A Woman in a car in Washington D.C.

Is it possible to take a minute and analyze carefully what just happened in Washington D. C. that has the entire Twitterverse buzzing like a chainsaw jackhammer?

First thing I saw on TV was a police officer telling us that the police performed absolutely heroically. They were courageous and smart and wonderful and they got Timmy safely out of the well. Boy, we’re GREAT. I mean it.

Shots were fired. That’s always electrifying and the first reports on CBC stated that “shots were fired”. They were– by the police.

The police sprang into action. Why? Because they saw other police chasing a car and running down the streets. They sprang into action, locked down government buildings, prevented congressmen from crossing the street, and I’m sure a couple of Secret Service agents threw themselves on top of Obama. All of this was the result of the perception that other police were running around pointing guns and chasing people off the sidewalks. Why were these other police running around and chasing people off the sidewalks? Because some police cars went by with their sirens blaring. And shots were about to be fired.

What actually happened: a woman drove her car towards the White House and appeared to try to drive through the very powerful barricades in front of the President’s home. When the police tried to stop her, she backed up, into a police car, and drove away.

Now, I’m as sentimental as the next guy and I’m sure that that woman spokesperson for the police meant well, and wanted to reassure us that there was nothing the police couldn’t do, but it appeared to me that the police at that moment needed more than anything else to immobilize that car, and this they failed to do. They actually let her reverse the car, back up and out, and drive off, resulting in a hysterical chase down Pennsylvania Avenue as she headed towards….. (very loud basso profundo now) CONGRESS. Where clearly she meant to GTA the Tea Party and get the country moving again.

She smashed into a guard hut and the police surrounded her car and shot her to death. Since they seemed clueless about how to block a car in so it couldn’t escape again, I guess they thought they had no choice.

I’m sure the NRA will assure us that cars don’t kill people: only women with babies kill people, and if only an upstanding NRA member had had his car there at that moment, all would be well.

“No One Cares About These People”

Mr. Keane, in his Chronicle article, offered two major reasons the police lie so much. First, because they can. Police officers “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.” At worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual. Second, criminal defendants are typically poor and uneducated, often belong to a racial minority, and often have a criminal record. “Police know that no one cares about these people,” Mr. Keane explained (NY Times, 2012-02-03)

And, I suspect, neither do you and I.

If you did, you would speak up, make your voice heard, vote for the progressive reformer, not the tough-on-crime conservative. But we don’t care about those people. Unless they are played by Morgan Freeman or Tim Robbins in a movie. Then we care a whole lot, because we really are good, decent people, and so is Morgan Freeman, and the fact that I just love him shows that I am not biased or bigoted. I judge people by what they actually do, not by which actor they look like.

And if the police lie in order to lock them up for a particular crime, it doesn’t really matter if they didn’t commit that particular crime: the important thing is that someone has been locked up for something.

Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. (NY Times, 2012-02-03)

How small a minority are we now, those who think “these people” do matter? That they have souls and feelings and inner lives? We’re not popular, that’s for sure. We are an affront to the overjoyed multitudes who love punishment because they really feel that that is the only way to keep people from taking our stuff or hurting us. This conversation takes place at one level and they either hurt us or we hurt them and if you help them you are hurting us.

My wife and I are watching “The Wire” right now. It’s a gritty, realistic police drama set in Baltimore. The police in “The Wire” cover all shades of humanity, from the obese thoughtless bureaucrat to the passionate honest street cop. The behavior of the cops on this show– and their physical appearance (as on “Hill Street Blues”, another of a handful of credible police dramas) strikes me as consonant with detailed news stories about crime and justice. Deals are struck. The really bad guys, with smarter lawyers, get the light sentences while the poor loyal schmuck who served them bears the brunt of the criminal justice system. And the police, in “The Wire”, lie. Sometimes for personal gain or to cover up incompetence or corruption. Sometimes in a well-meaning effort to put the bad guys behind bars.

Noted

Yes, the police have a tough job. So do criminal lawyers, and farmers and miners and lumberjacks, and doctors and teachers, and those kids who pick through the trash heaps in India. Cry me a river. If you don’t want to be a cop because somebody thinks you should actually be required to obey the law, or control your temper, or risk your life to try to disarm a suicidal homeless man… then get out and do something else.

America’s Secret Police

Do not mention to the public or the media the use of cell phone technology or equipment used to locate the targeted subject,” the Iowa City Police Department warned officers in one training manual. It should also be kept out of police reports, it advised. NY Times, April 1, 2012

For all the screeching and wailing about government oppression in the form of an insurance mandate for health insurance, why are those freedom-loving, liberty-cherishing, gun-hugging Americans so utterly placid and spineless about the massive government intrusion into their personal lives through the routine abuse of police powers as described in the New York Times on April 1?

Apparently the police, even in small, rural towns, routinely go to cell phone companies and demand the locations of particular phones, or the content of text messages. Some of these police departments have even acquired their own equipment to do it without having to pay– or possibly arouse the antipathy of– private cell phone companies.

Where’s all the outrage? Where’s the placards, the effigies, the righteous indignation, the groveling, tearful references to the Constitution, the swelling, yelling, enraged marches?

The most sacred rights are being systematically disemboweled and we hear not a whimper from the so-called patriots.

It’s all a lie and America is a giant fraud. It’s time to hold a grand public ceremony and officially burn the Constitution in a steel barrel and then roll it off the docks somewhere near Wall Street and the “Freedom Tower”, and time for all the flag-draped Patriots to just get over it: you are liars.


Retroactive Immunity: John Ashcroft’s wet kiss to the Telecoms

I will note that I was completely wrong about consequences of Ashcroft’s actions, primarily because Obama has completely and totally capitulated to the forces of darkness in the American intelligence community and has, indeed, joined in the Constitution-defying American Jihad against suspected American enemies everywhere with his own program of assassinations and mayhem.

I would like to say that I predict that it will be the thing Obama will be sorriest about in ten or twenty years. But he won’t be, because the American public will adore him for killing people on their behalf. The more, the better. The bigger and more spectacular, the better. The bloodier, the lovelier. In foreign lands or, hell, why not, here on American soil. Arrest them, torture them, kill them remotely: our religion is an angel, a drone, with a gift of shredding.

If there were no enemies out there to kill, I strongly suspect we would make them up. No military or intelligence community would ever willingly acknowledge that they are not really needed, or that they do more damage, in the long term, than good.

And if you think that is preposterous, you should ask yourself how we got here: Obama, the “yes we can” guy, in the embrace of a Hellfire missile.


[added July 17, 2012]

Did you know that about 98%– no exaggeration — of criminal court proceedings in the U.S. end with a plea bargain? Is this good? Bad? Terrible?

What we have is district attorneys with enormous power bullying defendants into giving up their constitutional rights by threatening to lay more serious charges than are called for (which could result in a far more severe sentence) if the defendant doesn’t please guilty to “lesser” charges.

Now, did you know that District Attorney’s are allowed to demand a “waiver” as part of these agreements, wherein the defendant gives up his right to appeal his sentence later, if he happened to, say, discover exculpatory evidence somewhere, or that his own lawyer was a dunce? Furthermore, his own lawyer is likely to push him to agree to these terms because part of the waiver excludes his own attorney from any culpability for incompetence or negligence resulting in a more severe sentence than might be reasonably expected?

Taser the 10-year-old!

The Police Taser a 10-Year-Old

The Police Taser Another 10-Year-Old

No wonder the police often think they are underpaid. It’s those scary 10-year-olds out there that are terrifying them. You may think a big, burly police officer might be little reckless in the presence of a 10-year-old, but in today’s society, with the decline in morality and lack of respect for the law, you can’t be too careful. Taser the 10-year-old!

The police need to hire a pr firm. The pr firm would tell them, if you want to stop getting bad publicity about your bad behavior– improve your behavior first. It’s easier to spin.

So if a particular cop is incapable of reasoning that a 10-year-old child, or a homeless person with emotional problems, or a foreign-speaking traveler, might be safely managed with patience, calm, and intelligence, convince him that it is better public relations to do it anyway.

Glenn Beck

“What I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies, and I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy. But that’s the way I feel and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” Glenn Beck, interviewing Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, in 2008.

With the exception of Anne Coulter, I think most rational people today accept that McCarthyism was a bad thing. So we are waiting for the correct label for this kind of behavior by Glenn Beck, if it’s not simply McCarthyism. Well, it is McCarthyism. And it is as ugly and contemptible as we always thought McCarthyism was. And as it was in the era of Joe McCarthy, the majority (probably) of respectable conservatives are standing by silently because they are terrified of taking on these assholes.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if someone like James Dobson or Billy Graham or Ted Haggard posted an editorial saying that while he is a God-fearing Christian and principled conservative, he won’t stand for this kind of bullying or baiting or personal attack and he urges all citizens to show some respect for each other? And while he’s at it, he might mention that every night he prays for Obama to be safe, and for his children to be blessed with a father, and for his wife to feel deeply the richness of a good family life.

Sigh.

This is not trivial. As a Christian, the fact that the most prominent “leaders” of the church in the United States will never in a million years say anything like that is a theological and philosophical problem that I can’t solve.


Was there a race issue involved with Joe Wilson, calling Obama a liar?

Do we even need the race issue to recognize stunningly bad manners? Do we need a box of kleenex to deal with the fact that his election campaign fund-raising went up after the incident?

How long before a scary new political party is formed in the U.S.? Wait– is there a need for a radical, far-right, extremist party? Can’t the Republicans fit the bill?


The Toronto Police recently discovered some strange pipes and wires in the back of a van. The owner, apparently, told them that he had an alternative fuel system installed in the vehicle.

In the mistaken belief that you can’t be too careful (I believe that you can, in fact, be too careful), they cordoned off about 1.6 kilometers around the vehicle, barred people from their homes and businesses, and called in the bomb squad.

They then announced the bomb squad had defused the bomb by the early evening.

The owner of vehicle was charged with violation of his probation and possession of a bomb. Six hours later, they announced that it was, indeed, an alternative fuel system, and the charges would be dropped but the owner was not released.

The next day, the owner was released and the police announced he would not be charged.

My question is this: what did they “defuse”?

Surfer Insurrection

In the midst of the panic over Hurricane Rita, a little news item caught my interest: as the storm approached the coast of Texas, some defiant citizen went surfing.

Now, I will admit that this was probably not a particularly clever thing to do. It would have been far more clever of the man to hitch a ride on a school bus filled with old people and oxygen tanks and get the hell out of Texas altogether. But, hey, people drink and smoke and vote in favour of having the worst school system in the country, and there’s not too much you can do about it.

The police didn’t feel that way. They arrested him. And they handcuffed him and hauled him away.

Why?

That’s a good question. Did the police think he would cause billions of dollars of property damage? Or that he would be responsible for the deaths of innocent people? Or that he would make off with millions of dollars of illicit gains? That he would eat a French fry on a subway platform? No, that would have made him a tropical storm or a Republican.

I believe that the police arrested him because he refused to obey the most fundamental principle of the good order and peace: he wasn’t afraid.

It is not enough to obey the law. And it is not enough to leave people alone and mind your own business.

The act of surfing in the face of a tremendously fearsome storm headed your way is an act of defiance of a society that believes that order and civility can only be maintained if you and I are afraid of whatever it is the authorities deem to be fearsome, whether it is Arab terrorists, anthrax, taxes, or tropical storms. I believe the police intuitively understood that if this man’s attitude were to spread, the pillars of our exploitive, wasteful, consumerist society would begin to crumble and they, along with their establishment patrons, would all be in big trouble.

Reading too much into this? Maybe. But then, you explain to me why we are arresting people for eating French fries or surfing nowadays, and why the National Guard treated people fleeing Hurricane Katrina to the Superdome as potential criminals as they entered the building, and why the students at Columbine had to put their hands up as they evacuated the building long, long after the two killers had offed themselves?

Maybe John Roberts

I’ll admit, I was fooled at first.

John Roberts looks like a reasonable man. Oh, does he look reasonable. Read his opinions. He is the model of a modern enlightened logical jurist. Of course, his rulings always end up in favor of the corporations, the police, and the rich and powerful. But the lovely words he uses to get there!

He may be an intellectual giant compared to Clarence Thomas, but he will probably rule exactly the same way on every issue.

Roberts has stated to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is “no ideologue”. That is about as close to perjury as you get. No– that is perjury. Roberts is either so seriously deluded that he cannot be considered fit for office, or a liar. I say, he is a liar.

[2022-05 Lawrence Tribe has done an excellent piece illustrating, among other things, how a Justice of the Supreme Court could earnestly believe that the mental framework and cultural affiliation of a justice could lead them to conclude that specific rulings on particular issues are “objective” because they congenial to that framework, when we know that the framework itself is the product of implicit bias.]

Mr. Roberts is an extremist, a radical, an authoritarian. Here is the best evidence, aside from all the rulings– I mean, all of his rulings– in favor of corporations and the police: Mr. Roberts was on a panel of judges that heard an appeal of the notorious french fry case from the city of Washington, Hedgepeth vs. Washington.

A 12-year-old girl entered a subway station with French fries. Contrary to the law, she ate a fry. A policeman saw her do this and arrested her. He made her put down the French fry and her backpack and lay down on her stomach. Then he hand-cuffed her.

We are talking about a 12-year-old girl here. Eating a French fry.  A big, burly, powerful policeman.   Handcuffs. I am not making this up.

We’re talking about an psycho adult police officer, who was supposedly trained in something or another. I mean that– psycho. Do you think it’s normal for an adult male to want to handcuff a 12-year-old girl for eating a French fry? Was he trained to assume that a 12-year-old girl could threaten him physically? Does a normal adult male make a strange 12-year-old girl lay face down on the floor while he handcuffs her so she won’t hurt him and flea from the charge of eating a french fry on a subway platform?

Just how many fugitive french fry eaters are there at any given time?

If you dare to defend Judge Roberts’ ruling in this case, it would be as hard for me to argue with you and it would be for me to argue against a Mormon or Scientologist or faith-healer or member of the NRA. You’ve lost your mind.

In detail: the ingenious Judge Roberts ruled that since the interests of the state are served by discouraging juvenile delinquency, the actions of the police were justified. The government may go around and force little girls to lay down on the pavement so they can be handcuffed for eating French fries on subway platforms. That might not seem nice, but that’s just too bad.

[That’s like saying that since the interests of the state are served by discouraging obesity the government may ban fast food outlets from serving French fries. You see, Roberts said that the state was interested in “discouraging juvenile delinquency”. He didn’t say that there was no constitutional requirement to arrest juvenile delinquents– unless it is is in the interests of the state, just as the constitution doesn’t require the government to fight obesity… unless…a state decides that can. March 2011]

There is no exception for common sense, sanity, reasonableness, humanity, compassion, or having a brain. It makes no difference that the girl was 12-years-old. It makes no difference that we live on a planet called Earth that is round and that revolves around the sun. Facts are facts.

That is the world Judge Roberts inhabits. That is a world that makes sense to him because the man, for all his cool, calm, detached manners, has no sensibility at all. He has absolutely no common sense, no humanity, and probably no human feeling. This is a man who grew up in a privileged, insulated environment, and who never in his entire life came face-to-face with the gritty reality of street crime and poverty. He clerked for rich white judges appointed by rich white politicians funded by rich white corporations. When he is confronted by a case of a poor black man who was beaten up by the police after he robbed someone because his family was starving– you never know, might happen–, he’s going to think, in the back of his tiny little brain, “why didn’t he just buy some food?”

You won’t find anything in his biography about military service, volunteerism, missionary activities, or travels to exotic locales. This is a guy who lives in Republican gingerbread houses with gingerbread nannies and gingerbread rules. Twelve-year old girls eating French fries bring disorder and confusion. But Roberts knows better than to say “we like locking up 12-year-old girls for eating French fries.” He can’t say that– it’s too bald and too real. So he says, twelve-year-old girls can become delinquents. Delinquents must be locked up.

Then he says, I’m sorry. I’m so so sorry. I’m really very, very sorry. But the 12-year-old girl must be locked up in a police car and taken downtown and fingerprinted and photographed and detained. That is the kind of thing that is necessary to sustain Judge Roberts’ gingerbread world.

And all they talk about is abortion and voting rights and gay marriage. Even the Democrats.

The Republicans have so skewed the political debate in the U.S. that nobody even questioned the fact that Bush overtly declared that he was going to load the court with conservative partisans, as if that is how appointments to the Supreme Court should be made.

The fact is, abortion (and gun rights) have always been a red herring for conservative politics which is only and ever concerned with preserving the status, wealth, and privilege of propertied white men.

It’s a wedge issue.  The most convincing evidence of this?  Compare the rulings of the same judges (anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-patriotism) with their rulings on corporate law, workers rights, unions, pensions, investment funds, corporate liability, and so on.  They are absolutely uniform.  Those are the rulings that really matter to Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republican toadstools.


It’s too late. Roberts will be confirmed. He won’t be the worst justice on the Supreme Court, but that’s only because of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

The Police Take Sides on Trade Agreements

On Sept. 5, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff of the ACLU attended a briefing that the police held for local business leaders at the Intercontinental Hotel. Rodriguez-Taseff was shocked that Asst. Police Chief Frank Fernandez’s PowerPoint presentation openly endorsed the controversial trade agreement, telling the audience that it would bring 89,000 new jobs to the area and add $13.5 billion annually to Florida’s Gross State Product. From Salon, December 31, 2003.

Do the police know or care how damaging this information is?

I have no doubt that the police think they are behaving quite decently. Doesn’t everybody support Globalization? Well, real people do. So the unreal can be pelted with tear gas and pounded with batons.

 

The Decline of Violent Crime

In 1963, the City of New York had 25,500 police officers, and a murder rate of less than 600 a year. In the mid 1980s, the murder rate about 2,200 a year. Today, for the first time in almost 40 years, the murder rate will be below 600. The number of police officers: 38,000. The number of 911 calls on an average day: 1,000. What are the other 37,000 officers doing? I don’t know.

Nobody seems to know what’s going on. Why is there a huge decline in the murder rate? Did people become good? Have we executed enough criminals now that we are finally safe? Has all that harsh law and order finally started to have a beneficial effect?  Abortions?

The murder rate increased in connection with the widespread distribution of drugs. But drugs don’t cause crime. They don’t. Drugs cause people to waste their lives, and they cause people to do stupid things, and they are addictive, but there is no particular reason why someone using drugs would be more criminal-minded than, say, the CEO of Enron corporation.

But when drugs are illegal, and the cost to an addict increases to a preposterous amount, and the drug trade is hugely profitable because of the high prices caused by interdiction, crime will increase because of the illegality of drugs.

The truth is that drugs are not illegal in America. They are practically obligatory. Prozac, Lithium, Ritalin, Zoloft, Paxil– you name it, you need it. The difference is that some drugs are not patented. Like marijuana, hashish, opium, and cocaine. So drug companies cannot profit from them by providing exclusive access to them. So they must be illegal.

I’ve already made my arguments for legalizing drugs. What I’m concerned with here is that New York’s murder rate is down to about the lowest number it’s been in 40 years. So if you believe that the world is rapidly heading to hell in a hand basket, and that our morally bankrupt nation is sliding into a hellhole of perdition and depravity, you’ll have to explain why it doesn’t show up in the murder rate.

Three Bad Stories

The four officers were found to be defending themselves when they fired 41 shots at the West African immigrant, striking him 19 times, two police sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press.

The four officers — Kenneth Boss, Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon and Richard Murphy — encountered Diallo in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building on Feb. 4, 1999, while searching for a rape suspect. They opened fire when they saw what they thought was a gun; it turned out to be his wallet. All four were acquitted of criminal charges last year. New York Times, Thursday, April 26, 2001

Sometimes a story hardly needs comment. The seeds of it’s own outrageous absurdity are already planted, in all their imminent glory, in the very words that tell the tale. In this case– “41 shots”. The only thing left to comment on is the bizarre distortion applied to an issue like the Diallo case because the bar of absurdity has been raised so high. Those who defend the police argue that because Diallo was reaching for his wallet– which some reasonable people might regard as a rather foolish thing to do with a number of New York’s finest closing in aggressively– the police are justified in applying lethal force. The argument appears to be that the police, given their dangerous occupation, can’t afford to wait to see if it really is a wallet. Thus if they win the point that the officers thought it might have been a gun, which is the only point they have a chance of winning, they would seem to prevail and the officers would get off scot free.

But the real issue is the 41 shots. There were four officers. If they had each fired once or twice, you could argue that they were jittery and too quick and maybe even incompetent. If that had been the case, they should simply have been fired. In a dream world, good heavens, they might even have been charged with criminal negligence. But the fact that each officer fired and fired and continued to fire can only be explained by one thing, and that is that they wanted to make sure that nobody was going to survive to go to court and testify that four big, mighty, manly New York police officers went ballistic and fired their guns at him for no good reason at all.

In reality, even if Diallo had been reaching for a gun, the officers, by any reasonable standard, should still have been charged with murder, because there were four of them, and because they obviously had no intention of arresting or disabling or wounding Diallo: they fully intended to kill him.

As it turns out, they may have correctly surmised that a dead Diallo would be easier to deal with than a living witness to their actions, since Diallo, of course, is not available to deny that he even reached for his wallet.