I have - and have always had - trouble relating to people, "clicking" with them. Small talk and "chitchat" are things that I can work sometimes. Other times? Not so much.
For me, some subjects are more relatable than others - I can talk about the weather, but I can't talk about football (American or otherwise). I can talk about ice hockey, but I can't talk about Kardashians. I can talk about movies, but I can't talk about video games. I can talk about a million insubstantial things, but I have no interest in a hundred million others. If you think of small talk as an important starting point to any relationship or potential relationship, you'll look at it differently, because honestly: how many people in your life - NOT counting family or anyone who's been in your orbit since both of you learned to walk - started out from the first moment with a deep, satisfying conversation about a mutual interest?
At this point, I'm going to repeat the title of this entry, because it bears repeating: your refusal to engage in small talk is making you seem like an insufferable arse.
Explanation is in order, though, because it's not my aim to be insulting.
If you're interested in adding people to your collection, in making friends, you're going to have to wade through some small talk. Instead of thinking of it as something to endure, why not have some fun with it?
If someone lobs you a "Did you watch the game last night?", you may be tempted to roll your eyes, heave a long-suffering sigh, and turn your back on them. Instead, why not catch it, put a spin on it, and throw it back? You know: "I was actually playing a game of Quidditch" or "I was listening to Death-Metal-Free-Jazz and reading The Collected Works Of Franz Kafka" or "I was knitting a sweater and watching CNN" or "I was writing Firefly fanfiction", or whatever thing you were doing instead of watching the game. You never know when you're going to discover common ground - just because someone likes sports (or reality TV or pop music you can't stand or something else to which you are indifferent) shouldn't automatically disqualify them from "auditioning". You and that person might dovetail in every way except for their chosen icebreaker, but you won't find out if you refuse to participate in the icebreaker-y stuff.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Friday, August 21, 2015
Not Lions
I know a lot of people who post status updates to Facebook about how skilled and proficient they are when it comes to pissing people off, and they seem to be proud of it. Pleased with themselves over their ability to irritate other people, enough so that some of them seem to use the internet almost exclusively to learn new ways to be annoying.
Myself, I have a strong tendency to- I don't avoid contact with people, not exactly. It's more right to say that I don't ordinarily seek out interaction with other people, and in most cases it has nothing to do with them. I don't have anything against people as a group or as individuals, for the most part. Individuals and groups of people have all kinds of goofy, unreasonable, stubborn, dangerous, misguided, and distasteful tendencies and attitudes, sure. But that's their thing, not mine. I like life, the universe, and everything better when there aren't people around.
That said, I can and I will interact with people. I can do small-talk as well as I can do thoughtful conversation.
Anyway, I see it in the real world as well: too many anecdotes have to do either with effectively pissing people off, or with being pissed off by other people.
Why is this a credential, a worthwhile skill?
Is it that some people so enjoy being pissed off that they can't imagine how everyone else doesn't also love it, and they think they're doing everyone a favor?
Is it that they can't - or won't - stand up to whoever pissed them off, so they take it out on alternate safe targets?
Is it simply for the sake of being a dick?
Or could it be because it's so very easy to do? I think this last one is most likely because, you know - minimal effort, instant results. But... Why is it so easy to piss people off? That's pretty easy, I think - it's because of the never-back-down attitude, the don't-take-no-shit attitude.
Pride.
The stubborn little crittur that keeps you thinking that yours is the only opinion that matters. The one that won't let you admit that you were wrong, keeping you in denial on the train tracks despite the growing evidence of Imminent, Severe Bodily Harm By Train. You might die, sure. You might even be horribly and permanently damaged and disfigured.
But at least you stood your ground.
I have an anecdote of my own. Not one about getting hit by a train, fortunately, but one in which I Prided Up and Stood My Ground.
I suppose I was 21 or 22, exactly the right age for clan elders to allow me to join the mastodon hunting parties, had the mastodon not so recently been hunted to extinction....
I was working nights at the time, and a random ne'er-do-well took advantage of the night-time darkness to relieve my car of one of its taillight lenses. When I discovered the missing car part at the end of a night shift, I was Pissed Off. Mostly because "Why-Can't-You-Keep-Your-Fucking-Hands-Off-My-Stuff?", but also because Being Pissed Off was one of my favorite hobbies when I was that age.
I was quick to share my Righteous-Pissed-Off-Ed-Ness with anyone and everyone who would listen, one of the better listeners being a guy named Bill. He listened to my ranting and raving with little or no comment until I got to the main point of my speech, which was this:
"Anyone who steals anything should go to jail!"
Which is a thing I said with a face that looked a little bit like this: DX
It might be because Bill wasn't suffering PTSD over missing car parts, or because he was more level-headed generally, but he was more reasonable about the situation.
"Anyone?" He asked. "Who steals anything?"
"Yes! That's correct!" (DX)
"So... You've never stolen anything."
It was at that point that I vapor-locked. I opened my mouth to speak, then closed it again.
I opened it for another try, then closed it again.
That's when Pride elbowed Righteous Indignation to the side and convinced me to Stand My Ground.
"No," I insisted. "Never in my life. Not once."
"Uh-huh," he replied, giving me That Look before walking off.
Did I look like an ass? Definitely!
But I didn't back down!
Myself, I have a strong tendency to- I don't avoid contact with people, not exactly. It's more right to say that I don't ordinarily seek out interaction with other people, and in most cases it has nothing to do with them. I don't have anything against people as a group or as individuals, for the most part. Individuals and groups of people have all kinds of goofy, unreasonable, stubborn, dangerous, misguided, and distasteful tendencies and attitudes, sure. But that's their thing, not mine. I like life, the universe, and everything better when there aren't people around.
That said, I can and I will interact with people. I can do small-talk as well as I can do thoughtful conversation.
Anyway, I see it in the real world as well: too many anecdotes have to do either with effectively pissing people off, or with being pissed off by other people.
Why is this a credential, a worthwhile skill?
Is it that some people so enjoy being pissed off that they can't imagine how everyone else doesn't also love it, and they think they're doing everyone a favor?
Is it that they can't - or won't - stand up to whoever pissed them off, so they take it out on alternate safe targets?
Is it simply for the sake of being a dick?
Or could it be because it's so very easy to do? I think this last one is most likely because, you know - minimal effort, instant results. But... Why is it so easy to piss people off? That's pretty easy, I think - it's because of the never-back-down attitude, the don't-take-no-shit attitude.
Pride.
The stubborn little crittur that keeps you thinking that yours is the only opinion that matters. The one that won't let you admit that you were wrong, keeping you in denial on the train tracks despite the growing evidence of Imminent, Severe Bodily Harm By Train. You might die, sure. You might even be horribly and permanently damaged and disfigured.
But at least you stood your ground.
I have an anecdote of my own. Not one about getting hit by a train, fortunately, but one in which I Prided Up and Stood My Ground.
I suppose I was 21 or 22, exactly the right age for clan elders to allow me to join the mastodon hunting parties, had the mastodon not so recently been hunted to extinction....
I was working nights at the time, and a random ne'er-do-well took advantage of the night-time darkness to relieve my car of one of its taillight lenses. When I discovered the missing car part at the end of a night shift, I was Pissed Off. Mostly because "Why-Can't-You-Keep-Your-Fucking-Hands-Off-My-Stuff?", but also because Being Pissed Off was one of my favorite hobbies when I was that age.
I was quick to share my Righteous-Pissed-Off-Ed-Ness with anyone and everyone who would listen, one of the better listeners being a guy named Bill. He listened to my ranting and raving with little or no comment until I got to the main point of my speech, which was this:
"Anyone who steals anything should go to jail!"
Which is a thing I said with a face that looked a little bit like this: DX
It might be because Bill wasn't suffering PTSD over missing car parts, or because he was more level-headed generally, but he was more reasonable about the situation.
"Anyone?" He asked. "Who steals anything?"
"Yes! That's correct!" (DX)
"So... You've never stolen anything."
It was at that point that I vapor-locked. I opened my mouth to speak, then closed it again.
I opened it for another try, then closed it again.
That's when Pride elbowed Righteous Indignation to the side and convinced me to Stand My Ground.
"No," I insisted. "Never in my life. Not once."
"Uh-huh," he replied, giving me That Look before walking off.
Did I look like an ass? Definitely!
But I didn't back down!
Monday, June 8, 2015
In Which I Choose My Team
What if all of the conspiracy theories are true? I bet you know more than one:
"chemtrails" as a population-reduction scheme.
Vaccines being made from mercury, aborted fetuses, and unicorn blood, used only to keep you sick and a ready source of income for the healthcare industry. And to cause autism in children, can't forget that one.
GM crops are unstudied and dangerous.
Fluoride in our water is unnecessary and makes us more susceptible to mind control.
Climate change is liberal trickery.
On and on and on, all manner of zany nonsense. But...
What if every last one of them is true and factual, and all the tinfoil-hatted gizmoids screaming the loudest about chemtrails and about vaccines and about GMOs and about fluoride and about climate change and about everything under the sun... What if those people are Gub'mint Shills?
Oh, sure. There are plenty of people who swallow a premise hook, line, and sinker. I'm not talking about the rank-and-file; people demonstrate their eager willingness to serve as rousable rabble every single day. I'm talking about the charismatic leaders of the movements, the anti-vaccination camp. The anti-GMO people. The climate-change denialists.
What if they're in league with the airlines and the FAA, in league with Big pHARMa, in league with MonSatan, in league with the Illuminati and the Reptilians and the NWO? What if their mission is to trumpet their nonsense so loudly and so abrasively and so absurdly, to make such outrageous and ridiculous claims that even legitimate concerns - voiced quietly and reasonably - prompt nothing but eye-rolling and a dismissive wave?
For that scenario to work, all you'd really need is a group of people willing to sell themselves. If The Government and The Companies are willing to pay to set up "resistance" to themselves, and if the "resistance" can generate additional income on its own, well! Is it so difficult to imagine that there are enough ethics-challenged folk around to carry it out? While we're circling the drain, what if the other side - the scientists and experts, the people who know about these things - is in league with the first? Experts of all stripes, in every field of research, working in tandem with the tinfoil-hatted gizmoids.
There are some necessary ingredients: a population with a significant number of people who are unwilling and/or unable to think for themselves, with the bulk of the remainder more interested in their own personal day-to-day routines than they are in activism.
Check.
And a group who sneeringly loathes anyone who's earned a degree. The group who'd gnaw their arm off at the elbow before they'd learn something that falls outside their interests. The single-mindedly intelligence-averse.
Check.
You also need the contingent who's authority-phobic, from the boss at work all the way up to the Authorityest people in charge of everything, these people fear and hate and mistrust The Man so completely that they could be convinced of anything, as long as it disparages authority.
Check.
Additionally, you need the nonconformists. The ones who take pride in being "different" or "weird" or who are "going their own way". These are the folk who, when they've bought in to an... "unconventional" notion, will shout from the rooftops that they're "awake". Maybe they call people who don't share their beliefs "sheep" or "sheeple".
Check.
Also critical: a generous helping of know-it-alls. They're the ones who are not only smarter than everyone else - combined! - they also have an opinion about everything. One of their main opinions has to do with how dumb you are for having opinions of your own.
Check.
There's a lot of overlap between the groups, and they're all of them a dime a dozen. They're everywhere.
The final, crucial ingredient is the growing, arrogant belief that the majority of people - across all groups, reasonable and not-so-reasonable alike - seem to have: that they're entitled to their own set of facts. Within the confines of this belief, a personal opinion about anything from "my sportsball team is the best sportsball team!" to "Tang is the best drink there ever was!" becomes a rule set in stone. Deviation from whatever personal "fact" is at hand will not be tolerated. Ever. Any move not in perfect lock-step with the "fact" holder will be considered a personal attack. The "personal attack" will be met with surly resentment at the very least. In most cases, the person who loves tang will respond quickly and aggressively. And loudly.
Very loudly.
Before you know what's happening, you'll be backing away hastily, wanting nothing more than to be away from this suddenly-rabid oik who somehow managed to get
"I TORMENT YOUR GRANDMOTHER BY POOPING IN HER SHOES EVERY DAY WHILE KICKING HER DOG AND PLAYING THE BAGPIPES!!!!!"
from
"I never really liked Tang all that much."
If you're really unlucky, you'll meet one from the other end of the "Hold-Your-Ground-No-Matter-What" spectrum, one who's willing to punch, kick, and stomp a worshipful adoration of Tang into your stubborn head.
So, all the pieces are in place.
The majority of people are busy keeping their lawns immaculate or posting selfies on Facebook or making dinner or generally living their lives. For people who like to argue on the internet, though, the game is set and the players are ready to square off. Scientists and researchers, authorities in various fields, people who are well-educated, assuring the mainstream that "chemtrails" aren't what they think. That vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent. That GM agriculture and agricultural practices aren't tools of the devil. That fluoride isn't part of a mind-control scheme. That climate change is an actual thing they should worry about. That this thing and that thing and the other thing are harmless or beneficial or needn't concern anyone.
Naturally, the nonthinkers, sneering loathers, authority-phobes, nonconformists, and know-it-alls will receive these assurances poorly, dismiss the experts as liars and shills.
Because the experts are experts.
Because they're educated and they're intelligent, and they have the gall to show it.
For an alternative to the hoity-toity experts, how about a Vani Hari, a Jenny McCarthy, a "Dr." Sherri Tenpenny, a Mehmet Oz or two, a few John Edward types, some televangelists, hordes of ignorant lawmakers to "legitimize" them, and any number of media outlets to spread the word? Charismatic and attractive people without any credentials at all, or credentialed people without any regard for ethics at all, leading the charge against progress. Rousers for the rabble, a grassroots opposition movement. How about that?! A clever super-conspiratorial maneuver to deflect attention from The Truth!
If I were fashioning for myself the most spectacular of Shiny Tinfoil Hats, I'd pamphlet up a manifesto, take a marker to a sandwich board, and hit the streets tomorrow. I don't hold much truck with aluminum headwear, though. "Balderdash" is a word that comes to mind. Another is "poppycock".
This isn't to say that I trust our government or the companies.
Our government doesn't care about us, other than to keep us docile and content enough that we're not causing them too many problems. Oh, they'll throw us a bone once in a while - legislation about "rights" or "protections", the occasional tax break - but on the whole they're interested in us only as single taxpayers among millions.
Individually, we matter almost not at all. Elected officials' jobs include keeping us content-ish and focused on pop-culture fluff, sports, and any number of individual concerns - probably the ideal situation. If we get concerned with social or policy issues, the best-case scenario for them is for us to be facing off against each other, deeply divided on everything from liberal-vs-conservative "core" issues, spiraling all the way down to all the nonsensical "tastes-great/less-filling" disputes. They manage this through doing the rest of their job, which is legislating as the banks tell them to.
I don't trust any company any further than I could throw one - they're interested only in their bottom lines. From the manufacturers and sellers of the most frivolous impulse items all the way across the board to those of the most basic necessities, they're interested in quality and product safety and customer satisfaction only to the extent that you'll continue to buy what they sell. Our purpose is to work and consume. We are here to serve the economy.
With that in mind, I have a choice to make. I can side with the organic-only, stop-going-to-the-doctor, climate-change-denial crowds, or I can side with scientists and experts. Someone's lying to me.
Maybe everyone is.
On the one hand, if I throw my lot in with the science deniers I need to reject a lot of seemingly common-sense things, and the only way I could know for sure is to earn myself all the credentials necessary to work in each and every "controversial" field. And then spend enough time working in each and every "controversial" field to become competent.
That plan is hardly practicable, though. At my age I might be able to earn one doctoral degree and put it to use for a few years, but I'd be hard-pressed for time - if I'm going to live my life that way, if I'm going to fully embrace the paranoia, most of my time is going to be spent farming my sub-suburban lot. You know, because I don't trust food I didn't grow myself.
But I don't really know much of anything about agriculture, so I'll probably have to learn some farming techniques. And I can't see myself giving up bacon. Or tasty burgers, so I'm going to have to learn some animal husbandry. I guess that'll push back my starting-college date.
I'll have to make my own pesticides and herbicides as well, since I can't trust any Evil Chemical Companies. So I'll have to learn to do that.
Oh, and I'll have to become a mechanic. On account of how I can't trust some corporate flunky to botch equipment repairs so I have to keep going back.
And a blacksmith. I can't stomach the thought of propping up Big Hardware, so I'll need to make my own tools.
And an electrician. And a welder. And a plumber. And a veterinarian. And a carpenter. And an electronics repair technician. I'll probably have to become a computer and software engineer as well.
Thank goodness for Google University! I'll be an expert in all those things in a few weeks, and then I can start applying to colleges.
Or I could just do a little bit of simple math and pick the group that isn't lying to me in order to hide the lies they told me to get me scared enough to buy their book. Or their organic running shoes. Or their dietary supplements. The organic movement operates in the here-and-now, without thought for the future. The anti-vaccination types lie for profit in the short-term, without regard for public safety. The same goes for all for-profit, anti-progress miracle-item sellers.
I'm going to have to go with the experts and the scientists, the FDA and other regulatory agencies, and the medical establishment. For me, it comes together because the banks - who own and control everything - allow and/or encourage their lawmaking and public policy subsidiaries to endorse the safety of GMO foods, vaccines, medications, and hundreds of other "contentious" things. The banks - who own and control everything - have nothing to gain monetarily from poisoning us en masse, short- or long-term. Population isn't so much of a drain on resources that artificial reduction or control is a thing. Yet.
I have to be on the side that cares - at least peripherally - about my welfare.
"chemtrails" as a population-reduction scheme.
Vaccines being made from mercury, aborted fetuses, and unicorn blood, used only to keep you sick and a ready source of income for the healthcare industry. And to cause autism in children, can't forget that one.
GM crops are unstudied and dangerous.
Fluoride in our water is unnecessary and makes us more susceptible to mind control.
Climate change is liberal trickery.
On and on and on, all manner of zany nonsense. But...
What if every last one of them is true and factual, and all the tinfoil-hatted gizmoids screaming the loudest about chemtrails and about vaccines and about GMOs and about fluoride and about climate change and about everything under the sun... What if those people are Gub'mint Shills?
Oh, sure. There are plenty of people who swallow a premise hook, line, and sinker. I'm not talking about the rank-and-file; people demonstrate their eager willingness to serve as rousable rabble every single day. I'm talking about the charismatic leaders of the movements, the anti-vaccination camp. The anti-GMO people. The climate-change denialists.
What if they're in league with the airlines and the FAA, in league with Big pHARMa, in league with MonSatan, in league with the Illuminati and the Reptilians and the NWO? What if their mission is to trumpet their nonsense so loudly and so abrasively and so absurdly, to make such outrageous and ridiculous claims that even legitimate concerns - voiced quietly and reasonably - prompt nothing but eye-rolling and a dismissive wave?
For that scenario to work, all you'd really need is a group of people willing to sell themselves. If The Government and The Companies are willing to pay to set up "resistance" to themselves, and if the "resistance" can generate additional income on its own, well! Is it so difficult to imagine that there are enough ethics-challenged folk around to carry it out? While we're circling the drain, what if the other side - the scientists and experts, the people who know about these things - is in league with the first? Experts of all stripes, in every field of research, working in tandem with the tinfoil-hatted gizmoids.
There are some necessary ingredients: a population with a significant number of people who are unwilling and/or unable to think for themselves, with the bulk of the remainder more interested in their own personal day-to-day routines than they are in activism.
Check.
And a group who sneeringly loathes anyone who's earned a degree. The group who'd gnaw their arm off at the elbow before they'd learn something that falls outside their interests. The single-mindedly intelligence-averse.
Check.
You also need the contingent who's authority-phobic, from the boss at work all the way up to the Authorityest people in charge of everything, these people fear and hate and mistrust The Man so completely that they could be convinced of anything, as long as it disparages authority.
Check.
Additionally, you need the nonconformists. The ones who take pride in being "different" or "weird" or who are "going their own way". These are the folk who, when they've bought in to an... "unconventional" notion, will shout from the rooftops that they're "awake". Maybe they call people who don't share their beliefs "sheep" or "sheeple".
Check.
Also critical: a generous helping of know-it-alls. They're the ones who are not only smarter than everyone else - combined! - they also have an opinion about everything. One of their main opinions has to do with how dumb you are for having opinions of your own.
Check.
There's a lot of overlap between the groups, and they're all of them a dime a dozen. They're everywhere.
The final, crucial ingredient is the growing, arrogant belief that the majority of people - across all groups, reasonable and not-so-reasonable alike - seem to have: that they're entitled to their own set of facts. Within the confines of this belief, a personal opinion about anything from "my sportsball team is the best sportsball team!" to "Tang is the best drink there ever was!" becomes a rule set in stone. Deviation from whatever personal "fact" is at hand will not be tolerated. Ever. Any move not in perfect lock-step with the "fact" holder will be considered a personal attack. The "personal attack" will be met with surly resentment at the very least. In most cases, the person who loves tang will respond quickly and aggressively. And loudly.
Very loudly.
Before you know what's happening, you'll be backing away hastily, wanting nothing more than to be away from this suddenly-rabid oik who somehow managed to get
"I TORMENT YOUR GRANDMOTHER BY POOPING IN HER SHOES EVERY DAY WHILE KICKING HER DOG AND PLAYING THE BAGPIPES!!!!!"
from
"I never really liked Tang all that much."
If you're really unlucky, you'll meet one from the other end of the "Hold-Your-Ground-No-Matter-What" spectrum, one who's willing to punch, kick, and stomp a worshipful adoration of Tang into your stubborn head.
So, all the pieces are in place.
The majority of people are busy keeping their lawns immaculate or posting selfies on Facebook or making dinner or generally living their lives. For people who like to argue on the internet, though, the game is set and the players are ready to square off. Scientists and researchers, authorities in various fields, people who are well-educated, assuring the mainstream that "chemtrails" aren't what they think. That vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent. That GM agriculture and agricultural practices aren't tools of the devil. That fluoride isn't part of a mind-control scheme. That climate change is an actual thing they should worry about. That this thing and that thing and the other thing are harmless or beneficial or needn't concern anyone.
Naturally, the nonthinkers, sneering loathers, authority-phobes, nonconformists, and know-it-alls will receive these assurances poorly, dismiss the experts as liars and shills.
Because the experts are experts.
Because they're educated and they're intelligent, and they have the gall to show it.
For an alternative to the hoity-toity experts, how about a Vani Hari, a Jenny McCarthy, a "Dr." Sherri Tenpenny, a Mehmet Oz or two, a few John Edward types, some televangelists, hordes of ignorant lawmakers to "legitimize" them, and any number of media outlets to spread the word? Charismatic and attractive people without any credentials at all, or credentialed people without any regard for ethics at all, leading the charge against progress. Rousers for the rabble, a grassroots opposition movement. How about that?! A clever super-conspiratorial maneuver to deflect attention from The Truth!
If I were fashioning for myself the most spectacular of Shiny Tinfoil Hats, I'd pamphlet up a manifesto, take a marker to a sandwich board, and hit the streets tomorrow. I don't hold much truck with aluminum headwear, though. "Balderdash" is a word that comes to mind. Another is "poppycock".
This isn't to say that I trust our government or the companies.
Our government doesn't care about us, other than to keep us docile and content enough that we're not causing them too many problems. Oh, they'll throw us a bone once in a while - legislation about "rights" or "protections", the occasional tax break - but on the whole they're interested in us only as single taxpayers among millions.
Individually, we matter almost not at all. Elected officials' jobs include keeping us content-ish and focused on pop-culture fluff, sports, and any number of individual concerns - probably the ideal situation. If we get concerned with social or policy issues, the best-case scenario for them is for us to be facing off against each other, deeply divided on everything from liberal-vs-conservative "core" issues, spiraling all the way down to all the nonsensical "tastes-great/less-filling" disputes. They manage this through doing the rest of their job, which is legislating as the banks tell them to.
I don't trust any company any further than I could throw one - they're interested only in their bottom lines. From the manufacturers and sellers of the most frivolous impulse items all the way across the board to those of the most basic necessities, they're interested in quality and product safety and customer satisfaction only to the extent that you'll continue to buy what they sell. Our purpose is to work and consume. We are here to serve the economy.
With that in mind, I have a choice to make. I can side with the organic-only, stop-going-to-the-doctor, climate-change-denial crowds, or I can side with scientists and experts. Someone's lying to me.
Maybe everyone is.
On the one hand, if I throw my lot in with the science deniers I need to reject a lot of seemingly common-sense things, and the only way I could know for sure is to earn myself all the credentials necessary to work in each and every "controversial" field. And then spend enough time working in each and every "controversial" field to become competent.
That plan is hardly practicable, though. At my age I might be able to earn one doctoral degree and put it to use for a few years, but I'd be hard-pressed for time - if I'm going to live my life that way, if I'm going to fully embrace the paranoia, most of my time is going to be spent farming my sub-suburban lot. You know, because I don't trust food I didn't grow myself.
But I don't really know much of anything about agriculture, so I'll probably have to learn some farming techniques. And I can't see myself giving up bacon. Or tasty burgers, so I'm going to have to learn some animal husbandry. I guess that'll push back my starting-college date.
I'll have to make my own pesticides and herbicides as well, since I can't trust any Evil Chemical Companies. So I'll have to learn to do that.
Oh, and I'll have to become a mechanic. On account of how I can't trust some corporate flunky to botch equipment repairs so I have to keep going back.
And a blacksmith. I can't stomach the thought of propping up Big Hardware, so I'll need to make my own tools.
And an electrician. And a welder. And a plumber. And a veterinarian. And a carpenter. And an electronics repair technician. I'll probably have to become a computer and software engineer as well.
Thank goodness for Google University! I'll be an expert in all those things in a few weeks, and then I can start applying to colleges.
Or I could just do a little bit of simple math and pick the group that isn't lying to me in order to hide the lies they told me to get me scared enough to buy their book. Or their organic running shoes. Or their dietary supplements. The organic movement operates in the here-and-now, without thought for the future. The anti-vaccination types lie for profit in the short-term, without regard for public safety. The same goes for all for-profit, anti-progress miracle-item sellers.
I'm going to have to go with the experts and the scientists, the FDA and other regulatory agencies, and the medical establishment. For me, it comes together because the banks - who own and control everything - allow and/or encourage their lawmaking and public policy subsidiaries to endorse the safety of GMO foods, vaccines, medications, and hundreds of other "contentious" things. The banks - who own and control everything - have nothing to gain monetarily from poisoning us en masse, short- or long-term. Population isn't so much of a drain on resources that artificial reduction or control is a thing. Yet.
I have to be on the side that cares - at least peripherally - about my welfare.
Friday, March 13, 2015
The Needs Of The Many
what is it about the "me-first" mindset?
that's not even a legitimate question, i guess. if you're from the US, you're sharing all your space with 320,494,962 other people as of Wed 11 Mar 2015 11:44:07 PM CDT. you want to be in line in front of them, when you have to queue up. you want them to be driving acceptably when you're on the road with them. you don't want to have to wait for them to do this, or to do that, or to do the other thing. i get it, we're all the center of our own little universe, and it's galling to have to wait. or to defer. or to give way.
what happened to empathy? to sympathy?
i'm introverted and pretty asocial on my best days, so i don't really give a shit about most people under ordinary circumstances. unless i remember to try to put myself in their shoes, to see things the way they might. i've gotten better about this over the past several years, but my failure rate is still pretty high - i have far more patience with things than i have with people. so i'm still trying to grow.
of the people i'd consider friends and close acquaintances - admittedly not a huge pool of people from which to select - nearly all are empathetic, sympathetic, generous, thoughtful, and kind. the type of people who give without thought of reward or praise. i want to be more like them, because who am i to make anyone else's life more difficult?
i know that i'm not in the minority in this, having been shown kindness and nobility by strangers. time and again.
so, then, what is it about the mindset that so many people seem to have that has them thinking that only their rights matter, or that they're the only people in the world? i don't mean the anonymity given by social media that makes many people say and do things they (hopefully) wouldn't say or do in the real world, i mean actual practices and beliefs that not only run counter to those of others, but can actually be harmful. the kind of mindset that could make a person establish a pride of lions in their back yard regardless of potential safety and other problems, for instance.
or the kind of mindset that could make a person fall for unethical hucksters peddling alternatives to... oh, say vaccinations or GM agriculture.
small side note here: i'm not inviting any kind of "debate" on the merits of not vaccinating your children, because i believe that there are none (except in cases where an individual medically cannot be vaccinated). i choose to side with people who have done pre-med and medical school, then completed residencies in established medical institutions and facilities, working under those who have done the same. i choose to side with people who have earned advanced degrees and who are building or have built careers in medical research, working for organizations dedicated to the advancement of our understanding of humans and all their components.
i'm also not inviting any kind of "debate" on the merits of shunning GM-related agricultural practices or of going organic, because i want there to be a sustainable way to feed me and 320,499,909 other people in the US, as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 08:12:06 PM CDT.
this can't be new, the dissent on issues that would seem to be common-sense, this-is-good-for-all issues. which brings me back 'round to social media.
anyone with access to a computer or a phone or a tablet that's internet-connected can create their own virtual soapbox. multiple soapboxes, even. and with that connection comes access to an endless array of information - and misinformation - and thus a ready back-up to support anything and everything you can imagine. and probably a lot of things you shouldn't. it's become much easier to disseminate the information you want to disseminate, and much easier to assimilate the information that fits your view, whatever that might be.
the danger in this is that you'll start to see the world as you want it to be, not as it is. if you're promoting something harmless, great. have at it.
but if you're promoting something harmful, or potentially harmful, well... stop and think for a minute. there's more to the world than just you. or just you and your family. or just you and your family and your circle of facebook friends and followers. there are 320,500,250 people in the US with you as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 09:37:07 PM CDT, and 7,230,006,560 on the planet with you as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 09:38:25 PM CDT.
who are you to make anyone else's life more difficult?
population figures above were found here.
that's not even a legitimate question, i guess. if you're from the US, you're sharing all your space with 320,494,962 other people as of Wed 11 Mar 2015 11:44:07 PM CDT. you want to be in line in front of them, when you have to queue up. you want them to be driving acceptably when you're on the road with them. you don't want to have to wait for them to do this, or to do that, or to do the other thing. i get it, we're all the center of our own little universe, and it's galling to have to wait. or to defer. or to give way.
what happened to empathy? to sympathy?
i'm introverted and pretty asocial on my best days, so i don't really give a shit about most people under ordinary circumstances. unless i remember to try to put myself in their shoes, to see things the way they might. i've gotten better about this over the past several years, but my failure rate is still pretty high - i have far more patience with things than i have with people. so i'm still trying to grow.
of the people i'd consider friends and close acquaintances - admittedly not a huge pool of people from which to select - nearly all are empathetic, sympathetic, generous, thoughtful, and kind. the type of people who give without thought of reward or praise. i want to be more like them, because who am i to make anyone else's life more difficult?
i know that i'm not in the minority in this, having been shown kindness and nobility by strangers. time and again.
so, then, what is it about the mindset that so many people seem to have that has them thinking that only their rights matter, or that they're the only people in the world? i don't mean the anonymity given by social media that makes many people say and do things they (hopefully) wouldn't say or do in the real world, i mean actual practices and beliefs that not only run counter to those of others, but can actually be harmful. the kind of mindset that could make a person establish a pride of lions in their back yard regardless of potential safety and other problems, for instance.
or the kind of mindset that could make a person fall for unethical hucksters peddling alternatives to... oh, say vaccinations or GM agriculture.
small side note here: i'm not inviting any kind of "debate" on the merits of not vaccinating your children, because i believe that there are none (except in cases where an individual medically cannot be vaccinated). i choose to side with people who have done pre-med and medical school, then completed residencies in established medical institutions and facilities, working under those who have done the same. i choose to side with people who have earned advanced degrees and who are building or have built careers in medical research, working for organizations dedicated to the advancement of our understanding of humans and all their components.
i'm also not inviting any kind of "debate" on the merits of shunning GM-related agricultural practices or of going organic, because i want there to be a sustainable way to feed me and 320,499,909 other people in the US, as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 08:12:06 PM CDT.
this can't be new, the dissent on issues that would seem to be common-sense, this-is-good-for-all issues. which brings me back 'round to social media.
anyone with access to a computer or a phone or a tablet that's internet-connected can create their own virtual soapbox. multiple soapboxes, even. and with that connection comes access to an endless array of information - and misinformation - and thus a ready back-up to support anything and everything you can imagine. and probably a lot of things you shouldn't. it's become much easier to disseminate the information you want to disseminate, and much easier to assimilate the information that fits your view, whatever that might be.
the danger in this is that you'll start to see the world as you want it to be, not as it is. if you're promoting something harmless, great. have at it.
but if you're promoting something harmful, or potentially harmful, well... stop and think for a minute. there's more to the world than just you. or just you and your family. or just you and your family and your circle of facebook friends and followers. there are 320,500,250 people in the US with you as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 09:37:07 PM CDT, and 7,230,006,560 on the planet with you as of Thu 12 Mar 2015 09:38:25 PM CDT.
who are you to make anyone else's life more difficult?
population figures above were found here.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Politics AND Religion
i'm not a religious guy at all, and i haven't been for a long time. i've no belief in any sort of creator, i don't attend church services and haven't done so since i lived with my parents, and i don't pray. i guess that makes me an atheist, though i'm not comfortable with with the term. to me, an atheist is someone who wears their disbelief as a badge, someone who's ready to "argue" about religion at the drop of a hat. someone who's ready and willing to mock and ridicule anyone who professes or advocates any sort of spiritual belief. i can't get on board with that, and i don't really want to be associated with it.
i'll allow that there could be a creator, so that puts me in the "agnostic" pigeon-hole. i don't really like that label either, though. i've met too many people who call themselves agnostic but who are basically insufferable know-it-alls with opinions about everything under the sun. i don't really want to be associated with that either.
in any event, maybe it's my lack of belief that's not allowing me to understand why this
transcript of national prayer breakfast speech
has caused so much of this type of outrage and upset and so much more. over... what?
that our president had the gall to suggest that a vocal minority of nut-job zealots do not represent the mindset of a religion? that, basically, if you want to judge all of islam based on this, you better judge christianity based on the westboro baptist church?
yes, granted: Bassem Youssef is less a public figure than is Barack Obama. an interview on the daily show is unlikely to be as well-publicized as a presidential speech. but there wasn't any outrage over that.
so, the people who are the loudest in their outrage over this "scandal" - are they really so afraid of anyone who isn't white, old, and rich that in the name of contrariness they're willing to make themselves look insane? or stupid? or both?
our president is in an historic position, one which puts him in control of a power - nay, a superpower. he could simply and single-handedly short-circuit everyone who needs to be in continuous disagreement with him, and he could do it immediately. all he'd need is a brief statement, just a few words broadcast to the public.
something his detractors can't disagree with.
the result: similar to downloading terabytes of porn after removing your antivirus software. similar to having too many tabs open on google chrome. similar to dividing by zero. but, you know... with people.
because they can't admit he's right, either.
i'm sure he's aware of it, but i can't imagine what it is that stays his hand. could be compassion. sense of fairness, maybe. or pity. i think he should just do it. that way, the rest of us could finally get to the business of being alive in the world without having to worry about the loud, volatile, intolerant chest-thumpers.
and while i'm dreaming, i'd like world peace. and a unicorn, please.
transcript of national prayer breakfast speech
has caused so much of this type of outrage and upset and so much more. over... what?
that our president had the gall to suggest that a vocal minority of nut-job zealots do not represent the mindset of a religion? that, basically, if you want to judge all of islam based on this, you better judge christianity based on the westboro baptist church?
yes, granted: Bassem Youssef is less a public figure than is Barack Obama. an interview on the daily show is unlikely to be as well-publicized as a presidential speech. but there wasn't any outrage over that.
so, the people who are the loudest in their outrage over this "scandal" - are they really so afraid of anyone who isn't white, old, and rich that in the name of contrariness they're willing to make themselves look insane? or stupid? or both?
our president is in an historic position, one which puts him in control of a power - nay, a superpower. he could simply and single-handedly short-circuit everyone who needs to be in continuous disagreement with him, and he could do it immediately. all he'd need is a brief statement, just a few words broadcast to the public.
something his detractors can't disagree with.
the result: similar to downloading terabytes of porn after removing your antivirus software. similar to having too many tabs open on google chrome. similar to dividing by zero. but, you know... with people.
because they can't admit he's right, either.
i'm sure he's aware of it, but i can't imagine what it is that stays his hand. could be compassion. sense of fairness, maybe. or pity. i think he should just do it. that way, the rest of us could finally get to the business of being alive in the world without having to worry about the loud, volatile, intolerant chest-thumpers.
and while i'm dreaming, i'd like world peace. and a unicorn, please.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Advocacy of devils?
set the wayback machine for a time when the republican national convention was held at the excel energy center in st. paul, mn, then fast-forward a bit. that's when i wrote what follows. i'd guess it was in 2006, since i still logged in regularly to myspace.
anyway, i played devil's advocate. it reads as follows.
--------
a blog post was posted that went something like this
Award-Winning Journalist Arrested @ RNC for Doing Her Job
First there were "protest zones" where First Amendment rights could be exercised out of the view of anyone who would potentially be influenced by them. Now journalists are arrested for covering protests at the RNC.
Am I alone in seeing a pattern of shutting down peaceful dissent?
Thanks, Frankodelic....
there was youtube video, as well as the text of a blog entry from elsewhere, which i don't reproduce here. "award-winning journalist" is amy goodman, host of democracy now!, a radio and television show. her producers were also arrested while covering war protests at the RNC in st. paul last week.
i wanted to comment, so i did. it said that the owner needs to approve the comment. i don't know if she will. i spent a fair amount of time responding/commenting, though, so i decided to post it here. and all that.
1. from what i've read, the dissent was mostly peaceful, yes. however, consider that some protesters were breaking windows, slashing tires, and harassing delegates. that doesn't fall into my definition of "peaceful dissent".
2. police in riot gear aren't present to serve peaceful dissenters creme brule and biscotti. they're there to ensure public safety.
i'd define "public" in this instance as RNC attendees, press on hand to cover the event, peaceful dissenters, people living in the area, business owners and their employees in the area, people breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates (however misguided they may have been in their actions), and yes, even the police on hand. they're people, too, and they've got a much more difficult job than you or i or most people have.
3. police in riot gear ensuring public safety don't have time to sit down for a friendly one-on-one with ten thousand peaceful dissenters to find out whether the intent of the dissenters is simply to shout while waving a sign or to break windows and slash tires and harass delegates. the futility of even trying should be obvious, considering that many people have an amazing facility for lying.
now consider that police - in riot gear or not - are witness to the very worst of human behavior day in and day out. it's not difficult to imagine that such a person would become conditioned to expect the worst from the people they meet. it might not be human nature, but it certainly seems reasonable if you remember that police are people too.
4. back to st. paul several days ago, and the police - the ones in riot gear - are doing their job of ensuring public safety in the midst of a protest at the RNC site. suddenly a mild havoc breaks out. windows are being broken. tires are being slashed. delegates are being harassed. the safety of the public is endangered.
now, from what i can gather, it was a mild havoc - by all reports, about 2% of the peaceful dissenters abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of breaking windows, slashing tires, and harassing delegates. riot-geared police - apparently having forgotten their exact-amount-and-precise-location-of-havoc meters - act quickly to restore order, thereby doing their job of ensuring public safety. remembering that the riot-geared police (who are also people, please recall) are exposed to humankind's worst, they were probably expecting the worst from this situation and wanted to act quickly to contain it.
5. when a havoc of unknown scale and extent breaks out during a protest at the site of the RNC, riot-geared police doing their job of ensuring public safety are going to act according to their training to restore order. i'm not the police. i don't know any police. however, i strongly suspect that their crowd-control and havoc-containment training does not include politely asking peaceful-dissenters-turned-vandals-and-harassers if they wouldn't mind terribly going to the time-out corner to have a nice glass of lemonade.
6. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are in riot gear not because it looks cool or because it's super-comfy. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are in riot gear because of a consensus among public safety officials that there exists a better-than-normal possibility that a havoc could break out which, if uncontained, could lead to a full-scale riot. chaos would ensue.
chaos is not conducive to public safety.
7. preparing for the possibility of being unable to contain a havoc before it leads to a full-scale riot and having chaos ensue has got to be fairly nerve-wracking. the police in riot gear who are doing - or attempting to do - their job of ensuring public safety are probably tense and nervous, in spite of and due to their training and experience. people (and police are people, remember) in stressful situations become tense and nervous.
8. knowing that they'll be labeled jack-booted thugs and worse by every knee-jerk reactionary with a blog - as well as any number of 'legitimate' news sources - for each and every action they take, while preparing for the possibility of chaos ensuing during the course of attempting to do their job of ensuring public safety can't do much for their peace of mind.
9. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety in this frame of mind act to contain the havoc before it can spread and chaos can ensue. peaceful dissenters who have abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates are unlikely to agree to sit down and listen to reason, see the error of their ways, and stop behaving criminally. police realize this, and so will do what they need to do in order to stop the criminal behavior - not simply for its own sake, but also as an example for others who might be tempted to stop peacefully dissenting and start committing crimes.
10. peaceful dissenters who have abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of criminal behavior may or may not resist being arrested. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety have no way of knowing whether a peaceful dissenter who has abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of criminal behavior is going to resist arrest, which is why they're allowed to decide for themselves when and whether to use force in apprehending someone they suspect of committing a crime, and how much force to use when they decide it's necessary.
remembering that police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are people might assist understanding of instances of use of force. who hasn't cracked under pressure and said something they didn't mean to say, or done something they didn't mean to do? people make mistakes.
i do not mean to excuse any excessive use of force, but if they felt it was necessary or if they flew off the handle, it's understandable. it's easy to sit back and watch the video and scream about repression. it's probably not so easy to make the right judgment call under pressure. over and over and over again.
11. peaceful dissenters and peaceful-dissenters-turned-vandals don't wear different uniforms at protests. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety have no way of telling the difference between a peaceful dissenter and a peaceful-dissenter-turned-vandal-or-worse. the police - being people and not having eyes in the backs of their heads - will arrest anyone they suspect of having committed a crime.
12. if a peaceful dissenter is suspected of committing a crime but hasn't, and a police officer attempts to arrest the peaceful dissenter, the peaceful dissenter has committed a crime if he resists being arrested. it's called resisting arrest. if a peaceful dissenter's friend is being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime and the peaceful dissenter attempts to intervene, she has committed a crime. it's called obstructing the legal process. or interfering with a peace/police officer.
13. the legal process covers police - in or out of riot gear, monitoring the goings-on at a protest or not - arresting any person they suspect of committing a crime. the legal process can probably be interpreted to mean any action a police officer takes in the course of doing the job of ensuring public safety.
which brings me around to amy goodman and her producers.
i wasn't there. i didn't see how the producers were arrested, whether they did anything to attract the attention of police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety, or how they reacted to being arrested ... other than waving their credentials, shouting "press! press!".
being manhandled and bloodied by police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety is excessive, yes. i definitely won't disagree with that. being slammed into a wall and dragged along the pavement isn't necessary. clearly stress and frustration don't help a person keep a level head.
police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety and attempting to contain havoc before it spreads probably don't consider a part of their mandate to be "explaining to peaceful dissenters why their colleagues were arrested", particularly if havoc remains to be contained. i expect ms. goodman was attempting to use her fame and press pass to exempt her from rules that are for everyone.
so, "award-winning journalist arrested for doing her job" is accurate, if you consider "demanding an explanation of police officers in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety when they have other, more pressing matters at hand" to be amy goodman's job. otherwise, not so much.
she and many others were handled violently, yes. by people outnumbered and under enormous pressure to do a difficult job they're reviled for doing, day in and day out.
myself, i'd rather have people manhandled than to deal with the aftermath of a riot, and it makes me sad that any outlet with any kind of readership will use this as an excuse to demonize the police.
your contribution, and your propagation of other sources spreading half the story does little but to deepen the rift and lessen already minimal understanding, compassion, or empathy. try to put yourself in someone else's shoes once in a while.
--------
which didn't garner much support from anyone who read it, unsurprisingly. not long after i wrote the original, i had to defend it.
--------
my mother-in-law Jay, whom i love dearly, commented to me like this:
I'm not sure what you were trying to say, Mikey. But it sure sounded like and argument for removing more of the American people's civil liberties, and forming a police state with unlimited power to do whatever they want with their riot gear without first ascertaining whether it is appropriate or not.
and i retort like this:
i'm kind of disappointed that i took so much time to write what i wrote, then what you took out of it is me arguing that i want civil liberties yoinked from people and the police given free reign to ride rough-shod over anyone at any time they see fit.
we're not as close as we could be, sure, but i thought you knew me better than that.
i'm all for civil liberties and all against their being removed, but i'm not sure how anyone in this case is in danger of losing any.
a multitude of protesters was allowed to assemble in st. paul around the excel energy center during the RNC. there wasn't a problem until a tiny number among the multitude of protesters began breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates.
assembling is legal. vandalism and harassment are not.
two hundred protesters out of ten thousand took to the non-legal kind of behavior during the protest. i don't know how many police were on the streets at the time, but i do know that they were outnumbered by the crowd, and quite possibly outnumbered as well by the lawbreakers. they'd have needed to act quickly and decisively to stop the vandalism and harassment, because... what if they hadn't?
what if the remaining 9.800 reasonably-behaved protesters had seen the 200 not-so-well-behaved protesters breaking windows and slashing tires and generally running amok - and getting away with it? isn't it conceivable that others would join in the amok-running? what if another 1500 had joined in? another 2000?
again: i don't and i won't condone the use of excessive force by the police - their running amok is no more acceptable than it is when protesters do it. check that: it's worse when the police do it, because they're sanctioned.
BUT
i don't and i won't support the notion that the police should be gelded. not in a situation like this, anyway. there are enough rabble-rousers in a crowd, and enough rabble willing to be roused in that same crowd for me to agree - people in general simply are not well-behaved enough for that.
was it *all* the protesters? certainly not.
there's people who are capable of being civilized. and there are the others, who give everyone a bad name.
at the same time, though, it wasn't *all* the police, either.
there's those who can do the job without the sanction and authority going to their heads. and then there are the others, who give them all a bad name.
i'd guess that many people who gravitate toward police work - especially the ones who are likely to be on the street in riot gear in a crowd-control situation - are the kind i went to school with who were jocks and macho "don't-take-no-shit" types. some of these were the kind who'd stuff a guy like me into his locker and leave him there.
among them all, i'm sure a significant number never developed much in the way of impulse control, or they went on a power trip. maybe both.
in a pressure situation, any of these sound bad to me. people can lose their heads and do things they shouldn't. does any of this excuse abuse of power or use of excessive force?
hell no.
it can maybe explain it a little bit, though.
the system sucks, yes. police need to be held to a higher standard than they seem to be most of the time, and there are many things that need fixin'.
i'm not ready to strip them of all their gear and send them out with nothing but a whiffle bat and a stern glower, though.
--------
i didn't hear anything about this after that, so i reckon my take on the matter is pretty far off from most folk i know. this remains my take on the matter, and is pretty unlikely to change.
anyway, i played devil's advocate. it reads as follows.
--------
a blog post was posted that went something like this
Award-Winning Journalist Arrested @ RNC for Doing Her Job
First there were "protest zones" where First Amendment rights could be exercised out of the view of anyone who would potentially be influenced by them. Now journalists are arrested for covering protests at the RNC.
Am I alone in seeing a pattern of shutting down peaceful dissent?
Thanks, Frankodelic....
there was youtube video, as well as the text of a blog entry from elsewhere, which i don't reproduce here. "award-winning journalist" is amy goodman, host of democracy now!, a radio and television show. her producers were also arrested while covering war protests at the RNC in st. paul last week.
i wanted to comment, so i did. it said that the owner needs to approve the comment. i don't know if she will. i spent a fair amount of time responding/commenting, though, so i decided to post it here. and all that.
1. from what i've read, the dissent was mostly peaceful, yes. however, consider that some protesters were breaking windows, slashing tires, and harassing delegates. that doesn't fall into my definition of "peaceful dissent".
2. police in riot gear aren't present to serve peaceful dissenters creme brule and biscotti. they're there to ensure public safety.
i'd define "public" in this instance as RNC attendees, press on hand to cover the event, peaceful dissenters, people living in the area, business owners and their employees in the area, people breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates (however misguided they may have been in their actions), and yes, even the police on hand. they're people, too, and they've got a much more difficult job than you or i or most people have.
3. police in riot gear ensuring public safety don't have time to sit down for a friendly one-on-one with ten thousand peaceful dissenters to find out whether the intent of the dissenters is simply to shout while waving a sign or to break windows and slash tires and harass delegates. the futility of even trying should be obvious, considering that many people have an amazing facility for lying.
now consider that police - in riot gear or not - are witness to the very worst of human behavior day in and day out. it's not difficult to imagine that such a person would become conditioned to expect the worst from the people they meet. it might not be human nature, but it certainly seems reasonable if you remember that police are people too.
4. back to st. paul several days ago, and the police - the ones in riot gear - are doing their job of ensuring public safety in the midst of a protest at the RNC site. suddenly a mild havoc breaks out. windows are being broken. tires are being slashed. delegates are being harassed. the safety of the public is endangered.
now, from what i can gather, it was a mild havoc - by all reports, about 2% of the peaceful dissenters abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of breaking windows, slashing tires, and harassing delegates. riot-geared police - apparently having forgotten their exact-amount-and-precise-location-of-havoc meters - act quickly to restore order, thereby doing their job of ensuring public safety. remembering that the riot-geared police (who are also people, please recall) are exposed to humankind's worst, they were probably expecting the worst from this situation and wanted to act quickly to contain it.
5. when a havoc of unknown scale and extent breaks out during a protest at the site of the RNC, riot-geared police doing their job of ensuring public safety are going to act according to their training to restore order. i'm not the police. i don't know any police. however, i strongly suspect that their crowd-control and havoc-containment training does not include politely asking peaceful-dissenters-turned-vandals-and-harassers if they wouldn't mind terribly going to the time-out corner to have a nice glass of lemonade.
6. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are in riot gear not because it looks cool or because it's super-comfy. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are in riot gear because of a consensus among public safety officials that there exists a better-than-normal possibility that a havoc could break out which, if uncontained, could lead to a full-scale riot. chaos would ensue.
chaos is not conducive to public safety.
7. preparing for the possibility of being unable to contain a havoc before it leads to a full-scale riot and having chaos ensue has got to be fairly nerve-wracking. the police in riot gear who are doing - or attempting to do - their job of ensuring public safety are probably tense and nervous, in spite of and due to their training and experience. people (and police are people, remember) in stressful situations become tense and nervous.
8. knowing that they'll be labeled jack-booted thugs and worse by every knee-jerk reactionary with a blog - as well as any number of 'legitimate' news sources - for each and every action they take, while preparing for the possibility of chaos ensuing during the course of attempting to do their job of ensuring public safety can't do much for their peace of mind.
9. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety in this frame of mind act to contain the havoc before it can spread and chaos can ensue. peaceful dissenters who have abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates are unlikely to agree to sit down and listen to reason, see the error of their ways, and stop behaving criminally. police realize this, and so will do what they need to do in order to stop the criminal behavior - not simply for its own sake, but also as an example for others who might be tempted to stop peacefully dissenting and start committing crimes.
10. peaceful dissenters who have abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of criminal behavior may or may not resist being arrested. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety have no way of knowing whether a peaceful dissenter who has abandoned peaceful dissent in favor of criminal behavior is going to resist arrest, which is why they're allowed to decide for themselves when and whether to use force in apprehending someone they suspect of committing a crime, and how much force to use when they decide it's necessary.
remembering that police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety are people might assist understanding of instances of use of force. who hasn't cracked under pressure and said something they didn't mean to say, or done something they didn't mean to do? people make mistakes.
i do not mean to excuse any excessive use of force, but if they felt it was necessary or if they flew off the handle, it's understandable. it's easy to sit back and watch the video and scream about repression. it's probably not so easy to make the right judgment call under pressure. over and over and over again.
11. peaceful dissenters and peaceful-dissenters-turned-vandals don't wear different uniforms at protests. police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety have no way of telling the difference between a peaceful dissenter and a peaceful-dissenter-turned-vandal-or-worse. the police - being people and not having eyes in the backs of their heads - will arrest anyone they suspect of having committed a crime.
12. if a peaceful dissenter is suspected of committing a crime but hasn't, and a police officer attempts to arrest the peaceful dissenter, the peaceful dissenter has committed a crime if he resists being arrested. it's called resisting arrest. if a peaceful dissenter's friend is being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime and the peaceful dissenter attempts to intervene, she has committed a crime. it's called obstructing the legal process. or interfering with a peace/police officer.
13. the legal process covers police - in or out of riot gear, monitoring the goings-on at a protest or not - arresting any person they suspect of committing a crime. the legal process can probably be interpreted to mean any action a police officer takes in the course of doing the job of ensuring public safety.
which brings me around to amy goodman and her producers.
i wasn't there. i didn't see how the producers were arrested, whether they did anything to attract the attention of police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety, or how they reacted to being arrested ... other than waving their credentials, shouting "press! press!".
being manhandled and bloodied by police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety is excessive, yes. i definitely won't disagree with that. being slammed into a wall and dragged along the pavement isn't necessary. clearly stress and frustration don't help a person keep a level head.
police in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety and attempting to contain havoc before it spreads probably don't consider a part of their mandate to be "explaining to peaceful dissenters why their colleagues were arrested", particularly if havoc remains to be contained. i expect ms. goodman was attempting to use her fame and press pass to exempt her from rules that are for everyone.
so, "award-winning journalist arrested for doing her job" is accurate, if you consider "demanding an explanation of police officers in riot gear doing their job of ensuring public safety when they have other, more pressing matters at hand" to be amy goodman's job. otherwise, not so much.
she and many others were handled violently, yes. by people outnumbered and under enormous pressure to do a difficult job they're reviled for doing, day in and day out.
myself, i'd rather have people manhandled than to deal with the aftermath of a riot, and it makes me sad that any outlet with any kind of readership will use this as an excuse to demonize the police.
your contribution, and your propagation of other sources spreading half the story does little but to deepen the rift and lessen already minimal understanding, compassion, or empathy. try to put yourself in someone else's shoes once in a while.
--------
which didn't garner much support from anyone who read it, unsurprisingly. not long after i wrote the original, i had to defend it.
--------
my mother-in-law Jay, whom i love dearly, commented to me like this:
I'm not sure what you were trying to say, Mikey. But it sure sounded like and argument for removing more of the American people's civil liberties, and forming a police state with unlimited power to do whatever they want with their riot gear without first ascertaining whether it is appropriate or not.
and i retort like this:
i'm kind of disappointed that i took so much time to write what i wrote, then what you took out of it is me arguing that i want civil liberties yoinked from people and the police given free reign to ride rough-shod over anyone at any time they see fit.
we're not as close as we could be, sure, but i thought you knew me better than that.
i'm all for civil liberties and all against their being removed, but i'm not sure how anyone in this case is in danger of losing any.
a multitude of protesters was allowed to assemble in st. paul around the excel energy center during the RNC. there wasn't a problem until a tiny number among the multitude of protesters began breaking windows and slashing tires and harassing delegates.
assembling is legal. vandalism and harassment are not.
two hundred protesters out of ten thousand took to the non-legal kind of behavior during the protest. i don't know how many police were on the streets at the time, but i do know that they were outnumbered by the crowd, and quite possibly outnumbered as well by the lawbreakers. they'd have needed to act quickly and decisively to stop the vandalism and harassment, because... what if they hadn't?
what if the remaining 9.800 reasonably-behaved protesters had seen the 200 not-so-well-behaved protesters breaking windows and slashing tires and generally running amok - and getting away with it? isn't it conceivable that others would join in the amok-running? what if another 1500 had joined in? another 2000?
again: i don't and i won't condone the use of excessive force by the police - their running amok is no more acceptable than it is when protesters do it. check that: it's worse when the police do it, because they're sanctioned.
BUT
i don't and i won't support the notion that the police should be gelded. not in a situation like this, anyway. there are enough rabble-rousers in a crowd, and enough rabble willing to be roused in that same crowd for me to agree - people in general simply are not well-behaved enough for that.
was it *all* the protesters? certainly not.
there's people who are capable of being civilized. and there are the others, who give everyone a bad name.
at the same time, though, it wasn't *all* the police, either.
there's those who can do the job without the sanction and authority going to their heads. and then there are the others, who give them all a bad name.
i'd guess that many people who gravitate toward police work - especially the ones who are likely to be on the street in riot gear in a crowd-control situation - are the kind i went to school with who were jocks and macho "don't-take-no-shit" types. some of these were the kind who'd stuff a guy like me into his locker and leave him there.
among them all, i'm sure a significant number never developed much in the way of impulse control, or they went on a power trip. maybe both.
in a pressure situation, any of these sound bad to me. people can lose their heads and do things they shouldn't. does any of this excuse abuse of power or use of excessive force?
hell no.
it can maybe explain it a little bit, though.
the system sucks, yes. police need to be held to a higher standard than they seem to be most of the time, and there are many things that need fixin'.
i'm not ready to strip them of all their gear and send them out with nothing but a whiffle bat and a stern glower, though.
--------
i didn't hear anything about this after that, so i reckon my take on the matter is pretty far off from most folk i know. this remains my take on the matter, and is pretty unlikely to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)