Justice – Page 3 – HystericallyBored

2019-12-31

The Christian Non-Charities

By embracing Donald Trump, it is now clear that evangelical Christian churches in the U.S. are not charities. Their primary purpose is to rally support for self-centred, self-aggrandizing Republican politicians and provide opportunities for photographs of themselves with the President in the Oval Office.

They no longer– if they ever did– have a “charitable” purpose.

The question is, does Christianity itself have a charitable purpose? You might argue that genuine believers still have a real spiritual commitment to the words and ministry of Jesus Christ. I would point out that that is exactly what the church continues to claim while they really support Donald Trump. It is what they claimed all along. Now we know the truth: they never meant any of it. Not the “blessed are the meek” or “thou shalt not commit adultery” or the imprecations to treat kindly widows and orphans, and, especially, the “strangers at your gate”. Read through this list and consider Trump’s policies toward migrants.

The evidence is overwhelming: it is a lie, plain and simple.

There is almost nothing in any Trump policy that could legitimately be said to be charitable or spiritual or religious. He promotes guns. He promotes abuse of the environment. He promotes ignorance and irresponsibility. He is a pathological, chronic liar. Yes, he appoints anti-abortion judges, but that is a patriarchal interest, not a genuinely Christian one– because the only time Christians assert that they are pro-life, is when it comes to the consequences of sex, and only while it is still in the womb. As far as war or guns or the military or capital punishment goes, they are enthusiastically pro-death.

When it comes to defending soldiers accused of war crimes, they spare no effort to pardon them, even if they murdered prisoners in cold blood.

The Constitution clearly forbids any effort by the State to “establish” a religion. By granting charitable status to churches affiliated with the church of Trump, the IRS is complicit with violations of the relevant statues.

2019-11-27

Be Careful Little Eyes What you See

In the category of “you couldn’t make this stuff up” is the story about a North Carolina police department that arrested a 17-year-old boy for having nude pictures of himself on his cell phone.

This is in a country in which 3/4 of the population will admit they don’t know what the 3 branches of government are. They certainly don’t know what a marginal tax rate is. And they will never know what common sense really is; they will think they have it, but they will be wrong. Sense is anything but common in America. And they will never, ever be able to independently assess the question of what is terrible about a teenager having nude pictures of himself on his smart phone. You just have to say “nude”, and “pictures”, and “teenager”, they will howl with outrage.

We live in a world in which we can be surrounded by morons who say, “but that’s what the law says” or “it may seem strange, but that’s what the law says”, or “we are complete morons so we only do what the law says”.

Are you telling me there would have been serious consequences for a sergeant or a detective who said, “I don’t care what the law says, no, we are not going to prosecute a teenager for taking pictures of himself”?

A young mother in Utah who took her shirt off in front of her family has been charged with lewdness. Her husband took his shirt off too, but he is not being prosecuted.

Of course not.

That would be stupid.

Do you have a mirror in your bathroom?

2019-09-13

The #Metoo Crucible

“Stratford Festival decided to put on a sure-fire crowd-pleaser this year: “The Crucible”, one of the greatest, and certainly the most powerful, American drama.

“The Crucible” is about a group of young girls in a small town in Massachusetts in the 1690’s who are caught dancing naked in a woods. Think about the cultural climate– puritanical New England. The upstanding leaders of the devout community are beyond horrified, and this is immediately apparent to the girls so they connive to persuade the town elders that they were, in fact, bewitched. Their deception is helped by a particular girl who seems to be having fits and hysterics and claims to see apparitions.

Who bewitched them?

They begin to name names, including upstanding members of the community.

One of the girls, named Abigail, was a handmaid to a couple, John and Elizabeth Proctor. John had an affair with her, which Elizabeth knows about. John and Elizabeth reconciled and evicted Abigail but are terrified that the community will find out about the affair and disgrace John.

Abigail is convinced that John really loves her. What were the girls doing in the woods? Abigail had persuaded Tituba, a black slave, to show them how to cast spells, so she could curse Elizabeth Proctor and win John back. With the community in hysterics, and her own position in the community under threat, she seizes the opportunity to accuse Elizabeth of witchcraft.

When some in the community become suspicious of the girls’ motives, they too are named. Eventually, 20 citizens are hanged, and one is “pressed” to death because he refused to enter a plea. Yes, this really happened– the historical record is unmistakable.

Years later, the magistrates who condemned them would– astonishingly– come to the realization that they had been in error and issue an apology. How often does that happen?

Arthur Miller wrote the play in 1952 and he clearly intended to draw a parallel between the Salem witch-hunts and the McCarthy communist witch-hunt that was taking place at that moment, and which had snared Miller himself. Miller was called before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) and admitted that he had been a communist at one time in his life. That was not enough for them. They demanded that he identify fellow-travelers. He refused and was black-listed.

In the play, as in real life, a man named Giles Corey discovered that some of the accusers stood to benefit by acquiring the land of the accused (if convicted of witchcraft, a citizen’s possessions were forfeit). He is then accused of witchcraft himself. He refuses to plea because doing so would result in a conviction and the land he hoped to pass on to his sons would be forfeit. He is sentenced to be “pressed”: placed under a board with the weight on it increased gradually with rocks. He dies under the torment, mocking his accusers.

Do you see a problem with this play? I don’t see a problem. The play is historically accurate. More importantly, it is psychologically accurate: I find the portrait of a community that is fearful and cowardly and not really virtuous in the sense that they all believe it of themselves to be quite convincing even today. (Think of how we symbolically recycle, and conserve, and care for the environment, while doing absolutely nothing that will have any real impact on global warming. Think of how women go on national television to tell the world how ashamed they are of having been sexually assaulted.)

But the #metoo movement saw a big problem. You see, a credo of the #metoo movement is that girls are ALWAYS to be believed. They never lie about abuse or rape or assault, even if it is assault by the devil himself, as in the case of Salem. (I am not exaggerating: I heard three women on the CBC discussing the issue and they all insisted that women never lie about abuse and there is never any “collateral damage” (ie. innocent men accused). Do women ever lie about rape? Judge for yourself.

And the play makes it clear that the girls are sly, conniving, convincing liars, and that they are responsible the deaths of 20 innocent victims.

So the #metoo movement demands an adjustment. And the Stratford Festival Theatre made it. Here is their description of the play from their website:

His (John Proctor’s) refusal to take responsibility for his actions leads to an epidemic of fear and suspicion that engulfs the guilty and the innocent alike. Inspired by historical events but no less pertinent to our own times, this American classic stands as a timeless tragedy of abusive behaviour and its all-consuming consequences.

This is worse than a distortion of the play. It is an obscenely malicious reversal of it’s meaning. It is all John Proctor’s fault. The girls are innocent. Abigail was forced to lie because she was oppressed by the patriarchy. They were justified in causing 19 innocent individuals to be hanged to death.

Abigail didn’t enjoy seeing those people hanged. Not at all.

Or maybe the girls were telling the truth after all: maybe there really were witches.

No young woman or girl would ever lie about that.

2019-07-21

The Lion Dick

A pity that in the attempt to give the definitive untold history of “The Lion King,” the film’s actual creator, the man who wrote the treatment for $5,000 as “work for hire,” gets no mention.

Writer and poet Tom Disch had sold a property, “The Brave Little Toaster,” to Disney at John Lassiter’s instigation. The story of Toaster was to be Disney’s big entry into computer animation, but the film company balked at the cost until Lassiter convinced them otherwise. By that time “Toaster” had been subcontracted to be produced at a Korean animation studio as a normal cel animation. Lassiter changed the story of “Toaster” slightly, substituting toys for office accessories, and so, “Toy Story,” was born.

Essentially, both “Toy Story” (and it’s sequels), along with “The Lion King,” came from the mind of one man. Mr. Disch did grow bitter at seeing his work without even attribution making billions of dollars, while his career and personal life were growing increasingly difficult.

Tom committed suicide on Independence Day, 2008.
Ny Times, Letters, 2019-07-18

Of all the complaints, for god’s sake, did nobody notice how it promotes an entitled ruling class, inheriting power and position through primogeniture? Here is your “rightful” king. Are you kidding me? Just who appointed this “rightful” king? What makes a predator’s assumption of dictatorial power “rightful”? And why the apparently unquestioning obedience from his potential dinners?

Simba, of course, can answer: God did. And if you don’t respect God’s appointment, you will burn in hell. Isn’t that right, Father Hyena and Brother Jackal?

And as for those reverent creatures of forest– delighted to be killed and eaten by your “rightful” king, are they?

Some say children found the first film too scary? It wasn’t scary enough: we really needed to see a scene of the rightful king having dinner to make people understand exactly what it is about royalty– kings, and princes, and Disney princesses– they admire so much. And what it is about Disney that consistently glamorizes kings and princesses and other dictatorial forms of government.

What they did to “Robin Hood” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”.

2019-06-24

Willful Idiots

When you join an evangelical church in the United States, you get this:

It was the kind of community that Ms. Bragg, who was not raised in the church, wanted for her children. They signed the church’s Membership Covenant, an agreement stating they would submit to the Bible and to the authority and spiritual discipline of church leaders. Members promise to “practice complete chastity” unless in a heterosexual marriage, to “refrain from illegal drug use, drunkenness, gossip,” and to “diligently strive for unity and peace within the church.” Leaders promise “to lovingly exercise discipline when necessary.”

From here.

This is not a church of course. You say, yes it is. It is “The Village Church” in Hurst, Texas. I say, it is not a church. It is a cult. It requires members to submit to the “authority and spiritual discipline of church leaders”. Since no church leader has any real authority to give spiritual direction of any kind, they are asked to submit to the authority of a personality who happens to have manipulated a group of people in bestowing upon him some kind of arbitrary title.

This is not all that complicated: God does not talk to the pastors of “The Village Church”. He never did and never will. He does not “talk” to anyone. If He did, the first thing he would say is, STOP GIVING YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY TO THESE CHARLATANS!

The leaders of this church will say He did because most church leaders actually believe that the majestic voice inside their heads is not their egos: it is the Lord, guiding them to guide others, to bring spiritual fulfillment to the ignorant masses. And they better be ignorant– nobody who is not ignorant would buy this bunk.

Why would any person with any kind of intellectual integrity agree to such a bizarre, obscene obligation? Why would you surrender your right, as an adult, to define for yourself what is moral and what is not, what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do? And why on earth would you surrender to a group of grasping, self-serving “leaders” the power “to exercise discipline” over you?

I am always struck by the number of Americans who will proudly, insolently insist that they would never allow the government to tell them what to do, but will do what their church tells them to do.

Does this same church ask its members to give generously, without regard to their own personal benefit, because that’s what Christ asks of a member of his church? Yet the church protects itself with the fake “MinistrySafe” deceit, and it’s “covenant”. Trust us, but we don’t trust you.

Why would you believe that the people who created this “covenant” are inspired by Jesus, when it is absolutely obvious that the “covenant” serves their own interests alone? It is a franchise, the buildings and organization are a monument to Chandler’s ego. Nothing in this business seems even remotely related to the teachings or example of Christ. In fact, the close you look at the structures and constitutions of these organizations, the more obvious it is that they serve the financial and egotistical interests of the founders.

Mr. Chandler is raising money to build a new campus that is likely to cost more than $70 million.

Okay– now it’s different. It’s even worse. Now you idiots are co-conspirators with Mr. Chandler: you are actually paying for him to put you, and others, into an abusive relationship.

That Said

That said, I find the allegations nebulous. The Bragg’s daughter clearly has issues and has received therapy. Many therapists fervently believe that most emotional disturbances in young girls are caused by sexual abuse, even if it isn’t remembered. They will frequently “encourage” these young women to ransack their memories for possible incidents. She “remembers” an incident that occurred while she was in bed, and had been, or was asleep.

Was there something else that led the police to charge Mr. Tonne? From the article, the daughter could not identify the man she alleges abused her. There were no witnesses of any sort (to the incident, or to the man entering the room, or leaving). Did Mr. Tonne confess, perhaps, to one of the church leaders, who chose not to disclose to the Braggs?

Finally, the inevitable:

Boz Tchividjian and Mitch Little, lawyers representing the Braggs’ daughter, who is now an adult, said their client planned to move forward with formal litigation in order to hold the Village “accountable for the sexual trauma inflicted upon her as a child by an adult employee.”

Oh my!

Of course! The money!

Even after signing the onerous “covenant”, the Braggs are suing. The Braggs now have a financial interest in prosecuting Mr. Tonne. That doesn’t automatically mean the allegations are false but it introduces a corrupting influence. The Braggs will have no difficulty finding an “expert” psychologist who will testify that all of their daughter’s psychological issues stem from this incident of abuse. No psychologist who would testify otherwise could survive the withering hostility of the general public, and the church would never dare to produce one in it’s defense.

They will try to settle out of court for some of the millions they have from their generous, credulous sheep.

2019-06-06

The Trolls

This article describes how an allegedly respectable biographer of Martin Luther King Jr. has uncovered evidence that he may have conducted inappropriate activities while leading the civil rights movement in the 1960’s.

Sex.

We are supposed to be shocked, I suppose, that Martin Luther King strayed from his marriage vows (actually, you’d have to have been hiding under a rock for 30 years to not know that). And we are entitled to knowledge of King’s offenses because Martin Luther King Jr. is respected and celebrated and widely known. So journalists have an obligation to find any dirt on him they can and splash it across as many front pages as possible so we may all come to regard the formerly admired hero as a disgusting example of perversity and sin. We may now go out and tear down the statues. Repeal the laws he caused to be passed. Restore the attitudes he changed.

Mr. Garrow, the author, will defend himself, because you know he will be savaged by a lot of people who feel that smearing Martin Luther King Jr. is not an admirable activity, regardless of whether he participated in an orgy or not. And he’ll have to respond to this question: what is the point? Is there any interest, other than your own, that is served by repackaging the fact that Mr. King had sex with some women?

[Some might object to my use of the word “smear”, which is usually associated with the act of relating false, pejorative information about someone in order to destroy their reputation. I would argue that publishing true information which the publisher would know would destroy someone’s reputation with the general public even though it may not, on it’s own, be directly relevant to the issues for which a person is famous, is also a smear. Think about it this way: what if a “journalist” set out with a list of 25 randomly selected politicians and artists and decided to try to find “dirt” on all of them, and was willing to accept information of dubious veracity coming from bodies known to have an interest in discrediting the person? And what if that person was deceased and unable to offer a defense or explanation? Easy target.]

Did someone out there stake the claim that people of significant accomplishments never do anything naughty? And what do we mean by bad? The sex, of course, grabs the headlines, partly because of the perversity in all of us— mostly because of the perversity in all of us. We immediately read the story not because we are interested in social justice and the law and women’s rights: we read it because deep in our own very dirty minds we want to know more about the sex. It appeals to our desire for sex. It tickles are fantasies about having sex. It makes us feel good to condemn other people for having sex because we are ashamed of our own perverse desires and condemning others is a way of deflecting suspicion. It makes us feel like we have inside information that others don’t have: you admire Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? But I happen to know that he had sex with women in hotel rooms.

David Garrow probably knows this. He also knows he will make a lot more money from a book about Martin Luther King having sex than he would from a book on how little has changed in terms of segregated schools in the past fifty years. He knows that perfectly, but will never admit it, because that would implicate you for wanting to read about Martin Luther King having sex. He needs to provide you with cover, for your prurient interest in sex. You need to be able to say, “I was reading about the important civil rights leader” because you don’t want to have to say, “I saw the word ‘sex’ in the title and immediately felt an overwhelming desire to read the article, because I have a dirty mind.”

How different, really, is Garrow from the FBI agents who secretly tapped King’s phones and bugged his hotel rooms and recorded his SEX and then tried to persuade him to commit suicide? The FBI– certainly, J. Edgar– think that you should be shocked by the sex. He had sex. He had sex with women. He had sex, sex, sex. You could read this all day and all night and never be satisfied that you have read enough about Martin Luther King Jr. having sex. You participate in the attempt to make him commit suicide because you join the FBI in the belief that a perfectly monogamous relationship is the only kind of sex anyone should ever know about.

The greatest defense against this attitude– maybe the most contemptible motive there is– is to come to the realization that the sex is not a big deal. He shouldn’t cheat on his wife, but it’s not that big of a deal. It was wrong, but it’s not that big of deal. It’s not the end of the world. We all have the need and the urge. Many of us fantasize about it but excuse ourselves because we only fantasized about it, though if we could, we would.

It is nowhere near as wrong as trying to persuade him to commit suicide by splashing these details all over the press. Where are the names of the FBI agents and administrators who tried to do this? We know one of them– J. Edgar Hoover. Someone made a film about him and he got what he deserved: he was portrayed by the most mediocre name actor in Hollywood: Leonardo DiCaprio.

2019-05-30

Why Not the Guillotine?

Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, interviewing Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Alex Kozinski about methods of execution for criminals who have been sentenced to death, was appalled. “The guillotine!?” She was shocked.

How rude of Judge Kozinski.

The United States, the only developed nation that still has a capital punishment, has a big problem. Hanging is messy and unreliable. The electric chair is messy and unreliable. Firing squads are messy and unreliable. Cyanide is reliable, but messy. The gas chamber– apparently– is horrifyingly messy and inefficient. All the methods are imperfect. The solution seemed to be drugs. One to sedate. One to paralyze. And then one to stop the heart. No muss, no fuss. The death penalty is saved!

The problem is that the drug used to paralyze the victim may have give the deceptive impression that the victim was not suffering. It has been learned that, in fact, the patient may be suffering tremendously, but we can’t know it because the body has been paralyzed. There have been patients who were administered this drug for an operation who remained conscious but unable to move or speak during the surgery. They described the experience as excruciating.

So what Stahl objected to, clearly, was the messiness of it; the repugnance of a murder that looks like murder. This is precisely the mentality that has led to the disaster of capital punishment in the U.S. Let’s do it in a tidy, antiseptic way that that doesn’t offend those who like to pretend they are virtuous, decent, morally upright persons but still want to kill.

Let’s find a picturesque way to murder.

Yes, drugs: he will just fall asleep, forever.

2019-05-29

Spite

Consider a different well-studied scenario: the ultimatum game. In this setup, two players must decide how to divide a resource. One gets to propose a split, the other can accept the offer or reject it. If the offer is accepted, each gets his share specified by the proposal. If the offer is rejected, both parties receive nothing. The economically rational solution to this game is to offer as little as possible, and accept any offers that are made. When humans play this game, however, they frequently make offers that are more equitable and often reject those that are unfair. Such rejections are often interpreted as punishment aimed at enforcing fairness. From Here.

In my personal experience, people prefer spite.

2019-05-29

Microsoft’s Requirements

Microsoft: “(Required) We collect required diagnostic data to keep Office secure, up-to-date, and performing as expected on the devices its installed on.”

This is the message that popped up as I tried to open Word on a new installation of Office 365 on my HP laptop. “Required”. Sounds powerful, doesn’t it. It’s “required”, like, you have no choice. Microsoft has no choice: it just has to have access to your computer to browse around and take whatever it wants while you are online. They can’t do anything about it: it’s required.

There is nothing “required” at all. It is pure bullshit. There is no law or regulation that “requires” Microsoft to collect your data. It’s Microsoft telling you to bend over and spread your cheeks– it’s “required”.

And “performing as expected”? Absolutely, like the fat, bulky, cluttered, disordered disaster that, yes, I do expect.

But seriously, Microsoft is telling you that, finally, they are not even going to pretend to give you a choice about allowing them to go onto your computer and ransack your personal data. Your acceptance of these conditions

2019-04-08

The Highwaythugs

“The Highwaymen” is a retelling of the Bonnie and Clyde story from the point of view of the lawmen. I thought, that’s interesting– how are they going to show the ambush that brought down Bonnie and Clyde? It doesn’t fit the mythical honor code of Texas lawmen you know, courage and integrity, and honor and crack shots. Confronting the bad guy with your demur manliness and demanding surrender. Texas lawmen don’t hide in the bushes and open fire without warning on an unsuspecting target– especially a woman.

So they had Frank Hamer, the “courageous” and “honorable” former Texas Ranger step out in front of the car and demand their surrender first. That never happened, not in any of the many accounts of that day. They hid in the bushes and fired– something like 139 shots– at Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, using guns they knew to be able to pierce metal. Everyone agreed that the first shot hit Barrow in the head, so they were mainly shooting at Bonnie Parker from then on.

Then the movie showed Frank Hamer turning down money for an interview as if he was above that sort of thing– which also was not true (he fought for a bigger share of the reward money for years).

It is unfortunate that the police were never clever enough to even really attempt to arrest Clyde Barrow without getting into a gun battle. That would have required planning and skill, and it would have been very risky. Here’s why: Clyde Barrow had a terrible, terrible experience in the Texas prison system and he had firmly decided that he was never, ever going back. So, yes, whenever anyone tried to arrest him, he would resist. Given a choice, he’d rather die in a gunfight than return to prison.

Was there a way the police could have arrested him without taking a lot of casualties? It would have been extremely difficult. If they had had intelligence about a planned robbery or rendezvous with family, perhaps they could have planted lawmen near enough to wrestle him down to the ground before he could pull a weapon.

Frank Hamer was famous for having killed over 50 bad guys in his career as a Texas Ranger. We are expected to believe that in over 50 interactions with bad guys– suspects, you understand (of course– none of them were convicted yet of the crimes for which he was trying to apprehend them), Frank Hamer, we are told, out-gunned them fair and square in the process of trying to arrest them. Think about that. Over 50 times.

Could be they were really stupid criminals, trying to outgun a famous Texas Ranger.

Could be Frank Hamer didn’t like to bother with due process.

Later in life, Frank Hamer worked as a union-buster for some oil companies.

I don’t mind the film making the argument that any attempt to arrest Bonnie and Clyde would have resulted in a gun battle. But we don’t tolerate an out and out ambush nowadays. The police are expected to at least make an attempt to arrest a suspect before shooting him or her. Well,– they are expected to at least make it look like they did.

I just mind the BS about Frank Hamer being more heroic or smarter or honorable than he really was.