Friday, November 11, 2016

Epilogue to the Unknowing, Unintended Release of the World-Wide Radioactive Cloud (11/9)

It used to be that Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of "Team of Rivals" (about the Lincoln presidency and its aftermath) was the ad hoc historian and analyst for American politics, both past and present: Mr. Obama took similar steps after his elections (plural).



No more. Now, the definitive reference source is Nancy Isenberg, author of "White Trash:" these are the people, after all, who, having been lied to, gulled, cynically used, and made to feel as though they were important to someone who just passingly knows they even exist and couldn't care less about their needs, their wants, or their nature (but was indeed able to tap into their jealous anger, like Hitler, with the German proletariat and rabble of the 30s) elected Donald Trump; and at that, because this country still, after all these years and all of its electoral hiccups, still has huge numbers of people who won't - - or, can't - - vote.



Read the book. "White Trash."




And before that, read what no less a person than H.L. Mencken said about American politics, about a  hundred years ago:






"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." — H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Friday, September 30, 2016

Call the police! No, wait a sec . . .

This is a long one, but: It’s time to get into it here. Stay with it. It’s something that has everybody’s attention, one way or another (sure, there are lots of badge-bunnies and cop suckers out there (shorthand for those who think that police are never, ever wrong; that private citizens must always defer and capitulate; and that everyone with a badge and a gun is a "hero") who are saying, over and over again: "Yeah! Got ‘im!" or, "They’re all dirtbags . . . ," or something else totally redneck/bigoted/resentful-‘n’-angry/Trump-like, but unfortunately, that’s the sign of the times in which we’re all living - - except for those who’ve been removed from the living . . . ). There’s an awful lot about it that’s disturbing; a lot that’s really sad; a lot that’s some kind of scary; but, just about (notice: just about, not, "all") all of it’s plain wrong.




Police killing civilians. Doing it, for the most part (notice: for the most part) with impunity. Police covering up for other police when those doing the covering know that the ones whom they’re protecting are just plain wrong (can we say it? Dead wrong?) And that by covering up, they, themselves are likely committing crimes (accessory after; misprision; sometimes, aiding and abetting).





The mandatory (and appropriate) disclaimer: we’re not saying that all cops/police/agents/game-and-fish wardens/transit police/school police/marine patrol police, and whatever else is out there with badges and guns and any kind of enforcement authority, no matter how narrow (or, broad) are "bad." To be even more clear (and some of you will say, "Yeah, yeah, they always say that . . . . . " but for the one at this keyboard, it’s true), over the years I’ve been having contact with law enforcement of all kinds and stripes - - and it’s been for lots and lots of years, both as prosecutor and defender, I’ve been involved with, and in some case have gotten to know well, some awfully good people in the field (let’s straighten something else out: it’s not a "profession:" "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic training," according to Webster’s): people who really care about what they do and about the people for whom they’re doing it, people who are totally committed to doing it right, people who take their obligations as seriously as they take their powers and prerogatives; in short, people who are just plain decent and honest, in both the conventional and the moral sense.





There. I’ve said it, and I mean it.





But: there’s way too much that’s wrong out there now, and there are so many different levels and kinds of wrong. It’s hard to decide where to start. Why don’t we start at the top? But: what’s "the top?" Is it the over-protected, over-privileged, too-powerful police unions around the country (primarily at the municipal and local levels), whose lobbying powers are right there on a par with N.R.A. and Big Pharma? Unions whose mouthpieces are just totally cavalier about making stuff up (" . . . and the officer was in fear for his/her life . . ;" " . . . the officer thought the subject had a gun . . .") and being nastily and meanly critical of anybody - - anybody - - who either seeks answers and accountability or suggests that in a given incident the cop or cops was/were wrong? Those who criticize prosecutors for even so much as suggesting that "an investigation" will be "opened" into a shooting or tasing or beating with an asp or baton, or the use of anything with capsaicin ("pepper spray") or CN ("chemical mace")? These would seem to be (in trendy-speak) "the enablers," the places and people to whom those with something to cover, hide, or defend run, knowing that they’ll get almost impervious cover.





Or: is it the elected state prosecutors and judges who just about always (note: just about) turn blind eyes to events and episodes that at minimum warrant and need inquiry and inspection, if not plain, simple indictment and prosecution (prosecutors, of course) or dismiss cases or acquit enforcement-community defendants in circumstances where private citizens would be at true risk of conviction and jail (judges, of course)? And there’s no secret why the people in those sectors do as they do: they need and want to be elected or re-elected, and to get there, they need (1) endorsements and (2) money, and the police unions are the most fertile sources, directly and indirectly, of both of those things. (Try to run for a seat on the bench, any bench, where a police union comes out with a criticism that that candidate is "soft on crime," "liberal" (a code-word for tough on police, and/or conscious of The Constitution), or something similar, and see how far you get.)





Maybe it’s the law enforcement administrative community, those police chiefs and sheriffs who’ll hire anybody when they need or want to fill vacancies, no questions asked, and who, when they have absolutely no choice but to fire somebody, will never, ever disclose either the firing itself or the reasons why, when asked by the next place the discard goes - - kind of like certain sectors of the world of medics, where anybody can get hired by the next hospital or medical group after being kicked out of (or excluded from) the last one, or stripped of a license in one state only to be credentialed in another. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of police with ghostly trails miles and years long, trails of shootings, beatings, thefts, drug-dealing, sexual abuse (both "on duty" and off) and other screw-ups which, in the private sector and in real life, would keep a person from getting hired for anything, anywhere. "The code," though, written in blue ink, keeps them from being identified, keeps them protected, and keeps them on the streets.





Perhaps (just, perhaps) it’s the police themselves: more of them now than ever before are un- or under-trained and -experienced; emotionally ill-equipped to handle the stresses of a potentially conflict-laden situation (though it says, someplace, that that’s what they’re trained for, and it’s an everyday part of the job, what they signed on for and agreed to), and elementally possessed of a smug, sometimes mean-spirited, bully-boy (or -girl) attitude. All you need to hear to know that is the all-too-frequently-repeated "defense" or "explanation:" "s/he refused to obey my commands." Police have never been authorized to give "commands." They may, in proper circumstances, give "orders," but (1) to require obedience or compliance, they must be lawful orders (a cop can’t arrest you for, say, not taking off your clothes if he or she "orders" it and you refuse, or for not giving up your club sandwich at the local diner if you’re "ordered" to) and (2) failure to obey an "order," even if lawful, is never in and of itself a justification for the use of deadly, dangerous or lethal force ("Drop the gun!" may be one of those few that is).





And then, there’s the covering up. Frequently expressed as the questions, "Who polices the police? Who prosecutes the prosecutors?", it is so rare that one officer or agent will implicate another in anything, report or document anything, intercede in or put a stop to anything that should otherwise be derailed or corrected or dealt with, that those few who have done it have paid heavy prices. Shunned and treated as pariahs at a minimum, it’s not unusual to see them (or, worse, their families) harassed, intimidated or threatened. The in-group will be quick to "hand them up" for something they didn’t do, or something that everybody else does but never gets called out for. Their jobs are at risk. Why? Obvious. "You want me to cover your ass when you screw up? Well, buddy, you’d best cover mine." Simple as that.



Go here: http://www.killedbypolice.net/ . Take a quick look. Children (including very young children); unarmed people; faultless people who had the audacity to stand up to a cop or ask questions; women who simply aren’t (physically) strong enough. And of course, way too many people with dark skin.





Like the guy said: There’s trouble in (wherever we all live, every one of us), and it ain’t going to be fixed by a bunch of trombones and trumpets. For those relatively few of you with guns and badges who do it the right way, still: sorry. The truth hurts. Do your part to start cleaning it up and putting it all right. You’ll feel better, and more and more people around you will really like you.



For the rest of you: look at today’s headlines, tweets, posts, or mainstream news. Even today, this day, it’s still going on. People are protesting and rioting. Cops are for the most part getting more, not less, confrontational. The divide between us and them is widening.





And (more) people are dying.
Read more »

Monday, August 15, 2016

Donald Trump: Definitely Not a "no-trump" Hand

I just hate to keep coming back to this man, but he keeps on getting so much lower, and so much worse even still, one would be compromising self-respect if one didn't say something, no matter how small or distant one's voice:

In bridge (technically, "contract bridge") when the first to bid says, "(any number) no-trump," like, for example, "one no-trump" or "two no trump," it's saying to the playing partner across the table: "I'm long on one suit with some high cards (including some tens), pretty long on another, also with some high numbers, and I think I have some stoppers." It's a strong opening bid, inviting one's partner to take risks and play aggressively.


Donald Trump is clearly not a "no-trump" bid, and so, he's a "not Trump" mandate. This post, then, is intended primarily for those still-co-opted and deluded people, those garden-variety angry ones (though they still may not know why), those who don't have what they want but think that (a) this guy can get it for them and give it to them and (b) in the process, they/he can take it away from those whom they fear, whom they just elementally hate for racial and/or religious reasons, and (c) who still don't realize, even now, that  the man is using them while he lies to them (how can that still not be seen, with the bankruptcy cheats? The lawsuits to beat people down and out of money they're legitimately owed? The luddite refusal to release tax- and income information? The really hollow explanation for his avoidance of military service and his gaming The Selective Service System to do it?), and is a person who, now more than ever, is showing signs of psychological imbalance, instability,  and probably, pathology (sociopathology; psychosis; a combination).  Who beside either a clinically immature or emotionally-stunted person uses negative names or adjectives ("Crooked." "Little." "Lyin'" "Pocahontas") to attach to someone's first name, or use instead, to insult them? (Answer: A school child, or, a bully; and therefor, Trump.)


Even the moneyed and the movers in his own party see it, now.


Since the last time one felt compelled to pay attention to Trump (no "Mister," for him, just as he insists upon addressing people who are his social and political betters by their first names, clearly intending disrespect and denigration) we all know - -  or should (hell, the whole world knows) of his most recent string of aberrant and inappropriate exercises in uncontrolled and impulsive and mean behavior:


His snarly, racist comments about the parents of a dead (KIA) military officer who truly died a hero - -  no, a real hero, when his father called him out, angrily and with an edge, saying that he's never made any sacrifice for anybody, much less the country he'd lead; his "explanation" for his racism: "he (the father) attacked me harshly;" his fallback and petulant retort (I've made lots of sacrifices. I've managed thousands or millions of projects [no, he hasn't] and created thousands upon thousands of jobs [no, he's taken away or destroyed far more than he's created]," as though using other people's money to try to recoup his own losses and in the process engage in yet further narcissistic self-aggrandizement with more names on more buildings - -  that he doesn't own or operate - -  were, in the aggregate, a "sacrifice;" and,


His exhorting the so-called "Second Amendment people" to be violent (clearly, lethally violent) against his opponent, Hillary Clinton to keep her from being able to appoint Justices to The Supreme Court, then saying, he was being sarcastic - -  and then saying, "well, maybe a little sarcastic," when it was obvious to all but the most shallow and blind, simply by his tone of voice and his facial expressions and the context in which he made the comment that he meant every word he said and intended the clear inferences to be drawn from then; and,


His saying, with a straight face (Dave Barry, the Pulitzer Prize-winning humor writer would say, "I swear, I'm not making this up!") that Barak Obama, the President of this country, was the founder (actually, in later versions, one of two founders, along with his opponent, Clinton) of the zealous, killer sect called ISIS or ISIL - -  and repeating it and standing by it and insisting that he meant the accusation literally; and,


His using his status as lessor of a meeting hall where he was putting on another "rally" or giving another speech (if you lease a place, whether it's a concert hall or a double-wide trailer, you get to say who can enter and who has to leave: that's why the guy rarely, if ever, appears in a publicly-owned and -controlled location) to eject yet another "undesirable," this time somebody with a squally kid that was irritating him by being a distraction.


Those who are still deluded and enthralled by him love this stuff. But, let's look back:


Caligula (actually, one of the Caesars in a line of several), who ruled around the time of the birth of Jesus. He was a classic tyrant, a sadist, a killer, and a world-class opportunist. He would later come to be scorned for his extravagant use of public funds to build himself ultra-luxurious palaces and villas; he either caused the murder of, or exiled, members of his own family; and he bribed the army of Rome from one end to the other to keep their "loyalty;" and yet, he had a cohort of followers who absolutely loved him - -  while others plotted his own downfall in one way or another.


Want to go back a little further? Draco, known as "The Lawgiver," came into power in the 7thy Century B.C. All that need be said about him here is that, though he was initially elected by a majority, he quickly became know for his overly-harsh laws and their implementation (hence, "Draconian"). He was especially hard on people who were in debt: he ordered that they be sold as slaves. For stealing "a head of cabbage," people were executed.


Want to get more current? Maximilien Robespierre was credited as the leader of The French Revolution, but he's better known for creating "The Reign of Terror." Viewed as a hero by those who said they hated the monarchy (Louis and Marie Antoinette), Robespierre got more and more full of himself, leaving such formalities as trials for accused people in his wake, and keeping people imprisoned in the very Bastille he helped "liberate" without limit. He was one of the first true tyrants of modern times.


Oh, and leave us not forget Hitler. Or Mussolini (almost, but not quite, a matched set). We know how they both manipulated people, Hitler primarily, of course, playing to their prejudices and insecurities, and their anger at the drubbing the Germans had taken during and after World War I. Still, as we all know, he was blindly followed by millions - -  because he told them what they wanted to hear, and made promises that he couldn't keep. He created a class of "villains" (the Jews), demonized them, and whipped people into foamy-mouthed frenzies at "rallies" to mobilize both sentiment and action against them.


Sound familiar?


Even Trump's (former) supporters, both public figures and private citizens - -  including (and, especially) those with money and/or equally valuable endorsements, have now come to see the guy for what he is.  They're running away from him as though he were a disease-carrier. The Republican party is in a shambles, and in a panic. The question is: what to do about the blind ones, the uber-zealots who either can't, or won't, see him for what he is, and refuse to acknowledge that they're being callously manipulated and used, just as Trump used those who bid on his "projects" in Atlantic City and New York (remember The Plaza Hotel? In and out of bankruptcy how many times?); sold enrollment in his fraudulent "university," even lied about his steaks and cigars?


What to do? If you know any of them personally, grab them by the ears or shoulders or neck, and yell at them relentlessly. But if you don't (and most of us don't: they're a pretty Klannish group) . . . hell, wish I knew. One simply can't reason with the irrational.