(Written July 2, 2015, probably in response to some zealot wanting to criminalize plastic bags)
"I'm not one for unnecessary laws, but..."
...you are, though.
Let me illustrate how this would play out in a place like New York City.
A
cop sees a young man wearing his pants so low that his butt is hanging
out. The cop is irritated by the sight of this and wants to give the
young man a hard time, so he stops him, hoping that in the course of a
field interview, some kind of probable cause for an arrest will reveal
itself. The young man is understandably irritated by the stop.
The young man is carrying a bag, so the cop says, "What's in that bag? What did you steal?"
"I
didn't steal nothin'! Look, I got a receipt!" and the young man opens
the bag to retrieve the paper. When he opens the bag, the cop sees a
stryofoam take-out container inside. The cop tells him styrofoam is
illegal and writes him a ticket. The young man says, "This is bullshit, I
ain't done nothin' wrong. I didn't even buy this in the city."
The
cop tells him to tell it to the judge. The young man, really irate at
this point, says, "I ain't tellin' nothing'! I ain't payin' this damn
ticket. All I did was buy lunch! You tellin' me it's illegal to buy
lunch now? You gonna have to shut down ever restaurant in this whole
goddam city!" The young man rips up the ticket.
The
cop tells him that accepting the ticket isn't an admission of guilt,
it's just an order to appear in court, and that if he's going to refuse,
the cop will have to take him into custody. The young man starts to
panic, gets louder and more belligerent, pushes the cop away, and it's
on. The cop tries to wrestle him to the ground. In the course of their
grappling, the young man puts a hand on the cop's holster and pulls, not
even realizing what he's pulling on.
The
cop has been conditioned through training to recognize this as an
attempt on his life, so he breaks free, draws his weapon, and fires two
shots. The young man gets up, facing the cop, and in a blind panic,
reaches for the gun, hoping to make the cop stop shooting him. The cop,
in turn, empties the rest of his magazine into the young man, killing
him.
For
the next six weeks, the media is awash with reports of "POLICE EXECUTE
COLLEGE VALEDICTORIAN FOR POSSESSION OF STYROFOAM." Cultural leaders of
whatever ethnic or religious group the young man was part of claim that
the police are committing genocide against their community. Liberal
academics take it seriously and jump on the bandwagon, bringing most
other educated people with them. As a result, award-winning articles and
best-selling books are published describing how the city has been
secretly engaged in ethnic cleansing for decades.
Protests
and riots happen nationwide, and pretty soon someone half a continent
away who never even knew the guy with the saggy pants murders a couple
police officers.
Every
law written has to be enforced, and enforcement is both inflexible and
extreme. So before you pass any new laws, decide how many lives it's
worth.
Monday, July 19, 2021
Breakdown of the Sandra Bland arrest and a look at double-standards
(Written on 7/31/2015)
Y'know...I've seen parents before who deal with a misbehaving child by counting down to the moment they'll take disciplinary action. "1...2...two-and-a-half..." I see that and I think, "You're training that child to disobey you. What's the point of the counting? All you're counting is the moments of defiance you'll allow. Once you've told them what to do, and it's clear that it's sunk in and they know what's expected of them, you don't give them a while to think over whether or not they feel like doing what you said."
In light of that, I'd like to do a little count of my own here. I've been saying--and nobody wants to hear it--that most of what the media and every armchair police chief calls excessive force isn't, and that even when there is a case of excessive force, with very rare exceptions, it starts out as a legitimate use of force. Google "police use of force continuum." It's online. Anybody can look at it. Basically, whatever amount of force you want to use to resist, the police can go you one better to make you comply. You remember "Rock, Paper, Scissors?" Well, it's kind of like that, but not circular. It's a straight line.
Say some people are arguing, and it looks like it's going to come to blows. They're disturbing other people. A cop shows up. That uniformed presence is the first act of force. Just him being there is supposed to deter them from escalating. But let's say they ignore him or tell him to fuck off, and they keep at it. At that point, he'll escalate to verbal commands and touch (a hand on a shoulder, etc.). If they go beyond that to "passive resistance"--not running or fighting, but refusing to move or to be moved--at that point the officer is to use "soft techniques"--pain compliance techniques (pressure points, stunning muscle groups), take downs, joint locks, etc.. If it escalates to "active resistance"--running or pulling away--then the officer steps up to using a Taser, a canine, or baton restraint techniques. Opinions vary on whether pepper spray and Tasers should be used to counter passive or active resistance, but each department has its policy, and that's about where those fit in. (Any DT instructors reading this, feel free to chime in.) If the suspect starts assaulting the officer--shoving, hitting, wrestling--then the officer can step up to incapacitating strikes with fists or baton. Bean bags and rubber bullets fit in here, and in departments that allow it, "vascular neck restraint" (a.k.a. "sleeper hold"). Finally, if the suspect uses a weapon, attempts to disarm the officer (even just trying to grab the baton or pepper spray), or launches a life-threatening weaponless attack, the officer then steps up to using lethal force, usually a gun.
Review that. It seems unfair as hell if you're the suspect and you've got it fixed in your head that you don't deserve to be arrested and that you can get out of it if you just throw a big enough tantrum. No matter how you fight back, they clamp down harder, and it leaves you feeling powerless and frustrated. That makes some people fight back even harder, but eventually, most of them get the message at some point and quit fighting or at least scale back and wait for a better opportunity to try again.
But back to the count I mentioned above. Sandra Bland was argumentative and blowing off steam, and the trooper who pulled her over was letting her run her mouth. Like I always said, I don't care what they say as long they do what I tell them. But then he asked her to put out her cigarette. This wasn't about his fear of second-hand smoke. A cigarette can be used as a weapon to gain initiative. You flick embers in someone's face, and it gives you a moment to draw a gun, grab theirs, whatever. So he asked her to put out the cigarette. It's from that point that I'd like to start our count.
1. "You mind putting out your cigarette, PLEASE? If you don't mind?"
"I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
2. "Well you can step on out now."
"I don't have to step out of my car."
3. "Step out of the car."
"..."
4. Trooper opens her car door and waits.
"Why am I.."
5. "Step out of the car"
"No, don't...no, you don't have the right."
6. "Step out of the car!"
"You do not have the right to do that."
7. "I do have the right. Now step out or I will remove you."
"I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself..."
8. "Step out or I will remove you."
"I am getting removed for a failure to signal?"
9. "Step out or I will remove you. I'm giving you a lawful order."
"..."
10. "Get out of the car now, or I'm gonna remove you."
"Then I'm calling my...you can't touch..."
11. Trooper reaches in to pull her out. "I'm gonna yank you out of here."
"Okay, you gonna yank me outta my car?
12. "Get out."
"Okay, alright." [Finally? She only needs to refuse 11 times?]
Trooper radios for assistance.
"Listen, don't do this."
13. "Yeah, we're going to." Trooper reaches in to pull her out.
It appears as though Bland strikes the trooper and he jumps back. [Refer to use-of-force continuum noted above.] "Don't touch me."
14. Trooper reaches in for her again. "Get out of the car!"
"Don't touch me! I'm not under arrest. You don't have the right to say..."
15 "You ARE under arrest."
"I'm under arrest for what?" [As if she has to approve of the reason before he has the authority to arrest her.] "For what?"
16. Trooper again radios for assistance. "Get out of the car!"
"..."
17. "Get out of the car! Now!"
"Why am I being apprehended? You tryin' to give me a ticket for failure..."
18. "I said get out of the car."
"Why am I being apprehended? [incoherent] "...warrant."
19. "I am givin' you a lawful order. I am gonna drag you out of here."
"So you gonna...so you threatenin' to drag me outta my own car?"
20. Trooper pulls out Taser and points it at her. "GET OUTTA THE CAR!"
[How hard is this, people? Are her legs broken from kicking him too hard? What's the excuse here? He just made it as plain as can possibly be. She's verified that she understand that she's under arrest and that she understands that he wants her to get out of the car and that he's going to drag her out if she doesn't comply. Any of you reading this would have sense enough to get out of the car at this point. If he wanted to murder her, he wouldn't even have needed her to get out of the car. He could've just gone all Ray Tensing and shot her right there if he wanted to murder her. Not only doesn't he do that, he's still trying to elicit her cooperation after she's refused to get out of the car NINETEEN TIMES already. She's already moved up to assaulting him--one step short of justifying deadly force on his part--and he still hasn't actually tazed her yet.]
"And then you [incoherent] me?""
21. "I will light you up! Get out!"
"Wow."
22. "NOW!"
She finally exits the car...continuing to lecture him and question him, asserting her dominance to show that she's the one in control of the situation. Why?
No, really. Why?
The medical examiner's report said that she had marijuana in her system, and that marijuana can act as a "mood amplifier." Okay. I'd always thought marijuana mellowed people out and made them giddy and lethargic...but, okay.
Is that why Trayvon Martin reportedly sat on top of "creepy-ass cracker" George Zimmerman, beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement? Because his mood was "amplified?" Is that why Michael Brown refused to get out of the road when Officer Darren Wilson told him to? Is that why Brown struggled with Wilson while he was still sitting in his patrol car? Is it why he continued to advance on Wilson even after being shot? Because his mood was amplified? Is an amplified mood the reason why Eric Garner told arresting officers, "Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it! It stops today!" before pulling away from them as they tried to handcuff him? Is it why Walter Scott ran away after being stopped for a broken tail light and then tussled with Officer Michael Slager? Is it why the "Jena Six" beat Justin Barker unconscious and then continued to kick him in the head?
Or maybe they did all those things because cops are racists...and this aggression seemed like a wise way to respond to that. Well, it makes more sense if you don't actually think about it.
When men are incarcerated for violent crimes at drastically higher rates than women are, we just automatically dismiss it with, "Or course, men are more violent," and blithely turn a blind eye to all evidence to the contrary. But when blacks are convicted more often that whites? Oh, well, that must be because the cops and judges are racially prejudiced. Even the black ones. As for why latinos don't get killed by police at the same rate as blacks? Well, that couldn't have anything to do with hispanic culture indoctrinating people to respect authority to the point that Malcolm Gladwell wrote about how a South American co-pilot found it preferable to die in a crash than to speak up to correct his superior. The lower rate of latino deaths couldn't have a cultural explanation, because that might give people a hint that the higher rate among blacks might also have a cultural explanation.
In explaining why rates of violence and support for gun ownership rights is so much higher in the South, Thomas Frank and other academics have had no problem expounding at length about how the "honor culture" of the Scotch-Irish settlers is to blame. The theory is that since those original settlers were descended from animal herders rather than from planters, they were naturally more violent and that this cultural influence persists today, long after the herding. It's no trouble using culture to explain the violence of a bunch of shoot-em-up, red state rednecks, but try the same thing with regard to the rate of interpersonal violence and murder in the African-American community? We mustn't speak of such things. It's taboo to even suggest that African-Americans have their own distinct culture.
Y'know...I've seen parents before who deal with a misbehaving child by counting down to the moment they'll take disciplinary action. "1...2...two-and-a-half..." I see that and I think, "You're training that child to disobey you. What's the point of the counting? All you're counting is the moments of defiance you'll allow. Once you've told them what to do, and it's clear that it's sunk in and they know what's expected of them, you don't give them a while to think over whether or not they feel like doing what you said."
In light of that, I'd like to do a little count of my own here. I've been saying--and nobody wants to hear it--that most of what the media and every armchair police chief calls excessive force isn't, and that even when there is a case of excessive force, with very rare exceptions, it starts out as a legitimate use of force. Google "police use of force continuum." It's online. Anybody can look at it. Basically, whatever amount of force you want to use to resist, the police can go you one better to make you comply. You remember "Rock, Paper, Scissors?" Well, it's kind of like that, but not circular. It's a straight line.
Say some people are arguing, and it looks like it's going to come to blows. They're disturbing other people. A cop shows up. That uniformed presence is the first act of force. Just him being there is supposed to deter them from escalating. But let's say they ignore him or tell him to fuck off, and they keep at it. At that point, he'll escalate to verbal commands and touch (a hand on a shoulder, etc.). If they go beyond that to "passive resistance"--not running or fighting, but refusing to move or to be moved--at that point the officer is to use "soft techniques"--pain compliance techniques (pressure points, stunning muscle groups), take downs, joint locks, etc.. If it escalates to "active resistance"--running or pulling away--then the officer steps up to using a Taser, a canine, or baton restraint techniques. Opinions vary on whether pepper spray and Tasers should be used to counter passive or active resistance, but each department has its policy, and that's about where those fit in. (Any DT instructors reading this, feel free to chime in.) If the suspect starts assaulting the officer--shoving, hitting, wrestling--then the officer can step up to incapacitating strikes with fists or baton. Bean bags and rubber bullets fit in here, and in departments that allow it, "vascular neck restraint" (a.k.a. "sleeper hold"). Finally, if the suspect uses a weapon, attempts to disarm the officer (even just trying to grab the baton or pepper spray), or launches a life-threatening weaponless attack, the officer then steps up to using lethal force, usually a gun.
Review that. It seems unfair as hell if you're the suspect and you've got it fixed in your head that you don't deserve to be arrested and that you can get out of it if you just throw a big enough tantrum. No matter how you fight back, they clamp down harder, and it leaves you feeling powerless and frustrated. That makes some people fight back even harder, but eventually, most of them get the message at some point and quit fighting or at least scale back and wait for a better opportunity to try again.
But back to the count I mentioned above. Sandra Bland was argumentative and blowing off steam, and the trooper who pulled her over was letting her run her mouth. Like I always said, I don't care what they say as long they do what I tell them. But then he asked her to put out her cigarette. This wasn't about his fear of second-hand smoke. A cigarette can be used as a weapon to gain initiative. You flick embers in someone's face, and it gives you a moment to draw a gun, grab theirs, whatever. So he asked her to put out the cigarette. It's from that point that I'd like to start our count.
1. "You mind putting out your cigarette, PLEASE? If you don't mind?"
"I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
2. "Well you can step on out now."
"I don't have to step out of my car."
3. "Step out of the car."
"..."
4. Trooper opens her car door and waits.
"Why am I.."
5. "Step out of the car"
"No, don't...no, you don't have the right."
6. "Step out of the car!"
"You do not have the right to do that."
7. "I do have the right. Now step out or I will remove you."
"I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself..."
8. "Step out or I will remove you."
"I am getting removed for a failure to signal?"
9. "Step out or I will remove you. I'm giving you a lawful order."
"..."
10. "Get out of the car now, or I'm gonna remove you."
"Then I'm calling my...you can't touch..."
11. Trooper reaches in to pull her out. "I'm gonna yank you out of here."
"Okay, you gonna yank me outta my car?
12. "Get out."
"Okay, alright." [Finally? She only needs to refuse 11 times?]
Trooper radios for assistance.
"Listen, don't do this."
13. "Yeah, we're going to." Trooper reaches in to pull her out.
It appears as though Bland strikes the trooper and he jumps back. [Refer to use-of-force continuum noted above.] "Don't touch me."
14. Trooper reaches in for her again. "Get out of the car!"
"Don't touch me! I'm not under arrest. You don't have the right to say..."
15 "You ARE under arrest."
"I'm under arrest for what?" [As if she has to approve of the reason before he has the authority to arrest her.] "For what?"
16. Trooper again radios for assistance. "Get out of the car!"
"..."
17. "Get out of the car! Now!"
"Why am I being apprehended? You tryin' to give me a ticket for failure..."
18. "I said get out of the car."
"Why am I being apprehended? [incoherent] "...warrant."
19. "I am givin' you a lawful order. I am gonna drag you out of here."
"So you gonna...so you threatenin' to drag me outta my own car?"
20. Trooper pulls out Taser and points it at her. "GET OUTTA THE CAR!"
[How hard is this, people? Are her legs broken from kicking him too hard? What's the excuse here? He just made it as plain as can possibly be. She's verified that she understand that she's under arrest and that she understands that he wants her to get out of the car and that he's going to drag her out if she doesn't comply. Any of you reading this would have sense enough to get out of the car at this point. If he wanted to murder her, he wouldn't even have needed her to get out of the car. He could've just gone all Ray Tensing and shot her right there if he wanted to murder her. Not only doesn't he do that, he's still trying to elicit her cooperation after she's refused to get out of the car NINETEEN TIMES already. She's already moved up to assaulting him--one step short of justifying deadly force on his part--and he still hasn't actually tazed her yet.]
"And then you [incoherent] me?""
21. "I will light you up! Get out!"
"Wow."
22. "NOW!"
She finally exits the car...continuing to lecture him and question him, asserting her dominance to show that she's the one in control of the situation. Why?
No, really. Why?
The medical examiner's report said that she had marijuana in her system, and that marijuana can act as a "mood amplifier." Okay. I'd always thought marijuana mellowed people out and made them giddy and lethargic...but, okay.
Is that why Trayvon Martin reportedly sat on top of "creepy-ass cracker" George Zimmerman, beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement? Because his mood was "amplified?" Is that why Michael Brown refused to get out of the road when Officer Darren Wilson told him to? Is that why Brown struggled with Wilson while he was still sitting in his patrol car? Is it why he continued to advance on Wilson even after being shot? Because his mood was amplified? Is an amplified mood the reason why Eric Garner told arresting officers, "Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it! It stops today!" before pulling away from them as they tried to handcuff him? Is it why Walter Scott ran away after being stopped for a broken tail light and then tussled with Officer Michael Slager? Is it why the "Jena Six" beat Justin Barker unconscious and then continued to kick him in the head?
Or maybe they did all those things because cops are racists...and this aggression seemed like a wise way to respond to that. Well, it makes more sense if you don't actually think about it.
When men are incarcerated for violent crimes at drastically higher rates than women are, we just automatically dismiss it with, "Or course, men are more violent," and blithely turn a blind eye to all evidence to the contrary. But when blacks are convicted more often that whites? Oh, well, that must be because the cops and judges are racially prejudiced. Even the black ones. As for why latinos don't get killed by police at the same rate as blacks? Well, that couldn't have anything to do with hispanic culture indoctrinating people to respect authority to the point that Malcolm Gladwell wrote about how a South American co-pilot found it preferable to die in a crash than to speak up to correct his superior. The lower rate of latino deaths couldn't have a cultural explanation, because that might give people a hint that the higher rate among blacks might also have a cultural explanation.
In explaining why rates of violence and support for gun ownership rights is so much higher in the South, Thomas Frank and other academics have had no problem expounding at length about how the "honor culture" of the Scotch-Irish settlers is to blame. The theory is that since those original settlers were descended from animal herders rather than from planters, they were naturally more violent and that this cultural influence persists today, long after the herding. It's no trouble using culture to explain the violence of a bunch of shoot-em-up, red state rednecks, but try the same thing with regard to the rate of interpersonal violence and murder in the African-American community? We mustn't speak of such things. It's taboo to even suggest that African-Americans have their own distinct culture.
Succeeding at failing
I follow several homesteading pages on Facebook. One of them recently asked of its readers, "What is the one thing about this lifestyle that sometimes rubs you the wrong way?" This is my response.
The thing about it that bothers me the most is that success is failure.
When you first start out, you may have a normal life. You can have a full-time job, go on vacations, have an active social life, and maintain a respectable reputation in the community. You may have a small vegetable garden in your yard and have a worm bin under your kitchen sink--maybe you even can your own jelly or applesauce once a year--but none of that interferes with the other aspects of your life.
Then you get a little deeper into it. Your garden is large enough to attract attention. You want chickens and a clothes line and a rain barrel. Maybe you start making your own bread. You still have your job, and your social life is mostly intact (though a few friends might start expressing concern), but going away for more than several hours requires more planning than it used to, and you start having to be concerned about rules. Maybe it's the HOA or a municipal code--nothing you'd go to prison for--but in your quest to live more freely, you're experiencing some push back for the first time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above stub around Thanksgiving 2016. Where I was going with it was to say that when you're a super-boss, living-off-the-land homesteader, you're more than likely living a life that mainstream society sees as the opposite of "success." You're not a celebrity. You're not rich. You might be poor. You may live in a house you made yourself out of sticks and mud, that doesn't even have running water or electricity. You poop in a hole in the ground and have to dig in the dirt or kill animals to find something to eat. They'd call this "abject poverty" and see it as a sad sign that you had failed to amount to anything, instead of seeing that you were fully immersed in living your dream lifestyle. You wouldn't be popular, probably not even with your own extended family. Your neighbors would describe everything about your life as "an eyesore" and "a blight on the neighborhood, pulling down our property values." You won't be well-traveled, as someone needs to stick around to feed the animals. Most Christmas gifts from you will be handmade. That cousin who was hoping for a gift card from Best Buy will likely get a mason jar of honey or some homemade venison jerky. In a consumerist culture, thrift is not a virtue.
The thing about it that bothers me the most is that success is failure.
When you first start out, you may have a normal life. You can have a full-time job, go on vacations, have an active social life, and maintain a respectable reputation in the community. You may have a small vegetable garden in your yard and have a worm bin under your kitchen sink--maybe you even can your own jelly or applesauce once a year--but none of that interferes with the other aspects of your life.
Then you get a little deeper into it. Your garden is large enough to attract attention. You want chickens and a clothes line and a rain barrel. Maybe you start making your own bread. You still have your job, and your social life is mostly intact (though a few friends might start expressing concern), but going away for more than several hours requires more planning than it used to, and you start having to be concerned about rules. Maybe it's the HOA or a municipal code--nothing you'd go to prison for--but in your quest to live more freely, you're experiencing some push back for the first time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above stub around Thanksgiving 2016. Where I was going with it was to say that when you're a super-boss, living-off-the-land homesteader, you're more than likely living a life that mainstream society sees as the opposite of "success." You're not a celebrity. You're not rich. You might be poor. You may live in a house you made yourself out of sticks and mud, that doesn't even have running water or electricity. You poop in a hole in the ground and have to dig in the dirt or kill animals to find something to eat. They'd call this "abject poverty" and see it as a sad sign that you had failed to amount to anything, instead of seeing that you were fully immersed in living your dream lifestyle. You wouldn't be popular, probably not even with your own extended family. Your neighbors would describe everything about your life as "an eyesore" and "a blight on the neighborhood, pulling down our property values." You won't be well-traveled, as someone needs to stick around to feed the animals. Most Christmas gifts from you will be handmade. That cousin who was hoping for a gift card from Best Buy will likely get a mason jar of honey or some homemade venison jerky. In a consumerist culture, thrift is not a virtue.
Flexible Principles
From 2017
I've been seeing talk again about censorship, or more specifically, things that don't count as censorship because they're not cases of the government making it a criminal offense to express certain ideas. This topic is one that serves as an excellent illustration of how liberals' principles have become highly situational over the past generation.
In 1990, a museum in Cincinnati that showed an exhibit by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe was brought up on obscenity charges, at least partly because the exhibit contained child pornography. The case became a rallying point for liberals, who felt that the government had no place putting limits on art. In response, one of the exhibit's most vocal critics, William F. Buckley, editor of the National Review, said,
I've been seeing talk again about censorship, or more specifically, things that don't count as censorship because they're not cases of the government making it a criminal offense to express certain ideas. This topic is one that serves as an excellent illustration of how liberals' principles have become highly situational over the past generation.
In 1990, a museum in Cincinnati that showed an exhibit by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe was brought up on obscenity charges, at least partly because the exhibit contained child pornography. The case became a rallying point for liberals, who felt that the government had no place putting limits on art. In response, one of the exhibit's most vocal critics, William F. Buckley, editor of the National Review, said,
“Are we taking the position that any
creation executed by an artist is ‘art’—and that it should be immune
from criticism?” he asked readers. “Let us suppose that an artist
painted a synagogue in the shape of a swastika. Would we be obliged to
withhold criticism of the painting, in deference to the liberties of the
artist?”
In that case, the official position of liberals was that there should never be any impediment placed on free expression, not even in a case of child pornography. In this case, it was a case of actual censorship, with the government stepping in and pressing criminal charges, but liberals said it was wrong.
Fast-forward to 1999, still in Cincinnati. Marge Schott, owner of the Reds baseball team, was forced out of management of the team, not because she mismanaged it, but because she had frequently embarrassed the team by making shockingly racist statements, both publicly and privately. Note, Schott had not broken any laws in making these offensive remarks. When she said that she felt that Adolf Hitler was good for Germany at first, but that he then "took it too far," she was not in violation of any obscenity laws like the museum had been with their kiddie porn display nine years earlier. When she made fun of Asians or referred to her outfielders as "million dollar niggers," she had not violated anyone's civil rights. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, she had neither picked their pockets nor broken their legs...at least not the people she was making the butts of her jokes, that is. She may very well have caused financial injury to the baseball team, which is why the team's board forced her out. She was owner, managing partner, President, and CEO, yet it was permissible to take all that away from her because she legally spoke words that hurt people's feelings and may have caused them to spend their money elsewhere.
If American liberals had been consistent as champions of free expression, this is the point where they'd jump up and say, "Hey, if we'll stop the government from jailing pedophiles, surely we have to stand up to a corporation trying to silence an old woman who's just expressing her opinion." It didn't happen, though. Instead, they were busy clutching their pearls over Schott's latest insensitive remark.
"Not the same thing," I can hear you saying. "The Mapplethorpe exhibit was government censorship. The Cincinnati Reds are a business that made a business decision. Nobody has a constitutional right to manage the Reds. They don't have to pay her if she's going to embarrass them. Nobody has to pay to give Schott a platform."
Okay...2003--the Dixie Chicks, while performing at a concert in the UK, said,
"Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The President took it in stride, saying that the thing about America was that these women were free to express their opinions. Country music fans, though, were outraged. They protested and boycotted the band. Their top single fell from #10 to #43 in a single week. The week after that, it fell off the chart completely. Major organizations cancelled promotional deals with the band. Association with them was financial suicide.
The left, though, was outraged by the outrage. Not typically country music fans, American liberals came together to embrace the Dixie Chicks and celebrate them as righteous martyrs, cruelly and wrongfully persecuted for expressing a political position. Other celebrities, notably Madonna and Merle Haggard, spoke out publicly to support the Dixie Chicks' right to express themselves freely. No arrests had been made. No charges had been filed. Although some radio DJs were fired for playing Dixie Chicks songs, the band itself remained employed. The only "penalty" they were subjected to was that they earned less money because their erstwhile fans chose not to pay them to express those opinions. (They were subjected to death threats by some individuals, but they were not official government actions. Indeed, police gave the band a personal security detail to protect them from criminals.) The record label kept them. They continued doing concerts. They actually got some good publicity from the controversy, but the political left treated them as innocent victims or a ruthless hate crime because people who didn't like what they said stopped paying and stopped listening.
"B-but...Marge Schott was speaking hate. She was oppressing minorities with her words. The Dixie Chicks were speaking truth to power!"
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was asked in a 2013 GQ interview what he felt was sinful. He responded,
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." A&E disavowed the comments and suspended Robertson from the show. Some retailers stopped carrying Duck Dynasty merchandise. Robertson was not calling for gays to be oppressed, or for rights to be taken away from them. Indeed, in a follow-up interview, he expressed a compassionate, if socially conservative, view.
"Jesus will take sins away. If you're a homosexual, He'll take it away. If you're an adulterer, if you're a liar, what's the difference?"
Liberals screamed their roaring approval of the suspension, saying that A&E had every right to suspend someone. Same as with the Reds, it was a private company "refusing to give a platform to hate." In fact, though, it was A&E who expressed hate by censoring Robertson's religious views--and not just by suspending him over his politically incorrect religious views. A year prior, during a portion of the show where Robertson and his family prayed, editors bleeped the word "Jesus" as though it were profanity, and asked Robertson to stop saying the name.
It would appear, then, that by the ever-evolving liberal standards, it's okay for a business in the pursuit of money to silence religious expression, but not political expression. Er, that is to say, it's okay to be anti-Christian for profit, but not okay to be pro-Bush for profit. So now the principle is, in fact, totally devoid of principle. There is no hard standard based on an abstract rule of behavior. It's entirely down to content, judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether the speaker is saying something that offends or encourages liberals. That's no principle at all. That's just bias.
Since this time, America's political left has come out with rigid prescriptions on how men should sit on public transportation, which pronouns we must use for people of ambiguous gender, which gender is allowed to set office thermostats, and what skin colors a person must have to express a valid opinion about race relations,
In that case, the official position of liberals was that there should never be any impediment placed on free expression, not even in a case of child pornography. In this case, it was a case of actual censorship, with the government stepping in and pressing criminal charges, but liberals said it was wrong.
Fast-forward to 1999, still in Cincinnati. Marge Schott, owner of the Reds baseball team, was forced out of management of the team, not because she mismanaged it, but because she had frequently embarrassed the team by making shockingly racist statements, both publicly and privately. Note, Schott had not broken any laws in making these offensive remarks. When she said that she felt that Adolf Hitler was good for Germany at first, but that he then "took it too far," she was not in violation of any obscenity laws like the museum had been with their kiddie porn display nine years earlier. When she made fun of Asians or referred to her outfielders as "million dollar niggers," she had not violated anyone's civil rights. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, she had neither picked their pockets nor broken their legs...at least not the people she was making the butts of her jokes, that is. She may very well have caused financial injury to the baseball team, which is why the team's board forced her out. She was owner, managing partner, President, and CEO, yet it was permissible to take all that away from her because she legally spoke words that hurt people's feelings and may have caused them to spend their money elsewhere.
If American liberals had been consistent as champions of free expression, this is the point where they'd jump up and say, "Hey, if we'll stop the government from jailing pedophiles, surely we have to stand up to a corporation trying to silence an old woman who's just expressing her opinion." It didn't happen, though. Instead, they were busy clutching their pearls over Schott's latest insensitive remark.
"Not the same thing," I can hear you saying. "The Mapplethorpe exhibit was government censorship. The Cincinnati Reds are a business that made a business decision. Nobody has a constitutional right to manage the Reds. They don't have to pay her if she's going to embarrass them. Nobody has to pay to give Schott a platform."
Okay...2003--the Dixie Chicks, while performing at a concert in the UK, said,
"Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
The President took it in stride, saying that the thing about America was that these women were free to express their opinions. Country music fans, though, were outraged. They protested and boycotted the band. Their top single fell from #10 to #43 in a single week. The week after that, it fell off the chart completely. Major organizations cancelled promotional deals with the band. Association with them was financial suicide.
The left, though, was outraged by the outrage. Not typically country music fans, American liberals came together to embrace the Dixie Chicks and celebrate them as righteous martyrs, cruelly and wrongfully persecuted for expressing a political position. Other celebrities, notably Madonna and Merle Haggard, spoke out publicly to support the Dixie Chicks' right to express themselves freely. No arrests had been made. No charges had been filed. Although some radio DJs were fired for playing Dixie Chicks songs, the band itself remained employed. The only "penalty" they were subjected to was that they earned less money because their erstwhile fans chose not to pay them to express those opinions. (They were subjected to death threats by some individuals, but they were not official government actions. Indeed, police gave the band a personal security detail to protect them from criminals.) The record label kept them. They continued doing concerts. They actually got some good publicity from the controversy, but the political left treated them as innocent victims or a ruthless hate crime because people who didn't like what they said stopped paying and stopped listening.
"B-but...Marge Schott was speaking hate. She was oppressing minorities with her words. The Dixie Chicks were speaking truth to power!"
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was asked in a 2013 GQ interview what he felt was sinful. He responded,
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." A&E disavowed the comments and suspended Robertson from the show. Some retailers stopped carrying Duck Dynasty merchandise. Robertson was not calling for gays to be oppressed, or for rights to be taken away from them. Indeed, in a follow-up interview, he expressed a compassionate, if socially conservative, view.
"Jesus will take sins away. If you're a homosexual, He'll take it away. If you're an adulterer, if you're a liar, what's the difference?"
Liberals screamed their roaring approval of the suspension, saying that A&E had every right to suspend someone. Same as with the Reds, it was a private company "refusing to give a platform to hate." In fact, though, it was A&E who expressed hate by censoring Robertson's religious views--and not just by suspending him over his politically incorrect religious views. A year prior, during a portion of the show where Robertson and his family prayed, editors bleeped the word "Jesus" as though it were profanity, and asked Robertson to stop saying the name.
It would appear, then, that by the ever-evolving liberal standards, it's okay for a business in the pursuit of money to silence religious expression, but not political expression. Er, that is to say, it's okay to be anti-Christian for profit, but not okay to be pro-Bush for profit. So now the principle is, in fact, totally devoid of principle. There is no hard standard based on an abstract rule of behavior. It's entirely down to content, judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether the speaker is saying something that offends or encourages liberals. That's no principle at all. That's just bias.
Since this time, America's political left has come out with rigid prescriptions on how men should sit on public transportation, which pronouns we must use for people of ambiguous gender, which gender is allowed to set office thermostats, and what skin colors a person must have to express a valid opinion about race relations,
Rough draft of a piece I was writing about police oversight in September 2020
There are a couple things that I've found particularly irksome in the discussion around police reform. Well, there are many, but there are two main ideas I'd like to talk about.
The first is one that has existed since long before this George Floyd business, and even predates Black Lives Matter. I believe I first noticed it--or at least I remember first being irritated by it--in a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Prior to that, I had developed a very favorable opinion of Gladwell when I read Outliers: The Story of Success. I thought him to be a wise and insightful man, able to probe past our usual, lazy assumptions and find answers in previously unexamined connections.
(Outline) point 1: Gladwell seemed to think cops should have superhuman powers of perception, judgement, and speed. I find it to be a common belief that police officers, because of the training they go through, possess abilities and traits not found among mere mortals. Paradoxically, this belief is often made by the same people who decry police training as being inadequate, and the officers themselves as dullards and bullies who couldn't qualify for any other job. [Schoedinger's cop: simultaneously superhuman and an incompetent loser]
2. Perhaps because liberals (because--let's face it--that's who's leveling these criticisms) look at police officers as being intellectually and socially inferior to them, there's a tendency for those demanding reforms to engage in a bit of Dunning-Kruger miscalculation of their own ability to make useful recommendations.
An example of this is the widespread suggestion that there be a civilian review board to investigate alleged police misconduct, and that the members of this board be chosen by popular election. As far as I've heard, that's the only qualification required--simply to be voted in.
Suppose we used the same approach in investigating alleged bad practices in the work of surgeons, civil engineers, and airline pilots. Kevin the cashier and Tasha the daycare provider will determine whether Dr. Osaka made the most appropriate choice in deciding which surgical technique to use for a given patient's condition, just because they got the most votes.
I'm not saying that Dr. Osaka shouldn't have any oversight. I'm saying that the overseers should be qualified. At a bare minimum, they should know as much about the situation as Osaka does. Preferably, they should know much more. They should be experts among experts.
Presently, in cases of alleged police brutality, that's how it's done. Initially, it's looked into by the officer's own supervisors. If that's not sufficient, it goes to an Internal Affairs investigation, or perhaps investigation by an outside agency. Evidence is examined--video, witness statements, injuries to the victim, the officer's testimony, etc. State and federal law are consulted, as well as department policies and procedures. Lawyers--people who know a hell of a lot more about the law than a cop does--will be involved. If it goes to trial, a judge--or a jury guided by a judge--will make the decision after hearing expert testimony from the people who train the police, so that there can be no question whether the officer did what he was supposed to do or whether he went outside his prescribed procedures.
The problem is that after a thorough examination of all the evidence, it's usually discovered that the officer acted correctly. That doesn't sit well with Kevin and Tasha, who, based on a media story and a gut reaction, decided that the officer was guilty. They wanted to see him lynched. They wanted blood, and when they don't get it, they declare that the whole legal system is corrupt and covering up for the police.
The situation we have now is that some public officials are more worried about re-election than justice, so they want to appease Kevin and Tasha by offering up the accused officer as a sacrificial lamb.
"Back in my day..."
Gather 'round and listen to an old man tell a tale of how things used to be. You old folks, too, as many of you seem to have forgotten.
I grew up during the Cold War, back when the Soviet Union was still a thing. It was the Eighties, so they had long since given up having children do "duck-and-cover" drills, but being vaporized by the USSR was always on our minds. We understood that if a launch occurred, we'd have 20 minutes warning, and the only thing a person could really do to help themselves in that 20 minutes was to try to make it close enough to Ground Zero to be vaporized rather than suffering a lingering death from radiation poisoning. The goths of that era, the New Wave fans, actually had a reason to think life was pointless, given that other people, over whom we had no control, could destroy the planet several times over in less time than it would take for us to drive home and say goodbye to our loved ones.
Back then, we had the conservative/liberal cultural divide, but it wasn't like it is now. After Nixon and the Vietnam War, and with the coming of age of the massive Boomer generation, the political pendulum swung far to the left. But then in the '70s, with Democrats in the White House, the economy tanked. Factories and mills shut down, leaving whole cities newly unemployed. Terrorists from the Middle East were kidnapping people, and the Dems couldn't seem to do anything about it. Our biggest cities had turned into cesspools of violent crime. The liberals were an embarrassing disappointment, so the country started swinging back to the right.
Even union Democrats voted for "Ronnie Ray Gun." They wanted someone who would punish the urban underclass for collecting welfare, execute all the criminals, and kick Russia's ass. Right-wingers sported T-shirts and bumper stickers with slogans like "Kill a Commie for Mommy." At that time, conservatives weren't styling themselves as rugged individualists going against the grain--just the opposite, in fact. Liberals were the avant garde nonconformists, while "conservative" meant just that--favoring old traditions and fashions, and finding change distasteful. The media (mostly controlled by liberals, then as now) depicted conservatives as being overly formal and stiff, the men always wearing ties, none of them daring to curse--that kind of thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't remember where I was going with this three years ago, but maybe someone will enjoy reading this much of it. It was probably related to that one about summoning the aleax.
I grew up during the Cold War, back when the Soviet Union was still a thing. It was the Eighties, so they had long since given up having children do "duck-and-cover" drills, but being vaporized by the USSR was always on our minds. We understood that if a launch occurred, we'd have 20 minutes warning, and the only thing a person could really do to help themselves in that 20 minutes was to try to make it close enough to Ground Zero to be vaporized rather than suffering a lingering death from radiation poisoning. The goths of that era, the New Wave fans, actually had a reason to think life was pointless, given that other people, over whom we had no control, could destroy the planet several times over in less time than it would take for us to drive home and say goodbye to our loved ones.
Back then, we had the conservative/liberal cultural divide, but it wasn't like it is now. After Nixon and the Vietnam War, and with the coming of age of the massive Boomer generation, the political pendulum swung far to the left. But then in the '70s, with Democrats in the White House, the economy tanked. Factories and mills shut down, leaving whole cities newly unemployed. Terrorists from the Middle East were kidnapping people, and the Dems couldn't seem to do anything about it. Our biggest cities had turned into cesspools of violent crime. The liberals were an embarrassing disappointment, so the country started swinging back to the right.
Even union Democrats voted for "Ronnie Ray Gun." They wanted someone who would punish the urban underclass for collecting welfare, execute all the criminals, and kick Russia's ass. Right-wingers sported T-shirts and bumper stickers with slogans like "Kill a Commie for Mommy." At that time, conservatives weren't styling themselves as rugged individualists going against the grain--just the opposite, in fact. Liberals were the avant garde nonconformists, while "conservative" meant just that--favoring old traditions and fashions, and finding change distasteful. The media (mostly controlled by liberals, then as now) depicted conservatives as being overly formal and stiff, the men always wearing ties, none of them daring to curse--that kind of thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't remember where I was going with this three years ago, but maybe someone will enjoy reading this much of it. It was probably related to that one about summoning the aleax.
Bugging Out
A friend recently expressed concern on Facebook that it was too late to start "prepping." As I was responding, it occurred to me that others might find this helpful, so I'm sharing it here as an open letter. While not related to agriculture, I'm posting it here on the farm blog, as what follows may serve as the basis for a class we could have at the farm (or elsewhere). More than just a place that grows food, I want Woodland Urban Farm to be a place that teaches the community how to sustain itself--even if, as discussed below, that means leaving. If anybody would be interested in attending any classes, hands-on workshops, or discussion groups about this or similar topics, let me know, and I'll see what I can arrange.
If by "prepping," you mean living off the land or stockpiling enough supplies to allow you to ride out a long-term breakdown of supply chains, then you're right. The time to start was years ago. Your focus at this point should be on mobility. Here are some points to think about and plan around.
- If your subdivision became unsafe, where could you go right now with whatever vehicles, fuel, and money you can grab in five minutes? Could you stay there 24 hours? 72? A month or more?
- Think of four places--one each to the north, south, east, and west-- outside of central Ohio that you could go and stay for at least 72 hours.
- If cars and buses weren't an option, how far could you move your family in an hour? In a day? Could you reach any of your safe places you listed above? Tips: Think bicycles & bike trailers; wheelbarrows/garden carts for little kids & gear; light boats to move on shallow waterways; animals that can be ridden or made to pull carts, bikes, etc. or carry packs. Not too many people around here are going to have horses, but some might have goats and many have dogs. In our location, look to Alum Creek to move south, and the Alum Creek Greenway Trail to move north or south (northeast or southwest, if you go far enough, as this trail is part of the Ohio to Erie Trail).
- How easily could you get out of the country if you needed to? Do all your family members have passports? What countries would let you in? How quickly could you get there? Could you do it without an airplane? Without a car? Do you have any safe places you could go once you got to your destination country?
- Do you have enough of everything your family uses--food, water, toiletries, clothes, medications, etc.--on hand right now to sustain you all for two weeks? How quickly can you move it all into your car? Could you move it without a car? How far?
- If you lost phone and internet service, do you have a means of communicating with any of the people at the safe places listed above to let them know you're coming? Do you have a way to leave messages for friends who might come looking for you? Can you do it without that information falling into the hands of unfriendlies?
- If your family is not all together (partner at work, kids at school, etc.) when you have to evacuate, how quickly and easily could you all rendezvous? If your children were to get separated from you while you're traveling, do they know how to find you or get found by you?
- How would you get around or through a roadblock? Assume you're outgunned.
- Are there other people you know who to whom you could entrust your children if necessary? Outside your neighborhood? Outside of central Ohio? Outside the country?
- Could you travel without being seen if you needed to? How far? How quickly? Consider this both with and without children, as there may be times when it's not safe to evacuate the whole family, but somebody needs to be able to get through with messages or supplies.
...and you can't always count on there being a heavily armed,
donkey-riding, delivery man who steers with his teeth
- How far and fast can the slowest person in your family run? Don't count those small enough to be carried.
- How well can you defend yourself and your family from violence if firearms are not an option (weapons seized or broken, out of ammunition, etc.)? Tip: For thousands of years, wars were fought mostly by infantrymen armed with spears. How quickly are you capable of acquiring a pointy stick at least as long as your arm?
- Could your whole family sleep overnight in your vehicle(s)? If not, do you have camping gear sufficient for those who couldn't, and how quickly can you load it? Could you carry it without a car, while still carrying 10-days' worth of supplies for everyone? Can you build an improvised shelter that will accommodate your entire family?
Nobody I know that I can think of--including myself--is likely to score 100% on this. It's useful to think about it, though, both to mentally rehearse what you know you can do, and to identify those things that are more of a challenge and start thinking now about how you would deal with those situations if they arose.
If any of you run into any areas of particular concern, let me know, and we can work on coming up with answers. If there are skills you need to learn or practice, maybe we (local people) can put together some kind of hands-on training and get people together for a workshop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)