeer your discussion threads. Scammers will spam your email box with cons and malware; hackers will compromise your privacy; and cyber criminals will steal your identity. Schoolyard bullies have tormented vulnerable teenagers – driving some to suicide. Everywhere in Cyberspace, there are predators and stalkers, sadists and sociopaths. Without doubt, the Internet has devolved into a lawless and savage place. Which brings me to the subject of this post …

Sexual harassment and threats of sexual violence prompted Shaw Kenawe, author of Progressive Eruptions and long time member of this community, to suspend her web log.

This is not the first time sexual harassment has driven a woman off the Internet. Years ago, there was a well-publicized account of Kathy Sierra, a highly successful author of books on computer programming. The "Mean Kids" - men in the computer industry who were jealous of her success - threatened her with gang rape, gang violence, even death threats. Intimidated and terrorized, Kathy Sierra canceled all public appearances and removed her web log from the Internet.

Sadly, the same kind of criminal behavior that terrorized Kathy Sierra prompted Shaw’s decision. Her perpetrators originate from the far rightwing fringes of Cyberspace and use the pseudonymous monikers of Radical Redneck and Texas Stomp, among others. These email assaults on Shaw are NOT FIT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. Having seen them myself, I shall describe them only in brief: Hate messages, threats of sexual violence, allusions to smearing victims in excrement – illustrated with vile pornography.

Almost immediately, the far rightwing fringe noticed the absence of Progressive Eruptions from Cyberspace:

FreeThinke: “Chalk up another victory for censorious, cowardly, smug, closed, self-congratulatory minds … It's like MASTURBATION … How pathetically paranoid could you get?” (Deleted by blog administrator) 

There is nothing paranoid about Cyber-Bullying and threats of sexual violence. Incendiary partisan hate speech is just as contemptible as other forms of hate speech – especially when coercion and intimidation deprive victims of their safety and human dignity. Another rightwing fringe blogger issued a blanket denial:

Lisa: “Nobody here has ever made any direct threats” (Deleted by blog administrator).

Here is my reply of Friday, September 26, 2014 (edited for brevity):

Octopus: “Denial, denial, denial will score NO points under God or under Law. Since my last comment, I have received [Shaw’s] file of hate messages … Lisa, that makes not ONE or TWO but THREE followers of your blog who have menaced Shaw” (Deleted by blog administrator).

As you can surmise from the deletions noted in parenthesis, Lisa unceremoniously removed the entire post along with all 79 comments from the Internet. I will never know her thoughts or reasons; yet I wonder: Has Lisa ever experienced bullying or gender bias or sexual harassment in her lifetime? Fortunately, I was able to rescue one comment before it disappeared from Cyberspace:

FreeThinke: “The ever-present assumption of moral superiority on the part of leftists -- or any other identifiable faction like Jews and Fundamentalist Christians -- is not only DEPRESSING, it's NAUSEATING and INFURIATING  ...  If you can't take it, DON'T DISH IT OUT” (Deleted by blog administrator).

What is missing here? No word of empathy or support for the victim! No appeals to common decency! A dismissive attitude devoid of conscience! Please note the reference to ‘leftists … Jews, and Fundamentalist Christians.’ How odd, yet revealing.

Anyone who visits the far rightwing blogosphere enters an Anti-Universe where the conventions of civil discourse and logic no longer apply:

Never concede an argument (no matter how specious); always debunk opposing viewpoints (even when factual); always keep a strawman by your side (to paint your opponent in preposterously extreme terms verging on caricature); turn up the volume of tone-deafness; deny; play the victim card; attack, attack; and repeat often.

In far rightwing Cyberspace, let Projection be your ally:

Distort, misquote, harp, carp, nitpick, accuse, slander, insult, heckle, taunt, and get angry – all while accusing your opponent of behaving in precisely the same manner.

Hence, the impression of a friend who visits these faraway reaches of Space-Time:

Dave Miller: “I personally am sick and tired of being referred to by conservatives as a libturd, a socialist, a commie and whatever assorted names people can dream up to annoy” (September 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM).

Dave Miller: “I know it's off point, but seeing so many of the typical right-wing talking points, without any evidence to support their claims, pushed me to the edge …” (September 19, 2014 at 1:47 PM).

Which brings me to an obvious question: Why go there? Why subject yourself to bad faith arguments, sleazy ad hominem personal attacks, falsehoods, and never-ending verbal abuse! Why give them the satisfaction of skinning your goat! Sometimes I wonder … 

FreeThinke (August 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM):

When'er the Brits are driven away

Black tyrants often come to prey.

When White Men let their burden down

Savages will take the crown

Place it on their nappy heads […] 

How much blood might have been saved

If they'd stayed happily enslaved!

Waylon: “I don't accept at face value the official version of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks … “Veterans Today” enumerates several points of the story which contradict the official version, including the mysterious "Dancing Israelis" …” (September 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM).

FreeThinke: “This country was conceived, designed and developed by WHITE, PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN MEN (…) As long as we stuck to THEIR concepts and abided by THER ideals, we did very well. Once the "Progressives" won a large share of public confidence, we've been plunged into incessant turmoil […] Coincidentally, the national IQ has been dropping like a stone ever since” (October 15, 2013 at 8:39:00 AM EDT).

Bizarre conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, virulent racism: Do you read the same words on screen that I read? There are times when my conservative and libertarian friends – unburdened by a bleeding heart and starry-eyed naiveté - rise to the occasion with a keener sense of moral clarity than fellow liberals:

DMarks: “Your attempt to blame Jews is an echo of the old Nazi-touted "Protocols of the Elders of Zion” …" (September 12, 2014 at 7:54 AM).

Waylon: "… it's funny how "the chosen tribe" react when the topic is raised ...” (September 12, 2014 at 8:21 AM).

DMarks: “Waylon proved my point of his Nazi sympathies when he discussed the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (September 13, 2014 at 10:55 AM).

Dmarks, a conservative friend of this forum, deserves kudos for confronting anti-Semitism. Rational Nation USA, a libertarian friend of this forum, challenged the hypocritical projections of a writer whose nom de plume trades on the very idea of free thought - but turns all mirrors to the wall. The notorious FreeThinke bullies all comers alike:

“GET OUT and STAY OUT. I DON'T WANT YOU HERE. GOT THAT? NOW MOVE ALONG” (September 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM).

Dmarks: “FreeThinke: Reading your comment to RN, I can see that free thinking is not so welcome here” (September 12, 2014 at 8:05 AM).

Free speech and freedom to associate are fundamental human rights ensconced in our Constitution. Yet, four years ago, a far rightwing rabble assailed a conservative writer for committing the unpardonable sin of befriending liberals. In defense of a friend, your intrepid cephalopod wrote:

“Rightwing critics disparage the term political correctness as a Marxist plot whose aim is to undermine conservative values and impose social conformity … Yet, the same rightwing critics employ a far more sinister version of political correctness. They make use of litmus tests to enforce ideological orthodoxy in thought, speech, and personal associations. They will not hesitate to browbeat fellow conservatives into submission with condemnation and excommunication. How ironic! The rightwing accuses the left of using political correctness to impose social conformity; yet, the same rightwingers use coercive means to enforce groupthink within their ranks” (A Blessed Kristallnacht to All - January 6, 2010).

The Cringe Fringe. In my opinion, far rightwing radicals are not truly representative of a political movement. More reminiscent of a cult, they are a collective of Angry Birds, malcontents, misfits and soulless people in search of ritual scapegoats to blame for their misery. Their word salad of epithets – “libtard” and “libturd” for liberals and “”traitor” and “turncoat” for conservatives – is merely another form of projection. They shun any democratic exchange of ideas through the use of suppression, condemnation, ostracism, and elimination. Sometimes a Godwin Fallacy is not a fallacy. The Cringe Fringe is the Internet analogue of henchmen and street thugs - the adulators and adherents of demagogues and lunatic ideologues - that marked the final days of the Weimar Republic. What is their appeal? For an adrenaline rush, at least Hannibal Lector was a fictional character.

In yet another account of bullying, blackmail, and misogyny in Cyberspace, Katie McDonough reports:

“[Anyone] familiar with abuser dynamics will recognize those threats for what they were: Manipulation. Domination. More abuse [my bold] ...  But then I have this other question, a question about the abuser. How do we get him help, or whatever the word is here since “help” doesn’t seem quite right” (Monday, Sep 29, 2014 02:59 PM).”

No doubt, we encounter predators and stalkers, narcissists and sociopaths everywhere in Cyberspace, and they are VERY DISTURBED PERSONS! Yet, we must tread carefully. The nexus between behavioral science and partisan politics is dangerous because psychobabble is yet another overly-used and often-abused form of ad hominem abuse. Please recall the former Soviet Union and the use of ‘psychiatry’ as an instrument of oppression.

The Internet is NOT an appropriate medium for psychotherapy; yet we are well within our rights to demand accountability. To borrow a quote from Rational Nation USA: “Shine a bright spotlight into a dirty corner and it will get cleaned up.” Here is what ALL OF US can do:

Discuss Cyber-Bullying openly and honestly.

Condemn abusive and offensive conduct.

Report unsolicited pornography to your Internet provider.

Report Cyber-Bullying to law enforcement.

And consult this website.

I ask all men on behalf of the women in their lives - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, family and friends inclusive – to condemn these acts of misogyny and sexism in Cyberspace. Although we play a very small part in this global Internet community, we have a mutually shared responsibility to raise the standard of discourse and keep it clean. 

Incidentally, we can also choose better friends.

Did Adolf get right with God?

Let's talk about Hitler again, shall we? That's always a fun topic, right?

Here's the thing. The God-botherers keep trying to avoid the sad truth - that Hitler was, in fact, a Christian. I've just had a 3-day argument with a guy on Twitter who doesn't want to admit it, and he had two different arguments. The first is just to lie about the subject, and the second is to claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian because he didn't follow the proper "Christian virtues."

Here's the problem: Hitler was an amazingly private man. He didn't share his private thoughts with a lot of people, and that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. On the one hand, we have the writings of Goebbels and Bormann, who claimed he spoke badly of Christianity to them. Unfortunately, these were private conversations with no way to verify them, and both men were open, contemptuous atheists, who wanted Hitler to believe the way they did.

And then you get books like Hitler's Cross, written by Erwin Lutzer, an evangelical pastor, who desperately wanted Hitler not to have believed in the same things he did.

But on the other hand, we have his extensive use of Christian themes in his writings and speeches. We also have the fact that the Wehrmacht had the motto "God is with us," which seems fairly straightforward.

We also have the fact that Hitler was raised Catholic, and went to a monastary school; he was even an altar boy. The Vatican had an agreement with the Nazis called the Reichconcordat. Hitler never left the Catholic church, and (unlike Goebbels), was never excommunicated. But, to be honest, he wasn't Catholic. What he actually was, was a member of the religion he sponsored and supported, the Deutsche Christen (German Christian) movement.

See, the problem with standard Christian doctrine was that it was a little too Jewy for Adolph and his party boys. So, back in 1907, a guy named Max Bewer wrote a book called Der Deutsche Christus ("The German Christ"), where his theory was that Jesus was a product of Mary cuckolding Joseph with some German soldiers from the Roman Garrison (that's the body - the whole "spirit" thing still comes from God).

Philosophically, they ignored (and in some cases, removed) the Old Testament (you know, what some people even today call "the Hebrew Bible"), and pushed what they called "positive Christianity" (Positives Christentum) - less stress on that Lutheran "sinfulness" thing, more on redemption (in fact, if you strip away the Nazi overtones, it's similar to what mega-churches preach today).

Was Hitler a "good Christian"? Well, that's where you have to define your terms. Was he raised a Christian? Yes, he was. Did he go to church? Why, yes. He did. He also prayed with his troops, and insisted that chaplains travel with his troops, too.

Did he attend church every Sunday? Probably not. He was a busy man: had a country to run, other countries to invade, people to oppress. Kind of like Donald Trump.

An argument can be made that "Hitler was more of an opportunist than a good church-goer." But that doesn't negate his Christianity: my grandfather, an Army chaplain, used to talk about "Et Cetera Christians" (ETC - Easter Thanksgiving Christmas).

Most Christians go to church out of habit, mouthing the words because that's expected. And then they go about their daily lives, slandering people, ignoring the sick and the hungry, and generally ignoring all the good things that Jesus Christ supported ("Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:31-46)

And remember: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10) And while you may not agree with him, Hitler always thought he was doing good works

So the basic argument against Hitler being a Christian boils down to "Some people who hated Christianity said he hated Christianity too!" and "Some of his writings opposed the other churches and he didn't like the Jewish parts of Christianity! I'm going to ignore all the pro-Christian things he said!"

Once you strip those away, you're left with "Well, he did un-Christian things," which would certainly be an effective argument to make, if you were likewise going to say that nobody can be a Christian: Hitler may have done more horrific acts than most, but who actually lives up to the words of Jesus?

For example, even if you're lying about Hitler, you're still lying.

Presidents don't salute

In the 24 hour news world, domestic abuse, particularly athlete and celebrity domestic abuse is the theme of the week.  It's likely to remain so until the abuse stories become so minor it becomes necessary to manufacture them or until some other chew toy is tossed to the media by circumstances.  What that will be, which of many will be picked up by CNN or Fox as the gonfallon of the next cycle is hard to predict.

Today's prime candidate for our next obsession   is the video clip of

Obama exiting a helicopter and saluting the marine guard with a cup of coffee in his hand.  The local Fox outlet took time out from covering wars and calamities and domestic abuse stories to discuss the implied disrespect for the people who sacrifice for "our freedom" or get dressed up to help the president off a helicopter, which ever comes first.

One characteristic of the news in our time is that we get enough information to prop up the theme of the story but never nearly enough to let you speculate on how it fits into the big picture.  Surprise surprise, presidents saluting the military is rather new to be calling it a tradition.  I believe it started with Reagan, who of course served WW II in Hollywood.  Some nations forbid saluting while "uncovered" or not wearing a hat.  According to Marine protocol:

" Marines do not render the hand salute when out of uniform or when uncovered."  

Whether or not an "uncovered"  or out of uniform president,  or any other civilian is required to return such a salute is open to interpretation.  There is no universal rule and one must remember commuting by helicopter is as common as driving to work or taking the bus is for the rest of us -- not much of a public ceremony. There is no rule about doing something because Reagan's PR people told Reagan to do it.

 

"The gesture is of course quite wrong: Such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform.  It represents an exaggeration of the president's military role."  Wrote author and historian John Lukacs wrote in The New York Times in 2003 when Bush was in the White house and it was un-American to criticize the Warpresident..

It does seem that saluting with a cup of coffee seems a bit thoughtless or impolitic, or while talking on the telephone -- even if you're talking to Putin or scheduling an attack on Syria, but that alone doesn't sufficiently serve the cause of providing fodder for the Obamabashers.  We have to call it a "latte" because coffee with milk in it isn't as funny or as easy a target for scorn.  We must not mention or take note that when Bush saluted with a dog under his arm or when Eisenhower didn't salute at all we didn't melt into a puddle of contempt on the floor. We must not question the fact that the president is a civilian and  doesn't have a uniform to wear even if he is a commander in chief or ask whether he's subject to military protocols.  This is Obama we're talking about and this is the man we must impugn and impede and insult whether the nation is at peril. or not.  

Epawesome

In today's American parlance, or kidspeak as I call it, everything worth mentioning is either awesome or it sucks.  As with some aspects of American politics there's not much in between the extremes of cliche description, although of late some things have become less awesome and more epic. Perhaps the kids are growing tired of awesome as they grow older, some of our kids being in late middle age these days.

Anyway, I have the bad habit of noticing trends and processes in things and I noticed a sign just the other day, advertising a church down here in the Bible belt -- a church where they provide "Epic Worship." 

It's not that epic is a bad or lesser word for what goes on in churches.  The Bible after all is truly an epic: an historical and poetical narrative or tradition.  For those who worship the Bible or the characters in it,  the experience might indeed be awesome in the true sense of the word if I might be permitted to suggest that words have true meaning or history.

Perhaps awesome has lost a bit of its panache, having effectively replaced a large portion of the vocabulary although, like the other cute, cliche manifestations of eternal youth and hipness we cling to, perhaps not. Such things have an extraordinary life span, after all. Backwards hats are entering the second half century of  cutting edge semiotic splendor seen at the country club as well as the convenience store dumpster late at night.  Who knows how much longer things will be awesome or how much longer we'll be content with saying it as though we were Oscar Wilde uttering some fresh, novel and awesomely trenchant witticism.  I suspect one of those syncritisms we see when we study ancient pantheons or senescent dialects: Amun and Ra become Amun-Ra and gigantic and enormous fuse together to make the user feel ginormously less illiterate.

In short, how much longer before we hear epawsome?

The Man Who Would Be King

By Capt. Fogg

President Obama wants to be a king, you know.  We hear that all the time.  He's a tyrant, he appoints Czars to run things, but of course he gets nothing done and plays golf while hordes of armed terrorists cross the borders disguised as children he invited here with his "policies." Never mind that the influx peaked in 2008. 

His policies -- his executive orders -- you know he's issued more of them than any other president and he's trashing the constitution by doing it!

Rand Paul, the man who would be president says his first executive order would be to repeal all previous executive orders, doesn't seem to see that particular order as trashing the constitution or indicating royal presumptions of his own and perhaps because he also asserts that revoking all previous orders would be his only and final order.

Of course the entire premise, that our current executive branch operates primarily by autocratic executive order and in disregard for the "will of the people" (as ignored and filibustered by Congress)  is false.  In fact Obama and his predecessor issued far, far fewer of them than any president in my lifetime.  If the facts don't fit, you're full of shit as Mr. Cochran might have said -- and he would be right.

But Paul's presidential campaign is not about truth or even about Democracy.  It's all about appealing to the irrational and fact-free passions of  the Party and apparently he had to think for a moment about repealing Truman's integration of the military and indeed Lincoln's executive order freeing of the slaves and Eisenhower's desegregation of schools before saying he would repeal and re-instate those which had some saving grace.  One can only imagine the debate about re-instating those three, but I have to wonder about the Napoleonic ego of someone who would repeal all the executive orders of the Washington administration onward and using his own judgement, re-order those he agreed with.  

To the people who cheered and applauded this proclamation without bothering to check any facts or perhaps to those who care little for facts or are able to dismiss them for some metaphysical reasons President Paul is a prospect devoutly to be wished because to those who really would be kings, all that which stands in the way must be done away with, whether true or false, good or bad or disastrous.

Alice in Foxland

When the Mad Hatter asks why a raven is like a writing desk, we recognize that the question is intentionally absurd.  What about the question of why Fox News seems to have given more coverage to the attack on the Benghazi embassy over 2 years ago than to anything in recent memory?  As it relates to the Republican refusal to allow spending on embassy security, we might as well find some connection to ravens and writing desks because the relentless hammering on the importance of  the incident isn't about the administrations "policies" as concerns terrorism, it's about Hillaryphobia. It's a coverup for their own negligence and misdeeds and failures. Steve Benin writes that the Fox aired nearly 1,100 segments over 20 months without any substantive revelations of any culpability and has yet to reveal any reasons to be horrified about anyone but the Republicans in Congress.  

I read in Media Matters that Foxed and Cloroxed host Elisabeth Hasselbeck tweeted the demand for the same transparency about Benghazi and the fake IRS scandal as we demand from the NFL.  Why is it so hard for the rear end of America to see the absurdity of this obsession, the need to connect everything to Benghazi and the cover-up that never was.

I could go on about the efficacy of the Big Lie, the oft-told lie, but  it doesn't help.  I had reluctantly to 'de-friend' someone I've admired on Facebook the other day, when he replied furiously to my comment that there was no scandal there and he'd have to come up with a better reason for his Obamabashing.  It won't be the last time I have to do that, I'm sure, because it's an article of faith that has to be protected from the heretical truth.

Is there a treatment for our national mental disease? Is everything  about Benghazi because nothing is about Benghazi?  Is it all because the people with desperate need to hate him and his party have such a hard time finding reasons after all these years of dire and disastrous predictions yet to come true? 

Why is Fox like a news network?  Like the Mad Hatter's riddle, it isn't a riddle at all.

Pride and Prejudice

Our feelings we with difficulty smother
When constabulary duty's to be done:
Ah, take one consideration with another,
A policeman's lot is not a happy one!

-W.H. Gilbert-

You can't prove a negative, at least that's what the old saw says. I've never wasted  much thought on it but maybe it's time, because we're often required to "prove" to authorities that the cash in our pockets isn't the wages of sin, that we're not trying to break into our own homes, that we aren't inebriated behind the wheel and many other variations on the "who are you?" theme.  How does a woman, for instance, prove to a L.A.P.D. officer that she's not expecting payment for "making out" with her "boyfriend" in his expensive car?  Not by refusing to produce some kind of ID and claiming it's a constitutional offense to ask for it, I would suggest. How many teenagers have been asked for ID by the constabulary in those secluded parking places we used to frequent?   How many times was I stopped either driving or walking, way back in my long hair days?  Sure that's profiling, but is profiling based on behavior forgivable, even necessary?  Isn't it understandable prejudice to suspect the man in the ski mask entering the bank?

It's hard to fault anyone for suspecting that any particular Los Angeles  police officer might be someone prone to prejudice. It's well within the range of possibility, and like many people I tend toward that human proclivity toward prejudice against authority even while I recognize the need for it.  But I do see that sometimes it's impossible to prove one is not prejudiced because in a sense, prejudice is another word for learning from experience. I try not to overuse the accusation. I wonder too if  the policeman's problem of determining who is who and up to what by looking  can be a problem in our brave new world  where everyone tries to dress down as much as possible. At the risk of  hearing the "blame the victim" argument I'll suggest that when everyone looks like a bum, a policeman's lot is not a happy one.

So did the officer suspect the woman sitting in a Mercedes wearing a worn, faded and flimsy tee shirt and trashy shorts of being a prostitute because she was black,  or because she fit the legitimate profile which includes abusively refusing to give a name and address upon official request?  Does it matter?  It does if  you're trying to fit the "incident" into that well worn Procrustean bed of  racism and police conduct. It matters if you're to be accused of  "blaming the victim" which one must never do even if the victim's behavior was part, or even the origin of the problem. 

Interracial couples may no longer be illegal, but they still aren't terribly common. My wife and I still get looks and especially in the South but what seems like racism may only be curiosity.  I grant the benefit of the doubt.   But  one really doesn't see people making out in cars during the day and with a door open. Questions are raised because things do exhibit patterns even if all that quacks is not a duck, all that glisters is not gold and all passionate intimacy is not commercial but sometimes a duck really is a duck. If ducks are illegal, the cop has to ask.

Policemen after all,  are paid to be suspicious and face it, to refuse to identify oneself  upon request is in itself a suspicious act.  My point is that it's common for a cop to ask you who you are and what you're doing and it falls far short of  search and seizure.  "My name is Danielle Watts and I work here at CBS"  may well have been enough to have produced a " thank you miss, sorry to bother you, have a good day" than handcuffs.   Do we have the right to assume the cop was out of  line and is acting so any different than prejudice on our part? 

Yes, that old bill of rights (remember that?) used to require probable cause for a search, and asking for identification may not really be covered by the fourth amendment but even so, the question is moot because in recent years, it doesn't apply within 100 miles of  a border.  Even without the Border Search exemption which allows search without cause for the majority of Americans a policeman asking for identification is hardly a violation of our civil rights even if  he's making a presumption  based on ethnicity or color or hair length or facial tattoos, a ski mask in August or questionable attire, it's not necessarily evidence of some official misconduct or private malice.  Any policeman would probably take my false assertion that I don't need to show identification as a good reason to suspect I had outstanding warrants or was up to no good.  It's like saying "don't look in the trunk - there's nothing in the trunk" at a traffic stop.  It's looking for trouble and being offended when you get it.  Is a deliberate victim really a victim at all?

All roads lead to damnation

At least they do if you're Barack Obama.  Threaten to impeach if he intervenes in Syria or Libya and threaten to impeach if he hasn't.  I keep saying it but now perhaps I don't need to illustrate it. Representative Jack Kingston, R-Ga shouts it from the rooftops the day before yesterday, or at least from the Capitol steps.  Anticipating the presidents speech, and a great one it was, Kingston told reporters it doesn't matter how it goes, 

”It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.” [italics mine]

There you have it, the Republican strategy in a nutshell or the Republican turd in the punchbowl if you prefer.  Sure some people see these saboteurs and insurrectionists as patriots simply because they hate civilization so much but sorry, I'm not drinking that punch.

9/11

Riding my new bike yesterday, an elderly driver decided that the exit ramp was no longer the place for her and suddenly swerved back into the road  without looking.  It just so happens that's exactly where I was.  I managed to avoid her at some risk of falling, but it happened so fast there was no question of using my horn and she simply continued on her way somewhere at ten under the limit. Why do I mention this?  Because it's 9/11 again, the day of self pity and choreographed mourning and as the fellow on the news this morning said, "I used to feel invincible but now I feel so vulnerable."

Do we need a better example of how erratically, erroneously and stupidly people assess risk?  If we were to make a statistically accurate list ranking the possibility of being harmed by a terrorist attack on any given day, would it be below a list of thousands of possibilities -- tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands?  But I didn't look over my shoulder in fear and dread getting on the bike on a sunny Wednesday afternoon and I'm not expecting an airplane to crash into my house in rural Florida today either. The chances of getting hurt by some nice old lady just a mile or so from home is almost incalculably larger, yet still small enough that I don't tremble in my steel toe boots thinking about the danger stalking the roads.  Heart attacks, cancer, strokes, a fall in the bathroom, these are all things I legitimately worry about at my age and try to avoid.  Terrorist attacks? Really?  Isn't that an insult to people who wake up every morning in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon? 

But self pity and self absorption are so American.  Beheadings and the other horrors of the day don't count so much unless it's an American head rolling and thousands dead anywhere hardly count in comparison to one possibly unjust American death.

I don't know how much Cola and shoes and Toyotas the obsession of the day will sell on CNN and Fox, but it sells fear by the carload.  It sells so much fear that most of us still haven't noticed that we -- or our congress, that is, signed away the 4th amendment for the great majority of the country, that we began pumping up our police departments with heavy weaponry even in remote places like Wyoming in order to equip them for the hordes of Muslims falling from the sky over the Cheney ranch. It sold domestic surveillance, it sold countless quasi-military weapons. It sold the longest and  most expensive wars in our history. We went to war with an uninvolved country and created so much chaos and so big a power vacuum that Iraq became helpless to keep out Al Qaeda and now ISIS.

But we still feel not only sorry for ourselves, but guilty for not feeling sorry enough.  Eventually 9/11 will go the way of the Alamo, the Maine and Pearl Harbor, but not soon enough for me because as long as we weep and moan and fear to turn our heads lest a fearful beast pursues us, as long as we continue to conduct our petty civil wars,  we won't do a damned thing about the real world and its real troubles.