Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

If you are a citizen of a rogue country, what does that make you?

The question posed in the title of this essay is, perhaps, not so hard to answer if we imagine a citizen of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or North Korea. In many ways we view the citizens of these countries to be prisoners of their governments and while we may hold the police and military accountable, we forgive the citizens because we consider them to be powerless to make changes in these regimes. Dictators, among other things, are notorious for not seeking citizen input before taking decisions that have far reaching consequences, both locally and globally.

Americans are so understanding about this, our leaders often craft awkwardly worded statements stating that, for example, and I paraphrase 'we are not at war with the Iraqi people, we are at war with Saddam Hussein and his military.' Oddly, these lovely words rarely prevent the death of average citizens who we openly recognize as being completely powerless to affect change. In the case of Iraq, the Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has documented 155,923 -- 174,355 civilian deaths from violence as of March 2016. For not being at war with the Iraqi people, America sure killed a lot of Iraqis.

Now it's time to step into the mirror and look out from the other side. Unlike the above mentioned countries, America is not a dictatorship or a strongly authoritarian country. In fact Americans usually boast about the greatness of American democracy and point proudly to "one man/woman, one vote" to indicate that Americans shape their destiny not their elected government. Americans work hard for most, if not all, of their lives and the IRS is omnipresent to take their cut to fund the America that Americans love so much.

This brings us to that rather horrific number regarding civilian deaths in Iraq. What is the average American's culpability for each of those deaths? If Americans set their own destiny through their democracy and fund their destiny through their tax dollars, then the responsibility for these civilian deaths would seem to fall at the feet of every American. As would the 26,000 deaths in Afghanistan, the 14,000 -- 18,000 deaths in Libya, the 280,000 deaths in Syria, and the 60 - 212 civilian Syrians  killed on July 19, 2016 (numbers come from different agencies).

Civilians are killed each and every day. They include women, children, men, the young, the old, and the handicapped. They are nurses, doctors, teachers, students, bakers, and every other occupation.  They are killed by day and by night, but most noticeably, they are killed by America's freely and democratically elected government. The military machine that carries out the killing is funded by American tax dollars, and therefore, by American tax payers.

Americans are going to have to face a brutal reality. We are going to have to acknowledge that our country and government  is, in some ways, similar to North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and we that we as citizens are virtually powerless to affect our county's destiny or we must accept that we control our destiny and that red stuff on our hands is the blood of thousands of innocent lives that were killed on our behalf. We can claim to be impotent sheep herded about by our government, or we can claim to be democratic citizens of a county that routinely elects and funds a government that carries out crimes against humanity.

Admittedly, not much of a choice. I wish I saw a third option, but for now, I only see these two. And while you may say that you oppose such killings, I don't think it will make much difference to those who seek to avenge the death of their friends and family by trying to kill you or your friends and family.

The Sane Progressive: The lesser of two evils.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Police: An institution not beyond reproach.


On July 17, 2016 Obama walked, with his normal arrogant stride, into the White House briefing room and deliver a short speech on the shootings in Baton Rouge. The parts I wish to address are shown below and the whole text and the video are linked at the end of this essay.

On July 17, 2016 Obama walked, with his normal arrogant stride, into the White House briefing room and deliver a short speech on the shootings in Baton Rouge. The parts I wish to address are shown below, while the whole text, video and other useful links are provided in the reference section.

Regardless of motive, the death of these three brave officers underscores the danger that police across the country confront every single day. Obama, 2016
Americans are living under a horribly broken and corrupt justice system, and this extends specially to include the police. I think Obama’s remark that the police confront danger every single day was nothing but sensational rhetoric designed to emote feelings of sympathy for an institution the deserves little. For those killed, sympathy should be abundant, but not for the institution. Don’t confuse acts of bravery, heroism and service by individual police, with the overall institution of police; they are not the same. Good people can always be found in the worst institutions.
Obama failed to mention all the other occupations that risk life and limb for our society and in the process, rarely if ever shoot unarmed citizens or seek to deprive others of liberty and justice through systematic and selective incarceration.
In 2014, 51 officers died in the line of duty, another 46 died on duty, i.e., had fatal accidents while on duty. These numbers made policing the 15th most dangerous job in America. Nonetheless, policing was safer than landscaping and grounds-keeping, safer than being a construction worker, or a taxi driver, safer than being a truck driver, or a farmer, safer than working in refuse removal, being a roofer or a fisherman, and many, many times safer than working in the most dangerous occupation of them all, the logging industry. It would appear that America is full of workers who put their life on the line each day when they go to work. However, I don’t recall Obama mentioning them, of course, they weren’t really the topic were they? I also don’t recall any grounds-keepers targeting blacks and other minorities for stop-and-frisk. I don’t recall any truck drivers shooting 12-year-old black kids, and I don’t recall any roofers pulling over cars and then shooting the driver to death. I don’t recall any fisherman patrolling poor neighborhood in an effort to extort money from poor citizens. I certainly don’t remember any loggers being able to kill with impunity and without fear of prosecution. These omissions by Obama, were relevant and his failure to even mention them suggest a peculiar agenda.

And we as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies violence against law enforcement. Obama, 2016
What Obama should have said was that we as a nation have to be loud and clear than nothing justifies unprovoked violence against our citizens and we will not stand silently by as the police become an extrajudicial force use to intimidate and incarcerate the innocent. In every revolution in which freedom stood against oppression, liberty stood against subjugation, democracy stood against totalitarianism, or good stood against evil, the first people that had to be fought were the police. Whether it was the Pretorian guard or the Gestapo, every government has been able to surround itself with a ring of protection that was heralded as providing safety, peace, law, and order. There is never a shortage of those with overly flexible morals who are willing to secure a better life for themselves by suppressing their fellow citizens and serving as thugs for the establishment. The primary objective of all police forces worldwide is to protect the establishment, to protect those with power, and protect the status quo.
We should never forget that Jim Crow laws were enforced by the police, student protests against the Vietnam war were broken up, violently, by the police. It was the police that shot and killed 2 students and injured 12 at Jackson State Univ., in 1970; it was the police that turned dogs lose on protestors marching in the Civil Rights movement; it was the police that carried out mass arrests in 1971, 2002, 2011, 2012, and 2016 (totaling almost 15,000 people); it was the police that bought us Cointelpro, and there are no numbers that accurately reflect how many Blacks were brutalized, tortured, and disappeared by the police since the 1860s. And long before George Bush gave us waterboarding, US police departments were using it, with its peak coming  between 1910 and 1940.
Wrongful incarceration is such a problem that America needs the "Innocence Project," which devotes its time to trying to free those who were railroaded by the American justice system.
At every step in American history when the people cried out for change, the police were there to protect the government and implement its will when the government said “NO!” Luckily, change slowly happened anyway, but not with the help of the police, instead it was in spite of the police. Don’t ever forget this.
The police are not the defenders of peace, justice and liberty, they are defenders of what the establishment calls peace, justice and liberty. When a corrupt government feels threatened it turns the police loose on society. The black-shirts make mass arrests, much like we have seen at recent US demonstrations. In exchange for their freedom, those arrested citizens are forced to denounce their constitutional rights, as we so often saw with “occupy” protesters.
Under Obama, American police forces have mutated into paramilitary organizations, a trend that would have gone unabated and unnoticed if not for the events in Ferguson. American police can operate outside the law and outside of accountability. All this being the case, Obama's strong, unequivocal support for the police was a knife in the back of American citizens, in particular, minorities who are preyed upon daily by American police forces. Obama's speech could just as easily have been written by Erdogan, Putin, Assad, el-Sisi, or King Salman of Saudi Arabia. It was the speech of an authoritarian, rallying the brown- and black-shirted minions to coalesce and to serve and protect America’s powerful elite.

Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible. Obama 2016
That both political parties brag about their ‘law and order’ credentials should be a chilling wake-up call about the future of America. Phrases like ‘law and order’ and ‘rule of law’ is poorly disguised code for authoritarianism and neo-fascism. Study after study has revealed the disintegration of both of these noble ideas as the police have transformed into what they are today. Today police are predators on the weakest and most helpless members of our society. Moreover, the police have now become the enforcement arm for the prison-industrial complex. Every day activities are criminalized so that more and more people can be forced into slave labor or for ‘heads-on-beds’ profit.
Obama’s vision is that of a dystopian society in which militarized police forces enforce a capitalist version of Sharia law. A society where minorities live under constant threat of random incarceration and swat teams of pseudo-patriots stalk the poor areas of town to fill their daily fine and arrest quotas to make sure that America’s prison system is operating at fully capacity and the American court system is reaping its just rewards.
Obama is articulate, charismatic, with a charming demeanor. However, his actions, betray his words.
Obama’s vision of America is not my vision, and hopefully, it’s not your vision either. Regrettably, considering the two presidential candidates, the future appears bleak, at best.

Acknowledgements:
I would like to acknowledge Tim Black for providing inspiration for this essay.
References:

 a Report, after report has shown that (https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race). Obama is articulate, charismatic, with a charming demeanor. However, his actions, betray his words.
Obama’s vision of America is not my vision, and hopefully, it’s not your vision either. Regrettably, considering the two presidential candidates, the future appears bleak, at best.











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































What Obama should have said was that we as a nation have to be loud and clear than nothing justifies unprovoked violence against our citizens and we will not stand silently by as the police become an extrajudicial force use to intimidate and incarcerate the innocent. In every revolution in which freedom stood against oppression, liberty stood against subjugation, democracy stood against totalitarianism, or good stood against evil, the first people that had to be fought were the police. Whether it was the Pretorian guard or the Gestapo, every government has been able to surround itself with a ring of protection that was heralded as providing safety, peace, law, and order. There is never a shortage of those with overly flexible morals who are willing to secure a better life for themselves by suppressing their fellow citizens and serving as thugs for the establishment. The primary objective of all police forces worldwide is to protect the establishment, to protect those with power, and protect the status quo.
We should never forget that Jim Crow laws were enforced by the police, student protests against the Vietnam war were broken up, violently, by the police. It was the police that shot and killed 2 students and injured 12 at Jackson State Univ., in 1970; it was the police that turned dogs lose on protestors marching in the Civil Rights movement; and there are no numbers that accurately reflect how many Blacks were brutalized, tortured, and disappeared by the police since the 1860s. At every step in American history when the people cried out for change, the police were there to protect the government when it said “NO!” Luckily, changed slowly happened anyway, but not with the help of the police, instead it was in spite of the police. Don’t ever forget this.
The police are not the defenders of peace, justice and liberty, they are defenders of what the establishment calls peace, justice and liberty. When a corrupt government feels threatened it turns the police loose on society. The black-shirts make mass arrests, much like we have seen at recent US demonstrations. In exchange for their freedom, those arrested citizens are forced to denounce their constitutional rights, as we so often saw with “occupy” protesters.
Under Obama, American police forces have mutated into paramilitary organizations, a trend that would have gone unabated and unnoticed if not for the events in Ferguson. American police can operate outside the law and outside of accountability. All this being the case, Obama's strong, unequivocal support for the police was a knife in the back of American citizens, in particular, minorities who are preyed upon daily by American police forces. Obama's speech could just as easily have been written by Erdogan, Putin, Assad, el-Sisi, or King Salman of Saudi Arabia. It was the speech of an authoritarian, rallying the brown- and black-shirted minions to coalesce and to serve and protect America’s powerful elite.
Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible.
That both political parties brag about their ‘law and order’ credentials should be a chilling wake-up call about the future of America. Phrases like ‘law and order’ and ‘rule of law’ is poorly disguised code for authoritarianism and neo-fascism. Study after study has revealed the disintegration of both of these noble ideas as the police have transformed into what they are today. Today police are predators on the weakest and most helpless members of our society. Moreover, the police have now become the enforcement arm for the prison-industrial complex. Every day activities are criminalized so that more and more people can be forced into slave labor or for ‘heads-on-beds’ profit.
Obama’s vision is that of a dystopian society in which militarized police forces enforce a capitalist version of Sharia law. A society where minorities live under constant threat of random incarceration and swat teams of pseudo-patriots stalk the poor areas of town to fill their daily fine and arrest quotas to make sure that America’s prison system is operating at fully capacity and the American court system is reaping its just rewards.
 a Report, after report has shown that (https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race). Obama is articulate, charismatic, with a charming demeanor. However, his actions, betray his words.
Obama’s vision of America is not my vision, and hopefully, it’s not your vision either. Regrettably, considering the two presidential candidates, the future appears bleak, at best.




That both political parties brag about their ‘law and order’ credentials should be a chilling wake-up call about the future of America. Phrases like ‘law and order’ and ‘rule of law’ is poorly disguised code for authoritarianism and neo-fascism. Study after study has revealed the disintegration of both of these noble ideas as the police have transformed into what they are today. Today police are predators on the weakest and most helpless members of our society. Moreover, the police have now become the enforcement arm for the prison-industrial complex. Every day activities are criminalized so that more and more people can be forced into slave labor or for ‘heads-on-beds’ profit.

Obama’s vision is that of a dystopian society in which militarized police forces enforce a capitalist version of Sharia law. A society where minorities live under constant threat of random incarceration and swat teams of pseudo-patriots stalk the poor areas of town to fill their daily fine and arrest quotas to make sure that America’s prison system is operating at fully capacity and the American court system is reaping its just rewards.

 a Report, after report has shown that (https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race). Obama is articulate, charismatic, with a charming demeanor. However, his actions, betray his words.

Obama’s vision of America is not my vision, and hopefully, it’s not your vision either. Regrettably, considering the two presidential candidates, the future appears bleak, at best.


Monday, March 21, 2016

Open Letter to Republicans

I was inspired to pull this article out, dust it off and freshen it up by a comment I heard on the Jimmy Dore Show. Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of Jimmy Dore and appreciate his political satire.

The conversation that energized this endeavor went something along these lines, although, I can't say for sure that this is a totally faithful reproduction of the conversation.

Jimmy and his guest were talking about how in a country with only 2 significant political parties, it was to be expected that each party would contain a great deal of diversity and would have to represent dramatically different points of view. Dore's guest acknowledged the truth of this observation, but then added that when he is standing in line to vote for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, he was very confident that the person standing behind him in line didn't want to lynch Black people, splash their bodies with gas and set them on fire. Such could not be said for the person standing behind you in line to vote Republican.

It was, in my opinion, a brilliant observation. The simple truth of which made me realize that it is time to stop giving safe harbor to those who claim that they are a different breed of Republican. Saying that you favor state's rights or small government is no longer a reasonable excuse for identifying with America's hate party. The Republican party today has been 40 years in the making. It has been fashioned by the worst America had to offer humanity. The coded racist language of the past has now given way to open racism and bigotry. Today's Republican party is like a smoky old bar. You may not smoke a single cigarette, but you're going to coming stinking as if you had. The naive intellectuals, or perhaps, not so naive intellectuals, who pretend that there are 2 distinct Republican parties are practicing the worst form of denial. If you don't want to be labeled a bigot, a troglodyte, a racist, and/or a fascist, it's time to let go and admit that the GOP is no longer your party. It's like saying you belong to the KKK because you enjoy the Saturday afternoon picnics and softball games. Sorry, that foolishness is no longer acceptable.

We are entering a new period of political accountability and those who continue to pledge themselves to America's party of hate and intolerance are going to find themselves in the cross-hairs of national contempt and disdain. There is a day coming when no American Flag lapel pin is going to be big enough to hide behind. You can yell "State Rights" or "Small Government" all you want, but the only terms that are going to stick are going to be bigot, homophobe, fascist, zealot, misogynist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, freak.


In this essay, I would like to suggest a thought experiment. An experiment where there is no empirical data; however, there is data that come from experience, reason and the application of logic. It is an experiment that can be conducted by anyone. It is relatively easy and requires little time. Additionally, it is, perhaps, even more enlightening when performed in small groups. It is an experiment that I believe provides surprising insight into one of the two major political parties in America.

Introduction

According to Wikipedia: A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

To begin the experiment, we need to choose from five to ten well-known hate groups or organizations. I have chosen eight. My groups are composed of sympathizers and supporters of various, well-known, hate messages or hate ideologies. I have excluded supporters of extremely controversial social issues (such as abortion and immigration) but you may want to include them in your version of the experiment. I have intentionally selected hate messages, or hate ideologies, with high name recognition and a message or ideology that is almost universally known and understood. That is to say, my list does not contain any obscure groups, although, obscure groups are just as meaningful and there is no reason for them to be excluded.

My Hate List:
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Ku Klux Klan
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Neo Nazis or the American Nazi Party
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the skin head movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the white supremacist movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the anti-gay or anti-LGBT movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Holocaust Denial movement
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Westboro Baptist Church
  • ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Aryan Nation

While there is some overlap among some of these groups, all are unique and have messages or ideologies that clearly differentiate them. Members of one group may sympathize with another, however, such sympathy is most likely based on the common denominator of hate. Nonetheless, when you conduct the experiment, you may want to choose groups that you feel to be more independent.

Methods

First, imagine that we have 100 randomly selected members from each of the 8 groups. One-hundred is chosen to make the percentages easier to determine. Although, almost any number would work just fine. The only stipulation is that they be old enough to fully understand what these groups represent. I suggest a minimum age of 21, but you might prefer another age.

Second, we will use the current national election cycle, i.e., 2015-2016. We will assume that they are exposed to the election rhetoric of both the Democratic party and the Republican Party. In essence, we are saying that they are exposed to that which they were actually exposed to; nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary.

Normally, voting demographics are easy to come by, except for perhaps hate groups. Very few polls are conducted to determine how sympathizers and supporters of hate groups vote in an election. The goal of this experiment is to determine for ourselves, based on our knowledge of the message and ideologies of these hate groups, how the hate group sympathizers and supporters would vote.

When I ran the experiment, the outcomes were both ominous and very, very clear. In each and every case, I asked myself the following questions:
  • In general, would hate group voters feel most at home under the Republican tent or the Democratic  tent?
  • During the campaign, did hate group voters feel more aligned with the rhetoric of the Republican candidates or the Democratic candidates?
  •  On specific issues of interest (i.e., hate issues) would voters identify more with the Republican candidates or the Democratic candidates?
  • With which party would hate group voters feel the greatest affinity, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Results

For every group, the 100 members voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Party. In my mind, while trying to be relatively conservative with my guesses, I was unable to imagine fewer than 60% of each hate group voting Republican and, for certain groups (e.g. the KKK, white nationalists and Westboro Baptist Church), I consider 80% to be much more likely.

Discussion

This very simple thought experiment, while not scientific, is very enlightening with regard to the Republican Party. The validity of the test increases with each additional experiment. The test can be carried out for any hate group or collection of hate groups; and while results may vary, I'm fairly certain that the alarming trend will not. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups) has an enormous, comprehensive list of hate groups. I encourage you to peruse the list and conduct this experiment again, and again and again. I think you will see that the outcome is consistently the same, today's hate groups identify much more closely with Republican Party than the Democratic Party. 

Conclusion

America has one national party that appears to consistently be the party of choice for almost every hate group and hate organization in America. Based on the Wikipedia definition used in the Introduction, the Republican Party can, without exaggeration, be considered a hate group. America can ill afford to have a national hate party. Its defenders will refute this claim, but the Republican Party now represents the dark side of almost every social issue that confronts America. It is now the "big tent" and preferred party for racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia. Just as Republicans demand that “good” Muslims take a stand and break away from the barbaric history of Islam, "Good" Republicans must now take a stand by denouncing and stepping away from the hatred that has become the core of the party.