Showing posts with label Fear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fear. Show all posts

Brett Kavanaugh's facial clues

SUBHEAD: His smile is a grimace and his other expressions are those of someone in constant misery.

By Juan Wilson on 29 November 2018 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-facial-clues.html)


Image above: Brett Kavanaugh attempting to present a pleasant smile during the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 11/28/18 for a Supreme Court Justice nomination. It is something that does not come naturally. Back when I was in High School we called this a "shit eating grin".

I have spent too much time recently listening to and seeing the face of Brett Kavanaugh. It's an ugly sensory experience. I say this because besides the ugly fascist and misogynist ideas embedded in his jurisprudence, he appears to be a bitter and unhappy man with some bad habits like drinking, gambling and womanizing.

I'm reminded of "Bret Maverick". Bret Maverick was a popular television show on ABC-TV from 1957 until 1962 (approximately my high school years). Bret Maverick was a western hero during a time when TV westerns were the main staple of night time TV.

Unlike the cowboys and sheriffs that made up the bulk of these protagonists Bret was a "bad boy". He was a Mississippi riverboat con artist. He gambled, drank and womanized when he wasn't dispensing justice to the "bad guys". Sound familiar?

Brett Kavanaugh was conceived and born not long after the show stopped production. Did his father name him after the TV show idol? Seems possible.

If not, it is still possible that current day Brett took some misinterpreted cues from a 1960's fictional hero - namely the drinking, gambling and womanizing.

The Bret Maverick character was played by the laid back, affable, quick to smile James Garner. And smiling and being laid back seems out of Brett Kavanhaugh's repertoire.


Image above: James Garner in publicity photo as Bret Maverick. From (https://www.metv.com/lists/10-things-you-never-knew-about-maverick).

Almost all of the photographs and video of Brett Kavanaugh that I have seen do not show a pleasant expression on his face. His smile seems like something of a pattern of muscle maneuvers he has memorized to appear "happy". The rest of the facial expressions I see span a range of emotions from misery, to fear and loathing, to disgust and rage.

His demeanor at Georgetown Prep and Yale University was that of a goody-two-shoes and nasty frat boy. He seems strapped on a treadmill he despises.  Definitely a scary dude. 


Image above: Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 11/28/18 for a Supreme Court Justice nomination. Never a pleasant, calm expressoion -but one of pain or revulsion.


Image above: Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 11/28/18 for a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The man seems to be hiding a deep unhappiness or sadness.


Image above: Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 11/28/18 for a Supreme Court Justice nomination. He is capable of irrational visciousness.

I'd rather have James Garner named to the US Supreme Court - even though he has been dead since 2014. 
.

Nothing to fear but the Fearful

SUBHEAD: Overthrow the reign of terror the State has installed over your mind. Else the days ahead may be terrible indeed.

By Dan Sanchez on 3 December 2015 for DanSanchez.me -
(http://www.dansanchez.me/feed/nothing-to-fear-but-the-fearful-themselves)


Image above: Military style SWAT team in the city. It's America's newest export - the police-industrial complex. From (http://www.abreureport.com/2014/04/the-dominican-republic-and-shadow-of.html).


When I first learned of the recent attacks in Paris, a chill went down my spine. “No,” I thought, “This is all happening too fast.”

I was terrified. I was not terrorized, mind you. What happened in Paris was tragic, of course.

But I was not so ignorant and innumerate as to think the kind of violence it represented was a statistically significant direct threat to myself and my loved ones. I was fully cognizant that, even with the recent uptick in terror attacks, the probability of my family ever being caught up in one was vanishingly minuscule. I am more likely to be felled by a deer or a bolt of lightning than by a jihadist’s Kalashnikov.

What terrified me was the response of all the people who are incapable of such a proportional perspective: those who saw the news from France and panicked, thinking “I’m next!” As distant as it was, the Paris attacks unleashed in America a surge of fear and of calls for greater police powers, as well as an attendant wave of anti-Muslim hate and war lust.

And as sophisticated and urbane as the French are reputed to be, they too let irrational terror wash over them. And under its sway, they permitted the State to run rampant over life and liberty. The public attitude was distilled by a young French citizen whose message to her government was, “Do whatever you want, but keep me safe.”

With this mandate, France escalated its pointless and terrorist-breeding bombing of civilian-filled Syrian towns. And at home, as Truth in Media reported:
“…the French government declared a state of emergency based on a rarely used 1955 law that allows the state to conduct warrant-less searches of private property, impose curfews, restrict public gatherings and movements of people, confiscate weapons at will and take over the press.”
As always, the statist public perversely responded to terrorism drawn upon their heads by their government’s foreign militancy by sanctioning more such militancy. And it perversely rewarded that government for its abject failure to prevent the attacks with more resources, powers, and responsibility.

On top of arrest sweeps and threatening to close mosques, the French government’s emergency powers were invoked to place activists under house arrest in order to squelch completely unrelated protests. This demonstrated vividly that war is indeed the health of the State, and war-spawned terrorist attacks are like an adrenaline shot for domestic tyranny.

When I saw these responses, it fully sank in just how surrounded my family and I are by human livestock and just how acutely dangerous that position is. I realized that, when an attack of that scale and shock-value again happens on American soil, the pack-minded multitudes all around me will deafeningly bay for war.

And the herd-minded hundreds of millions will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.

I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war.
Now the result of that could be a statistically significant threat to myself and my family.

Under an omnipotent government with permanent emergency powers, there would be a significant likelihood of my nephew being drafted to help occupy a foreign country; my daughter going hungry thanks to wartime economic planning; or myself being imprisoned or shot as a dissident.

Yet I have drawn solace from the fact that libertarians like myself are not alone in pushing back against the terrorized Right. Following the Paris attacks, many excellent articles from the political Left were published wisely warning the West not to answer indiscriminate violence in kind.

Such a terror-driven response is exactly what the terrorists want, in order to polarize and sharpen a “clash of civilizations.”

And then yesterday’s San Bernardino attack happened.

Before the fact that the alleged shooters were Muslim emerged, the Left began jumping all over it as yet another in a long series of mass shootings by whites that demonstrated the urgent need for more gun control.

Two weeks earlier, these same progressives were calmly counseling the public to not be terrorized into giving their government more power to bomb, register, and persecute Muslims. Now they themselves were trying to terrorize the public into giving their government more power to disarm, register, and persecute gun owners.

They point out that you are more likely to be killed by a white, homegrown terrorist than a Muslim one. That may be true, but both of those fates are still far less likely than your odds of being crushed by furniture (or being killed by a cop, for that matter).

Neither of these exaggerated threats are any justification for incurring the great and underestimated dangers involved in granting government sweeping new powers.

Progressives, who rightly support Black Lives Matter, are pining for more gun laws, while the already existing gun possession laws are one of the chief pretexts cops and courts use to brutalize and incarcerate blacks.

And the same progressives who rightly warn of potential fascism under the divisive demagoguery of Donald Trump, want to give the institution that Trump may come to control greater power to register and disarm the public.

They ignore or deny the fact that the mass human roundups we associate with such regimes are only practicable given broad civilian disarmament. And broad civilian disarmament, in turn, is only practicable given broad gun registration.

For example, the German Jews and liberals were easily liquidated by the Nazis, thanks to the Weimar Republic’s gun registration lawsDo you really want every single Mexican and Muslim in America disarmed or easily disarm-able under “Chancellor” Trump?

After San Bernardino, I am just as terrified of the terrorized and terrorizing Left as I am of the terrorized and terrorizing Right. I more fully realize that the latter can only do its worst if enabled by the former. The Left sets us up for the Right to knock us down. Call it the Weimar/Third Reich one-two punch.

I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges.

But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves.

Paris and San Bernardino taught me that my family is trapped amid a herd, completely surrounded by cattle-minded millions who can be spooked into large-scale stampedes with small-scale crimes. And there is literally no way out, because virtually the entire world is afflicted with one form of collectivist statism or another.

Therefore, the only way to prevent my loved ones from being trampled is by helping as many people as I can to break the spell of terror that turns civilized men and women into rampaging beasts.

That is why I am writing this essay: to implore you, the reader, to snap out of that spell if you have not already, and to help others do the same.

Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.

Overthrow the reign of terror the State has installed over your mind. Else the days ahead may be terrible indeed.

.

French suppression for COP21

SUBHEAD: As France plans suppression, climate groups say COP21 actions more vital than ever.

By Nadia Prupis in 18 November 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/18/france-plans-suppression-climate-groups-say-cop21-actions-more-vital-ever)


Image above: A gathering of those advocating strong measures to halt global warming. From original article.

We are in a country of free expression—that has always been the source of our power. This will be about unity, solidarity and peace, as well as climate change.'

French police are reintroducing border checks and cracking down on demonstrations set to take place during the upcoming climate talks in Paris—but activists on the ground say they will not sacrifice their plans for protest.

Talks between organizers and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius ended in a stalemate on Tuesday with no immediate consensus on a massive march planned for November 29—the day before the Conference of the Parties (COP21) negotiations are scheduled to begin—which climate groups hoped would draw hundreds of thousands of people.

Following last week's attacks that killed 129 people in Paris, French officials had proposed scaling down the November 29 march to a stationary action held behind kettling nets, miles away from the summit headquarters, with a cutoff of 5,000 participants.

But organizers said such a dramatic downsizing "would not be acceptable."

In fact, many said, now is the time to double down on free speech and free assembly.

Alix Mazounie, a campaigner with Climate Action Network France who took part in the meeting with Fabius, told Democracy Now! on Wednesday, "More than ever, people across the world and in Paris need to stand up to say that they are fearless and that they want the right to public and democratic freedom of speech."

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said COP21 actions were more important now than ever. In a blog post published Wednesday, Dearden wrote, "It will be deeply ironic if climate activists from around the world are among the first to fall foul of France's emergency powers."
"Of course, those campaigners have nothing to do with the brutal attacks on Paris last Friday night. On the contrary, they will challenge the unequal, unsustainable and militaristic policies on which terrorism has thrived," he added.

Authorities also said they will employ more than 30,000 police officers at 285 different land, sea, and air checkpoints around France from now until two days after the conference ends. According to AFP, security forces will also keep close watch on "extreme" environmental groups and advocates.
However, those rigid security measures will be met head-on by activists planning to forge ahead with demonstrations that are scheduled to take place throughout the two-week summit.

"The tragedy in Paris has only strengthened our resolve," said Nicolas Haeringer, France campaigner for the climate advocacy group 350.org. "We fully share [authorities'] concerns about public safety—just as we fully oppose any unnecessary crackdowns on civil liberties and minority populations."

"This is not the time to step back," Mazounie told The Guardian. "We are in a country of free expression—that has always been the source of our power. This will be about unity, solidarity and peace, as well as climate change."

Anti-globalization group Attac said full-scale mobilization was not only a free-speech issue, but also a stance of solidarity with the victims of the attacks in Paris and the bombings in Beirut.
"We are all targeted but we are not afraid," Attac France said Tuesday. "We do not succumb to anxiety, just as we do not accept the 'shock strategy,' which consists in taking advantage of human, social and environmental catastrophes to trigger all forms of regression, restrict our basic freedoms and generate withdrawal."

Much of the action in Paris is being organized by Coalition Climat 21, comprising Greenpeace, Oxfam, Avaaz, and more than 130 other civil society groups. The coalition said it would work in tandem with authorities to ensure participants' safety, but added that protests during COP21 were crucial to the summit's success.

"Thus, we will implement all our efforts to hold all the mobilizations currently planned," the coalition said.


Video above: Democracy Now coverage of activists vowing to continue despite terrorism. from (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/18/climate_activists_vow_to_continue_with).

.

There are no safe places

SUBHEAD: The West itself, including America, is a circus of soft targets. The softest ones are between our ears.

By James Kunstler on 16 November 2015 for Kunstler.com -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/there-are-no-safe-spaces/)


Image above: French military patrol near the Eiffel Tower the day after a series of deadly attacks in Paris , November 14, 2015.Photograph by Yves Herman for Reuters. From (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/french-police-report-shootout-and-explosion-in-paris.html).

’m not persuaded that world opinion will ever “make sense” of the Paris attacks. The non-linear rules the day. So-called Fourth Generation Warfare works because there are so many small arms loose in the world and any band of maniacs with a few machine guns and a pound of Semtex plastic explosive can create the equivalent of a war zone in a given locality.

As for the French military, the obvious first move was to bomb the ISIS “stronghold” of Raqqa. But haven’t the US and Russian air forces been doing exactly that for some time now?

Either they’ve already bombed the place and everything in it to gravel, or air power is not what it’s cracked up to be — and we have plenty of reason to believe the latter after a decade of selectively pounding jihadists from Afgahnistan to Libya with nothing to show for it except a refugee crisis.

One thing seems assured: hard-line governments are coming soon. Politically, the West had boundary problems that go way beyond the question of national borders to the core psychology of modern liberalism. When is enough of anything enough? And then, what are you really willing to do about it? The answer lately among the Western societies is to do little and do it slowly.

The behavior of college administrators and faculties in the USA these days is emblematic of this cowardly dithering. Intellectual despotism reigns on campus and the university presidents roll over like possums.

They don’t have the moral strength to defend free speech as the campus witch-hunts ramp up. The result will be first the intellectual death of their institutions (brain death), and then the actual death of college per se as a plausible route to personal socioeconomic development.

The financial racketeering that has infected higher education — the engineering of the gargantuan college loan scam in tandem with the multiplication of “diversity” deanships and tuition inflation — pretty much guarantees an implosion of that system.

The cowardice in the college executive suites is mirrored in our national politics, where no persons of real standing will dare step forward to oppose the juggernaut of Hillary-the-Grifter, or take on the clowning Donald Trump on the grounds of his sheer mental unfittedness to lead a government.

In case you haven’t noticed, the center not only isn’t holding, it gave way some time ago. The long emergency is showing signs of morphing into something like civil war. The Maoists on campus apparently want to turn it into race war, too.

So many forces are in motion now and they are all tending toward criticality. The European Union may not survive the reestablishment of boundaries, since it was largely based on the elimination of them. Spain and Portugal are back to breaking down politically again.

The Paris bloodbath has discredited Angela Merkel’s plea for “tolerance” — of what is proving to be an intolerable alien invasion.

The only political figure on the scene who doesn’t appear to be talking out of his ass is Vlad Putin, who correctly stated at the UN that undermining basic institutions around the world was not a good idea.

None of this is good, either, for a global economy constructed around long, hyper-complex, and fragile chains of obligation, the most critical being global finance and global energy lines. You think the Paris attacks were bad?

Just wait until a few maniacs lob some explosives at the giant Ras Tanura oil refinery and shipping terminal on Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast. Imagine if that happens in the middle of winter, when Europe is freezing. Do you suppose the Big Brains in the Pentagon think about that?

The West itself, including America, is a circus of soft targets. The softest ones are between our ears.

.

Anxiety turns to Fear

SUBHEAD: Nature is weighing on our economy in the form of climate change and fossil fuel depletion.

By Kurt Cobb on 30 August 2015 for Resource Insights -
(http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2015/08/anxiety-turns-to-fear-markets-energy.html)


Image above: Still frame from the 2011 movie "Take Shelter". From (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675192/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1). Update 9/1/15 - the whole movie can be seen on YouTube at (https://youtu.be/Y5233mYtpqc).

The characteristic feeling of the post-2008 world has been one of anxiety. Occasionally, that anxiety breaks out into fear as it did in the last two weeks when stock markets around the world swooned and middle class and wealthy investors had a sudden visitation from Pan, the god from whose name we get the word "panic."

Pan's appearance is yet another reminder that the relative stability of the globe from the end of World War II right up until 2008 is over. We are in uncharted waters.

Here is the crux of the matter as expressed in a piece which I wrote last year:
The relentless, if zigzag, rise in financial markets for the past 150 years has been sustained by cheap fossil fuels and a benign climate. We cannot count on either from here on out....
Another thing we cannot necessarily count on is the remarkable geopolitical stability that the world experienced for two long stretches during the fossil fuel age. The first one lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the beginning of World War I in 1914 (interrupted only by the brief Franco-Prussian War). The second lasted from the end of World War II in 1945 until now.
Following the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, the Middle East has experienced increasing chaos devolving into a civil war in Syria; the rapid success of forces calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria which are busily reshaping the borders of those two countries; and now the renewed chaos in Libya. We must add to this the Russian-Ukranian conflict. It is no accident that all of these conflicts are related to oil and natural gas.
As I view the current world landscape, I am reminded of two movies (which I've written about before) that I think capture the Zeitgeist: Melancholia and Take Shelter. In both the protagonists increasingly sense that something is terribly wrong, but can't quite put their finger on it. Everyone around them thinks they are ill or crazy.

But for both protagonists, their anxiety comes from an inner vision that stems not from mere psychic disturbances, but rather from alarming real-world circumstances that are about to break into the open.

In a sense, these two characters represent those of us who cannot repress the pervasive anxiety of our times and who seek not merely to alleviate it, but rather to face it--to find out its origins and address its causes.

And here we return to the god Pan, mentioned at the outset. It is fitting that this god of nature--of shepherds, flocks, and wild places--should also in our age be associated with the panic we feel.

For it is nature itself which is weighing on our economy in the form of climate change and fossil fuel depletion. As California--the seventh largest economy in the world behind France--burns in the heat of a multi-year drought, the grim consequences of our poor stewardship are becoming apparent. The images of fiery forests and dust-dry fields command our attention.

But hidden from the view of most is the role that increasingly expensive energy has played since the beginning of this century in slowing economic growth. The shorthand way of understanding this is that in the last century we extracted all the easy-to-get fossil fuels. Now we are going after the hard-to-get remainder which are costly to extract.

That takes resources away from the energy-consuming part of the economy and creates a drag on economic growth. Hence, a dramatically slower economy in 2015 after four years of record or near record average daily prices for the most critical fossil fuel, oil. (The recent drop in oil prices is primarily a reflection of slowing demand that comes from a slowing economy.)

The financial industry through the media has intervened forcefully during the recent stock market sell-off to tell us all not to panic. These corrections are normal, they say, and long-term investors--that is, virtually everyone except Wall Street--should ignore them. What the industry and the media do not tell us is that these are not normal times.

Circumstances have changed dramatically. The evidence is there if only we have eyes to see it. Interest rates in much of the world are still stuck at or near zero seven years after the last worldwide downturn.

How will the world's central banks stimulate the economy after the next inevitable recession? By lowering interests that are already at zero? In the post-World War II paradigm, rates would be at much higher levels today, say four or five percent, and economic growth would be much faster.

Annual world economic growth from 1961 through 2000 according to the World Bank was 3.8 percent per year. From 2000 to 2013, an era of increasingly expensive energy, it slowed to 2.4 percent.

From the initial spurt of 4.1 percent growth in 2010 (after a contraction of 2.1 percent in 2009), growth settled down to 2.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, slightly below the recent average. This is despite unprecedented efforts to stimulate the world economy through large increases in government spending and record low interest rates.

And, as mentioned above, the geopolitical stability that has been the backdrop to the pervasive buy-and-hold investment mentality has disappeared. Like the protagonists of Melancholia and Take Shelter, we anxiously await we-know-not-what.

As we do, Pan makes his ever-more-frequent appearances. Franklin Roosevelt is famous for saying: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But fear is a protective mechanism. We are right to fear things that can hurt us and to act accordingly. We cannot solve our problems if we refuse to accept that we have them.

Sometimes Pan is trying to help us by warning us. Sometimes it is possible to hear him playing his flute long before he arrives on the scene. But can we listen and act in some way other than panic?


Video above: Trailer for the 2011 movie "Take Shelter". From (https://youtu.be/I5U4TtYpKIc).
Update 9/1/15 - the whole movie can be seen on YouTube at (https://youtu.be/Y5233mYtpqc).



Video above: Trailer for the 2011 movie "Melancholea". From (https://youtu.be/RHMy6abqq04).
Update 9/1/15 - the whole movie can be seen on YouTube at (https://youtu.be/_ZdJ6zIAeFc).


.

Rising police aggression

SUBHEAD:  It is a telling indicator of our societal decline - a historically common marker of failing civilizations.

By Chris Martenson on 24 April 2015 for Peak Prosperity -
(http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/92427/rising-police-aggression-telling-indicator-our-societal-decline)


Image above: A SWAT robot, a remote-controlled small tank-like vehicle with a shield for officers, is demonstrated for the media in Sanford, Maine, on, April 18, 2013. Howe & Howe Technologies, a Waterboro, Maine company, says their device keeps SWAT teams and other first responders safe in standoffs and while confronting armed suspects. Photo by Robert F. Bukaty/AP Photo. From (http://www.gagdaily.com/appealing/2875-robots-at-work-and-play-part-2.html).

My first Uber lift was in South Carolina.  My driver was from Sudan originally, but had emigrated to the US 20 years ago.  Being the curious sort, I asked him about his life in Sudan and why he moved.  He said that he left when his country had crumbled too far, past the point where a reasonable person could have a reasonable expectation of personal safety, when all institutions had become corrupted making business increasingly difficult.  So he left.

Detecting a hitch in his delivery when he spoke of coming to the US, I asked him how he felt about the US now, 20 years later.  "To be honest," he said, "the same things I saw in Sudan that led me to leave are happening here now. That saddens me greatly, because where else is there to go?"
It’s time to face some uncomfortable ideas about the state of civilization in the United States. This country is no longer the beacon of freedom illuminating a better way for the world. Why not? Because it has ceased to be civilized.

The recent spate of police brutality videos and the complete lack of a useful or even sane response by the police unions is shaping my writing here. But it goes well beyond those incidents and extends into all corners of the lives of US citizens now, as police abuse is only one symptom of a much deeper problem.

What do we mean by "civilized?"  Well, take a look at its official definition and see if you note any descriptors that are lacking in present day US culture:

Civilized adjective

1. Culturededucatedsophisticatedenlightenedhumane All truly civilized countries must deplore torture.
2. Politemannerlytolerantgraciouscourteousaffablewell-behavedwell-mannered
(Source)
A civilized society, then, is one that is humane at its core, that knows right from wrong, and which does not need to conduct lengthy ‘internal reviews’ to discover if videotaped brutality is indeed showing illegal abuse.

Let’s begin by examining a few recent cases of brutality, so many of which now exist that I have to narrow the field substantially in the interest of brevity.  I'm going to skip over the one where an unarmed black man was shot five times in the back and coldly murdered by the officer in South Carolina, because that has already (and rightly) received a lot of media attention.

So, the first case I'd like to discuss comes to us from San Bernardino CA where a man being served with a warrant for suspicion of identity theft started to flee.  Much to the dismay of the police, the last leg of his otherwise humorous escape plan involved a horse, forcing the cops to huff across the hot, dry desert on foot.

The video eventually shows the fugitive falling off his horse, throwing himself flat on the ground in total submission, and then putting his own hands behind his back. Two officers then approach and, in full view of the news chopper camera circling overhead, proceed to violently kick him in the face and groin, pistol whip him with a taser, pile-drive him with their elbows, and then move aside to make room for the other nine officers that also join in the violent 2 minute long beating:
Aerial footage showed the man falling off the horse he was suspected of stealing during the pursuit in San Bernardino County Thursday afternoon.
He then appeared to be stunned with a Taser by a sheriff's deputy and fall to the ground with his arms outstretched. Two deputies immediately descended on him and appeared to punch him in the head and knee him in the groin, according to the footage, reviewed several times by NBC4.
The group surrounding the man grew to 11 sheriff's deputies.
In the two minutes after the man was stunned with a Taser, it appeared deputies kicked him 17 times, punched him 37 times and struck him with batons four times. Thirteen blows appeared to be to the head. The horse stood idly nearby.
The man did not appear to move from his position lying on the ground for more than 45 minutes. He did not appear to receive medical attention while deputies stood around him during that time.
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon told NBC4 he was launching an internal investigation into the actions of the deputies.
"I'm not sure if there was a struggle with the suspect," McMahon said. "It appears there was in the early parts of the video. What happens afterwards, I'm not sure of, but we will investigate it thoroughly."
(Source)
Note the lack of civilized responses there from beginning to the end.  A yielding, non-resisting suspect was repeatedly pounded by 11 officers using means that would land you or me in hot water (justifiably) on “assault with a dangerous weapon” charges if we did the same.

Then the beaten man was left on the ground afterwards without any medical attention for 45 minutes. The physical abuse nor the later disdain for the suspect's condition aren't behaviors you find in a civilized society. Successfully apprehending a 'suspected criminal' does not give you free license to mete out a brutal beat-down, at least not if your humanity is intact. But with these officers, that appears to be precisely what happened. The fact that it did is indicative of a culture in distress.

In the next part of this sad drama, the county sheriff had the audacity to say (in an obvious attempt at damage control) that he was ‘not sure’ if a struggle had happened with the suspect, but that it appeared that there had been one.  Apparently, the sheriff needs some training in evidence review (or a new pair of glasses) because there’s no struggle there at all, which is plainly obvious in the video:
Then the sheriff concludes with “what happens afterward, I’m not sure of,…” Again, anybody who viewed the video is very certain of what happened afterwards because it’s completely obvious: the deputies kicked the crap out of a non-resisting suspect.

So obvious that less than 2 weeks after the beating, San Bernadino county hastily agreed to a $650,000 settlement in attempt to very rapidly put the whole thing behind them.

The only legitimate response from the sheriff, to show that the rule of law applies and that he and his deputies have morals and are part of a civilized society, would have been to say something along the lines of, “Assaulting a compliant and non-resisting suspect is never OK, and it is against our internal policies and training as well as the law.  In the interest of complete transparency and fairness, both real and perceived, we’ve asked for an external review which will include citizen participation.  

Whether laws are broken by citizens of the police, our department believes 100% in equal application of the law because anything else erodes the basic perception of fairness upon which a civilized society rests.”

Of course, nothing of the sort was said here. Nor is it ever said in other brutality cases, where instead we see the ranks close around the accused cop(s), which unfortunately communicates the impression that one of the perks of being a law enforcement officer is being able to dodge the consequences of the same laws they administer daily.

Here are a few more cases, all demonstrating the same unequal application of the laws:

In this next case, an unarmed, fleeing black male suspect was tackled and pinned on the ground by at least two officers. He then was shot in the back by a 73 year-old reserve deputy who apparently couldn't tell the difference between a revolver and a taser. A 73 year-old whose main qualification for being on the scene seems to have been his prior generous donations to the police department.
Tulsa Police Chase And Shoot Eric Courtney Harris


The above video is disturbing for many reasons, but especially because while Eric Harris is dying he says “Oh man, I can’t breathe” to which one of the officer who happens to have his knee firmly on Eris’s head says “Fuck your breath!”

Recall that one of the words used to describe civilized is "humane". Think about how far out of touch with your own humanity you have to be to say that to a dying person. Even if the officer didn't know Harris was dying at the time, he at least knew that he had been shot.

In another case, a man approaches a car blocking the street and asks for it to be moved.  The violent manner of the officer's response would be a case of road rage if it involved another civilian and be prosecuted as a serious crime with multiple charges.
Man Asks Cop Nicely to Stop Blocking Traffic, So the Cop Beat Him and Stomped his Head
Sept 11, 2014 Sacramento, CA — A Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy is on paid vacation after a video surfaced showing him stomping on a man’s face and hitting him with his flashlight after tasering him.
Undersheriff Jaime Lewis says that they are investigating themselves after viewing the video.
“There are portions of that video that clearly have caused me concern,” Lewis said. “And that is exactly what has caused the department to initiate an investigation, so we can get to the bottom of it.”
The man being beaten in the video is 51-year-old John Madison Reyes, who said the incident started when he asked the deputy, whose car was blocking the road, to move.
“I asked him kindly to move the car,” Reyes said. “He glared at me and stared at me. And then, I said an expletive, ‘You need to move the car because I can’t get through.’”
"Let's face it, had the subject complied with the officer's directives from the initial contact and beyond, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this today," Lewis said.
(Source)
What seems to have happened in the above story is simply that the cop didn't like his authority being challenged, even in a very minor way, and he over-reacted.

The recipient of the beating, Mr. Reyes, was charged with resisting arrest.  How is that even possible?  It seems like there needs to be something you are being arrested for to resist in the first place.  Something for which the officer has probable cause in the first place which you then resist?  How can the only charge be ‘resisting arrest’?

Sadly, many times after a confrontation has become physically violent the one and only charge applied is ‘resisting arrest.’

Of course, that’s a mighty convenient charge for some police who escalate a situation first, and then resort to using the charge of resisting arrest because, in the end, that’s the only charge they have. And while it’s not wise to resist arrest, there are hundreds of cases where people claim they weren’t resisting at all, merely trying to protect their heads and faces from heavy blows, while the police were beating them yelling “Stop resisting arrest!” like it was a magic incantation.
As in this case:
Brutal LAPD arrest caught on video; Department investigating cops seen bodyslamming nurse twice during cell phone traffic stop

The Los Angeles Police Department is investigating two officers who were allegedly caught on surveillance camera slamming a nurse on the ground twice — and then fist bumping afterward — during a recent traffic stop.

The two officers pulled over Michelle Jordan, 34, of Sunland, Aug. 21, for allegedly talking on her cell phone while driving in Tujunga, in northeast Los Angeles, the department said.

Jordan pulled into the parking lot of a Del Taco restaurant and got out of her car to confront the officers, cops said.

The taco joint's surveillance video appears to show the officers, both men, yanking the 5-foot-4 inch registered nurse from the open driver's seat and then slamming her on the ground to cuff her.

The duo then yank Jordan to her feet and bring her to the patrol car, where they pat her down.

Moments later, one of the cops slams the married mom to the ground a second time.
After placing her in the cruiser's backseat, the two appear to share a celebratory fist-pound.

Jordan was booked for resisting arrest and later released.
(Source)
The pictures of the damage to this woman's face are disturbing.  Think about what it would be like to be pulled over for a minor infraction, be yanked from your car, thrown to the ground, handcuffed, stood up, and then violently body slammed a second time.  While she may have been using words that these officers found to be less than respectful of their authority, in a civilized society grown men do not violently assault the unarmed -- especially handcuffed women.  That's just sadistic and has no place in a decent society.

In another case from Baltimore police broke the leg of a man they were arresting, Freddie Gray, cuffed him, and instead of getting him medical help dragged him to a van obviously alive and screaming in pain from the broken leg. By the time that van ride was over, the man was delivered to a local hospital with a broken neck, his spine 80% severed, and he died a short while later. His “crime?”

He allegedly “fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence," which, by the way, is not actually a crime, something the Baltimore police were forced to acknowledge in the aftermath of the incident.  The police spokesman, Deputy Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez initially stated that there was “no evidence” of any use of excessive force.  I would counter that any time you shatter a person’s neck after they are cuffed during a van ride, that’s "excessive", by definition.

Again, the initial response by the police, which began as silence followed by the filing of an initial report that said Mr. Gray was "arrested without incident or force" reveals just how broken our enforcement system and culture really are.

In another recent case a mentally ill woman in Idaho was shot dead by police within 15 seconds of their arrival.  She had a knife, the police got out of their vehicle, walked straight towards her and when she did not immediately comply with their commands, they opened fire.

Something Is Very Wrong

[note: an incomplete statistic was used here and has been removed and replaced with the following]
In the past ten years police in the UK have been involved in 23 total police shooting fatalities.  In the US in 2013 alone there were a minimum of 458 'justifiable homicides' by firearm committed by US police.  I say 'a minimum' because the FBI statistics are woefully incomplete because there is no mandate that police forces report their killings to the FBI so the database is certainly inaccurate on the low side.  But taking that at face value, there is a vast gap between the number of people shot in the UK as compared to the US.  Adjusting for population, US police officers are killing citizens at roughly 40 times the rate of UK police.  40 times!

How can this be? In the UK they’ve got hooligans and yobs, immigrants and poor people. They’ve got drunks and mentally unbalanced people too. And yet they somehow don’t kill people in the fulfillment of their duties as public safety officers.

In this video you’ll see a mentally deranged man outside of Buckingham palace threatening people while wielding knives. He was successfully apprehended alive by a patient and methodical UK police force that did not aggravate, but instead waited for an opening to make their move, which they did quite successfully using a taser instead of guns.

The problem, it seems, is that the US police have been trained to be highly confrontational and to escalate, rather than defuse, any situation.

Police in the US have shot an individual’s highly trained service dog after showing up at the wrong address, and even a family’s pet pot-bellied pig simply because they ‘felt threatened.’

So the one-two punch here is that cops are trained to be highly confrontational and then to react with force -- oftentimes deadly force -- when they ‘feel threatened.’  See the problem here? It’s pretty easy to end up feeling threatened when you are creating threatening situations.

That’s a recipe for exactly the sort of over-reactive uses of force that are giving us the problems we see today.

An Occupying Force

If you saw the images coming out of Ferguson recently, you may have noticed that the law-enforcement presence did not so much look like police, but an occupying military.  Snipers perched on roofs viewing the crowds through their scopes, tear gas and rubber bullets constantly in use, Humvees, the latest acoustic anti-personnel devices, and officers outfitted with ‘battle rattle’ that even made one Afghanistan vet jealous for its magnificent excess compared to what soldiers were issued in one of the most dangerous regions of the world.

How is it that a small mid-western city arrayed more hardware against its own citizens than you might find in an active Middle East war zone?  Who really thought that necessary and why?

Exactly how and when did policing and crowd control in the US slip into a set of methods that match those used by occupying forces -- like those of Isreal -- who subjugate whole populations?
It turns out, by going to Israel and learning Israeli methods of crowd 'control.'
Israel-trained police “occupy” Missouri after killing of black youth
Feb 8, 2015
Since the killing of eighteen-year-old Michael Brown by Ferguson police in Missouri last weekend, the people of Ferguson have been subjected to a military-style crackdown by a squadron of local police departments dressed like combat soldiers. This has prompted residents to liken the conditions on the ground in Ferguson to the Israeli military occupation of Palestine. 
And who can blame them?
The dystopian scenes of paramilitary units in camouflage rampaging through the streets of Ferguson, pointing assault rifles at unarmed residents and launching tear gas into people’s front yards from behind armored personnel carriers (APCs), could easily be mistaken for a Tuesday afternoon in the occupied West Bank. 
And it’s no coincidence. 
At least two of the four law enforcement agencies that were deployed in Ferguson up until Thursday evening — the St. Louis County Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department — received training from Israeli security forces in recent years. 
(Source)
If the tactics and gear of the police in Ferguson looked military that’s because they were. The purpose of APC’s and m4 assault rifles is to go into dangerous battles and kill the other side first so you can survive.

I believe that one’s training and mindset are critical determinants of what happens next.  It should really not surprise anyone that a militarized mindset accompanied by specialized training and hardware has led to scenes like the one we saw in Ferguson, among many other places over the past several years.

I wanted to find out if the assertion of the above article was true. Had US police agencies really trained with the Israelis?

The answer is yes, beginning over a decade ago. Note that US police have been training for a domestic terrorist threat that has been almost completely non-existent, well below the statistical threshold that would seem to justify such advanced training and tactics:
U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation: Joint Police & Law Enforcement Training
Sept 2013
In 2002, Los Angeles Police Department detective Ralph Morten visited Israel to receive training and advice on preparing security arrangements for large public gatherings.  From lessons learned on his trip, Det. Morten prepared a new Homicide Bomber Prevention Protocol and was better able to secure the Academy Awards presentation.
In January 2003, thirty-three senior U.S. law enforcement officials - from Washington, Chicago, Kansas City, Boston and Philadelphia - traveled to Israel to attend a meeting on "Law Enforcement in the Era of Global Terror."  The workshops helped build skills in identifying terrorist cells, enlisting public support for the fight against terrorism and coping with the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
“We went to the country that's been dealing with the issue for 30 years,” Boston Police Commissioner Paul F. Evans said. “The police are the front line in the battle against terrorism. We were there to learn from them - their response, their efforts to deter it. They touched all the bases.”
“I think it's invaluable,” said Washington, DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey about the instruction he received in Israel. “They have so much more experience in dealing with this than we do in the United States.”
Also, in 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security established a special Office of International Affairs to institutionalize the relationship between Israeli and American security officials. “I think we can learn a lot from other countries, particularly Israel, which unfortunately has a long history of preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks,” said Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) about the special office. (Source)
Here’s the thing: your chances of dying of ‘terrorism’ on US soil are dwarfed by the chances of dying from practically every other cause of death in the US.  Terrorism simply is not a gigantic and imminent existential threat that requires special hardware and training relationships with nations that practice the tactics and strategies of occupation.

Terrorism is not such a common thing that we need to define our entire crowd control methods around it, but a rare thing, and is really what’s left over after a few individuals feel like every other option of redress has been stripped away.  Which is why it’s practically unheard of in the US, and most other civilized countries.

But domestic US law enforcement agencies have been training and outfitting themselves as if it’s a top threat.  Why is that?

There are not very many reassuring answers to that question.  One is that our law enforcement agencies lack the ability to discern actual threats from imaginary ones.  Another is that they envision a time when some portion of the civilian population feels as if it has lost all hope and options for a better future, and starts resorting to terrorist acts.

Either way, very poor answers.

A Dangerous Job?

One mitigating factor is to note that police have a stressful, dangerous and low paying job.  Erring on the side of personal safety makes sense when looked at this way.

In terms of dangerousness, however, law enforcement doesn't even crack the top-ten list of most dangerous professions:

(Source)

The death rate for sworn officers is 11.1 per 100,000 (2013 data) for job-related injuries. Fishing is ten times more dangerous. And even the 11.1 rate includes some deaths which were not the result of violent actions committed during an arrest, but things that tend to happen among a force more than a million strong.
(Source)

Even if we assumed that half of the reported job-related deaths were homicides, that would make policing about as dangerous as living in an average city (5.5 per 100,000) but seven-fold less dangerous than simply living in Baltimore (35 per 100,000).

So a stressful job yes. An important job, definitely. But not as dangerous as many other occupations, which is relevant context to this story.

Good Policing

I would be remiss to not also point out other examples of great police work.  We need to illuminate both what’s wrong and what’s right.

One of my favorite examples shows Norwegian police handling a belligerent drunk:

Be sure to watch at least the first full minute, and note that this drunk is yelling, cursing, kicking, and generally ‘resisting’ and yet the police involved never rise to the bait, handle him with good manners and like he’s a human being the entire time.  Well done!

This next clip shows a policeman in Ohio refusing to shoot a man wanted on a double murder charge even though he really probably should have and would have been completely justified in doing so:
The man wanted to be shot and killed by the officer who, despite being rushed, and having the man put his hands in his pockets after being warned not to, and even being knocked to the ground at one point, refused to shoot.

That restraint was quite remarkable and showed someone willing to place his own life in danger before committing to take another’s.  He said afterwards that he “wanted to be absolutely sure” before pulling the trigger that it was absolutely necessary.

I do wonder if the two tours the former marine took before becoming an officer had anything to do with his unwillingness to take another life?

How To Fix This

Well I think I’ve been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives, and all my life I’ve underestimated it.
~ Charlie Munger
I think the solution to reducing episodes of police assaults on citizens is contained within the Charlie Munger quote above.  The incentives have to be aligned.

My solution is simply this: every time a police department loses an excessive force or wrongful death case and has to pay out money, that money should come from their local police union’s pension fund.  And by law, these losses cannot be refilled with taxpayer funds.

Every single time a judgment is made against that department and the union pension is reduced, the retired and currently-serving officers will have to decide for themselves if they should keep the indicted officer or officers on the force who lost the pension all that money. Or decide if training and policies need to be adjusted.

I guarantee you that with the incentive to train and behave properly and lawfully now resting with the police itself, rapid behavior and training modification would result.

Moreover, I see no reason why the citizens of any given municipality should be on the hook for repeated violations by any public servant or office.

For some of the most abusive departments, the amounts are far from trivial.
U.S. cities pay out millions to settle police lawsuits
Oct 1, 2014
The Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier this year that the city has paid out nearly half a billion dollars in settlements over the past decade, and spent $84.6 million in fees, settlements, and awards last year.
Bloomberg News reported that in 2011, Los Angeles paid out $54 million, while New York paid out a whopping $735 million, although those figures include negligence and other claims unrelated to police abuse. 
Oakland Police Beat reported in April that the city had paid out $74 million to settle 417 lawsuits since 1990.
And last month, Minneapolis Public Radio put that city’s payout at $21 million since 2003.
(Source)
Just align the incentives and watch what happens next.  The problem is, the incentives are just completely wrong right now, and taxpayers are footing the bill for repeated and expensive police behaviors.

That needs to stop if we want to see real change.

Conclusion

The police serve a very important role in society and I want them to be as effective as possible.  They are there to uphold the law and protect the peace, which are extremely important functions.
Unfortunately there are far too many cases where the police have acted as judge, jury and executioner to suggest that there are just a few bad apples.

Instead there’s a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and force escalation better suited to war zones than maintaining civilian order.  The lines have been drawn in many police departments: it’s us vs. them.

Trust in many departments has been utterly shattered within some communities because the police hold themselves to a different standard than they do the populace.  Police commit brazen acts of brutality and get away with it, largely because they self-investigate and/or because the local District Attorney office is unwilling to press charges.

But the recent cases of police brutality are simply a symptom of a much larger problem. Society in the US is breaking down, civility has been lost, and the country is rapidly becoming uncivilized.

This extends within and across all of the most important institutions. Congress is known to work for corporations first and foremost. Democracy itself is bought and sold by the highest bidders. The Federal Reserve protects big banks from the costs of their misdeeds and enriches the already stupidly rich as a side benefit.

DEA agents are caught in Columbia having sex parties with underage girls and drugs, and the worst punishment handed out is a 10 day suspension without pay.  Nobody is even fired, let alone jailed.
"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity".
                 ~ Tacitus, Annals, Book XI Ch. 26
The FBI has just admitted that they had been consistently (and certainly knowingly) overstating forensic lab analysis in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95% of cases over a period of several decades.  The cases included 32 that resulted in death sentences.  Many people were wrongly convicted, but nobody from the FBI will face any charges and many of the states involved have (so far) decided they won’t be looking into any of the cases to right the wrongs.  The wrongful convictions will stand, an injustice that is incompatible with the concept of being civilized.

The Department of Justice has utterly failed to hold any banks or bankers criminally responsible for any acts despite levying a few billions in fines for crimes that probably netted the banks tens of billions in profits.  For some, crime does pay.

I could go on, but why bother? The pattern is easy enough to see.

The US has lost its way. Fairness, justice, and knowing right from wrong seem to all be lost concepts and the trend has only gotten worse over the past several years.  Without moral bearings, what’s left?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Either the people of the US stand up and resist these accumulating injustices or they will get exactly the sort of government, and law enforcement, they deserve.
In the meantime, the challenge for each afflicted institution is to begin to recognize right from wrong, and in the case of law enforcement agencies, stop pretending like every single one of your million+ officers is a good egg.  We all know hiring is imperfect and mistakes get made.  Own up to them and let those who make serious mistakes experience the consequences.  Rebuild our trust in your necessary and important institution by clearly demonstrating that you know right from wrong wherever it occurs and whoever commits the deed.

If we don't do this, if we allow the current trajectory to build more momentum, the loss of civilized behavior will reach a tipping point from which it will be very hard to return without much hardship, and likely, bloodshed.

In Part 2: Preparing For The Coming Breakdown, we analyze how the boom in prosperity seen over the much of the 20th century is evaporating, and as the pie begins to shrink, the means by which the players compete for their slices becomes increasingly brutish and violent.

Ask yourself this: If tensions are this bad now, while relatively abundant resources exist, how bad do you think they’ll get during the next economic downturn or financial crisis?


[IB Editor's note: We are not aware of recent problems with the Kauai Police Department that we have seen in the last few years on the mainland. That's not to say it cannot happen here. For an example see (http://www.islandbreath.org/2008Year/15-justice_law/0815-11PoliceOverReact.html) in 2008 and (http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/police-shoot-kill-kalaheo-man/article_9df127e0-07db-11e3-8ef0-0019bb2963f4.html) in 2013. On the other hand in recent months I have witnessed respectful yet forceful handling of a young man, high very on meth, arrested on an outstanding warrant. Yet one must worry about the militarization of our nation's police department and individual officers isolation from the very ones they are sworn to protect and serve.]

See also:
Island Breath: KPD Policy - Patrolling 6/8/08
Island Breath: The Kauai Police Mission 5/15/08
Island Breath: Police need bikes not riot gear 4/5/08

.

Building trust with police

SUBHEAD: Cops can get into a state of mind where they're scared to death and they panic and they act out on that panic.

By Steve Inskeep on 5 December 2014 for NPR News -
(http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/12/05/368545491/civil-rights-attorney-on-how-she-built-trust-with-police)


Image above: A young man kneels before a line of Los Angeles police officers about to charge at protesters reacting to a grand jury’s decision not to indict a white police officer who shot dead an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri. From (http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-it-felt-like-to-be-a-suspicious-black-teenager-1416956319).

[IB Publisher's note: Listen to this story at (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/12/05/368545491/civil-rights-attorney-on-how-she-built-trust-with-police).]

As a civil rights attorney, Constance Rice became known in the 1990s for, as she puts it, going to war with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Rice filed lawsuits against the department, mainly over their treatment of minorities in underprivileged communities.

Following the recent decisions not to indict white cops in the deaths of two black men — President Obama has said one of his top priorities is building trust between minority communities and local police.

Rice's time battling the LAPD, and specifically captain Charlie Beck, who is now LA's police chief, eventually led to a place where there could be trust. They worked together to reform the department.
Some of that change included LAPD officers going into projects to set up youth sports programs and health screenings, things that made people's lives better and brought police and predominantly black communities closer together.

Here are some interview highlights:

On use of police force on minorities:
Cops can get into a state of mind where they're scared to death. When they're in that really, really frightened place they panic and they act out on that panic. I have known cops who haven't had a racist bone in their bodies and in fact had adopted black children, they went to black churches on the weekend; and these are white cops. They really weren't overtly racist. They weren't consciously racist.

But you know what they had in their minds that made them act out and beat a black suspect unwarrantedly? They had fear. They were afraid of black men. I know a lot of white cops who have told me.

And I interviewed over 900 police officers in 18 months and they started talking to me, it was almost like a therapy session for them I didn't realize that they needed an outlet to talk.

They would say things like;
"Ms. Rice I'm scared of black men. Black men terrify me. I'm really scared of them. Ms. Rice, you know black men who come out of prison, they've got great hulk strength and I'm afraid they're going to kill me. Ms. Rice, can you teach me how not to be afraid of black men." 
I mean this is cops who are 6'4". You know, the cop in Ferguson was 6'4" talking about he was terrified. But when cops are scared, they kill and they do things that don't make sense to you and me.

On whether or not racism plays a factor in police force:
He doesn't feel like it's racism. The black community experiences it as racism, that's very clear. So what I'm saying is that for people who have to be in the business of solving this dilemma you have to be able to step into the frightened tennis shoes of black kids; black male kids in particular.

You have to be able to step into the combat boots and scared cops, and racist cops, and cruel cops, and good cops. You have to be able to distinguish between all of those human experiences and bring them together. On a single platform of we're going to solve this by empathizing. We're going to solve it with compassion and we're going to solve it with common sense.

On whether improving life in poor neighborhoods causes police to be less fearful:
Not only does it cause cops to be less fearful, it causes the community to embrace them. I have taken a group of 50 cops and the chief (Charlie) Beck let me train them.

I trained them in what I community partnership policing. The first thing I tell these cops is that you are not in the arrest business; you are in the trust business. We are going to train you in Public Trust Policing. It goes beyond community policing.

What it does is it puts police in a position of helping a community solve its problems. These cops come into the black housing projects and they said to these populations who hate them "We know you hate us, but we're here to serve. We're going to win your trust."



Darren Wilson killing Michael Brown

By Juan Wilson on 5 December 2014 for Island Breath - 
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2014/12/building-trust-with-police.html)

There are several eyewitness accounts of how Officer Darren Wilson shot to death Michael Brown. Most of the details I have heard or read isolate detail of accounts to highlight conflicting testimony.

It seems to me the the conduction of the Grand Jury was quite unusual. setup with a deal. Eyewitness testimony was presented as being unreliable. One could only rely on the testimony of Wilson himself.

My opinion is that Wilson’s resignation was baked into the cake if he was not indicted. Anyway,

A good article in the Atlantic on the subject is (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/major-contradictions-in-eyewitness-accounts-of-michael-browns-death/383157/)
Brown attacked Wilson
Brown ran from Wilson
Brown had his hands in the air
Brown did not have his hands in the air
Brown tried to surrender to Wilson
Brown did not try to surrender to Wilson
What makes sense?

All of it might!

If one does not discredit the eyewitness testimony - and for the sake of attempting to find some clarity - one tries to sew together a narrative that makes sense  - then a whole new characterization of events might emerge.

Here’s one way of looking various details. I am only including actions between Brown and Wilson. Brown was with a friend but I have eliminated him from the action.

Wilson driving his patrol car came upon Michael Brown walking down the middle of the street. There was a police radio report about a nearby store theft by some fitting Brown’s description.

Brown was 19 but huge at 6’-5” and weighing almost 290 pounds. A physically intimidating individual to take on. Wilson was alone in the patrol car. As he neared Brown he made is service revolver available for immediate use if necessary.

Wilson in the patrol car, with is driver window down, stopped Brown walking in the middle of the street. Upon being questioned Brown gave the officer a wise-ass response. Wilson commanded Brown off the road. There was more back talk from Brown. As if to intimidate Brown Wilson showed the gun to Brown.

Brown told Wilson he was too much of a pussy to shoot him. Brown may have reached for the gun. Wilson fired the revolver, hitting Brown in the right shoulder. There was some blood in the car. Brown momentarily pulled back not knowing if he was badly hurt or not.

Brown did not want to be shot again. A struggle for the gun ensued. They wrestled for control. Wilson was punched. Without getting control of the gun Brown made a decision to flee and took off. Wilson makes a radio call that shots have been fired. Brown ran a short distance away as Wilson got out of his car.

Wilson yells at Brown to get on ground. Brown turned to Wilson with the gun pointed at him but did not get on the ground.  Brown may have partially raised is arms to surrender saying “I don’t have a gun.Stop shooting!”

He may not have been able to raise his right arm fully. Brown tucked his wounded right arm in his waist band of his pants. More shots were fired. His right arm was hit more times.

Brown realized he was likely going to be shot to death and decided to make a rush to stop Wilson from killing him. As he ran at Wilson another volley of shots hits Brown from a few few dozen feet away. One shot hit Wilson in the right side of his neck. After that Brown walked toward Wilson without menace.

Brown fell to the ground and onto his face. Wilson shot Brown through the top of his head.

I think Darren Wilson feared Michael Wilson on sight. His fear pulled the trigger...many times.

Conclusion:
Michael Brown may have been a small time criminal and a brutish thoughtless kid. Darren Wilson was not the person to deal with that. Darren was playing Grand Theft Auto Five with a real patrol car and real gun. He should have stayed in the basement with his XBox 360.

Darren Wilson should never again have a loaded gun in his hand.

See also:
Island Breath: KPD need bikes not riot gear 4/5/08
Island Breath: The Kauai Police Mission 5/15/08
Island Breath: The future KPD we want 5/28/08
Island Breath: KPD alternatives to patrol cruising 6/7/08
Island Breath: TGI column cancelled by KPD 6/18/08


.

The Price of 911

SUBHEAD: As Bush lowered taxes on the rich his wars were the first in our history paid for entirely on credit.

 By Joseph Stiglitz 1 September 2011 for Project Syndicate -
  (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz142/English)

 
Image above: Screenshot from 2008 video game GTA4 with a NYPD SWAT team in action. From (http://games.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/GTA-IV-S-W-A-T--Mod-Screenshot-32248.html).

The September 11, 2001, terror attacks by Al Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined. President George W. Bush’s response to the attacks compromised America’s basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security.

The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to Al Qaeda – as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive – orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning – as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation.

Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.

Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking America, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit. As America went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax “relief” for the wealthy.

Today, America is focused on unemployment and the deficit. Both threats to America’s future can, in no small measure, be traced to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2% of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion – $17,000 for every US household – with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50%.

Moreover, as Bilmes and I argued in our book The Three Trillion Dollar War, the wars contributed to America’s macroeconomic weaknesses, which exacerbated its deficits and debt burden. Then, as now, disruption in the Middle East led to higher oil prices, forcing Americans to spend money on oil imports that they otherwise could have spent buying goods produced in the US.

But then the US Federal Reserve hid these weaknesses by engineering a housing bubble that led to a consumption boom. It will take years to overcome the excessive indebtedness and real-estate overhang that resulted.

Ironically, the wars have undermined America’s (and the world’s) security, again in ways that Bin Laden could not have imagined. An unpopular war would have made military recruitment difficult in any circumstances. But, as Bush tried to deceive America about the wars’ costs, he underfunded the troops, refusing even basic expenditures – say, for armored and mine-resistant vehicles needed to protect American lives, or for adequate health care for returning veterans. A US court recently ruled that veterans’ rights have been violated. (Remarkably, the Obama administration claims that veterans’ right to appeal to the courts should be restricted!)

Military overreach has predictably led to nervousness about using military power, and others’ knowledge of this threatens to weaken America’s security as well. But America’s real strength, more than its military and economic power, is its “soft power,” its moral authority. And this, too, was weakened: as the US violated basic human rights like habeas corpus and the right not to be tortured, its longstanding commitment to international law was called into question.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies knew that long-term victory required winning hearts and minds. But mistakes in the early years of those wars complicated that already-difficult battle. The wars’ collateral damage has been massive: by some accounts, more than a million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war. According to some studies, at least 137,000 civilians have died violently in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last ten years; among Iraqis alone, there are 1.8 million refugees and 1.7 million internally displaced people.

Not all of the consequences were disastrous. The deficits to which America’s debt-funded wars contributed so mightily are now forcing the US to face the reality of budget constraints. America’s military spending still nearly equals that of the rest of the world combined, two decades after the end of the Cold War. Some of the increased expenditures went to the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader Global War on Terrorism, but much of it was wasted on weapons that don’t work against enemies that don’t exist. Now, at last, those resources are likely to be redeployed, and the US will likely get more security by paying less.

Al Qaeda, while not conquered, no longer appears to be the threat that loomed so large in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the price paid in getting to this point, in the US and elsewhere, has been enormous – and mostly avoidable. The legacy will be with us for a long time. It pays to think before acting.

.

Chertoff's Conflict of Interest

SUBHEAD: Fear payoff. While advocating high-tech security measures Chertoff pocketed millions from its providers.

Image above: Official portrait of Michael Chertoff. From (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/biography_0116.shtm).

By Marcus Baram on 23 November 2010 in HuffingtonPost - (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html)

After last month's plot to send bombs from Yemen to the United States aboard a cargo plane, former U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff's whiskerless visage was ubiquitous on cable news. Solemnly warning that the nation needed stronger security procedures, Chertoff patiently repeated his talking points on ABC News's "World News Tonight", "Fox and Friends", CNBC's "Squawk Box" and Bloomberg TV.

Almost unmentioned in these appearances: Chertoff has a lot to gain financially if some of these measures are adopted. Between his private consulting firm, The Chertoff Group, and seats on the boards of giant defense and security firms, he sits at the heart of the giant security nexus created in the wake of 9/11, in effect creating a shadow homeland security agency. Chertoff launched his firm just days after President Barack Obama took office, eventually recruiting at least 11 top officials from the Department of Homeland Security, as well as former CIA director General Michael Hayden and other top military brass and security officials.

(Chertoff's predecessor at DHS, Tom Ridge, has also parlayed his experience into a lucrative career. Since 2005, he has served on the board of Savi Technology, the primary technology provider for the Pentagon's wireless cargo-monitoring network, and he has served as a senior advisor to TechRadium, Inc., a Texas-based security technology company.)

Chertoff's clients have prospered in the last two years, largely through lucrative government contracts, and The Chertoff Group's assistance in navigating the complex federal procurement bureaucracy is in high demand. One example involves the company at the heart of the recent uproar over intrusive airport security procedures -- Rapiscan, which makes the so-called body scanners. Back in 2005, Chertoff was promoting the technology and Homeland Security placed the government's first order, buying five Rapiscan scanners.

After the arrest of the underwear bomber last Christmas, Chertoff hit the airwaves and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post advocating the full-body scanning systems without disclosing that Rapiscan Systems was a client of his firm. The aborted terror plot prompted the Transportation Security Agency to order 300 machines from Rapiscan. Yet last spring, the Government Accountability Office reported that, "It remains unclear whether [the scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon" used in the aborted bombing attempt. And according to a recent report by DHS's Inspector General, the training of airport screeners is rushed and poorly supervised.

In the past year and a half, $118 million in stimulus funds have been used to buy technology from Rapiscan, but all that money hasn't produced many jobs -- the ostensible purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In fact, it accounts for only 84 positions, according to a HuffPost analysis of government data, meaning roughly $1.4 million was spent to create each job.

Rapiscan has upped its lobbying expenditures in recent years, spending $271,500 so far this year compared to $80,000 five years ago, USA Today reports. As a measure of the firm's influence, one of the honored guests accompanying President Obama on his recent trip to India was Deepak Chopra, the president and CEO of OSI Systems, which owns Rapiscan. India plans to install the scanners at its airports in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai attacksChertoff's role has been strongly criticized by passenger right advocate Kate Hanni, the founder of FlyersRights.org, who opposes the use of the scanners on privacy and health grounds, citing government studies about radiation exposure.

"They're trying to scare the pants off the American people that we need these things," Hanni told The Huffington Post. "When Chertoff goes on TV, he is basically promoting his clients and exploiting that fear to make money. Fear is a commodity and they're selling it. The more they can sell it, the more we buy into it. When American people are afraid, they will accept anything."

Last week, two Republican congressmen took to the floor of the House to blast Chertoff and condemn the TSA's security procedures. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced legislation against the scanning equipment.

"Michael Chertoff!" Paul exclaimed on the House floor, as shown in the video below. "I mean, here's the guy who was the head of the TSA, selling the equipment. And the equipment's questionable. We don't even know if it works, and it may well be dangerous to our health."

Last Wednesday, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) claimed that Chertoff gave interviews touting the scanners while "getting paid" to sell them. "There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners."

Chertoff's firm denies the insinuations and outright accusations, claiming that the group's advisory services work for Rapiscan only lasted for four months last year and that they do not currently represent them. In addition, a Chertoff spokesperson asserted that the group does not lobby, adding:

The Chertoff Group played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA. Further, Secretary Michael Chertoff was in no way compensated for his public statements, in which he has consistently expressed long held beliefs in the deployment of effective technologies and techniques that eliminate security vulnerabilities such as those illustrated last year during the terrorist attempt on Christmas Day.

Rapiscan issued the following statement:

In 2009, Rapiscan Systems briefly engaged Chertoff Group, led by Michael Chertoff, as a consultant. During this period, Mr. Chertoff was a private citizen and regularly engaged in consulting activities for multiple clients. In that engagement, Mr. Chertoff and his staff of experts provided Rapiscan with advice and analysis with respect to a limited set of well-defined subjects unrelated to aviation security. Chertoff Group's activities in that engagement were advisory, and neither Mr. Chertoff nor his staff has ever represented Rapiscan in any communications with the U.S. government.

The only other company that manufactures such scanners, L-3 Systems, has spent more than $1.4 million on lobbying the government since 2004 - one of its best-connected lobbyists is Linda Daschle, wife of ex-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), earning almost $100,000 in fees for working on "matters related to advanced imaging technolog," reports The Hill.

Chertoff's advocacy helped derail a bill proposed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) which would have limited the use of scanners at airports. Though it sailed through the House, it flailed in the Senate after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed bombing attempt. "But I also routinely heard that 'Secretary Chertoff believes this is the right thing to do. Who are you to challenge him?'" Chaffetz told USA Today.

Just last month, Chertoff told CNBC, "The pressure from the public for more efficient screening will hopefully push the government to investment of technology."

The scanning technology can present health risks to passengers by raising radiation exposure, according to an inter-agency report issued last winter. Pregnant women and children should not be scanned, although the radiation they are exposed to is "extremely small," according to the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report.

The scanning-technology debate illustrates just one of Chertoff's many financial interests in the security sector. In the recent deal to break up U.S. security firm L-1 Identity Solutions among two top European defense firms, Chertoff was well-positioned: His firm was a strategic adviser to French aerospace and security conglomerate Safran, which paid more than $1.1 billion to acquire L-1's biometrics identification units; and he sits on the board of BAE, the British defense giant which bought L-1's government consulting and intelligence services, as reported by HuffPost's Dan Froomkin earlier this year.

Chertoff, who is a frequent guest on cable news, often touts security proposals and technologies that align with the interests of or are manufactured by his clients. He recently told CNBC that he'd like to see "more investment in bio-security" because "I think we are beginning to lag a little behind in terms of being able to respond to biological threats." The Chertoff Group has invested in BioNeutral, a biotech startup based in New Jersey that is developing technology to combat dangerous microorganisms. In a relatively rare disclosure, Chertoff acknowledged in the interview that "we do represent companies that make sensors and technology of that sort."

The former Homeland Security secretary told CNBC that the country's most pressing need is cybersecurity, describing a nightmare scenario of a digital attack on the country's financial system, air-traffic-control system or the electric grid, emphasizing that the Obama administration "is not moving as far ahead as we would like it to be." Last May, Chertoff played the role of the national security adviser during a simulated electronic attack called Cyber Shock Wave, which was hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center and funded with donations of up to $150,000 each from General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, PayPal, Symantec and other firms. Shortly before the simulation, Chertoff told HuffPost blogger Josh Rushing that he can see the U.S. responding to a cyber-attack with military forces -- "Would it be easier to send a group of special forces in and blow the server up?" he asked rhetorically.

Chertoff neglected to mention that his firm assists clients with cybersecurity issues -- one of the firm's directors, Brian White, helped create the presidential-directed Cyber Security Center and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative. One of Chertoff's roles at BAE, the largest defense firm in Europe, is to "help our government and private sector customers develop cyber security solutions," according to the press release announcing his appointment to the board.

Chertoff has long touted the benefits of biometric identification systems -- retina and fingerprint scans -- stating in 2008 that he doesn't consider them private but more akin to footprints, and that people shouldn't fear the collection and sharing of such information. More recently, he has said that biometric devices are a step in the right direction. Unmentioned in most of these reports is the fact that Chertoff sits on the board of Clear, a new startup that has assumed the assets of Verified Identity Pass, the biometric ID system that charges $179 to allow people to bypass long security lines at the airport. It was picked up at a bankruptcy proceeding for just $6 million by two hedge fund managers.

.