text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50075385403834053892017-05-17T22:15:28.918-04:00Beyond The Political SpectrumJ Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-18786210175009136462016-07-10T18:30:00.000-04:002016-07-10T18:30:45.890-04:00Orlando, Terrorism, And Reality

Now that some time has passed since the tragic events in Orlando, Florida, people might actually be willing to think about reality outside of the various fears and paranoias left in the wake of the recent mass murders there.
No doubt, most peoples' minds are still fixated on the notion of terrorism, as many believe was the sole motivation behind what happened in at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. So while the specter of terrorism is still on the minds of many, keep the following in the forefront of your thoughts: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online defines "terrorism" as the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.
Imagine that I'm one of those perpetually unhappy souls, wallowing in whatever unbearable funk that puts us on a path of self-destruction. Being agnostic, I'm neither persuaded nor dissuaded by considerations of afterlife consequences. But I am constantly seeing others around me enjoying their happy lives—the same happiness that eludes me.
And taking advantage of the fact that I have no criminal or negative psychological background, I decide to buy a handgun—no, a semi-automatic weapon—and inflict as much pain on as many people as Since I can't be happy, then no one should be! And knowing that I will die (probably at the hands of law enforcement or at my own hands; I will play the events out as they come); I will do what I can to be relevant in the memories of others, either by fame of infamy. That's my ultimate rationale for what I plan on doing.
I make my way to the nearest venue of convenience; one where I know—in all likelihood—is teeming with happy people. Already emotionally unstable, I become incensed looking at all the carefree happiness those around me are experiencing. I whip out my weapon and start sharing my pain with others, spraying bullets indiscriminately and killing men, women, and children. And before the police can come in an stop my mission, I—in a last act of defiance—decided to take whatever potential joy they may have in killing me by taking myself out of that particular equation by killing myself.
In the days and weeks following the mass killing, pundits, acquaintances, and armchair psychoanalysts alike will begin evaluating my motives, engaging in detached speculation, and supposing about my "derangement." Since I left no outward or obvious indicators as to the whys of my actions, I will—paradoxically—fall into the anonymity of so many other mass shooters looking for eternal infamy. Some will chalk my actions up to another example of a depraved individual, submitting to an equally culture that glorifies both guns and violence…like so many others before me. And a lack of a solid motive or declared would support most such speculations. And since my victims were random, it would be obvious that my actions would not be seen as terrorism. One would be hard-pressed to think anything more of the 2007 gun massacre of 32 people at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute by Seung-Hui Cho, as it was later discovered that mental illness played a part in his actions.

 Seung-Hui Cho

Now, let's change things around a little bit.
Instead of an aimless soul seeking infamy, let's say my actions have a greater-than-myself aim. Such motivations are not an uncommon occurrence I mass shooters in America. In 2012, Wade Michael Page walked into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and killed 5 men and a woman by shooting them. As he was confronted by the police, Page ended his own rampage in a familiar manner; he shot himself in the head, killing himself nearly instantly. A subsequent investigation by authorities revealed Page's solid links to white supremacist organizations.

 Wade Michael Page

Though more rare today than in times past, in April of 2014, Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., a known Neo-Nazi shot 3 people in similar fashion at a Jewish community center in Kansas. Like Page, Miller was a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist. Authorities found many racist publications after a subsequent search of his home. To that effect, it was determined by investigators that the motive behind his rampage was anti-Semitism. And like many who engage in mass killings, both Page and Miller apparently planned for death in their paths to historical infamy; Page by shooting himself, and Miller by eagerly expecting to be put to death for his act (during his trial, Miller stated that, "It's my life and I'll do as I please... The death penalty don't bother me" while adding that, if found guilty, "I'll climb up on the gurney and stick the needle in myself." He was found guilty and sentenced to death in state court. See: "F. Glenn Miller Jr. Takes Over His Own Defense in Jewish Center Killings.").

 Frazier Glenn Miller

Instead of "deranged," both Page and Miller's actions were attributed to a hatred of minorities—hence, their actions' designation as "hate crimes." Were their motives political, as per the definition of an act of terrorism? Depends on who you ask. Someone affiliated with the targeted groups will be more likely to call these attacks acts of terrorism, while those who apply a narrower—albeit murky—set of criteria will not.
Now suppose that in my own example, like both Page and miller, I decided to make my targets less-than-random? Suppose I targeted only females, teenagers, or those belonging to a particular ethnic persuasion? While these incidents yielded no declared politically-motivated intent, one can be inferred. By singling out members of a particular group for harm, such acts become less acts of random violence, and more of targeted assaults on those representing particular cultural sub-groups. In essence, they could be considered acts of terrorism, but on the whole they aren't—even despite the fact that the targeted individuals belonged to particular religious/ethnic minorities, a note which solidifies the motives and goals of the perpetrators.
Now, suppose I decided to engage in an act of violence in which my motivations could be seen as being more politically-inspired. After all, many people see dying (or killing) for a cause that others see as "noble" would make one a long-remembered martyr. Maybe if I targeted a symbol of (perceived) oppression, my actions are less likely to be seen as a random act of violence by a "deranged man." What's more, I feel that if I were to follow through, my name would be remembered for all posterity for killing in the name of a grand cause.
That certainly was the thinking behind the actions of Dylann Roof in South Carolina. In 2015, the 23-year old Roof—according to media and law-enforcement reports—walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston under the pretext of joining parishioners in evening services. After a few minutes of praying with the church members in attendance, Roof opened fire with a handgun, killing nine people in attendance. The motivation was racial hatred (Roof was white, while those he shot were all black. See also: "The Charleston Shootings - What Is Terrorism?").

 Dylann Roof

In multiple internet postings, Roof publicly declared his belief that that "blacks were taking over the world," after the public reactions in the wake of the Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray cases from Florida and Massachusetts cases Respectively. Additionally, Roof posted several racially-charged-themed images of himself online. One image from his Facebook page showed him wearing a jacket decorated with flag patches used as emblems among American white supremacist movements (those of from the former Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa). Another photo showed Roof sitting on the hood of his car with an ornamental license plate with a Confederate flag image. In keeping with the themes of those images, Roof expressed his support of racial segregation in the United States and had intended to start a civil war.
Despite these declared motives, the targeting of a specific group, and the use of violence to those ends, most Americans are reluctant to call even this horrifying event an act of "terrorism." Indeed, its distinction as a "hate crime" is more readily applied than anything else. So can we conclude that a targeted group's racial identity, inferred or stated political goals, religious persuasion, or nationality are, in themselves, not enough to condemn a particular act of violence as an act of terrorism? What about methodologies of violence, or links to organized (terrorist) groups?
In most of the previous examples, guns were the preferred means of committing both targeted and random violence.
Both Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph did not commit their acts of violence using firearms. Both were solidly aligned with groups and/or causes that most would agree are far beyond the mainstream—with McVeigh's affiliation with the anti-government militia movement, and Rudolph's membership in the radically anti-abortion Army of God (incidentally, both individuals had loose affiliations with the racist Christian Identity religious movement, while Miller and Page were known members of Neo-Nazi Groups). Both targeted institutions with solidly political goals in mind—even if they were relegated to statements of dissatisfaction rather than actually attempting to actually change the political and/or social status quo. However, both used explosives as their chosen methods rather than firearms. And both were considered "domestic terrorists" in no uncertain terms. But what about the actions of Page, Miller, and Roof…aren't their group affiliations enough to condemn their actions as "terrorism?" Maybe there's another factor that needs to be present in order for such politically-inspired violence to be considered acts of terrorism…

 Timothy McVeigh & Eric Rudolph

So which other organized group could I affiliate myself with where I could engage in politically-motivated violence in a cause bugger then myself against targeted groups, and have my actions be considered acts of terrorism?
So let's change another factor in my previous scenario…that of my own motives. Suppose as someone contemplating a mass shooting, my motives were religious rather than secular in orientation? Organized religion, with its many splinter denominations and politically-active affiliated arms would easily provide me with a sense of purpose for my violent intentions. But since I'm black, I couldn't very well link myself with the race-conscious Christian Identity movement. And I'm fairly sure the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wouldn't be open to me as a prospective member. So I need a platform to validate both my actions and my quest for infamy, preferably a religious one, and one already in the news, where people are already so fearful and paranoid of that I shouldn't have any problem being remembered long after I am gone. Fortunately, there is already one that comes to mind.
What if by birthright, I happened to belong to the Islamic faith. Suppose I had some personal demons that forced me to seek a greater sense of belonging or purpose….one that would allow me to distance myself from said demons. Though I might not truly be committed to my faith, it still allows me the cover to aspire to something bigger than myself. I mean, if I were truly faithful to my cause, I would have had long-term affiliations and—nowadays—a trail of publicly-posted sympathies on social media. And if I were actually well-learned about the geopolitical intricacies of Islam, I would certainly know with which sect and/or branch of its most radicalized wings I was going to both affiliate and sympathize myself with. And if I were, in fact, going to go on a mass shooting of "infidel" Americans, I certainly wouldn't target a semi-ostracized sub-culture like homosexuals to make my point—I would go after a target that would allow me to kill as many Americans of any and every stripe as possible in order to make my political point known. But knowing the social psychology of Americans to the point where I know that they are both deathly paranoid and suspicious of Muslims (thank Donald Trump), I know that if I were to claim affiliation with Islam, I would not only gain notoriety, but infamy, and—from my own perverted perspectives—respect. Despite the questions my inconsistent building blocks of my violence-achieved political message, I will have earned my infamy as a great "terrorist," even if it is granted to me posthumously.
Well, that is exactly what happened with regard to events surrounding the Orlando Pulse Nightclub Massacre. The perpetrator, 29 year-old Omar Mateen was the American-born son of Afghani immigrants. Aside from brief pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia, Mateen had spent no extensive time abroad in regions where he could have become indoctrinated and radicalized under extreme Islamic doctrine. As further proof of this, the night Mateen committed the mass shootings at the Orlando area gay club, he called local 911 authorities and claimed affiliation and solidarity with the Islamic State, more widely known as ISIS. In his call, Mateen claimed that he was a Hezbollah member. Hezbollah is a Shiite organization that is fighting ISIS and is considered one of ISIS' biggest enemies. He also claimed that he and his family were connected to al-Qaida. Again, a totally different organization that does not see eye-to-eye at all with ISIS (in fact the two groups often clash in parts of Afghanistan), and both don't see eye to eye with Shiite Hezbollah. His claim as a radical sympathizer with radical elements of Islam wasn't scrutinized by the shocked American public. Most Americans were all-too eager to take Mateen at his word that his actions were inspired by his (supposed) sympathies with ISIS.

 Omar Mateen

The absence of any pro-radical sympathies on social media is perhaps among the most telling red-flag of his claims (see: "The Challenge of Explaining Omar Mateen Through His Social Media Accounts."). This would support the fact there has been zero evidence of Mateen having been directed by any known terrorist organizations to carry out the attack through social media.
So the question becomes, does publicly declaring one's self and one's actions to be in solidarity with a known terrorist organization and their goals make one a "terrorist?" Well, this week's sniper killings of 5 Dallas, Texas police officers during a public protest of police shootings of civilians wouldn't bear this out, as already law-enforcement officials and the media are calling this act an "act of terrorism" (Example: "This is Dallas, This is Our City, And We Don't Let Terrorism Win"). This in turn begs a similar question; does the reality of targeted individuals make an act of terrorism? While targeted individuals and/or groups are a factor, they certainly cannot be the lone deciding factor in what constitutes terrorism, as every example provided included targeted individuals. What about the extent and brazenness of the acts of violence? In a sense, all of the examples provided were brazen and/or extensive to some degree; what's more brazen than bombing a building containing a day care center for toddlers (McVeigh) or attacking unarmed parishioners inside a church as they are praying? Yet, one is considered an act of terrorism, and one is considered "merely" a "crime." That's simply too inconsistent a criteria.
The one lone factor then is religion…not the religion of those who would be my targets, but my own. And it would have to be a religion with a (recent) history of having its name and tradition appropriated by extremists with its midst, much like "good white Christians" appropriated the tradition of Christianity in America, as they lynched black people, and forcibly relocated Native Americans from their native lands onto reservations. Think about the recent high-profile acts of violence and destruction where the perpetrators all shared the same Islamic faith: the 1993 Trade Center Bombing; the 2001 September 11th Attacks; the 2015 San Bernardino Shooting Attacks; and last month's Orlando Pulse Nightclub Shooting. These were instances that were universally considered "terrorist attacks." Many contained the same elements of violence, greater-than-me-motives, and political message (both spoken and unspoken).
The overall message here is that the term "terrorism" is such a loaded, such a fear-driven term that we only seem to—inconsistently and sporadically—apply it to those acts of violence that we deem cuts to the heart of our daily life as Americans. But in reality, all mass shootings, bombings, and politically-motivated acts of violence challenges our sense of peace and normalcy. Additionally, picking and choosing which acts of violence we deem so great as to constitute "terrorism" further divides the country. Those with an agenda, such as Donald Trump can easily exploit these situations to their political advantage, further polarizing us along ideological lines.
For the sake of consistency and the conveyance of their horrific nature, every act of violence with a political message and/or greater-than-me intent should be considered "terrorism." And religious affiliation should not be the lone criteria for what constitutes such acts, because in essence, when someone uses violence with a narrow "greater good" intent, all victims are all terrorized—those who are killed, those who are lucky enough to survive, and those of us forced to witness such atrocities. J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-76001390468711639162016-05-28T10:54:00.000-04:002016-05-28T14:25:27.924-04:00Donald Trump And The Art of Political Propaganda

I actually had to put some thought into what to title this posting. Not because it was difficult to come up with one, but because American has become so politically polarized, I dare not try to inadvertently fuel that particular reality ethos. However, at the same time, I know that there are those who favor a particular political ideological persuasion will see a "bias" behind every blog posting, news report, fact-check, or rosebush that doesn't paint their views in a flattering light, no matter how much effort goes into trying to maintain objectivity. This is particularly, though not exclusively true for those with a conservative bent.
And as we are so politically polarized, its easy to understand why Republicans can't fathom Hillary Clinton's popularity among many Democrats, or Donald Trump's among many Republican. Aside from the possibility that these presumptive presidential candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election have messages that strike a resonate chord with their respective followers, there is another possibility; better self-promotion.

Presumptive Republican Party presidential candidate Donald J. Trump

What makes this possibility more than existential is the proven fact that propaganda, combined with boundless self-promotion and the appearance of self-assurance in the hands of of someone with years of experience, can yield a virtual Cult of Personality for a virtual master of the craft. To illustrate this point, please watch this piece from last night's episode of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher." As I know the name Bill Maher can evoke instant revulsion and trigger a reflexive urge to simply click off this posting, I would urge you to suspend your preconceived beliefs and at least consider why political candidates might be so successful in the eyes of fanatical adherents....and why some are not.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-b707afb17c2cfcc3" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Db707afb17c2cfcc3%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D4AD79936A9AEE222C0A87B6ED8FEF9A4AB9DA477.1F2EC11B700D944875BCDEF8BA942AFE0088431B%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Db707afb17c2cfcc3%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DJbgMyPxE10g9taf1JJpTJq4_wkg&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Db707afb17c2cfcc3%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D4AD79936A9AEE222C0A87B6ED8FEF9A4AB9DA477.1F2EC11B700D944875BCDEF8BA942AFE0088431B%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Db707afb17c2cfcc3%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DJbgMyPxE10g9taf1JJpTJq4_wkg&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-56588309778854440742016-03-19T17:22:00.003-04:002016-03-20T00:59:25.872-04:00Pop Culture Fails (...or, "Things To Leave Behind In 2015!")I had originally planned on posting this piece back in January, but given the books and other projects I had been working on, I was forced to delay it until now (no, there is no shortage of all the pies I have my finger in; it's just that this is something that I am compelled to get off my mind). What's more, this post marks the beginning of my return to blogging on a regular basis. Even still, it's March 2016. And the new year is still young enough for me to post this in its original wordage.
Most of us will agree that the opportunity to see the start of another year of life is something of a blessing. It might also be construed as being something of a curse by others—in some respects. This is because the "stupidfication" (yes, I chose that made-up word on purpose) of many aspects of American pop culture continues to prove how dumbed-down we have collectively become.
As this is the start of a new year, I thought that I'd take this opportunity to offer up a few suggestions as to which particular pop culture practice we should leave behind in 2015. These dubious practices are not only annoying to anyone with half a brain (and the good sense that comes with it), but contribute to the continual degradation of decent and productive behavior. So without further adieu, I present some of the things we should leave behind in 2015…

1 "Lill," "Yung," and/or "Thug" rappers. In fact, let's have no more "thugs," and no more "rappers"…period! Simply put, I don't have the time (nor the inclination) needed to list all of the so-called "rappers" with these particular prefix monikers for their stage names. But suffice it to say that any aspiring rapper who hopes to stand out in the already overpopulated rap game by calling himself "Lil" or "Yung" something or other is not going about it the right way. So many "Lil" and "Yung" rappers nowadays shows a lack of individualism and creativity that carries over into the subject matter of their simple and garden-variety lyrics (see: "The Negative Influence of Southern Rap Music, Part 2")

If you can ever stomach listening to most of the [c]crap produced by the genre nowadays, you would hear very little in the way of the lyrical sophistication, social consciousness, and raw talent that rappers of the 80s, 90s, and even the earliest part of the 2000s exhibited. To hear today's crop of "rappers" tell it, everyone in the 'hood is all about partying, getting high, "making it rain," killing someone who they perceive has disrespected them somehow, or engaging in some hedonist sexual escapades.
This promotion (read: "pimping" of a detrimental subculture for the sake of album sales needs to be left behind in the history of last year—and all of the "Lil" and "Yung" purveyors of it as well. And speaking of negative imagery…

2 Sagging pants. If anyone can provide a logical answer as to why many young black (and a few white and Latino) males wear their pants this way, I would gladly ignore disparaging this otherwise idiotic practice (*cue crickets chirping*).

Believe it or not, in the past I have come actually come across a few adults who have defended this non-fashion statement. Most of the time, the excuses given by knuckleheads to make those of us with good sense accept this stupidity falls along the lines of "what's in their heads is more important that what they are wearing"—which is patently absurd of course.
Instead of making lame excuses as to why such a stupid practice should be tolerated, these adults should be telling those who sag their pants following dress codes and simple expectations reflect the greater imperative of learning how to follow simple directions. What's more, if those slaves to dumb trends have a hope of transcending the allure of thuggish imagery, they should be made to understand that in nearly all of our socioeconomic institutions where success—and upward mobility—is the standard, no one dresses in such a manner. You simply do not see politicians, bankers, lawyers, corporate CEOs, or world leaders dressed this way. Success demands a level of conformity—if for no other reason than to show that one can be trusted with responsibilities beyond being able to follow simple expectations.
In other words, adults who make excuses or tolerate this practice in thug-wannabees are not doing these young men any favors. And it's totally irresponsible to overlook and accept it as the new "normal" among young people. It simply does not reflect the reality of life in the functional, adult world. Pull you pants up! Sagging is so last year!

3 Models. WARNING—I'm going to be as intentionally rude and "sexist" as I can be to make this particular point, so steel your sensitivities for the disparaging to follow.
Women, I'm sure many of you have heard the old adage, pretty women are like a city bus; all you have to do is wait 5 minutes until another passes by. I prefer to compare physically pretty women to leaves in the autumn—everywhere! My point is that is seems like every other "cute" woman in America aspires to be a model. And with the advent of social media formats like Facebook, Instagram, and the like, wannabe "models" are multiplying faster than lustful cockroaches on prom night. Simply put, the American people have already become so dumbed-downed through our cultural devolution that we simply don't need another reason to focus on the surface—of anything.

OK, so you're "cute." What else do you have to offer the world other than something to look at? And how will you keep the attention of others when the next "bus" comes by 5 minutes after you've peaked in artificially-generated notoriety?
And while on the topic, a couple of related topics come to mind. If all you have are good looks and few luck-of-the-draw curves—attributes that you are oh so willing to exploit—to offer those all of us straight males, don't be surprised when we start seeing and treating you purely as sex objects. Especially when many of you are posing in what amounts to dental floss, in overly-suggestive poses— in a society that is already brimming with omnipresent innuendoes and overtones of sexuality to sell everything from cars to carpet. It takes a disconnected sense of irresponsibility to want to both exploit and profit from one's sexuality, without wanting to take responsibility for it.

And for "urban models" (models who cater to the hip-hop mindset), if you are going to engage in superficial flesh-peddling, please salvage a smidgeon of the class that actual models exhibit. By this, I mean WTF is up with all of the excessive tattooing? Some of you look like the graffitied sides of a New York City elevated platform train car. Whatever the inspiration for this trend, it was truly horrible advice to these obviously attention-deprived women. Putting so many tattoos on an otherwise blemish-free and (naturally, not "after-market" body part-infested) attractive body is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa—it simply doesn't belong there. It's not "cute," contrary to what you've all been told (or think). Leave the inking to the bikers, Special Forces operatives, and social outcasts. In fact, leave all of the amateur "modeling" in 2015!

4. Auto-tune. This is one of those "kids-get-off-my-lawn" moments. By that, I mean I—along with a good chuck of the nation—old enough to remember a time when it actually took a little thing called "talent" to make music; particularly to sing. Those were the good old days, when we were actually willing to shelve out our hard-earned money to spend on a record that we know contained a bit of the artists' soul and efforts. And for the uninitiated, "talent" is a developed skill possessed by an individual, or group of individuals that is not common among everybody. That is to say, a true talent is something that not everyone possesses. As it relates to Pop music any and every would-be "artist" can now pollute the airwaves with auto-tuned "singing."
Make no mistake about it—this does not reflect talent. Singing is something not everyone can do; that makes it a talent. Gimmick-riding auto-tune to radio play may be quick and convenient in this age of manufactured music "artists," but it hardly counts as artistic. This makes if a non-talent. What's more, it's symbolic of the overall decline in Pop music standards over the last decade or so; all style, little or no substance.
I could ramble on about this travesty against real music, but most of what is bad about auto-tune was said in my previous posting, "Why Southern Rap Music Sucks..."
And oh yes….leave it in 2015!

5 "Twerking." OK, let's just come out and say it; twerking is not dancing. Twerking—the suggestive gyration of a female's posterior to bad (usually auto-tuned) music—is the self-exploitation of one's sexuality for attention (or for dollar bills if performed in the vicinity of a stripper's pole). But of course, modern feminist' double-standards being what they are, many will defend this lack of modesty as women "owning their own sexuality;" but without that pesky sense of having (or taking) any responsibility for it. Thought not surprisingly, these are the same women who would demand that we men see them as "more than sex objects." Such dissonance never ceases to amaze me.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-6a287bbc93f0b449" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D6a287bbc93f0b449%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D221FE3DCFA7E052BB6F3E2597BDA8E282EC25EF2.36FBEBA027784E5F398BB83F636A0424EBF83BC5%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D6a287bbc93f0b449%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DI5nAz4RMHA6Nj-WRdvxbhEEsHIA&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D6a287bbc93f0b449%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D221FE3DCFA7E052BB6F3E2597BDA8E282EC25EF2.36FBEBA027784E5F398BB83F636A0424EBF83BC5%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D6a287bbc93f0b449%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DI5nAz4RMHA6Nj-WRdvxbhEEsHIA&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

Questionable "singer," Miley Cyrus "twerks" onstage

The message this display of stupidity and self-degradation conveys is that it's OK if women objectify themselves; just you evil and 'patriarchal' males had better not do it! Get mad if you want. It's the truth. Accept it and heal; fix your dissonance.
Women, do yourselves a favor, please stop "twerking." It only appeals to those of us men with a low-brow nature who wouldn't want to have anything to do with you outside of sexual play toy. It doesn't make you look "talented;" it makes you look cheap and boorish…not to mention classless.

It's a new year…let's leave the stupid and tasteless behavior that is making us look like a nation of Neanderthals behind in 2015!J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-75959203973890143342015-09-01T02:12:00.003-04:002015-09-01T02:13:22.492-04:00Why Politics In America Suck...!

I'm writing and posting this piece simply because I can't sleep, thanks in part to the neighbors in the apartment above me doing their thing. So I've opted to shut out the sound of the bed squeaks by doing a little online reading. As I surfed to find a distraction to my liking, I came across a piece on Yahoo News that motivated me to post a brief piece on the Beyond-The-Spectrum Facebook page. However, what had originally been slated to be a Facebook micro-blog has turned out to be a an unplanned, unstructured late-night rant about the epiphany I got while reading the Yahoo piece about Republican Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona.
The writer's thesis is how Flake represents an anomaly among Congressmen--and by extension--among most politicians in America. The impression I got after reading the piece was not of a Congressman who opposes everything President Obama proposes out of ideological knee-jerk reactionism--thus towing the party line.

 Sen. Jeff Flake during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last January.

The impression that I got of Flake was that he is a thinking man's politician, and not necessarily one of the team-player drones we see bursting the seams of Washington's Beltway.
However, as I continued to read about how Flake actually approaches issues with an open-mind--without the presumed automatic party allegiance and anti-Obama fervor--my attention was diverted to the various comments coming from those right within his own party. As I made note of Flake's apparent level-headed approach to deciding on policy proposals, as expected even before finishing the article, I found what I knew would be there--accusations of "treason" and of "capitulating to Obama." And this brings me to my point. One of the biggest problems with politics in America is the polarization of both the representatives and the individuals (i.e., the voters) who support them. We take up sides as if there are ONLY two sides to every issue. Small minds automatically assume that if you're against one issue or its proponent, them you must be FOR the other (i.e., "If you're against Trump, then you must be liberal," or vice-versa). There is too much reflexive side-choosing, and not enough critical thinking in American politics. Paradoxically, it is this pressure to conform to one ideological camp or the other--much like We The People--that promotes the gridlock in the legislative process, and makes those representatives we vote for to do our bidding so hated. In other words, our elected representatives are merely a reflection of our desires...a reason why politics in Washington hasn't worked in years. We The People don't critically analyze policy positions and issues outside of choosing up ideological sides, so our representative don't. This sets of a schizo-dynamic within our body politic that makes us cheer and hate our elected officials at the same time; they do exactly what we do...and we have the nerve to hate them for it. They choose sides based on party and/or group allegiance, not reasoning and critical analysis. And even in the few rare instances when analysis IS employed, its usually only to see if issues fit within the rubric of our preconceived ideological notions rather than analyzing whether our ideological beliefs fit the rubric of reality.
We as voters should not become angry at the likes of Jeff Flake because he doesn't do our bidding. If anything we should strive to be more like him, and not he like us. If politics were more of a noble profession, and less like a bloodsport--and if we ourselves would allow reason, and not emotion or ideology to guide our passions--there wouldn't be more polarization that forces us to gravitate toward (for whatever questionable reasons) the Donald Trumps of America. No, Flake is hardly perfect. But he does represent a semblance of sanity within the insanity that has come to represent what passes for contemporary politics in America.
And now with the quiet returned to my apartment building, I can head back to bed knowing that politics in America doesn't suck as much as it did before. J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-18808668346438327082015-06-21T05:13:00.002-04:002015-06-22T04:38:55.315-04:00The Charleston Church Shooting - What is "Terrorism?""We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are." --Anias Nin

That is my favorite quote of all time.

It's 3 am as I start writing this piece. It's a purely impulsive move on my part, as it's in response to the recent racially-motivated shootings in Charleston, SC from earlier this week. I was motivated to so because of the amount of willful ignorant, apparently delusional people in America who so seem to come off as sane and/or reasonable upon first glance.
And no, I'm not talking about Dylann Roof—the white 21 year-old perpetrator who walked into the historically-black Emanuel AME church in South Carolina's largest city and proceeded to shoot and kill 9 black parishioners during prayer services because he "wanted to shoot black people." No, what I am talking about are the people who reject the notion that what the avowed racist did was not an act of "domestic terrorism. " What is so hard to comprehend? Roof killed to further an extreme political agenda—starting a race war.

 Dylann Roof

I'm going to out on a limb here and conclude that the reason that it's so hard for those who are questioning whether or not this was in fact, an act of domestic racism is because of two fundamental reasons—both related to race. The first reason I suspect is that because of the prevalence of black-on-black crime within the black community. This is to say that so many Americans are so accustomed to being spoon-fed these negative images of the black community a daily basis, that it's just too hard for many to comprehend reality that racism against black people is still an issue in modern-day, post first-elected-black-president America. To these people, many within the black community are routinely more likely to be victims of each other than of racism. We all know these individuals…they are the armchair pundits who usually deflect attention away from issue at-hand to tell black people that they should focus on the "troubles in their own communities" instead of "marching" and/or protesting against an act of racism—real or perceived—that shatters the myth that racism is not, in fact, still an issue for some in America.

The second reason why it seems so hard for some to accept that the Charleston shooting was an act of domestic terrorism is likewise related to race---that some people of a particular ideological stripe simply do not want to believe that racism still exist. This is to say that some people are so vested and entrenched in their own ideologically-political (and social) beliefs that they are almost delusional in their perceptions of America—especially as it relates to the perceptions of others. Take for example the following clip from Fox News' coverage of the Charleston from this week. So unwilling were the producers and talking heads at the conservative news network to believe that the motives behind Roof's rampage could have been racially-motivated that they totally ignored reality favor of "speculation." They could not only bring themselves to call Roof's act a case of domestic terrorism, but found it harder to bring themselves to accept that it was even an act of racially-motivated violence.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-fd89508f26094cd6" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Dfd89508f26094cd6%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D38D40843DFF9E3AF421A875FA5799618B748185A.05A13135C406FC5CF3C9F29B93B13F8D7C80018E%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Dfd89508f26094cd6%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3Dhy24NaTjtUs7zqHyZJwws_ubZG4&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Dfd89508f26094cd6%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D38D40843DFF9E3AF421A875FA5799618B748185A.05A13135C406FC5CF3C9F29B93B13F8D7C80018E%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Dfd89508f26094cd6%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3Dhy24NaTjtUs7zqHyZJwws_ubZG4&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

They ignored the reality that survivors reported immediately in the massacre's aftermath that Roof himself declared that he "wanted to shoot black people" because "they are taking over" before he started opening fire inside the church. They ignored the pictures that Roof posted on social medical of himself promoting symbols associated with racist ideologies—including the flag of the old American Confederacy and of the defunct white-ruled African nation of Rhodesia. And they ignored his so-called "manifesto" posted online indicating his white supremacist beliefs...all to the conclusion that "we can't possibly know his motivations" ("Dylann Roof Photos and a Manifesto Are Posted on Website").
And it is this level of reality-denial that has fed into the narrative that questions, whether in fact Roof's rampage in the Emanuel AME Church was an act of domestic terrorism. To embrace this absurd level of questioning, those who deny it resort to hair-splitting distinctions that have no basis in reality. For instance, they cite that Roof acted alone, and that he had no ultimate political purpose in perpetrating his act of violence. Honestly, it would almost amount to a conspiracy theory not to believe that it wasn't terrorism.

It was agreed that Ted Kaczynski—the so-called "Unabomber"—was a terrorist. He killed, and he did so alone. He—like Roof—also left a ranting manifest outlining his aims and motivations.

Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber killed. He acted alone. He was indeed dubbed a terrorist. He even has a webpage outlining his beliefs (Army of God). What's so hard for people to accept?
Why are so many Americans so committed to formulating and living by their own distorted interpretations of reality instead of perceiving the reality as it is in front of us? Are we so polarized politically as a nation that we doubt and question reason just out of ideological reflex?

And as we ponder those question, here's another question to ponder...

J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-53917696651781325892015-05-10T21:32:00.004-04:002015-05-10T21:32:58.756-04:00The Government "Takeover" of Texas And Conspiracy Thinking...

Earlier this week regarding, the of the state of Texas, Greg Abbott made headlines by sending elements of the Texas State (National) Guard to "monitor" U.S. Army Special Forces, which had been engaging in training exercises in parts of the state. The decision by Abbott to activate the Guard for that purpose was due largely in response to rumors which had been circulating on internet indicating that the Army maneuvers were part of an impending "federal government takeover" of parts of the state (see: "Pentagon: No Texas Takeover Plot" on CNN.com). On the surface, this move by the governor and his supporters seemed to be more akin to a outrageously lame plot from "B" movie starring the likes of Jack Black or Seth Rogen. However, I found myself—as I always have been—fascinated as to why so many Americans are so willing (and capable) of embracing conspiracy theories that border on insanity—but believe what they think to be so rational in substance. The last time I wrote a piece about such crazed thinking, I was accused of being a "closet liberal" for pointing out so many conspiracy theories embraced by those on the right, simply because I highlighted so many of these questionable beliefs held by those on the right. Of course, the fact that I was just as willing to assert that some crazy myths held by the left was overlooked by critics. Ironically, the failure by those on the right and the left to accept that some among their number are borderline paranoids for embracing such questionable beliefs is kind of a conspiracy theory in itself. In fact, as I researched background for this piece, those who identified as political conservatives believed that liberals embraced more conspiracy theories than themselves—and vice-versa for liberals. Consider the results of a poll by Public Policy Polling:

44% of voters believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the public about weapons of mass destruction to promote the Iraq War, while 45% disagree. 72% of Democrats believed the statement while 73% of Republicans did not. 22% of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 28% of independents believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Just 6% of voters think Osama bin Laden is still alive. ("Democrats and Republicans Differ on Conspiracy Theory Beliefs").

In essence, the crazier someone is, the more they are likely to reject the notion.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-8097e8abe2d285d4" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D8097e8abe2d285d4%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D6E028744A82D5EF4D2D9A4C0F45CBF60E99A587C.1ABF839378CB6508A0E453CDF376FE5F657FB958%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D8097e8abe2d285d4%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DdxDwsggoDA64vxFafmSmtzMUmCQ&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D8097e8abe2d285d4%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D6E028744A82D5EF4D2D9A4C0F45CBF60E99A587C.1ABF839378CB6508A0E453CDF376FE5F657FB958%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D8097e8abe2d285d4%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DdxDwsggoDA64vxFafmSmtzMUmCQ&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

But oddly enough, partisan conspiracy theorists have more in common than they'd like to believe. Both those on the left and the right believe that small cabals of politically and economically powerful individuals control and manipulate events in both America and the world. On the left, most see this collective Boogey Man in the form of the fabled "Illuminati;" on the right, the mythical "Trilateral Commission" or "New World Order." Additionally, but those on the left and right believe our politicians are Lex Luthoresqe evil masterminds who likewise manipulate our government for their nefarious ends. Many on the left believe that the ill-fated decision by the Bush II Administration to invade Iraq in 2003 was motivated by helping out politically-connected military contractors make huge profits from the war. While those on the right believe President Obama's questionable decision to make citizenship easier for illegal immigrants (yes, I know it's an outdated and politically-incorrect term, but reality is what it is…euphemisms won't change it) to obtain is motivated by creating more Democratically-leaning future voters.
While I personally don't give our politicians much credit for being so far-reaching in their ambitions and goals, I realize that nothing that happens in the realm of politics is clearly done by serendipity. Yes, new voter ID laws are meant to counter the projected change in population demographics in future elections that are anticipated to swing in the direction of the Democrats. And yes, the death of the late Ambassador to Libya and 3 of his aides was a tragedy of incompetence and lack of foresight by the Obama Administration. But do these events rise to the level of plotted schemes with methodically- measured outcomes that favor the "schemers?" Of course not. However, I also realize that no amount of reason, logic, official findings, or empirical proofs will change the minds of those determined to reject reality in favor of their personal beliefs and/or biases.
What's worse, our political leaders—like Governor Abbott—will avoid using the power and influence of their positions to even attempt talk some sense into conspiracy nuts, and often instead embrace and even enable these insane beliefs. It's why some politicians won't come out and clearly state that President Obama was born in the U.S., and not in Kenya. And why others won't just say that vaccines don't cause autism…because while they may not create conspiracy theories, many politicians do benefit from their acceptance.
But politicians are just being politicians. We can't fully blame them for following the sometimes questionable thinking of the American voter. They don't fully create conspiracy theory narratives. The blame for "bad government" and "bad leadership" is the direct fault of misinformed, ill-informed, selectively-informed, and just nut-case American voters who affect policy with their delusional beliefs--whom they believe are the stuff of reason.
But—sadly—you still have the right to believe in whatever crazy, unsubstantiated, irrational, paranoid, and borderline insane issue that you feel is "reasonable." But know that the federal government is not coming to take over the state of Texas...or any other state for that matter. And while we're on the subject, the federal government is not coming to take your guns. You have the right to believe in what ever religion as you always have. And the public schools are not "indoctrinating" your children--hell, they are hardly teaching them, as these crazy beliefs prove.

J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-46978197655329073162015-04-28T20:13:00.001-04:002015-04-28T20:13:12.585-04:00From The Riots In Baltimore, A Case Of Excellent ParentingSometime ago, I wrote a couple of pieces on the issue of corporal punishment in the role of child-rearing ("To Spank Or Not To Spank? (Hell Yes!)" and "Did That Internet Father Who Spanked His Daughters Go Too Far?"). With regard to this issue, many times high-profile events will bear out why such things need to happen.
Spikes in current events is pretty much blogger gold to someone like myself. We who critique and analyze ongoing events in the news are often treated to a noteworthy occurrence that just begs attention. During the riots that raged through a predominantly black section of Baltimore yesterday, one of those things that just begs for closer attention took place in them in the middle of the destruction and violence.
Now bear with me as I lead up to my overall point.
Like many Americans, I watched news coverage of the riots, sparked by the as-now unexplained death Freddy Gray, a young black male while in police custody (Gray was arrested for running from police and possession of a knife). As per the usual dynamic of many such cases that have come to light in recent years, the public chooses sides—usually along the lines of their preconceived beliefs, sans the logic or reason of critical thinking—by blindly justifying the police's actions, or by condemning them as inexcusable under any circumstance. One side will assert racism (or at least biased applications of the law) are at the heart of these events, while the other will assert the lack of personal responsibility, bad parenting, warped social values, and adhering to a particular political ideology are the reasons for such tragedies. I took note of this as I (regrettably) watched the partisan commentators on Fox News attempt to outline an—albeit marginally truthful—narrative of the issues behind the events in Baltimore. To see what I mean by the sides that such events tend to form, please watch the video segment below, which sets up my point for the rest of this post.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-72016050e7bf25ac" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D72016050e7bf25ac%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D6EB9F038E1F458918BCE8A182CD34DC3519CFF05.28496F1DAB4931B28FC827A2A6944B39E3A1A7C6%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D72016050e7bf25ac%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DtctcbmVj3gqWDlGldhIV0GmxZFI&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D72016050e7bf25ac%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D6EB9F038E1F458918BCE8A182CD34DC3519CFF05.28496F1DAB4931B28FC827A2A6944B39E3A1A7C6%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D72016050e7bf25ac%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DtctcbmVj3gqWDlGldhIV0GmxZFI&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

I have always subscribed to the rational approach that an amalgam of all of these factors lays at the heart of these fatal encounters. What's more, toss in the lack of professionalism among many police departments, ethnocentrism, lack of self-respect, and a little bit of history, and you get the ingredients for what's happening in Baltimore. But if you watched the video clip I posted above, you might have noted that some will attempt to oversimplify "solutions" to the rioting by asking, "Where are the parents (of the rioters/looters)?"
Though every parent of every young rioter/looter weren't to be seen, there was one angry parent who was present at the rioting—but she wasn't taking part. She made her way to the scene of the mayhem to make known her disgust with her son's involvement in the rioting, and took action to that point. Enter 42-year old Toya Graham. The reaction single mother of a 16-year old son found participating in the melee has gone viral (below).

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-30e9139ccad9acac" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D30e9139ccad9acac%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D0E789D87A2A7BED2DDB4608950CD002921F970DA.709724CD49CB51C9C876E4EAC2F39C21AA4A128A%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D30e9139ccad9acac%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3Dw-0lh2vlS2nwuaV6zh9c2lFqzXg&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D30e9139ccad9acac%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D0E789D87A2A7BED2DDB4608950CD002921F970DA.709724CD49CB51C9C876E4EAC2F39C21AA4A128A%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D30e9139ccad9acac%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3Dw-0lh2vlS2nwuaV6zh9c2lFqzXg&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>
My overall point is that parents today are in a battle for the souls of their children; drugs, gangs, sex, degraded cultural norms, wayward friends, and a whole host of other temptations are constantly pulling youth in the opposite direction of the one a parent chooses for their child/children. If a public display of old school discipline is what it takes to keep a child in line, so be it.

And despite what the neo-parenting literature says about spankings and corporal punishment "teaching children to be violent," this is total and utter nonsense. The number of parents who spank their children as a way to help discipline them has decreased, yet more and more young teens and older youth are participating in adult crimes such as the rioting in Baltimore. Spankings also don't the violence of youth gangs, school shootings perpetrated by students, and other such acts of violence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent who is looking after the best interests of their children using direct parenting, in conjunction with a firm hand when it comes to helping their children stay on the straight and narrow. A little national exposure and embarrassment for Ms. Graham's son is a small price to pay for the alternative for criminal behavior.
And for those critics who might disagree, consider the event that brought the mother and son to the point of confrontation…the death of Freddy Gray. As yourself which is worse; a slapping an unruly and disruptive child upside the head a few times, or them dying in policy custody because they couldn't appreciate the difference between right and wrong? Now, if only the mothers of police officers who abuse their authority would do the same thing to their sons…

(Read more about Ms. Graham's actions during the rioting in Baltimore, here...)J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-37284878360546941302015-04-23T19:56:00.000-04:002015-04-23T19:56:06.364-04:00How To End Black Male Deaths At The Hands of The Police--The Black Panthers (Redux)

First and foremost, allow me to apologize to my followers for not having posted any relevant commentary in a long while. I took some time off from blogging to work on my first fiction novel (which is coming along fine, thank you). However, to be perfectly honest, I haven't completely gone off the grid—I have been regularly micro-blogging almost daily on my Facebook , Tumblr, and Twitter pages, as well as publishing updates to my previously published books). But given recent events in the news, I thought it was time I came out of hiding and chronicle my thoughts on a couple of issues in the news on my various blogs.
As per my usual modus operandi, this posting is going to offend many who read it, which—as far as I am concerned—means my goal to provoke critical thinking beyond the reader's passions is on the right track. In regard to this particular posting, I was moved—as an African-American male—to chronicle an objective analysis of an on-going issue of personal relevance.
The issue at point is the rash of questionable injuries and/or deaths of unarmed black men by police officers that have circulated among the various news cycles. In quite a few cases, video played a central part in swaying public opinion one way or the other in determining (or maybe pre-determining) guilt and/or innocence of either party involved. To be honest, in many of these instances those black men who died (or were seriously injured) were alleged to have been engaged in unlawful actions; running from the police or engaging in a physical tussle with officers. Both Michael Garner and Walter Scott had been accused of engaging in physical struggles with police officers before being shot. Both were not armed at the moments of their deaths.
In other cases, whether those killed and/or hurt by the police were in fact, offering resistance to the officers is up for debate; in those cases, it depends on whom you ask. Twenty-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was seen as having been belligerent during his bloody videotaped arrest outside a bar for, among other things, underage drinking.
Eric Garner's videotaped takedown, arrest, and subsequent death choking at the hands of New York City police officers continues to be debated. Garner, a physically-imposing man, had been accused by the police of illegally selling bootleg cigarettes. Many watching the video of Garner's arrest agree that he wasn't offering any resistance to the police, who were trying to restrain him using an unauthorized restraining technique. Other said that Garner was struggling trying to breathe, while infamously yelling "I can't breathe" to arresting officers.
Still in other cases, the actions of police officers can only be seen as questionable and/unprofessional by most reasonable standards. Akai Gurley was fatally shot by a rookie New York City police officer in the darkened stairwell of a public housing project. By all accounts, Gurley was not engaged in any illegal activity, and wasn't wanted by the authorities. In fact, the officer involved alleged that his weapon somehow discharged by accident while he was holding it on patrol—an explanation which lends itself to many questions. The videotaped shooting of Levar Jones in a Columbia, South Carolina gas station had none of the debate of most of the other shootings. Jones was complying with a state trooper's order to show his ID when he was taped being shot because of the trooper's suspicion that Jones was "reaching for his ID" in a manner that made the officer think Jones was actually reaching for a weapon. Fortunately, Jones survived his ordeal with police.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-1ba33ff53c321dfc" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D1ba33ff53c321dfc%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D39D95277531588A077986B2160BD7CA755BFC898.A27F755678376030890AD55E8521AF273A90C3C4%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D1ba33ff53c321dfc%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DuFFBGYanG7-XwXYwpcPpOJvSrpM&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D1ba33ff53c321dfc%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D39D95277531588A077986B2160BD7CA755BFC898.A27F755678376030890AD55E8521AF273A90C3C4%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D1ba33ff53c321dfc%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DuFFBGYanG7-XwXYwpcPpOJvSrpM&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

In every case, those shot and/or hurt were not armed, and apparently posed no lethal threat to the officers and/or the public at-large (which I suppose could be debated in the minds of the police officers involved in these incidents). In all but the cases where the officers' actions were simply beyond reasonable fear of imminent personal threat, most of those involved were not charged with a crime or any major dereliction of duty.
In all of the sensationalism and headlines behind these instances, one salient point being missed by observers is the interplay of so many psycho-social dynamics at work. Police officers have an extremely daunting job, one that I know that I myself couldn't do—and I've been a school teacher! For the most part, our society couldn't function anywhere near as well as others around the globe where social norms and traditional values police citizens' actions more than the laws. The professional officers give us a sense of comfort knowing that our calls for helps will be answered and responded to in a decent manner.
Then, there are those who are unprofessional and personally unbalanced to the point where it affects their performance. These include those whose psychological makeup require their egos to be pet and stroked by successful intimidation of those he (or she) feels should respect their authority. Maybe they were picked on growing up. Maybe they just need to feel like big men (and women)…who knows? Others within the unprofessional ranks—understandably so—are victims of their own fears. They see and/or experience things on a daily basis that would make many of us cringe. Many of them see the worst of human behavior, of man's inhumanity to man. They are lied to daily as they try to ascertain the facts behind criminal activity and maintaining the peace. And for the most part, their attempts to police many of our communities are greeted and treated with contempt and stonewalling of every sort; "don't snitch" come to mind immediately. And unfortunately for those like myself, many of these bad behaviors and activities occur in our minority communities (and before those of you reading this go into "defense mode," many bad things occur in non-minority communities too). Let's be real and honest…FBI and police statistics bear this out. So too does the evening news. So too do our very own observations. How many times have we heard or read about children (and adults) in the 'hood being killed by stray bullets, of carjackings, the effects of the drug culture in our urban areas, or instances of teens committing once adult-only crimes?
These observations and experiences can create a sense of justified fear in the minds and hearts of police officers. It's enough to make them shoot first and ask questions later in many encounters. No, it's not right. No, not every black male is a criminal. Sure, old bad life decisions, limited opportunities, higher unemployment, and/or institutional bias may make us do some things that marginally break the law in the name of survival (e.g., driving without insurance and/or a drivers license, failure to pay child support), but these are hardly capital offenses. But our penchant for merging all criminal activity into one solid lump of perception tends to make many black males perceptually "hardened criminals" in the minds of the limited thinkers and bigoted. Its why the perennially-used explanations of police officers who shoot first and ask questions later—that "I was scared" and "I feared for my life"—resonates so well among suburbanites and middle-class whites who tend to support them. These shared fears of an encroaching criminal underclass moving into safer and gated worlds motivates their thinking. This ethos also explains why so few police officers tend to avoid conviction when they engage in questionably legal actions in the course of their duties; they were just doing their jobs.
I think I have decent solution to the deaths of black men at the hands of the police and allay the fears of the police at the same time. Let's bring back the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (or the BBP).

For those of you law-and-order types who only know of the Black Panther Party through their "anti-white," anti-police speeches, calls for "black power," Marxist-Leninist political beliefs, and/or often violent confrontations with law enforcement, the group originally formed in 1966 with the initial purpose of arming organized citizen patrols in urban black communities in an effort to both monitor and curtail routine practices of police brutality. The following year, founders Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton expanded the activities of the BPP to include Party-sponsored community social programs such as the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics. Sporting their signature leather jackets, black berets, afros, and shotguns whenever they were out on patrol or otherwise engaged in some group-sponsored social endeavor, the Party maintained a relatively high-profile in the communities they served. In most cases, the organization's twin missions of community betterment and watchmen of police abuses gave many inner-city blacks a sense of pride, self-respect, and empowerment. Because of this, the BBP garnered a mass following of respect in the black communities where they operated; even the street hustlers and gang members respected the Panthers during their most politically-active period, the mid 1960s into the early 1970s.
I know this is a radical proposal, especially in light of the rise to semi-prominence of an even more radical, racist group of activists also calling themselves "The New Black Panthers"—who are in no way affiliated by the former members of the 60s/70s BBP (in fact, members of the original BBP have publicly denounced any affiliation with the new group). But a resurgence of the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense group could have a long reach of benefits for the black community as well as for police officers charged with maintaining order in those communities. Here me out.
A newly-organized, politically-engaging, and socially-active Black Panther Party for Self-Defense could work to instill—or rather re-instill—in the black community the sense of self-reliance we once had…instead of relying others. This would be best exemplified by a new BPP recreating some—or all—of the many community programs (known by the Panthers as "survival programs") the group started and operated throughout their most active period. Take the Panther's Free Breakfast for Children Program. It's no secret that for a lot of black and poor children in the inner-city, the food they receive as they attend public school is often the most assured meal that they might receive on a daily basis.
Likewise, a new Panther Party recreating some (or all) of their many other community service programs from back in the day (e.g., free community health programs, GED programs, free busing for relatives of those incarcerated to visit them in prison, etc.) might go a long ways to illustrating what a sense of community looks like in a generation of black youth who are totally unfamiliar with the concept. Who's to say that such a wholesale new (read: "returning") practice of respect for others—especially those attempting to assist others in the community—might not help, say, get rid of that ridiculous practice in many black communities of "not snitching?" Maybe such an outlook might evolve into the same level of neighborhood concern I experienced growing up—where families could go out of town on vacations, and know that their next door neighbor would look after their homes, instead of turning a blind eye to burglary under the aforementioned counter-productive ethos of "don't snitch." Additionally, young black youth may come to be appreciative toward those others in their communities working to their benefit. This could translate into people in the 'hood actually giving a damn about someone other than themselves, going against the grain in our self-obsessed social media world.
A legally-armed, vocal, responsible, and socially-productive cadre of black males comprising a new Black Panther Party would provide a counter to the prevailing negative imagery of the urban "thug." More importantly, a new BBP that is mission-driven to both protect and serve the black community would be as willing to confront the negative element of the "thug" (as well as other criminal elements) as they would overzealous and abusive police officers. Drug dealers, gang bangers, and others who all but act with impunity as they routinely disrupt the lives of people just trying to live their lives would be confronted by an organized group of productive and civil-minded black men. These civil-minded black males would be willing to confront these negative and destructive community influences with diplomacy—if possible, and force—if necessary to curtail their negative influences on the black community. Best case scenario…the image and social symbolism of a respected, strong, productive, well-dressed, and assertive black male might replace the negative and distorted view of what constitutes a "man" in the eyes of those sporting dreadlocks (as a fashion statement rather than their traditional cultural significance), sagging pants, and "mean-mugging" those simply minding their own business.
More to the point, the respect a renewed Black Panther Party for Self-Defense would generate in the black community would fuel their resolve to confront abusive and overzealous police officers. They would accomplish this by video recording the actions of the police in black communities—without directly interfering with their duties, being able to recite (to) and instruct both citizens and police officers of their respective responsibilities regarding traffic stops and/or other law enforcement actions, and directly confronting and challenging police officers whose actions do not conform to law, regulations, of a universally understood sense of human dignity. The presence of BBP activists at the scene of police actions might help provide an additional sense of security to officers otherwise involved in the course of their duties, helping to change the police officers' preconceived negative perceptions (and expectations) of black males in general, and during confrontations in particular.
And because I'm well aware that some Americans are very skittish and paranoid of such a suggestion as arming black males for self-defense, it's understood that the police are a necessary agent for maintaining order throughout America. And for that reason, the difference in time periods and general social moods between when the original Black Panther Party were active and now would preclude all calls and attitudes to "kill all the pigs." However, the police would be put on alert that abusive attitudes and actions won't be tolerated, and that excessive force might be met with the same should simple situations escalate out of hand.

What do you think?J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-464887444324416112014-10-26T19:53:00.000-04:002014-10-28T18:04:54.077-04:00How To Fake A Political Issue (And Act "Outraged")... Part 2

First, once again, I must apologize for the length of time since my last posting. As some of you know, I have been writing and publishing a series of safety book related to surviving natural disasters (see the Amazon widget to the right). Needless to say, this undertaking taxes a lot of time. But with the mid-term elections coming up in a week and a half, I thought it was the perfect time to once again discuss the ignorance and selective (short-term) memories of the American electorate.
Some time ago, I wrote a piece entitled "How To Fake A Political Issue (And Act "Outraged")..." This point of focus for that particular piece was an illustration of how effective politicians can be when they manipulate a non-issue for political gain by "adopting" the "outrage" of a particular constituency. In the case of that posting, I discussed how Republicans feigned such manufactured "outrage" over a trip to Cube which rapper Jay-Z and his wife Beyonce took. The faked indignation was supposed to act upon the sympathies of the community of Cuban exiles in Florida, while they continued to perpetuate—via public opinion—the outdated policy of ostracizing a communist government that is fighting both time and inevitability to remain a part of history in the here-and-now (to be sure, Democrats are also given to this political practice).
But, fast forward to Saturday night's broadcast of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher." Now while I don't always agree with Maher, I find his irreverent brand of biting sarcastic wit is what many Americans need to hear in order to wake them from their self-imposed, ideologically-driven delusions. Well, his most recent segment of "New Rules" pretty much did just that. His rant reflected perfectly illustrated how Americans can be so easily distracted by political non-issues to vote against their own interests, using the example the governor's race in Kansas. During Saturday night's broadcast, Maher rips into the fact that the race for governor is a near dead-heat based on recent polls--despite the fact that ill-advised tax and program cuts championed and initiated by the incumbent have drained the state's once significant surplus of revenue, and replaced it with a huge deficit ("What's The Matter With Kansas And Its Tax Cuts? It Can't Do Math") In other words, too many uninformed, semi-informed, and just stupid people who make up the American voting electorate can be swayed by the smokescreen of irrelevant non-issues to actually be made to forget what they are voting on.
Watch Maher's segment on this past week's "New Rules" and see if his message resonates with you…(Warning: This following video contains strong language)

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-118a5a5d4916231a" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D118a5a5d4916231a%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D37D1632AD8A4D71D67011513B52188DC13B97BD0.B28E6A32E216B91D78AF9E1233179E9F12EC595B%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D118a5a5d4916231a%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DhRY3znvlghWzbo5toZJeJecT22w&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D118a5a5d4916231a%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D37D1632AD8A4D71D67011513B52188DC13B97BD0.B28E6A32E216B91D78AF9E1233179E9F12EC595B%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D118a5a5d4916231a%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DhRY3znvlghWzbo5toZJeJecT22w&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-78357356617584724852014-08-23T20:17:00.003-04:002014-08-23T20:28:08.018-04:00Another Police Blunder - Texas Mother And Children Accidently Pulled Over At Gunpoint

Let's get this straight from the gate; there are many good police officers out there not only doing their jobs with unquestionable professionalism, but willing to put their very lives on the line in doing so. The problem is that the questionable decisions by many bad officers tend to over-shadow this fact. And given the number of high-profile cases in the news of late, it would be easy by some to conclude that the police are out of control. Personally, I would argue that police professionalism is out of control.
By this, I mean that many of us are so overly-sympathetic to the dangers that police officers face on a daily basis as public servants, we tend to give their overreactions and excessive caution a pass. Indeed, some hard-nosed law-and-order-supporting citizens are quick to point out that [understandable] police mistakes should be overlooked if no one is physically hurt by such actions—wrongful arrests, the stop-and-frisking (and release) of "suspected" individuals, profiling individuals by ethnic and/or racial grouping come to mind.
The problem with such actions is that it's always easy to ask and or expect someone else to have their civil liberties inconvenienced to make the others feel comfortable. Take for example yet another recent questionable police action, this time from Texas. A young mother and her four children were pulled over by officers from the Forney, Texas Police Department. According to news reports, the officers were responding to an emergency 911 call from a passing motorist reporting that "four black men were waving a gun out the window of a beige- or tan-colored Toyota."
Dashboard video from one of the present patrol cars shows that the mother was taken out of the car at gunpoint, in front of the four terrified children. Apparently, it wasn't until a 6-year-old was told to exit the car with his hands up that the officers realized their mistake (read the online account of the incident here). And despite the officers' attempt to calm the children after realizing their mistake, the damage had already been done. No doubt, the mother and her children will remember this particular experience with the police in nothing but negative recollections.
Now while some might say "no harm, no foul", there are several points of contention with this incident. First, the report indicating that it was 4 black males allegedly waving a gun—not a female accompanied by 4 children. Second, the automobile belonging to the mother, Kametra Barbour, is a burgundy red Nissan Maxima. Lastly, the lack of employing proactive common sense by the officers. Clearly, not all of the information they had received about the reported individuals matched the situation. And commanding a 6-year-old to exit a car with his hands in the air seems—pardon the pun—overkill in the prudence department. Despite these inconsistencies, there is no forthcoming apology from the Forney police department. In fact, "The police department defends the traffic stop saying the officers responded appropriately to what they believed was a dangerous situation" (WFAA News).

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-b898deacabf136be" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Db898deacabf136be%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DA6F84111BDB52B4A945DD7491165A682ED1B7D50.57136D5A9E006447D231B5485DA9325AE2CF66C2%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Db898deacabf136be%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DYtM4y9q3KsoH_7fwNqpiXT4IBHQ&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Db898deacabf136be%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DA6F84111BDB52B4A945DD7491165A682ED1B7D50.57136D5A9E006447D231B5485DA9325AE2CF66C2%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Db898deacabf136be%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DYtM4y9q3KsoH_7fwNqpiXT4IBHQ&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>
Police dashboard video of the Forney, Texas police stop of a mother and 4 children.

Now to be honest, something inside me "told me" that the family involved would be either black or someone belonging to an ethnic minority group before I researched this story. Sadly, ethnic minorities seem to be those expected to accept the business-end of questionable police practices with an understanding nod.
Granted, they have a job that requires caution when dealing with the public in general, and criminals in particular. But as we saw a couple of weeks ago in Ferguson, Missouri, mistakes without employing professional prudence can lead to a loss of faith in our public servants, as well as—possibly—a regrettable (and unnecessary) loss of life.
As I have said on many occasions, police departments across the country really need to reassess their training and procedures, and individuals wishing to serve the public as law enforcement have to think more about their actions before reacting out of base caution and unthinking reflex. J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-63112411216647477492014-08-17T09:57:00.000-04:002014-08-17T17:16:17.066-04:00Ferguson, Missouri – Enough is Enough!Last night, for the sixth straight night, the predominantly black city of Ferguson, Missouri exploded in violence. These nightly confrontations between the police and protesters are the result of community-fueled rage at the police shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old unarmed African-American man, Michael Brown. The last 2 nights of violent confrontations came after a lull in the civil disruptions when elements of the Missouri State Police had taken responsibility for crowd control and response to previous protests. The decision to hand over law-enforcement duties related to the protests to the state police was evidently due in part to the barrage of public condemnation (from those on both the political left and right (See: "Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Criticize Ferguson Police" for example) from all across the country) of the Ferguson Police Department's forceful to protests on the first few nights.

(Both protesters and rioters confront police in Ferguson, Missouri last night amid clouds of teargas)

In most of the cases, the protests started out as peaceful, with those participating adopting a stance with their hands in the air and shouting, "Hands up…don't shoot!" But as with almost any level of mass protests in America, a small element among the protestors opted to take advantage of the relatively disruptive atmosphere to create trouble. That's when the looting, gunshots, and flying rocks began to replace the responsible protesting of the shooting. Both community leaders and Brown's parents have made public appeals for peaceful protesting of the shooting, and an end to the violent confrontations that have taken place in the area.
We all familiar with the issues—race, social stereotyping, profiling, high crime, poverty, individual bad choices, the lack of personal responsibility as well as empathy for the community one works in, and unprofessional policing. These are issues are nothing as they relate to questionable police actions; I have written about them here in other high-profile cases (see: "Here Comes The Fuzz!," "Another Police Beating Caught On Tape (…or, "Your Tax Dollars At Work.")," and "The Law, Lies, and Videotapes."). Additionally, there is the oft-overlooked phenomenon of what I call the "Zimmerman-effect."
This is the psycho-social mindset among suburban and rural whites—particularly but not exclusively male—to demonstrate their Constitutional right to "bare" (read: carry) and in some cases, use guns in the public based on the perception of a non-existential threat of violence that might occur. In instances when guns are used by these individuals to neutralize a perceived threat, the "threat" is often found to be either minimal and/or non-existent in retrospect (e.g., The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting, The Florida theater shooting, the Jordan Davis/"Loud-Radio" shooting, etc.).

Some of those who possess this mindset tend to be members of local law-enforcement departments--no doubt there are some on the 54-man Ferguson police force. The irrational aspect of this psycho-social thinking is that in many of the moderately- and high-crime communities where these particular police officers patrol, many residents--including those who qualify legally to carry firearms (myself included)--don't carry them. But those who live in areas where crime is relatively low or occurs at negligible-levels seem to be obsessed with carrying firearms, ostensibly as an exercise of their "Constitutional rights."
But enough is enough!
It's time for the unruly among the protesters to properly honor the memory of Michael Brown by protesting his questionable and tragic death in substantive and meaningful manner—one that doesn't tarnish the message of a unified community expressing discontent with its public servants.
It's time for the city of Ferguson to make aggressive moves to bring in some "new blood" in the form of officers who reflect the demographics of the community. I'm sure if the city wanted to, they could advertise across the country, making efforts to target areas and/or groups, colleges, or organizations whose members have a passion for public service.
It's time for police agencies across the country to stop taking in every gun-ho, overly testosteroned male seeking an outlet for his perceived manhood to set the bars higher for their standards. Training should include mandated sociological—and maybe psychological—college-level courses in order to broaden their perceptions of the communities they chose to work in (I would go so far as to require at least an associate's degree in these and related fields).

It's time for African-Americans to take charge of our communities and eliminate counter-productive activities and mindsets, such as the infamous (and often celebrated) "thug mentality" and the "don't snitch" attitudes that breed both apathy and high crime. It's time for individuals to stop making idiotic criminal decisions that feed and fuel negative, often race-related stereotypes that lead to shootings like those that occurred in Ferguson last Saturday afternoon.

It's time for individuals to stop making idiotic criminal decisions that feed and fuel negative, often race-related stereotypes that lead to shootings like those that occurred in Ferguson last Saturday afternoon. It's time for parents who make the time to create a child to take the time to raise them properly, with an appreciation for education, and respect for authority.
And it's time for communities, groups, and individual Americans to take responsibility for our own actions—right or wrong. That's what responsible people do.J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-24945316110151950142014-08-07T18:37:00.004-04:002014-08-14T05:43:31.487-04:00Smokers Suing Tobacco Companies & The Blame Game!

At times, the dissonance, ignorance, and audacity of Americans is a marvel to behold. Sure, this applies to both political and social issues that I often talk about. But what I'm speaking of this time around is our propensity to perpetuate America as a blame-oriented society. The latest ballsy—and utterly irrational—high-profile event to cement this sad aspect of our country's thinking is last month's $23 billion dollar trial court judgment in favor of the widow of a 20-year smoker who died at the age of 36 from lung cancer. According to reports, Michael Johnson Sr. died in 1996, 20 years after he had started smoking as a 13-year old. If my math is right, that would have him starting smoking around 1976—long after it was established that smoking was a health hazard. Now I remember being in elementary school during the 1970s, and I also remember being taught how bad smoking was in school. But there is some part of me that wonders how is it that the parents of a 13-year old boy missed the obvious signs of such a high-profile habit—particularly in the 70's when parents were considerably more responsible than they are today? Johnson knew the health risks of smoking, even after he could grasp them as an adult—they were printed right on each pack of the cigarettes he'd purchased. And since apparently he was a chain smoker, that means hr had to have read the Surgeon Generals' warnings at least once a day for 20 years. His widow had to have known this too. Yet, she initiated what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit against the tobacco company, ignoring her ex-husband's free will decision.
At any rate, what this episode reveals is our continual obsession with the need to blame something or someone—anyone—for misfortunes that befall us (or our loved ones). Someone must be at fault whenever bad things happen. We've grown too quick to not only assign blame for our misfortunes or personal decisions, but we love to sue, as if to punctuate who we assign blame to. We have to blame someone or something other than ourselves. We blame teachers because our children aren't learning, as we seek to further overburden them with even more duties and responsibilities—with none of the authority. Or if our kids don't learn, we blame some imaginary malady or invent some new alphabet soup "syndrome" to explain away their "inability" to learn. We blame the politicians we elect for non-functioning government—but insist that they be beholden to our partisan beliefs, which causes the gridlock we see. If someone takes a gun and shoots up a school full of children, it must be the fault of greedy gun makers…or some "mental disorder" that "told" the shooter to do so (except if you're black…then it's just a genetic predisposition to engage in criminal activity). If our cars crash, it must have been some manufacturing defect (admittedly, in some cases this is true). If someone says something that "hurts" our widdle-bitty feelings, we sue for slander, libel, or whatever imaginary slight that the law recognizes as a "remedy" for such "offenses."
The social and economic consequence for our "need" to find fault and place blame for misfortunes is a society that simply cannot function at optimal capacity. Disruptive children in already crowded classrooms are allowed to rob their fellow students of environments conducive to learning, as schools systems, teachers, and officials fear being sue by their parents (because somehow, it would 'violate" the "rights" of disruptive students to be held accountable for their misbehaviors or removed for the greater good). Parent's therefore do not parent to the best of their ability, knowing they can always take [their] children to a clinician and have them designated as somehow "impaired" (rather than accept that parents are the ones who tend to be impaired…in their ability to parent productively).
We now have a generation of young people who have no appreciation for life, or seemingly a major understanding of how serious the consequences are for taking a life. These youngsters are reckless, thoughtless, and impulsive. In fact, both children and adults in America are prone to doing impulsive things; and why not? We can always place the blame on the company that produced the item that we decided to use unsafely and/or irresponsibly. And that is why manufacturers have to put warning labels on everything, alerting customers to the obvious hazards in order to avoid the inevitable lawsuit meant to assign blame to their products rather than the users. And liability insurance that companies are forced to counter the threat of a lawsuit drives up prices for the products we use.
And we dare not look to our politicians for any kid of remedy for "irresponsible companies" that make "shoddy" products. They are too busy tugged and pulled in one direction or another by a fickle voting electorate that is too busy pointing fingers of blame at opposing political parties, ethnic/minority groups, and ideologies for why the country is in such a sad state of affairs.
Blaming others is why someone can win a declarative court judgment for spilling hot coffee on themselves and get away with blaming the preparer for "making it too hot" (rather than simply waiting until it cooled in an attempt to drink it). Or why 23 billion dollars can be awarded to the widow of an adult who chose to engage in an unhealthy behavior—that has been widely known to be a potential threat to health and/or life for going on 50 years.
This country will not get better until people—adults, youngsters, black, white, male and female—begin ownership of their decisions and the consequences. We need to learn that not every event is foreseeable, or is worthy of blame. We have gotten away from a certain level of fatalism --that often, bad things happen to good people (and vice-versa) that keeps us grounded in reality. We cannot control everything, but we also need to accept that we are responsible for our own actions. Attempting to find and/or place blame for the calamities that befall robs of the understanding that we are mortal, and that our time here on this mortal coil is limited. Some things that happen to us are of our own design, while others are an act of God (or fate). Some of us make sound financial decisions, while others make financially irresponsible decisions--both of which impact our lives for better or worse. When we drive on the nation's highways, we are taking the same chance as we do when we walk out in the rain during a storm. Lightning strikes some, and ignores others it's the same with smoking or anything else--you take your chances, and you accept the consequences, not blame others for them.

See also: "What Suing Subway Reveals About Us"J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-91571714504555170422014-07-27T14:49:00.000-04:002014-07-28T04:01:50.031-04:00Liberal Vs. Conservative--What's In A Label?Recently during one of my sleepless nights, I found myself doing what so many other Americans doing—flipping through television channels. I stopped when I came across political pundit Lawrence O' Donnell's show, "The Last Word." on MSNBC.
Now I know what some of you might be thinking: Liberal nonsense from a left-leaning propaganda cable channel. Now, if you decide to stick around for the rest of this piece, such thinking is exactly my point; political labeling. "Liberal." "Conservative." Depending on which particular ideology you embrace, the other will invariably draw the ire of those who believe that their particular beliefs are what's good for America. However, in recent decades, the word "liberal" has been so successfully painted and maligned with such negative connotations by conservatives that even liberal themselves will avoid claiming the label—unlike conservatives who will not only proudly brag about being "severely conservative," but will even argue amongst themselves who's the most conservative adherent to their ideology's principles. This is the point that O'Donnell was making on his piece…how labeling can be so effective in politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their "truths" on a level with the very laws of physics themselves.

(See: Talking Points Memo.com for the story behind the image).

I took the liberty of uploading O'Donnell's piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point--that labeling can and has been so effective in modern American politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their "truths" on a level with the very laws of physics themselves. We tend to take the tenets of liberal and conservative doctrine to the point where to argue against any leftist or right-wing-leaning point is tantamount to religious heresy worthy of an automatic rebuke (one usually based on blind adherence rather than a critical analysis of the issues).
I took the liberty of uploading O'Donnell's piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-17d01cea27cb304" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D017d01cea27cb304%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DA1934DF62528AABD4B18CEC78F909ED3AFB09447.272F98F25F1BC02611FE53E7C855E0B92A739F2E%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D017d01cea27cb304%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DFfXCCHN-nHBQ--UazveTKrpM5P4&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D017d01cea27cb304%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DA1934DF62528AABD4B18CEC78F909ED3AFB09447.272F98F25F1BC02611FE53E7C855E0B92A739F2E%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D017d01cea27cb304%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DFfXCCHN-nHBQ--UazveTKrpM5P4&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

For those of you who missed it, the point is not that one is bad while the other is good. It's that we here in America are often too quick to believe of associate with one party, ideology, or level of thinking simply because we identify with the labels that [supposedly] represents them. The inherent problem with this practice is that it make up highly unlikely to question any wrong decisions and/or policies based solely on labels rather than their intent or effectiveness is eliminating a problem. What's more, it prevents us from engaging in actual critical thinking about social and/or political policies based on—you guessed it—the labels we attach to them.
With respect to the consequences of political labeling, I will leave it to funnyman Chris Rock's observational humor to punctuate the point (below) in 60-seconds pure reason (Warning: Contains a liberal use of profanity).

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-43da334e53530a81" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D43da334e53530a81%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DBBFB5C00261A80DEC3FBD013EA298F698E0C544F.2C89DA220A7EDE3EA40834E0C97F0B7855E1A976%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D43da334e53530a81%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DbGnhRXGCqHt5IozAtxazR__1Rw0&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D43da334e53530a81%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3DBBFB5C00261A80DEC3FBD013EA298F698E0C544F.2C89DA220A7EDE3EA40834E0C97F0B7855E1A976%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D43da334e53530a81%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DbGnhRXGCqHt5IozAtxazR__1Rw0&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-85118381547596700182014-06-28T22:13:00.001-04:002014-06-28T22:13:13.444-04:00What's Wrong With American Politics?

Maybe there is something to be said for dictatorships as a form of government. Things have a tendency to get done…fast. The passage of laws—even if they are by decree—makes gridlock a non-factor. There is no partisan wrangling between competing political parties or branches of government. And there is none of the upheaval that has come to symbolize what politics in America has come to.
President Obama's approval ratings are at an all-time low for his tenure in office. The Mississippi Tea Party is in an uproar after its U.S. Senate primary candidate lost to mainstream Republican opponent Thad Cochran—who in turn appealed to a non-traditional base of African-American voters to beat the T-Party's candidate. Democrats are set to use populist wedge-issues—immigration and a potential raise in the minimum wage—to beat back predicted Republican gains, while walking on broken egg shells on other issues to protect endangered Democratic candidates. And the list goes on…
What can I possibly say, reveal, or speak to in terms of the broken state of politics in contemporary America that most clear-thinking individual don't already know? The political—as well as the voting—process has been corrupted by the influence and infusion of money; we know this. The ideological and political gulf between opposing belief-holders has never been wider…much to the detriment of the legislative process. The disdain that many of us Americans have for our political leadership finds most of us ranking their appeal generally somewhere between toilet film and a root canal. And the few optimists who remain loyal to one side or the other are more adherent to party-lines, talking points, and platforms than to rational thinking and objectivity. Why is the American political apparatus so broken?
To list a complete analysis of why politics in America is at such a level of unproductive impotence would take bandwidths of terabytes of Internet bandwidth; even a summary would take volumes. However, the conclusion—as painful as it might be for those wishing otherwise—is that America's system of politics is broken because we are a nation moving toward an oligarchy rather continually engaging in the "great experiment" of (a) democracy. What's more, the basic reasons for the emergence of government by the powerful (and not in fact, "We the People") can at least be listed inasmuch as those with clearer minds would be open to considering both their reality and validity.

The Voting Electorate.

I will be blunt here; the American voting electorate is pretty dumb. This is to say that we are very uninformed as a people responsible for picking and choosing our leadership. Most of us do not bother to engage in objective research on the issues in any given election…and those of us who do bother to do what passes for research only look up "facts" that support already-held positions. Those who identify with Republicans (or conservatives) will usually refer to Fox News, The Daily Beast, The Drudge Report, The Bible, or any number of "objective news" sources, while liberals (i.e., Democrats) will go to Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, NPR, or other similar news sources considered "unbiased." Most American voters start our approaching any issue with a liberal or conservative foundation, and then "research" the "facts" from that point. The problem is that most of these "sources" are little more than platforms for ideological talking points and/or already established beliefs. In other words, most Americans obtain their beliefs of certain issues from propaganda rather than objectivity. We don't seem capable of suspending our preconceived beliefs and ideas to approach an issue based on the merits rather than their ability to support our individual political ideologies.
What's more, there are simply too many nuts running loose in our country who lack psychiatric supervision. This is to say that many of the things that "informed voters" believe are beyond the pale. September 11th was a government conspiracy. Abortion is part of a planned genocide against the black community. The female body has mechanisms to "protect against that sort of thing." Obama is not an American. Political correctness reflects "cultural sensitivity." There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Global warming is a hoax. Money is "Free Speech." The Constitution protects abortion. Universally affordable health care is akin to slavery. …and these are the "rational" thoughts. We believe anything our elected "leadership" tells us, no matter how insane, how irrational, or how counter-intuitive to reality. These virtual lunatics on both the political left and right share the same voting booths as you and I, and are able to pass themselves off as part of the "informed" electorate, who share the responsibility for putting into office other such "rational" individuals who are only too happy to polly-parrot these extreme beliefs in the name of voter support (just listen to the things that come out of the mouths of Michelle Bachmann or Barney Frank).
We're also fickle to no end. We have a "Mac-Mentality;" we want "solutions" hot, fast, and now…forgetting that it took years for many of the issues facing the country to make themselves known. We are quick to overlook the fact that our politicians are not magicians…they cannot fix any problem as fast as we would like. Because of this, we will vacillate between election-year political party candidates as often as we change underwear. And quite understandably, our politicians don't know what issue to support or where people actually stand on a given issue—unless said issues are being spoon-fed to the voting electorate. So they too bounce back and forth between "for" and "against" certain policies. Our political leadership's inability to stand on one particular aspect of an issue may be irritating, but it's also a reflection of our own ability to stand still on an issue in a realistic sense. We tend to take sides, as if either side wears the white hats. As I've often said on so many occasions, we are too quick to attack the other guy, and reject the worst possibilities of our own political affiliations.

Big Money Influence

In the last few years, Supreme Court decisions have all-but eviscerated the notion that the voting public effects both legislation and voting rights. Rulings like Citizens United have opened the floodgates for the infusion of endless amounts of cash "donations" into the political process by both private and political interests seeking to influence who makes the laws and how they are made. Under the veneer of "Free Speech," connected political, financial, and organized private interests groups—those usually tied to business—are now able to purchase public policy (and/or its handlers). Private and moneyed interests are not able to shape and mold a government virtually according to their own design.
And since most of us, the voting electorate, tend to accept and heed the talking points of our political affiliations rather than reason and individual thinking, we buy into this dynamic. Too many Americans—who we only have our votes as an instrument of gaining a say in the political process—are too quick to defend the Big Money interests who have more sway over our lives than we like to think because they can influence how our legislators think and behave. We are literally voting and supporting a status quo that works against our self-interests when we protect and defend the infusion of [the] obscene amounts of money into the political process. This is true whether it be in the legalized form of bribery we call "lobbying," or when we allow shadowy political groups to throw tons of money into campaigns that call for voting for an issue or candidate that we support simply because it reflects our political affiliations.

The startling takeaway is that we as American citizens now have little impact on governmental and legislative policy by way of our voting. The only exception to this is when highly organized and motivated individuals like those in the partisan Tea Party movement are able to affect a small number within a larger party. But the effect of the Tea Party's ideological intransigence is also part of the problem in why our politics have become so dysfunctional—they are too wedded to the belief that they are right in what and how they believe government should function. To this effect, many of the movement's supporters and candidates have often invoked the phrase "no compromise" when it comes to getting legislation passed. This in turn creates the gridlock that stymies current system of governance —such as it is—and destroys any chance for passage of any form of legislation. We now have a system where private, moneyed, and politically-connected interest groups, as well as their lackeys in the various levels of legislative halls, are a law unto themselves. Simply put, the majority doesn't rule. I know that special interests do not have my interest at heart when they lobby (i.e., pressure) my Congressman or state legislator to either think or vote on their behalf. I'm still waiting to the rest of my fellow Americans to catch up to this fact…but I won't hold my breath.

The Changing Economy

Oddly enough, when America had a stable Middle Class, and when we were a nation that actually produced manufactured goods, we had a stable voting electorate. There were fewer socioeconomic and political divisions by which our politicians could drive a wedge through to exploit for personal gain. In fact, quite the opposite; we were more willing to overlook both the political decisions and indiscretions of our elected leaders because the effects of either didn't seem to have an overt consequence to the public at-large. Iran-Contra didn't turn into a general clamor for impeachment (except from the extreme Left). Former Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry's conviction for drug use during an FBI sting—one caught on video—didn't affect his eventual re-election to that same position. And despite his allusions that his contentious congressional confirmation had racial overtones, Clarence Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Our tolerance for decisions weak and/or questionable political decisions was far greater, relegated to the "all politicians lie," or the "It doesn't affect me and my family" ethos. As long as gasoline was cheap, jobs that actually paid the bills were still available, financial institutions were not overtly greedy (and corrupt), and our economy was still the envy of the world, why would any of us have complained…much less organize enough to take sides. But along the way, the economy and our political sensitivities started to change. While good-paying manufacturing began moving offshore in an effort to compete with the invasion of cheaper foreign-made products, a lower-paying service-based economy took over. Organized labor—unions—was assaulted from two points; the reduction in their numbers due to the off-shoring of jobs, and an assault on laws meant to protect union practices by business-friendly Republicans. This assault included curtailing laws that made it easier for Democratic-leaning to fund Democratic candidates and worker-friendly legislation. With unions (and their political money) weakened to historical levels, a supportive money supply to the Democratic Party was dried. This forced the Democrats into bed with the same kind of Big Money and private interest groups that the Republicans had cozied up to years earlier in order to raise party fund money (see: Lobbying Spending By Sector). Although many of those supporting legislation responsible for weakening organized labor will usually make references to "election fairness," "economic concerns," accusations of union "corruption" as justifications for doing so, make no mistake about it—attacks on unions were more about securing political advantage for benefitting political parties (and candidates), and not for the greater good (although one would be hard-pressed to deny that denials of such provide for the most elegant of rebuttals).
What's worse, many rank-and-file Americans have started to buy into the political narrative (put forth in part to defend the actions of those jockying for political fund-raising advantage) that "union greed" is what was responsible for the transformation of the American economy rather than the natural and inevitable drive by manufacturers to drastically find a way to increase profits in the face increasing global competition. We have forgetten that it was the labor-friendly demands of unions—higher wages, benefits, and reasonable hours to name a few—that helped to create a stable Middle Class in the first place. This leads into the final factor contributing to our sad state of politics in America...

The Political Class

When I talk about the political class in America, what I am generally speaking to are not only career lobbyists, but career politicians, elected members of both major political parties, 501 (C )(4) political organizations (associated non-disclosed donors), and regular corporate economic entities—all of which/who form what can be unarguably considered the new ruling oligarchy in America. This is the say that these groups and individuals are so politically active and themselves informed about the inner workings as well as the mechanics of the legislative process that they can literally shape laws that benefit each entity and individual within this ruling political class. Our politicians are merely a means to this end. In most cases, these people and/or groups can be recognized by their constant presence in politics, their last names—especially in the cases of political "dynasties" (e.g., families that constantly produce career politicians)—and the influence they wield in affecting the legislative process.
Regardless of political party affiliation, most of the ruling oligarchy tends to be mainstays in the halls of power in this country, with some 50% of retiring or electorally defeated Congressmen taking up with lobbying firms in continuing to influence the legislative process on behalf of the highest bidder.
Even in the case of the few who aren't as personally motivated by monetary gain, they are too beholden to their ideological (and by extension, their political party's) beliefs to be effective legislators. This means that they tend to embrace party-lines and baseless thinking in order to appeal to their respective bases and remain in power for the sake of careers in "public service." This is why climate change deniers, race-baiters, proponents of immigration "reform," and those who think all taxes are "bad" tend to maintain their popularity among their respective supporters. This means that many of our elected leadership will literally say and promise anything in order to protect their political positions. Many have conned the American voting electorate into thinking we actually have a choice—via our votes—over which direction our country should go when it comes to the legislative process when in reality, the politically-connected ruling oligarchy makes these decisions.

Admittedly somewhat cynical, our American oligarchs have designs to pull the strings of political system in order to suck as much wealth as possible from the nation (and its people) by ensuring cheaper labor, government subsidies, and other favorable legislation that ensures greater profits and the free flow of capital among and between each other. Additionally, political oligarchs in this country seek to hoard the wealth they collect by saving money in the form of tax cuts and favorable tax rates. To enable these designs, political oligarchs employ a army of lawyers, image consultants, and public relations too sculpt favorable images of politicians who work to protect the wealth of their fellow oligarchs.
Politicians and other members of the political class all-but crippled the Middle Class by sucking all the wealth and promise out from it via usurping the political and legislative process. And without a strong middle class, America cannot offer its citizens a chance to improve their lives, to maintain the infrastructure required for commerce and growth, or support those citizens that need a safety net thanks to lower-paying employment (See: "How the Middle-Class Got Screwed"). The political class cheats the system as it was meant to be in order to steal the wealth of our nation and hoard it for themselves.
But in order to keep attention off of themselves and their designs, oligarchs will often sow the seeds of dissent among competing groups of Americans. Liberal vs. conservatives. Immigrants vs. native-born citizens. Ethnicity vs. ethnicity. We blame each other for "ruining the country," while the political class benefits. The fact is, when you look at the military, you will find both liberals and conservatives in uniform. I would like to believe that both liberals, conservatives, as well as those in between love that the American Constitution is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the special interests, and certainly not the interests of the political (and economic) ruling class in America. However, as much as we would like to believe that our vote counts, it seems that our country is being controlled and manipulated by the moneyed and politically-connected elite—and not We The People!J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-81976365264739634292014-06-15T19:41:00.001-04:002014-06-21T09:55:10.143-04:00The Tragedy Of Iraq (...or "Iraq Is Burning!")First, I would like to thank those who continually read Beyond The Political Spectrum in attempting to keep up with important events in the news. At the same time, I would like to apologize to those same regular readers for not routinely posting in the last several months on a regular basis. Some of you might know that I have been working to publish a series of crisis-themed books meant to serve as a comprehensive source for disaster planning for both individuals as well as organizations. With that having been said, with so much news and so many associated issues regarding this news, it would simply make sense to just touch on the most relevant item in the news currently.

Sunni insurgents linked with a more radical offshoot of al-Queda driving through Mosul, the second largest city in the country.

Iraq
If one were attempting to sum up the lowest point in the American involvement in Iraq—2006 and 07—in terms of the political, military, and religious upheavals, the best word would be "quagmire." Currently, the best word that could most accurately describe the current situation in terms of the military gains of the radical Sunni Muslim insurgency on the march toward the Iraqi capital of Baghdad—as Iraqi government military forces deserted the field of battle en masse—is "tragedy." Tragedy was in fact the best description from the start of the ill-advised decision of the U.S. to invade the country in the first place in 2003…under the erroneous assumption that its former leadership harbored "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD's).
Tragedy is the way proponents within the American government attempted to social engineer post-Saddam Hussein by imposing regime change. Granted, Hussein was not the most stable of individuals, his presence did create level of stability that kept any indication of sectarianism from manifesting as anything but occasional unpleasantries between individuals from opposing religious sects. Maybe the late dictator actually knew something about the intra-religious dynamics of his own country that American "experts" didn't (and still don't). Maybe a brutal strongman or a heavy hand in governance is all that stands between order and the chaos of ethnic and religious divisions played out in the realm of violent confrontations. We saw this play out in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, when the artificial political boundaries created after WWI ignored these human divisions in favor of creating recognized nation-states. Like in Iraq, pre-2003 oppressive rule managed to lightly smother the true inter-ethnic feelings and differences under the surface. That is, until the current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shia-dominated central government all-but disenfranchised the Sunni population in the country…the same Sunni who some have taken up with the insurgents. Before the current crisis, ethnic and religious fighting was unheard of as a result of tough rulership. Tragedy too, is the result of not heeding the lessons of history.
Tragic still is the fact that we Americans are so ethnocentric, so self-assured that our way of form of governance and viewing the world that we couldn't—and still can't—stop to think for a single moment that Western-style democracy doesn't work for everyone. This is especially true when tribal identities are more potent than national identities. This is why the Al-Qaeda-linked insurgency seeks to impose strict Islamic law in Sunni state carved out of parts of both Syria and central Iraq—a stated that ignores national political borders.
Currently, the only bright spot in Iraq—a region of relative calm and political stability—is the Kurdish Regional Government in the country's northern border region. The ethnic Kurdish government, taking advantage of the instability in other parts of the country, has seized nearby lands abandoned by Iraqi government forces in what seems to be a move reflective of an intent to become more autonomous from Baghdad (these lands contain some of the country's oil production resources). Kurdish stability seems to be the only non-tragic aspect of this chaos.
Finally, tragedy is the best way to describe accusations and finger-pointing toward President Obama being the "reason" for the devolving situation in Iraq…the same Obamawho voted against the invasion of Iraq as Senator Obama back in 2003. Tragedy is the denial by supporters of that action to accept complicity in the creation of this monster. Ultimately, Iraq is a Frankenstein that could have been avoided being created in the first place if we Americans were not so arrogant to believe that everyone in the world will great us with flowers, so ignorant of other (the divisions among) peoples in the world, and blinded of our own sometimes insanely-held ideologies and political alliances that we cannot accept responsibility for the problems we create.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-6d9d5a1e4a35978c" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D6d9d5a1e4a35978c%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D4CCB9FEDF0ACA22000640B038E0332807B456B42.0D8BBE40D3BE7C073A6B401F4DBFCB8371BEDD3A%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D6d9d5a1e4a35978c%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D9JhpL_IOC312oivbjlVANMmUQXk&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D6d9d5a1e4a35978c%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D4CCB9FEDF0ACA22000640B038E0332807B456B42.0D8BBE40D3BE7C073A6B401F4DBFCB8371BEDD3A%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D6d9d5a1e4a35978c%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D9JhpL_IOC312oivbjlVANMmUQXk&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

Correction (06/16/14):

I stand corrected on the president's voting record, but his opposition to the war has been documented on record before becoming either a Senator or the president (see, some of us can admit being wrong).

http://www.tnj.com/archives/2004/september2004/final_word.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469
J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-52726255506887131692014-01-29T08:57:00.001-05:002014-01-29T08:57:40.869-05:00Question Of The Day - Raising The Minimum Wage?Given all of the recent talk about growing economic inequality, the gap between real wages and what these wages can buy, the cost of living, and the effects of long-term unemployment, (I thought it was necessary to put the question of what the American people think about the idea of raising the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

In responding, keep the following perspective in mind:

-Congress, our "esteemed" federal legislative body, 50% of which are millionaires whose better-than-decent retirement plan WE taxpayers pay for can vote THEMSELVES a pay raise...
-Athletes who WE pay to watch (in one form or another) can earn millions of dollars a year...
-Corporate officers/CEO's/CFO's of companies WE work for can earn million-dollar salaries and golden parachutes severance packages --ALL because "they earned it."

But WE hard-working Americans can't have a minimum wage in line with the cost of living because it will "destroy jobs?" Some politicians apparently "care" about Americans having "jobs," just not well-paying ones.

<form action="http://poll.pollcode.com/2125547" method="post">

Should The Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 hr. Be Raised?

<input id="2125547answer1" name="answer" type="radio" value="1" />	Yes, Raise It

<input id="2125547answer2" name="answer" type="radio" value="2" />	No, It's Enough To Live Comfortably Off Of

<input type="submit" value=" Vote " /> <input name="view" type="submit" value=" View " />

pollcode.com free polls

</form>J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-36136636718143657582014-01-18T13:48:00.004-05:002014-01-18T13:48:59.762-05:00Voter I.D. -- A Motive In A Snapshot!Just a little something to think about is rejecting the narrative that new voter identification laws "protect the integrity of the voting process" (funny how the voting process "integrity" wasn't threatened until recent times).

J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-76292234728840371822014-01-07T15:47:00.001-05:002014-01-07T20:04:55.237-05:00Disaster Planning Publications - Now AvailableSome of you might have noticed that I haven't been writing and/or blogging as regularly as I have in the past. Although I still manage to keep abreast of many issues—social, political, and financial—my time been consumed by writing and publishing books. My first (among many future) endeavors is a series of crisis manuals based on a crapload of research I had intended for another project.
The first four of these crisis manuals have already been published, and two of them are already listed for sale on both Amazon.com. and Lulu.com. The first is called "The No-Nonsense Guide To Tornado Safety." The guide is exactly what it appears to be—an 84-page source of information related to knowing about, planning for, and responding to tornadoes. In addition to providing a survey-level understanding of these potential disasters, the guide provides the most up-to-date advice and suggestions by weather and safety experts about what to do in (planning for in) the event that a tornado disaster. The guide gives a brief history of tornadoes and their effects as it relates to planning, as well as a series of appendixes that list—among other things—where publicly assessable tornado shelters (those operated by local municipalities as well as those privately-run) are to be found in the most tornado-prone regions in the country. There is also a state-by-state (province-by-province in Canada) listing for regional government offices charged with disaster-relief, as well a list for charitable organizations whose functions include the same. I designed these series of books to be a one-stop source of safety information on related disasters.

The No-Nonsense Guide To Tornado Safety

• Paperback: 84 pages • Publisher: lulu.com (November 22, 2013) • Language: English • ISBN-10: 1304648648 • ISBN-13: 978-1304648648 • Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.2 inches • Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounce
Amazon.com
Lulu.com

In addition, three more books in the series are also available for sale, with availability on Amazon projected in the future. I also hope to publish ebook versions of my publications when it becomes feasible given my time constraints. "The No-Nonsense Guide To Blizzard Safety," a book whose subject-matter has become more relevant in recent weeks, is similarly designed to be a one-stop guide for anything and everything related to blizzard safety as well as planning in the event of blizzards.

The No-Nonsense Guide To Blizzard Safety

• Paperback: 54 pages • Publisher: lulu.com (December 21, 2013) • Language: English • ISBN-10: 9781304709394 • Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.2 inches • Shipping Weight: 0.28 pounds
Lulu.com

The third book in this series is "The No-Nonsense Guide To Flood Safety."

 • Paperback: 60 pages • Publisher: lulu.com (November 22, 2013) • Language: English • ISBN-10: 1304648613 • Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.2 inches
Amazon.com
Lulu.com

The final published book in the series is "The No-Nonsense Guide To Hurricane Safety."

• Paperback: 59 pages • Publisher: lulu.com (December 20, 2013) • Language: English • ISBN-10: 9781304733030 • Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.2 inches
Lulu.com

I would urge everyone concerned about their safety and planning for their safety as it relates to natural (and man-made) disasters to purchase these books before the seasons for these events are upon us.

Thanks in advance. J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-82307561736420156172013-12-24T20:54:00.001-05:002013-12-25T02:28:29.758-05:00Television, Duck Dynasty, & Free Speech...What The Duck...?Outside of the news and programs that are political, historical, or current-events-oriented (as well as one or two guilty pleasures), there is very little on television which interest me enough to waste my valuable time watching. This goes double for anything that fits into the so-called "reality television" genre of programming; I for the life of me cannot begin to fathom why such mental junk food is so appealing. I suppose it represents the dumbing down of America on the whole. At any rate, it is an issue regarding reality television's current breakout hit that has me posting yet again an issue that begs discussion.
The issue at hand surrounds the unexplainable-to-sophisticated-minds popularity of the Arts and Entertainment cable network's "Duck Dynasty" reality television series. Dynasty follows the "day-to-day" life of a mostly backwoods Louisiana living-off-the-land-type redneck family, who happen to run a successful a duck-call manufacturer (if you can believe that). Being dyed-in-the-wool, God-fearing, hard-patriotic, hard-hunting, hard-drinking, hard-fun-loving types of individuals, you can imagine that the family—and their members—might just harbor some attitudes and ideas about life that simply don't conform to the all-inclusiveness aspirations of a society hell-bent on making everyone happy. Just looking at the family, any such ideas shouldn't come as a surprise (at the risk of prejudging). But strangely enough, the words and thoughts of an elder from the television-spotlighted family actually shocked a large portion of sensitive Americans.

The cast of "Duck Dynasty"

As a result, once again as a nation we're forced to confront not only another serving of numbskullery from television network producers, but the fallout from yet another case whereby a television personality is forced to endure the barbs and arrows of those who would seek to police the thinking of those of us who would dare to speak our minds. The issue this time around centers on remarks made by an elder-family member from the mind-numbing weekly show.
In an interview with GQ magazine (here), Phil Robertson, the elder of the now-famous Robertson family the show follows and founder of the family business candidly gave his opinions about—among other things—his thoughts on homosexuality. In responding to the question "what in your mind is sinful," posed by GQ reporter Drew Magary, the unapologetic conservative Southern Christian responded:

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

Needless to say, this set off a furor in both the press and society at large. The sanctions came fast and furious; Robertson was suspended from being part of the filming of further episodes of the show. Keep in mind that this was an interview about Robertson's personal thoughts and views, not a man running for public office or calling a press conference to shout out his beliefs.
More and more, it seems the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech without government impediments is becoming irrelevant in a society where private enterprise and public interest groups are able to level socioeconomic sanctions that not only attempt to enforce political correctness of thought, but punish words and personal opinions. In fact, given the ubiquity of such policies in the public and private sectors, the way these institutions are able to enforce and impose "corrections" for daring to speak out has more than the force of law itself. This social policy is more of a threat to our collective civil liberties relating to Free Speech than anything the government is doing at the moment.

Now in the interest of full-disclosure, before this issue came to light, I hadn't even heard of "Duck Dynasty." And being agnostic, I can honestly say that I do not purport to know or even predict where a person's soul goes in the Hereafter due to their actions in the Herenow. But I'll wager that that "God" is not in the cell phone contacts of anyone presumptuous (and arrogant) enough to inform another person that they are doomed to Hell (or some other spiritual torment) for not embracing someone else's dogma—I know He/She isn't in mine. However, I am of the mindset that whenever someone says something stupid, unreasonable, or judgmental, the best means to deal with it is to either ignore it or say something more intelligent and reasonable as a counter. Imposed censorship and/or sanctions, especially whereas they affect a person's livelihood is not the way to counter a person's right to express their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of what someone believes, everyone deserves their say—without being forced to the carpet for it.
Any sanctions for expressing one's personal opinions should come naturally. If a CEO of a major corporation says something offensive to a particular group, then people have a right not to purchase what that firm produces as a natural consequence. If you don't like what you read here, you have every right to leave a response with something more reasonable to say as a counter to the postings...or you can ignore it altogether and leave. But contacting my employer and telling him that I should be fired for offending your "sensitivities" is not a valid, or even a civilized response. Such actions prevent the free exchange of ideas and thoughts, which is how policies and laws are formed. It is also how we evolve overall as a species. J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-555543841449237542013-11-20T12:45:00.001-05:002014-01-18T08:52:25.099-05:00Obamacare & The Lack of Loyal (Or Smart) Opposition

I have been, and always will be a proponent of the idea that health care should not be a marketable commodity, but a basic right in the same vein as a compulsory public education. Opponents of this notion seem to be missing a clear view of the Big Picture. Sure, it would be nice if we could live in a society where people were allowed to "decide for themselves" to forgo necessary services like health care insurance without tangible repercussions—the ostensible argument made by universal health care opponents. But allowing individuals the "freedom" to make decisions that on the surface don't seem capable of affecting others flies in the face of sound fiscal economics. For instance, allowing individuals the right to drop out of school will invariably cost society more in the long run. Study after study points to a lack of basic education (opportunities) tends to result increased chances of becoming reliant of welfare, fewer job prospects, and higher probabilities of being incarcerated—all of which have a burdensome economic impact on society as a whole.
The uninsured tend to cost everyone—insured and uninsured alike—more in the long run due to their propensity to allow minor health concerns to evolve into major health issues, their lack of engaging in preventative health care regimes, and the higher cost they incur for later attending of health care concerns—all of which resulting in higher costs for health-related services, insurance premiums, and percentage of government's part subsidizing these increased costs.
President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) was the first major attempt in decades to provide a sizable chunk of uninsured Americans a modicum of health care coverage, and address this financially unsustainable health care regime. As radical an idea as it is, Obamacare is something of a compromise; it leverages aspects of the open market to attempt to increase coverage for more Americans while avoiding the stigma of "socialism" inherent in the European model of a single-payer plan—despite passing the initiative with a "supermajority" of Democrats in Congress. Naysayers' predictable doom and gloom for the ACA from the start. Supporters reluctantly embraced the hope that the ACA would be a welcome alternative to unaffordability and arbitrary rejection for those with preexisting conditions (which the ACA prohibited). But let's just say it…Obamacare (as it had been dubbed) seems to be headed due south in the popularity department. And the issues regarding the government-sponsored online insurance sign-up registry hasn't helped its likability.
And while I certainly don't need the likes of Sarah Palin to inform me that Obamacare doesn't seem to be finding its successful footing, the fact she manages to continue to secure airtime in her attempt to maintain political relevancy says a lot about why we in America cannot provide a serious application to revamp health care affordability. Sure, Palin and her ilk love to chant "get rid of Obamacare," but when asked to provide an alternative to doing so, the crickets take over. We got a chance to witness this reality last week on NBC's Today show when host Matt Lauer allowed Palin to once again-seemingly successfully I might add—hit the snooze button on her 15 minutes of fame. Predictably, Palin engaged in so many oppositional talking points that the "interview" (for want of a better term) seemed like two people in the same room having 2 different conversations at times (watch below).

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-d7ab6648458a1487" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Dd7ab6648458a1487%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D56A014B8C634C53CFF30B2940C5BFFA04065D7E2.1847D86DCBEC5C08CB04EC1E4BA3ABEA3A1B466D%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Dd7ab6648458a1487%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D-8iLwVMpqHldkJthEbMFtIz3VCs&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3Dd7ab6648458a1487%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D56A014B8C634C53CFF30B2940C5BFFA04065D7E2.1847D86DCBEC5C08CB04EC1E4BA3ABEA3A1B466D%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Dd7ab6648458a1487%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D-8iLwVMpqHldkJthEbMFtIz3VCs&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

Palin's positions lacked substance, suggestions, or anything beyond the assertion that Obamacare was in fact an exercise "socialism" that was worthy of shutting down the government in an effort to repeal the new law. As Lauer struggled to get Palin to nail down a less ambiguous alternative to addressing the unaffordability of health care insurance, Palin responded with more talking points and counter policy ambiguities. It was like listening to a child explain why cooties are bad…totally unable to define what they are, but speak a great deal as to why they are "bad." And this exchange is a testament as to why health insurance affordability and/or coverage will always be an issue that probably won't be addressed substantively any time soon.—the lack of loyal opposition to what we have now.
What passes for opposition to the ACA currently is nothing more than vague references to "socialism," and how bad it is. There are no alternatives coming from the opposition. The 1 or 2 there are involve nothing "tax credits" and "other suggestions offered by Republicans" that fail to address the issue at heart. Anything remotely tied to the old, outdated system of employer-based health insurance—when our service-based economy doesn't pay the average worker enough to afford getting sick, yet alone paying for any hospitalization—isn't going to work…tax credits notwithstanding. Allowing "job creators" to maintain the freedom to decide who they will cover and who they will not doesn't allow for "spreading risks" needed to lower costs. And allowing self-serving dullards like Palin, who have nothing more to contribute to the discourse other than vagueness, ambiguities, and ideological talking points that don't amount to anything more than ramblings of political opportunists who profess to "love America" doesn't do anything other than continue to entrench our country in political fragmentation. J Simshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-43047879709132235952013-10-31T07:41:00.001-04:002013-10-31T12:31:30.717-04:00Will The Real Tea Party Please Stand Up...?Note: Apologies to those who are regular readers to BTPS. I have been working on a few projects to be published soon. Needless to say that these projects have kept me noticeably absent from regular blogging. However, I promise that I will soon be back to full-blogging strength here and on my various other blogs.

When you're dead, you don't actually know you're dead; it just affects those around you. Being a political extremist in America is a lot like being dead; you don't know you're an extremist, but it affects those around you just the same. One of two major differences between the two realities is that the dead cannot convince themselves that they are dead—as they are absent of consciousness—while those who make their intellectual homes with the margins of political fringe thinking can routinely convince themselves that they are "true patriots" or "real Americans." The rest of us apparently are self-delusional, intellectual dullards who took the blue pill.
Now that Congress has successfully kicked the budget can down the road until early next year, it should become apparent that this is the reality of the state of politics within our government. Egged-on by the "real Americans" known as the Tea Party, favorite party son, Senator Ted Cruz of Florida led a doomed-from-the-start effort to tie creating a federal budget deal to continue to run the government's day-to-day business with his (and the Tea Party's) disdain for President Obama's signature health care reform law, hoping to get the last defunded—or revoked entirely. Ostensibly, this effort on the part of Cruz to revoke funding for the health care law was to trim the budget and curtail federal spending by the government. If it were the true motive, it would indeed be laudable. However (and at the risk of painting all Tea Party-backed

 Florida Republican Senator (and Tea Party favorite) Ted Cruz

Congressmen with a broad paintbrush), most of the grandstanding on the part of Cruz and his Congressional cohorts was mostly political, a transparent effort to garner favor with the "real Americans" back in their home districts (although I will concede the benefit of the doubt and grant that not every member of the Tea Party caucus in Congress are as self-interests-driven as Cruz and the other "patriots"). Needless to say, despite being cheered on by supporters, the effort failed miserably. In fact, this effort on Cruz and the Tea Party's part to avoid compromising on any budget proposal in exchange revoking funding for Obama's (bad attempt to reform) health care failed to not only trim government spending, but the resulting government shutdown cost the country some $24 billion in lost economic output according to the Standard and Poor's ratings agency (see: "How Much Did the Shutdown Cost The Economy?"). Even anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist called

Cruz and his allies as "defund terrorists." Norquist previously slammed those who tried to use the government shutdown to roll back the Affordable Care Act by saying, "They hurt the conservative movement, they hurt people's health care, they hurt the country's economic situation and they hurt the Republican Party" ("Grover Norquist Slams Ted Cruz").

Already, Cruz and many within the Tea party have attributed the failure of the effort to defund Obamacare and the lack of any tangible results—at least by their standards—to "turncoat" mainstream Republicans who dared to strike a compromise rather than support the Tea party's failed effort. Of course it would never cross their minds of Cruz and the Tea Party that they represent an extreme point of view, that they lack general support because of this, or that they are on the fringes of political ideology…it's the rest of us. It's what they "see," not how they see it that's at fault. Of course!
Part of their philosophy (and political strategy) is to "prove" how "overstated" forced spending cuts like those from the sequester from earlier this year, the shutdown from 2 weeks ago, and failure to raise the deficit ceiling is, and that such sudden spending halts would be more beneficial to the nation's fiscal solvency than the harm that almost every reputable economist has projected. But to Tea Partiers, the more level-headed among the rest of us are either "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only), "liberals," "brainwashed by the media," or "socialists." Their mantra is simply to "stop government spending," with no hint or reasonable suggestion as to how.
A proposed Balanced Budget Amendment wouldn't work simply because inflexible requirements to spend within a budgetary limit every year are not realistic—they do not account for cycles of economic boom and bust and the need to readjust spending to compensate. And inserting provisions to allow for exceeding budget spending limits based on exigent circumstances wouldn't work because—as we have seen—the two major parties can't even agree on what day of the week it is, yet along be expected to compromise on major spending issues such as what defines extenuating circumstances that calls for more (or less) spending.
All-out cutting much needed programs would harm those who need them (although I will admit that some programs are surely riddled with costly lack of oversight and (as a result) abuse. And besides that, austerity spending measures worked so "well" in Europe... (sarcasm alert).
Reforming entitlements is a good start, but let's face it…neither party wants to give up any sacred cows that might cost their membership(or their party) an election or legislative control. What will work? Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, but holding policymaking hostage to ideological demands, and basing policy on ideology rather than the reality of need and pragmatism is definitely not the way. However, the most logical start to balancing the budget would be a combination of taxes and hard-choice spending cuts (which includes accounting for every paperclip or errant piece of paper if necessary).
The Tea Party has proven itself capable of exerting political pressure, getting their favorite elected officials to office, and organizing itself into a formidable political force. But its extremist views and rigid adherence to ideology (rather than reality) does not benefit all Americans (deny if you will, but it's the truth). This organized group counts among its membership (and supports) the most intolerant and xenophobic of Americans. Those who have kept up with their various marches, rallies, and public protests have seen the pictures and heard the quotes—they are present at almost every numerically significant Tea Party rally (I provided a few in the event that denies attempt to portray these appearances as aberrations with the organization).

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch (a conservative political advocacy group) and Tea Party ally during the government shutdown. According to Klayman, American is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'" "I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out" (see: "Larry Klayman Defends Obama-Islam Link").

Its funny how being dead and being a political extremist in America seem to have some things in common. The other major difference between the two is that it seems to be easier to convince of a dead person of their station in life than to convince one of these so-called "real Americans" that they are not purveyors of true American ideas, but are obstructionists who could refocus their goals and energy on something that could benefit all Americans, and not just those who they deem as "real Americans"—their rhetoric about "personal rights" notwithstanding.

Tea Party supporter and protester Michael Ashmore stands in front of the White House recently during the Congressional breakdown in budget talks and the attempt to defund Obamacare by Senator Ted Cruz the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.  J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-78879445831412565062013-08-21T20:01:00.002-04:002013-08-22T07:59:16.332-04:00Opinion: "I'm So Sick of "Crazy" People!"I have a big problem with individuals with a past history of some sort of mental illness—diagnosed or otherwise—committing mass shootings or other crimes involving mass casualties. More to the point, it's mass shootings involving "troubled individuals" that causes me to lose my objectivity and riles my dander.
In many cases, such "troubled" individuals seem to have an innate urge to inflict mass casualties on the youngest, most vulnerable of us—children or adults gathered public places such as schools, houses of worship, or other centers of public accommodation. Yesterday, another such instance was averted in Decatur, Georgia. During the incident, 20-year-old Michael Brandon Hill walked into the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy with an AK-47 assault rifle and other weapons. Hill held staff members in the front office captive, all the while terrorizing the campus by firing his rifle into the air and at arriving police officers. One of the captives, a bookkeeper talked Hill down from what by all indications was his attempt to commit a mass casualty shooting at the school. He eventually gave himself up before going through with his telegraphed intent (See: "Michael Brandon Hill, Accused Georgia School Gunman, Threatened to Kill Brother, Police Say").

Would-be school shooter and mass-murderer Michael Brandon Hill Booking Photo

During the time he held the staff captive, Hill indicated that he had wanted to die, and that he "was sorry for what he was doing." And of course, it was revealed after Hill's arrest that he had past issues of "mental issues." I take umbrage with the issue of "mental issues" being the cause of such offenses. I simply refuse to believe that such individuals are not "crazy" as such. They have enough presence of mind to know that attacking children would tug at the heartstrings of most Americans in the worst way. They seem to have a sense that hurting innocent children (or innocent adults) inflicts emotional pain, outrage, and grief on their loved ones, and pretty much garners the nation's attention.
I would submit that this need to attention, even infamy, speaks to a reality that such individuals are not so divorced from reality or even lucid thinking that they are not aware of their actions.
We have become a nation mental and emotional hypochondriacs, ever-ready to blame our deep-seated unresolved emotional and mental/"mental" issues on whatever malady gives us a pass to excuse our own negative behaviors.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I can recall a time when people would embrace denial about mental and emotional issues that only slightly impaired their social functionality and ability to interact; most would do anything to avoid such labels (and their social implications). But somewhere along the line, we lowered our aversion to being stigmatized by mental/emotional impairments. It's now gotten to the point where we as a nation are hair-trigger quick to use such impairments as an excuse for our lack of self-restraint and discipline. I can recall once during my years as a long-term substitute teachers working with at-risk (read: "mentally/emotionally-impaired") youth where one such labeled student told me, "You can't make me do that…I'm 'Special Ed.'"
I would think that those with true debilitating mental and emotional issues would be offended by so many claiming to be so "impaired." It's like when a persistent man enamored with a woman pursues her for a date; many so pursued women will threaten legal action for being "stalked." Labeling every infatuated man looking for a date as a "stalker" weakens the impact and legitimacy of the offense. It's the same with calling every personal issue a debilitating "emotional-" or "mental issue;" it weakens the legitimacy of those who suffer from true mental impairment.
I've seen kids and adults with supposed "anger-management issues," who "take drugs for my issues" manage to control those same supposed "issues" when confronted with truly angry individuals who have no scruples about teaching them their place on the social pecking order. It's both laughable and quite annoying at the same time.
Bradley Manning, the former army soldier who was sentenced yesterday to 35 years in prison for leaking classified military information to the online whistleblower site, WikiLakes, asserted his "gender-identity issues" as a contributing factor for his actions.
In 2005, an armed federal air marshal shot and killed a man on an airplane in Miami because he had claimed to "have a bomb in his carry-on backpack," while running up and down the aisle of the airplane frantically. Despite his history of "bi-polar" issues (as revealed by family members), he had enough of a grasp on reality to know that saying "bomb" on an airplane in a post 9/11, still-alarmed America would garner a response of panic among those on board.
We truly need to stop allowing people to use supposed "mental" and "emotional" issues as an excuse for engaging in behavior which is fully within their ability to control. We tend to criticize those with self-restraint and discipline as being "uptight" and/or "prudish." But there is a great deal we can learn from such individuals, such as self-control and personal responsibility for one's own actions.
There is "crazy" and there is crazy. What Michael Hill did Tuesday was not "crazy;" it was a calculated action, despite his history of bi-polar issues. "Crazy" would be Hill or some other "disturbed" individual walking onto a military base or inside a police station full of armed and trained men more than willing to shoot back if threatened in the same manner school children occasionally are.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-44cc4e86b0bcbc35" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D44cc4e86b0bcbc35%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D359FCC3238753AFC50934123074CFA4FE61BAA41.84BFEE6B670E8209E48922AB53B59BF2DEA6F5EE%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D44cc4e86b0bcbc35%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DF6odlnlP6KUeSiFd0hZd2eNIpt8&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D44cc4e86b0bcbc35%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D359FCC3238753AFC50934123074CFA4FE61BAA41.84BFEE6B670E8209E48922AB53B59BF2DEA6F5EE%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D44cc4e86b0bcbc35%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3DF6odlnlP6KUeSiFd0hZd2eNIpt8&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-64576593960643120442013-08-20T19:39:00.001-04:002013-08-20T19:52:26.562-04:00The Health Care Conundrum – A Personal Narrative

Note: I realize that Beyond The Political Spectrum has many readers from various European countries. And in acknowledge of this fact, I have taken the liberty of converting American dollar values to Euros in order to give this issue some contextual clarification.

There's a young man with whom I work with—let's call him "John"—who happens to share the same predicament which thousands, if not millions of Americans are forced to endure. Twenty-something year-old "John" has a wife and two young children. As the only current breadwinner in his family, John is looking to purchase health insurance coverage for his entire family. The problem "John" has is that he only earns $9.00 an hour (approximately €6.70), while the health insurance offered by his employer is prohibitively expensive.
How expensive? According to the prices listed on the copy of the Benefits (Plan) Selection I obtained, the cost to "John" to cover his family of four with the basic, no-frills plan (with a high deductable between $2,500 and $5,000/€3356 and €6712) is $420.76 (€318.63), deducted from his paycheck bi-weekly. Those of you with a firm grasp of math can immediately see the problem. Earning only $9.00 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week, "John" brings home approximately $720 bi-weekly (€536). That means that over half of his take home pay would go to pay for health care coverage for himself and his family. From what's left over, he has to cover rent, utilities, and basics like food. Because the particular health care option—the only option—the employer offers is so expensive, "John" and other employees have opted to go without.

This personal anecdote came to mind as I took note of the recent vote in the House of Representatives in Congress. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority in Congress' lower chamber voted for the 40-somethingth time to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act we know as "Obamacare." Ignoring for the moment that the majority of these same opponents of the new health care law were shouting to the top of their collective lungs during last year's presidential elections that the economy was the biggest concern of the American people, it's pretty hard for anyone to rationally reconcile how trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act jives with fixing our broken economy. Among some Republican leadership, this dim reality had been acknowledged. Old School Republican and former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently chided the current Republican legislators in Congress when he reminded them that "congressional Republicans would have 'zero answer' for how to replace the president's health care overhaul when asked, despite their having voted repeatedly to repeal the measure" (See: "GOP Pushes Rising Stars Amid Calls For Solutions").
Sure, there's a lot of rhetoric being bandied around about how Obamacare is a "job-killer" (and yes, there is some anecdotal instances that some jobs may be adversely affected by implementation of the new law), but the lack of any Republican-sponsored alternative to reforming the current economically unsustainable health care finance model indicates that simple economics is not at the heart of opposition to reform. It's more likely that not allowing the president and his Democratic allies a policy victory is at the center of the opposition.
If in fact, reforming how we pay for health care in this country were an actual priority, then simply cutting government spending in expendable areas is the most obvious place to start. Both people and the leadership we elect have to consider making the hard choices when it comes to spending priorities. Do we want the ability to be able to pay for healthcare, or is funding programs like Head Start—a program whose overall effectiveness as a kick start to fostering positive childhood experiences in school (and in life) is still a matter of debate—more important? Do we take steps to eliminate the chief reason for Americans filing bankruptcy year-to-year—the inability to pay prohibitively costly medical bills—or do we continue to pay for wars on countries that aren't an actual threat to our nation's security and interests? Do we create an atmosphere whereby people like "John" can afford to cover his families with health insurance, or do we continue to give "job-generating" tax breaks to "job creators." Job Creators…you know, those people who provide people like "John" with $9.00 an hour jobs that offer us health insurance options that we cannot afford to pay for?
As I think of "John" in the context of political opposition to health care affordability, it's hard to ignore the irony that the officials we elect to craft policies such as health care affordability are comfortably covered by the government-sponsored insurance which "John's" taxes pay for.

See also: "Universal Healthcare - How Other Countries Do It" and "The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Look At The Industry" J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-59629712736916684032013-07-28T11:27:00.001-04:002013-07-28T11:29:47.554-04:00National Security, Electronic Surveillance, And Civil Liberties - A Rational Perspective

Last post, I touched on the issue of electronic domestic surveillance by the federal government. I focused primarily on Edward Snowden, and his now international—for want of a better term—crusade to bring the extent of the government's efforts to the attention of the American people (See: "Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?"). Yes, I agree that Snowden's since then escapades on the global stage have turned the issue more into a focus on his celebrity more than the issue itself, but there is a bigger picture within the "Edward Snowden Show" that needs attention. That often overlooked issue is that of the complexity of maintaining the balance between preserving the civil liberties and privacy concerns of Americans and working to preserve the security of the nation on the whole in the post-9/11 world.
How can Americans understand the necessity of this balance, and appreciate the need to go to extraordinary lengths in extraordinary times…especially when half of the people see the government in the worst light, and the other half rely too much on it? For the record, there are checks and balances built into the government's efforts with regard to using electronic surveillance to thwart would-be terrorists. The information gathered tends to be peripheral rather than detailed content acquisition. Secondly, the focus is on those within the nation's borders who might have contact with those outside the country, who are of questionable intent (yes, I'm fully aware and understand that those who might be able to cognitively process this concept may still harbor mistrust of the government—without a basis—based on preconceived thinking, some from the "they're going to take our gun crowd" and some from the "this is another way the rich maintain power" crowd)
Now, with that being said, Friday night on HBO'S "Real Time with Bill Maher," the comedian/social critic used the final segment of his weekly "New Rules" segment to speak a great level of level-headed sense into how we should approach the issue of the government's eavesdropping policies. If you are willing to suspend your ability to be irritated by delivery and focus on the message (not the messenger), please give Maher's cold-water perspective the government's electronic surveillance a look…and maybe come away with something other than a bumper-sticker slogan about policy.

<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOG_video_class" id="BLOG_video-c4cf556d42a8126" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/get_player"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D0c4cf556d42a8126%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D94AF67B2D0E221B285DCD65E69CD080125AF9045.4A1CC5EC1F43546C8E8AD9454B20D8A7F6B322C5%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D0c4cf556d42a8126%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D7w_dZsmxUgREdc6QS8J0Cc2Uxbc&autoplay=0&ps=blogger"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/get_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="266" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="flvurl=https://redirector.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?id%3D0c4cf556d42a8126%26itag%3D5%26source%3Dblogger%26requiressl%3Dyes%26app%3Dblogger%26cmo%3Dsecure_transport%3Dyes%26cmo%3Dsensitive_content%3Dyes%26ip%3D0.0.0.0%26ipbits%3D0%26expire%3D1497827372%26sparams%3Dip,ipbits,expire,id,itag,source,requiressl%26signature%3D94AF67B2D0E221B285DCD65E69CD080125AF9045.4A1CC5EC1F43546C8E8AD9454B20D8A7F6B322C5%26key%3Dck2&iurl=http://video.google.com/ThumbnailServer2?app%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D0c4cf556d42a8126%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw160%26sigh%3D7w_dZsmxUgREdc6QS8J0Cc2Uxbc&autoplay=0&ps=blogger" allowFullScreen="true" /></object>

J Simshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-5007538540383405389.post-37603525959782166902013-07-23T17:33:00.000-04:002013-07-23T21:52:06.912-04:00Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?I am as concerned about the potential for federal government overreach as any rational citizen—when such concern is warranted. I add that last qualification because I know that we share the country with those who seem to represent the paranoid fringe—that see every government action as an infringement on personal liberties. Yes, I am very much concerned about the issue of the federal government potentially snooping through my e-mails, listening in on my cell phone calls, or watching where I surf online. To that point, I thank former government National Security Agency (NSA) contracted employee Edward Snowden for bringing such concerns to the American public.
However, I also realize that maintaining the national security is a lot like making sausage; its best to know how not it's done if you want to continue to enjoy what comes with living in a free society. Before Snowden opted to turn the issue of electronic domestic spying by our government into the "The Edward Snowden Reality Show," it was easier to view him favorably as a "whistleblower" on questionable government activities. But since his initial revelations about the government's electronic eavesdropping policy, Snowden has decided to reveal himself (i.e., his identity) to the world as the source of these revelations. In addition, he—in the mistaken, self-centered belief that he would be greeted with flowers and hailed as an information liberator—has been found to have collected other sensitive information materials related to the American government's clandestine activities with regard electronic surveillance on the nation's allies and adversaries alike. Some of this information has been subsequently leaked to the international press.

 Edward Snowden

And instead of remaining anonymous as a source of issue concern to the American people, Snowden has seemingly gone out of his way to cultivate a cult of self-importance around himself and his actions. What's more, Snowden is feeding his narcissism by seeking approval from and asylum in countries whose record of human rights and civil liberties abuses make electronic eavesdropping by the feds seem harmless by comparison. These countries—Russia, China, and Ecuador among them—have wasted little time in using Snowden's high-profile status and revelations as a cause célèbre to bludgeon America over the head in the realm of geopolitical public relations. These countries can now assert that America is in no position to lecture others about apparent civil liberties violations as they point to the country's domestic spying…thus giving them a free hand to act without the strength of international condemnation for questionable actions.
And with all of the trouble Snowden has caused for the government both domestically and internationally, the authorities would like to talk with Snowden and "discuss" the legalities of collecting classified information, abusing his security clearance, and (potentially) sharing information with countries the government considers less-than-friendly to the interests of America. Ironically, these countries don't seem to want the headaches that come accepting Snowden's request for political asylum, as he travels the world seeking refuge from an infuriated U.S. government. In addition, the country's adversaries now know that, with confirmation, how the U.S. uses electronic surveillance to keep tabs on any moves which might conflict with the nation's security and global interests.

At first, I'd wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son's decisions. Last month on NBC's "The Today Show," Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if "certain conditions are met," including "not detaining Snowden before trial." The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden (See: "Edward Snowden's Father Says Son May Return If Conditions Met") . Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. At first, I'd wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son's decisions. Last month on NBC's "The Today Show," Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if "certain conditions are met," including "not detaining Snowden before trial." The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden. Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. It might be easy to dismiss the senior Snowden's galling gesture as a father's protecting his son were it not for also for an open letter he'd subsequently written to the Obama Administration. In the letter, Leo Snowden compared his son's raising the alarm over domestic electronic spying to Paul Revere's midnight ride warning Americans of the impending arrival of the invading British Redcoats. In the letter, authored with his lawyer's help, Snowden presumes to be warning "the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government" (See: "Edward Snowden's Father, In Letter, Compares Son To Paul Revere, Assails Administration"). The grandiose comparison was all I needed to know in order to understand that the apple indeed doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Now, ignoring the fact that if Snowden had engaged in such actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 or during the Cold War, there would have been a unanimous call for his head on a silver platter—including from his own family—Snowden's "well-intentioned" (?) actions were lost as he interjected too much of his own self-importance into the mix. Some might agree with such a hyperbolic comparison, but what separates Snowden's actions from the grandiose delusions both he and his father harbor is that, unlike Paul Revere, very few are listening to Edward Snowden. Ideally, I would like to attribute such silence to the realization by most Americans that fear of a "tyrannical federal government" is a fringe paranoia of those who place too much emphasis on "states rights" as a gateway to imposing laws at that particular level of government which more than would (ironically) infringe on the rights of others (those seeking open access to abortions, those of the same gender seeking marriage recognition, etc.). However, I know better. The lack of a vocal wholehearted support for Snowden is probably a silent acknowledgement of such unfounded fears.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden's actions have done to one aspect of the government's attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden's actions have done to one aspect of the government's attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats. Warning Americans of egregious violations of civil liberties and illegal activities by our government is laudable, but Snowden's actions not only obscured his intentions, but his narcissism blinded him to the very real world ramifications of his actions to our government's ability to function in order to maintain national security. Subsequent explanations by the government of its actions revealed that detailed information is not being accumulated in ways such as those depicted in the 1990's espionage thriller "Enemy of the State." If revelations of true and real threats by our government are to be considered, they should be done so by someone with more altruistic intentions, and less self-centeredness than an Edward Snowden.J Simshttps://email@example.com