Portland Meetup of the Ron Paul Riders.

PDX MEETUP
Originally uploaded by pdx-ronpaul2008.

That is what you would call an unlikely confluence of support.

Bad Cop. No Doughnut.

This post started as a response to a comment on a now notorious YouTube video by one akfuzz.

Here's the video again.



Here's what he said:

Obviously you have never been in this type of situation. Perhaps you could go out and do the job since you seem to know what the deal is. When you get stabbed or, or worse, shot, by an irrational handcuffed suspect, write back and let us know what you think, eh? BTW, I was not defending this officer, merely stating that given the limited video, 'tis hard to say what really happened.

Ok, that sounds almost reasonable, until you actually think about it.

There are two minutes and thirteen seconds of sadistic pornography captured on that tape - and as a cop, in a live situation, you are expected to assess threats, probable perps, instigators and victims in under 15 seconds, with any more time being a distinct luxury.

But with good training, that's easily possible, and that's a good thing, because you can get all sorts of dead in 15 seconds. So I KNOW who the perp is. And I really don't care that the victim was "acting out."

Here's what SHE said about it:

In the video, Gill, once inside the police car, kicks the back-seat window and continues to scream. "At this point, I had been Tased for so long and just drug around by my handcuffs. I was terrified of this man. He was no longer a police officer to me."

I suggest to you that that was not compliant mindset the officer was supposedly intending.

And if you ever find yourself in this situation, I assure you that a jury will find that amount of video more than enough time to assess whether sober compliance or panicked flailing is "more reasonable" to expect of a drunken woman already - by her own admission and according to the testimony of others- already in an aroused emotional state.

Earlier, akfuzz had uttered this deadpan confirmation of observations and criticisms I'd made earlier about cops, tasers and contempt of those currently in power for the rights and dignity of the citizenry.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Sh

And, the Taser is used to gain compliance, nothing more. A suspect who continues to resist will be Taser'd again, handcuffed or not, male or female...It is not a gender bias thing, I have seen both men and women do horrible things while handcuffed. Nobody can say what they would have done unless they were in the same situation, not even other police officers such as myself. It would not be fair.

akfuzz (2 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

It is very hard to Monday morning QB something like this. I could see where folks would be upset seeing this limited video footage, however, not knowing all the details makes it wrong to judge either the officer or the suspect. I am sure the internal investigation will reveal what really happened, and it's not right to bow to political pressure or the media, such as it appears in this case.

Yes, fuzzynuts, we HAVE seen how tasers are used to "gain compliance, nothing more." Even when it's a compliance that's a flat out violation of constitutional rights or completely unreasonable to expect, due to the obvious mental state of the person being tasered.

And in both cases, there's reasonable evidence to suggest from the raw video that there's a component of sadistic enjoyment in using the taser to inflict pain and enforce compliance.

Now, sir, my standards tell me that a person doing that without a badge has no right to expect restraint on my part to end their offense against the decent expectations of civilized persons. How do you then excuse those who do the exact same thing under color of law? Have you no shame? Have you no professional standards? Aren't you personally embarrassed by the mere existence of such walking trouser stains?

The raw footage from an officer's dash camera - a device intended to prevent the impasse of "he said, she said" situations in court is not "media pressure." It's presenting evidence of a situation that is of concern to the community.

In the real world where knowing truth from fiction is important, outside of the realm of Fox news, facts are facts, and evidence trumps protests of supposed innocence.

Note, when I say "evidence," I mean precisely that, in an exact legal sense. Whatever motivations or training deficits turn up, we don't need to wait to find out what "really happened." The why of it may be of interest, but what we saw IS exactly what happened. What we saw was a repeated assault against a person who was no threat to the officer.

What we do not know is what caused the situation to escalate to that point out of range of the camera - but it would be unwise to assume that testimony from either the cop, the club or the bartender mentioned in the dispute will be without any trace or shade of self-excusing selective interpretation. Besides, we know another thing.

ALL assaults against a person are, in fact, intended to "gain compliance, nothing more."

The blunt truth is, if you have to immediately resort to force to gain compliance, it doesn't show a lot of confidence in your own ability to control a situation, or much respect for the willingness of the average citizen to comply with reasonable, lawful directions in a tense situation.

Perhaps this is because their contempt for your understanding of "lawful order" is well earned? Perhaps it's due to the fact that, having a central nervous system capable of pointing and firing a Taser, you also have some doubts about the solidity of citizen support for your authority that the actual existence of the Taser implies - a means of enforcing compliance that any semi-trained thug can use in situations where a citizen's rightful response would otherwise be amused or enraged contempt at best?

You see, when you pull a weapon to enforce your will, you admit your powerlessness to affect the situation without it. You have abandoned any pretence of moral or lawful authority. You directly state - simply by carrying the damn thing - that you are no longer willing to depend on citizens being willing to comply because they respect you as a symbol of the rule of law and order. You expect them to comply out of fear.

But you pull the trigger, even on a "less lethal" weapon, you have just publicly admitted that your willingness to settle for fear and enforced compliance has bought you a buttload of paperwork - and that's the BEST possible outcome.

I've never been a cop - but I've ten years of martial arts under my belt, an art with a heavy emphasis on avoiding situations and resolving them with an absolute minimum of force. You learn to read body language, you develop a sixth sense for body language, and you make a habit of respectfully treating everyone as if they were Bruce Lee dipped in nitroglycerin. Why?

Because the most dangerous opponent is the one who realizes they don't exist on your threat-o-meter and is just drunk or distraught enough to need to prove you wrong.

Wait, make that a city councilman, a partner in the state's largest personal injury firm, who happens to be Bruce Lee, dipped in nitroglycerin.

And here's another why you should think like that. This jerk figured there was no downside to shocking the hell out of the pretty blond who wouldn't even look at him out of uniform.

What's she gonna do about it? He asks himself, Have a hissy fit?

Yeah. On CNN, no less. With her lawyer. With his very own porn tape playing in the background.

That cartoon cop was confident in the lack of power the suspect had in the situation, and willing to exploit that power imbalance to publicly humiliate her and disrespect her in front of her friends and peers - in order to avoid the heavy lifting (mental and physical) that is the job.

To protect and to serve includes suspects and panicked drunken blond chicks. It does NOT include acts that can be validly compared, metaphorically and in terms of impact on the victim and onlookers, to literal, physical rape.

Your primary tools are your presence, you aura of confident command, your knowledge of law, your reputation, your ability to create peace and security out of thin air, your patience and your integrity. All the rest of the crap hanging off you is available to any five buck an hour security guard - strike that, to anyone with an Internet connection. Including the uniform and the badge.

So the first thing you MUST keep in mind is that the casual use of said crap can erode every one of your main tools. The last thing you want is for peaceful citizens - even peaceful CRIMINAL citizens - to see you as a random, personal threat.

There must be fifty people who saw that incident, and one thing you can rely on - they will hesitate to call the cops in any preventative way, because they are now aware that calling the police will not prevent a situation from turning into an incident, it will absolutely guarantee it.

And people wonder why the violent crime rate is so high in the US.

If you have to rely on your uniform, your badge or your service issue plastic penis to prove you are a cop - like the fat-ass lazy jerk in the video - if you have to enforce compliance with a perfectly reasonable command - in the back of your mind, in the dead of night, and especially as you do the routine CYA in the report, realize that somehow you screwed up and were lucky enough to live through it because the citizen or citizen you abused or oppressed gave you a pass. Don't turn that mistake into a freaking policy, much less get lazy and expect you have a right to a life where it doesn't matter that you stupidity is committed in front of your own dashboard camera.

I mean, were I a lawyer, I would surely point out the fact height of arrogance that reveals and the depths of contempt for the good opinion of the citizenry implied by that particular lapse.

As for the risks involved in policing, do not whine to us about that. You get the uniform, you get the fast car with the sirens, you get to play with things that go bang and the county pays you for the ammo. It's an inherently dangerous job, with the perk of all the free adrenaline rushes you can stand. People actually jump out of perfectly good airplanes to get that rush, at a couple-hundred bucks a pop. You, well, we pay you for that.

Besides, it's a lot like a snowboarder stressing about wipe-outs. The only proper response is to try and keep a straight face and gently suggest golf as an alternate avocation.

A cop unwilling to take risks on behalf of the citizenry is simply an armed thug. And when I look at something like that and realize that as a potentially armed citizen I could handle that situation better - I will. And while I could not do your job on a day to day basis, Sir, there is nothing that would prevent me from handling such an incident far better. I know this as a fact, because I've been in such a situation, with a drunken, possibly suicidal citizen talking about the revolver he had in his waistband.

Not only did I handle the situation, I handled it without violence and without anyone at the bar I happened to be in becoming aware that there was a situation. That is because I relied on my ability to talk him down, rather than on the concealed weapon under MY shirt.

I'll bet you a box of Krispy Kreems that Ohio club has now hired their own security, so they don't have to rely on the risk of the city sending some random jerk to deal with loud drunks. Just because they wanted her gone that day didn't mean they didn't want her to come back - but not only did you traumatize her, but you scared the hell out of everyone else who was there. And it's a fact that whether it's fair or not, people avoid people and situations that remind them of very traumatic events. So the taxpaying owners have a very legitimate beef with that cop, his boss and the city. I imagine they have lawyers calculating the odds of successfully suing the city - and everyone else in range - for the loss of business.

So, really, it would probably have been better for everyone had that cop just slept off his ill-gotten doughnuts because his "resolution" of a breach of the peace was worse than the scuffs, hurt feelings and property damage he was sent to prevent.

Here's a new, related video that's brand new, and I'd like your professional opinion:

Consider this - and remember that tasers actually log their usage, for later use in court.

Now, here we don't know the exact situation, but it's difficult to imagine how a properly trained officer could end up tasering a schizophrenic woman - the person, by the way, who had actually CALLED 911 - and expect this to be taken as a good outcome. Oh, by the way, she passed away as a result of being tazed multiple times with two separate weapons. And yes, she was armed and she was delusional.

Oh well, that just adds to the challenge for a good cop. With good cops, situations like this end with rueful handshakes and mysterious appearances of chocolate chip cookies in the squad room. Anything that ends in a death is considered less than ideal, pretty much by the "duh" standard.

I know, I know, "we can't know what really happened." But, actually, we do know what happened - a homicide occurred as the outcome of a routine call.

We pay police to handle situations exactly like this with the expectation that they will be trained and equipped to as a matter of routine, with as little fuss and conflict as possible. We have the reasonable expectation that they have the training to deal with such situations better than we could. Let's recall that she called and asked for help. Obviously, help is precisely what she did not get.

So, whatever the resolution, whatever the facts, no matter what happened to make it all drop in the pot and to cause TWO able-bodied, fully armed cops to taser a morbidly obese schizophrenic confined to a power chair. She had two paring knives and a hammer. They carried guns fully capable of disabling the power chair, rendering her immobile, or at least very, very slow.

So why is she dead? WHY is the person who called the police for help dead as a direct result of police action, and what affect will that have on the willingness of people to call for help?

Presumably the cops expected a delusional schizophrenic to process an order to drop the weapons as if she were a sane, solid citizen who was NOT being menaced with the threat of force. They were clearly unwilling to accept even the tiniest risk of injury to themselves. But she was too freaking crazy to process that order, and the normal response of police - as you yourself stated - is to apply pain to "encourage" compliance.

Now, here's the bottom line. You are not employed by the "good citizens" in order to keep the "bad guys" in line. You are employed by the taxpayers - that would be all of us - to maintain law and order. So when you commit a breach of the peace as stock reaction to a fuckup in progress, you simply make a far worse fuckup than if you just stayed home.

Who in their right mind would call you for help, and why should you be collecting a paycheck? Hey, there are lots of people willing to beat the crap out of other folks for free, we surely don't need to pay for such a dubious "service."

Seems to me people who react like this are on the wrong side of the bars. When situations like this become commonplace, a widespread disrespect for and distrust of peace officers is inevitable. It makes the job more difficult and dangerous and ensures that when a situation does come to your attention, it's far worse than it would be for a society that is well policed and is generally law-abiding by choice.

Jeez; people like the cops shown in these videos - of which there are far, far too many to choose from - make Reno 911 look like a training film. And yes, we note "the blue wall" reaction, the automatic assumption that a fellow cop can do no wrong.

Well, as understandable and as human as that reaction is, policing is a profession with a skill set and a desired outcome - which is peace, safety, law and order. You are expected to handle confrontation, stress, danger, irrational and unreasonable people BETTER than other people.

When that does not occur, questions must arise, and you - as a person directly affected by the damage bad cops do to the reputation of good cops - should be the one asking them. Quite frankly, incompetent cops cause situations that get good cops maimed and killed. Believe it or not, I consider that an unacceptable outcome even though I stand firmly behind the next statement.

As citizens, we have the second amendment right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from the abuse of power by armed thugs, especially armed thugs employed by governments and powerful people who wish to "enforce compliance."

We delegate that power to the police, but nobody who has actually read and studied our Constitution, our history, and the Founder's intent can delude themselves that any cop has more authority than that, or needs it. Your badge simply signifies that you are a citizen trained to keep the peace and can, presumably be trusted with that duty.

There is no inherent right for a peace officer to use force to impose their will, nor do they have any broader mandate to use force than, say, me. Actually, their mandate to use force is narrower, tied to the reasonable force doctrine with the understanding that they can be reasonably be expected to react faster and be better armed in most ordinary situations, as well as mentally prepared to make actually skillful decisions in dangerous situations. Therefore, a situation where I might be excused for blowing someone away would not excuse a police officer in the same circumstances, because a cop has more options than I do.

There is no authority they may appeal to that is superior to that of any other citizen. Indeed, their authority is identical, coming from the same constitutional authority. The citizen - and that includes the one you may be arresting at the time - has exactly the same responsibility and obligation to uphold and ensure the peace.

There is no "cop exception." A cop is simply a member of a "well regulated militia" who's especially trained to do that better than an armed mob.

And if it becomes clear that they cannot regulate themselves, and ARE no better than an armed mob, if they become arrogant and abusive it's not merely the right, but the actual, literal constitutional duty of a citizen to suck it up, and deal with the threat that band of thugs presents to the community.

Because, if I see a large armed man torturing a woman who is clearly no credible threat, I know what the immediate problem is. I also know what reasonable force doctrine tells me is a reasonable response for citizen without training and experience presented with such a situation - exactly enough force to resolve the situation without danger to bystanders or unacceptable risk to the citizen.

So for the average armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit, that would be three to the center of mass if you failed to comply with a reasonable order to "STAND DOWN, SIR!"

Understand clearly; under our Constitution, Law is not imposed by force, it exists by consent. When the use of force against citizens becomes routine, it becomes exactly the situation the constitution was enacted to prevent - and it not just authorizes, but mandates getting rid of not just the particular offenders, but all of those who employ them knowing that is what they will do.

That's the situation George Washington found himself in - and you, sir, are excusing as standard procedure the exact actions of Redcoats; in large part illiterate Hessian mercenaries who, after all, were just trying to earn a living until they were eligible for their pensions, such as they were.

And that sir, is exactly what you defend when you retreat to your "blue wall" tactics of solidarity. You are actually defending the philosophy of hired Hessian mercenaries who were not paid well enough to much care for taking risks in the line of duty, people that professional British soldiers held in contempt for good reason.

Mercenaries almost always prefer massive overkill - because it minimizes their personal risks. Of course, it also means they consider themselves separate from and not answerable to the folks they may find themselves shooting. Hell, Hessiens didn't even consider themselves part of the same physical Empire!

Now, when I see street cops expressing that same attitude, of not even being in the same empire as the ordinary schlubs they deal with every day, it seems to me that we have become two entire empires - those who get to tell the police who to beat up, and those the police get to charge with the "crime" of scuffing the officer's shoes with their objectionable asses.

And when you buy into that, you are a mercinary in the pay of would-be Earls and Kings.

So my question for you is this: Are you a cop in service to the people and the Constitution of this Grand Republic? Or are you a redcoat mercenary, jacking off to your copy of Soldier of Fortune and willing to do as you are told without conscience or question, so long as the king's schilling rings true upon the iron?

Is your ethos "to protect and to serve," or is it "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out?"

If you are the former, there is little I'm unwilling to do to support you in your duties, up to and including some personal risk on my own behalf. If you are the second - well, my forebears considered you excellent fertilizer, and so do I.

You should consider that situation deeply, because perception is everything. In order for you to do your proper job, the one we assume you signed up to do, the first thought of an average citizen should not be the desire to be suddenly elsewhere, but to welcome you and cheerfully aid you in your inquiries.

The first thought of a citizen should NOT be whether they will have to defend themselves against a police assault. They should not have to consider the possibility that they may be beaten up and than imprisoned for having protested that they were being assaulted.

Dear Lord in Heaven, the idea that it might be a better option to shoot a cop than to let a jury sort things out shouldn't cross even a criminal's mind, much less every single Black Florida citizen driving up from the keys to Miami.

But I bet it does.

And it does because people now consider their government and their police to be a potential, direct threat to their persons and their Liberty. Police abuse has become routine in the service of the interests of the powerful, people have been deliberately made reluctant to stand on their rights. But when you "send a message" to people - as was clearly part of the intent when Andrew Meyer was "dealt with" in order to prevent him from further embarrassing one of our Lords and Masters - you may not be sending quite the message you thought.

Here's another authoritarian response to the Meyer/Kerry incident and a citizen's reply.

conebone42 (1 day ago)

Ok, this guy deserved what he got. Not only was he SCREAMING at a US Senator, he refused to go quietly when the police asked him to leave for acting that way. Nothing that they did was out of line. You resist arrest, you get tazered. The police had every right to do what they did.

nyarltep (1 day ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

im sure that attitude will keep you out of the fema camps

Here Endeth the Lesson son. Come the day, I hope you know which side of the thin red line to stand on.

Kerry Triangulates New Failure.

In a widely publicized incident, there was a confrontation between University of Florida campus police and one Andrew Meyer who may well have been intending to "provoke a scene."

Still, it's difficult to imagine that he anticipated the sheer, overwhelming and vicious nature of the assault upon his person - and his constitutional rights, which included being knelt on and tasered while handcuffed.

Video is all over the web and it is covered in many places with many different spins. But my story is not about the incident per-se, it's about the public reaction to the incident, a reaction distressingly evident in the discussion thread following the story itself.

Here's one such response:

As usual, we get a distorted synopsis from the distorted, liberal media.

This kid deserved what he got, and MORE!

There is a line between dissent and 'healthy discussion' as Kerry misspoke, and breaking the law. This kid, obviously a spoiled brat, learned a good lesson: Obey a lawful police order.

John Kerry also has a great deal to learn, because when a U.S. senator cannot distinguish between inciting a riot and a 'healthy discussion,' we're all in trouble.

Reminds me of the melee at Columbia University -- another bastion of liberal assininity.

Posted by: Ed | Sep 18, 2007 1:52:44 PM

Political Radar: Kerry Condemns Heckler Arrest

I felt obliged to add my own reaction, and then realized it was more of a post than a response, so I repeat it with some revisions and tweakings.

I come late to this story - but then, in my mind, the real story is the reaction to the story. I think the young man probably did try to "provoke an incident" in order to illustrate and provoke this very discussion.

And THIS is what it's about. Yes, the young man was provoking a response. But the specific response - that was under the control of "handlers" and the police themselves. And the response he provoked was ineffectual butt-coverage on Kerry's part and a violent police assault on the provocateur.

It does not matter that he was "disrespectful." There is no citizenship duty to respect ANYONE - unless that disrespect rises to actual violence.

And to me "resisting arrest" is not the same thing as refusing to quietly take your lumps. I saw resisting assault, and quite frankly, given the level of threat presented, I do not think the young man would have been unjustified in resorting to deadly force.

It would have been the wrong call, but police have been given passes for equivalent mistakes - that's why you can't find a black water-pistol in toy stores anymore.

Indeed, even the manner of the arrest itself - a "shock and awe" swarming of a supposed "perp" - is a tactic developed in prisons (to the best of my understanding) to safely restrain a very violent, hardened offender. It's also designed to strip the dignity from the target, to force submission and to extract a price in pain and humiliation - a lesson to inspire future compliance.

From the reactions here, the lesson has not been lost so much as taken for granted. And yet nobody on either side has asked what "rules" were in existence that would trump Andrew's constitutional right to free speech, and consultation with someone who wants to be his elected representative.

It was a not very metaphorical rape, a public punishment for a trivial "offense" of "disrespect for authority."

That itself should make you not just question, but to presume that such authority is unworthy of such respect - and more tellingly, knows what a hollow shell of pure bluster it is and how tenuous their grasp on society's willing compliance has become that their first response to a lack of immediate compliance is overwhelming force.

I find calls to treat anyone who does not immediately submit to any police command this way to be appalling. This was not so much an arrest as it was a summary judgment and execution of sentence.

It was a very effective demonstration of the respect ordinary citizens are given by the police in the United States.

I should add that, while this might well be the result of training and police doctrine, there are quite different training and doctrine sets that result in VERY respectable and appropriate security without unavoidably offending anyone's dignity, that in fact rely strongly on our social conditioning to avoid making a scene as a primary tool.

I'm pretty sure I know how the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) would have handled this, ideally. They probably would have stepped up, right at the edge of his comfort zone, and loomed at him until he ran down, simply making him aware of their presence, and their expectation that he would govern his own actions.

Then, if that were insufficient, with appropriate Sirs and polite deferences, they would have respectfully led him away - in a manner designed to be polite but inarguable - and without making an embarrassing scene for everyone.

Canadian police are not feared, nor do Canadians expect them to act with predictable violence to any challenge. Their job is to maintain the peace, not to breach it.

They ARE widely respected and trusted, even though Canadian cops are in enough violent confrontations that get in the news for the average Canadian to be aware that there is but one predictable outcome for the drunk, the stupid and the violent.

(One great advantage of the RCMP way is that if a confrontation does escalate, it's in such a way that there is no serious doubt as to who's being the ass in the equation.)

But their attitude towards the public is quite different from police here - as is the willingness to accept a degree of risk in order to resolve a situation peacefully. And yet, generally they do.

There is another fact illustrated here that has gone largely un-addressed.

The initiator of violence is the one who has lost control of the situation, and it's that sheer funk that I smell here - the idea that one weedy college student is somehow threatening our society by asking awkward, pointed questions. He was "being disrespectful" and "deserves" to be beat down for "running his mouth."

As it happens, there is no Constitutional exception to the First Amendment for speech that is rude, embarrassing, disrespectful or awkward.

Even the ranting of the clearly mad is protected speech - and there is no "right to not have to put up with it." The only constitutional remedy to offensive speech is more speech, or of course, to walk away.

Kerry - both for failing to realize that he was both in charge at the time and responsible for this outcome and for failing to acknowledge a publicly embarrassing leadership failure - has lost any remaining benefit of my doubt.

He's triangulated himself into impotence, lost any sense of command authority he may have one time had, and as such, has demonstrated his lack of qualification to be a leader, for his failure to restrain this clear abuse of authority.

And for this service, you should be thanking Andrew Meyer. He may be an idiot - but yes, he has been a very useful one.

tag: Andrew Meyer, John Kerry, Taser, Tasering, Free Speech, University of Florida

Why I didn't blog for 9/11

There comes a point when you realize that there are some people who are so willfully contemptuous of reality that nothing can be said, and further, at this point everything that could persuade reasonable people HAS been said. If you are still a Republican, and you still support leadership that can say things like the following, the only rational response remaining is a swift kick to the frontal lobes.

And in this sort of Republican, those are located just below the penis.

This is the response House Minority Leader John Boehner had for Wolf Blitzer - a man hardly known for asking loaded questions. If you manage to look stupid by answering a Blitzer question, it's because you are stupid.

AlterNet: Blogs: Video: GOP Minority Leader Says US Casualties in Iraq Are a "Small Price" to Pay:

Here's the transcript of the exchange:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

To say the obvious - that this is a new definition of "pulling a Boehner" is beside the point. It's almost too obvious to observe that it's difficult to calculate which is worse, the possibility that he is sincere, or the possibility that he thinks he's more credible and convincing than the Iraqi Information Minister.

But the most truly disturbing thing transcends all questions of policy and partisan politics; and that is the question as how he became Minority Leader - and why he remains in that position. It would seem to me that being clearly mad as a hatter would render one ineffective in that role, and at the very least, the Minority Leader should be someone who does not provoke snickers and sighs of pity from the majority.

But then, the majority leadership, while not actually delusional, don't seem to be a great deal more connected with the will of the people or terribly interested in considering what is right over what is momentarily expedient.

9/11 and the response to it has exposed the rotting substructure of our national facade of Liberty, the depth of our commitment as a people to the principles expressed in the Constitution and the commitment of our leaders to communicating honestly with the people, according to their duties and oaths.

And on days like this, when the entire effort of communication with anything short of a large, heavy wrench seems pointless, I can do little other than explain that if my perception becomes general - there will be no United States, nor will any remainder or successor enterain such foolishness - for small nations cannot afford to suffer such fools, gladly or otherwise.

I will confidently predict that whatever the evolution of the next two years - the outcome will not leave those who seek to keep their power in power. In the end, there is more to being in power than just having the will to do what it takes to keep power. Even Stalin had to realize that if there was no Russia and no Russians, his "power" over them was meaningless.

And saner rulers and leaders realize that power is conditional upon meeting the needs and fulfilling the desires of the governed.

I will predict with equal confidence that those particular corporate entities that have profited the most from exploiting 50 years of constant warfare are approaching the end of their reign - though the final days may well be quite profitable!

But in the final frames, those corporations are nothing without their own people - and corporations have come to believe they are separate from both employees and clients - even from shareholders.

It is a fantasy - and it will come crashing down, as people realize that if governments and corporations interests cannot be trusted to take care of their own in return for loyalty and service that that loyalty and service will be withdrawn.

And with the web and other powerful ways for individuals to meet many of the needs that governments and corporations thought their exclusive domain, it's doubtful that anyone will be able to reclaim that which is, even now, being withdrawn.

There is a reason that public approval ratings for Congress are even lower than those of George Bush - we have stopped expecting common sense, much less any respect for the will of the people from Chimpy the Shrub. But we voted to return Grown-Ups to power in congress, expecting them to take some painfully obvious corrective steps to end the war and forestall the painful economic corrections that this drunken spree of debt-fueled misadventures had aimed us toward.

They have not even managed to come to the aid of New Orleans, much less end this disastrous war.

But if the terrified sheep that think they lead us and command our loyalty continue their delusions for many months - or truly, even weeks, much less assent to any of the plans for overthrowing the remaining shreds of our democracy that Bush is clearly contemplating - I, for one, will consider them as one with the Bushites.

Ignorable, insignificant, deserving of no respect, loyalty or attention. And should they insist on commanding my attention, thinking they are entitled to my obedience and that of my fellows, I think they will find themselves in for a rude awakening.

I'm not so much expecting a civil war as I am expecting widespread rude indifference. I expect States and local governments, in the face of federal malfeasance and utter irrelevance to more or less politely go their own way without benefit of any public delcaration of secession. I expect that over the next while, the weight of meaningful authority will gravitate to state and local governments, and that state and local laws will be passed to make it difficult or impossible for the Federal Government to fund it's activities.

For instance, it may come in the form of state laws requiring state court orders for the IRS to garnish wages.

It may be in the form of states chartering their own banks - or even issuing their own currencies. It may come in the form of requiring that all federal agents be first credentialed as agents of the specific State to have authority in that state.

It will certainly come in the form of states increasingly preferring to make their own policy even at the price of sacrificing federal funds - especially in those states where federal policies come at a net loss to the state.

We have come to the point where we must coldly look at our extant federal system and ask ourselves, "who does it benefit?" And I, like many others, am aware that almost nothing it does benefits me more than it costs me, and that of all the good things it does, most could and should be done better and more cost-effectively at the state or local level.

What the Bush Years have made obvious is what various "nut cases" and "conspiracy theorists" have been ranting about for years - that our government is run, not for our interests, but for the limited and even self-destructive visions of a small, inbred, narrow-minded and fairly stupid plutocracy that cannot see beyond the range of a quarterly profit and loss statement.

Well, I suggest to you that it's not even in the interests of the fairly wealthy to permit this to continue, for it is obviously a very silly game that can end only one way, with a cry of "There can be only One!"

To hell with that noise. The only "side" I will chose is my own - within the bounds of conscience and Constitution. And I will selectively choose to donate power where it most effectively empowers me to mind my own business more effectively.

And I, for one, have no desire to replace a stern Daddy State with a disempowering Mommy State, as many committed liberals seem to consider the only possible alternative.

What about the simple idea of empowering people to simply take care of themselves? It may take tools, it may take systems, it may even require money - but what it does not take is being told what to do or jumping through hoops. Most of us are smart enough to do those things for ourselves, and those who are not are mostly able to find the help of someone who is. This leaves a vanishingly small percentage that does not require provisions that intrude upon everyone to ensure the minority have the minimum necessities.

The bottom line is this: Government must be of service to and of use to the people, or the people have every right to replace it with something that serves them better. Should it be so arrogant as to think there is an inherent right of power or position to impose itself on those it thinks weaker or inherently inferior, there will come a time when that assumption is brought to the test.

History tells us that it's best to forestall THAT outcome with a little humility.

Tactical Simulation and Mil-Sim Paintball.

When you draw down on the "bad guy" with your spiffy new 10mm autopistol - will you hit them, or will they cut YOU down with the dirty old .38 they have long known and loved?

Worse yet, will the "bad guy" turn out to be a "good guy?" Do you know when NOT to shoot, and even better, when to duck, when to run, and when to run like holy hell?

I'm a second-amendment fetishist, But I am a realist - if you cannot reliably use your chosen weapon in a real, tactical situation under stress, we would ALL be better off if you just shirked your constitutional duty, thanks very much anyhow. If you want to pad your crotch, use a sock. It's far more comfortable.

And keep that gun locked up. Call yourself a collector, if you like, but if you cannot reliably use a handgun or rifle in combat, don't pretend to be willing to answer the call.

But if you ARE willing to answer the call - if and when - then you need to get together with friends and practice. Obviously, you cannot mix tactical training with live ammo, so you need an effective training system. That is why paintball has become a military simulation standard.

The paintball store has got to be my pick for guns, gear, parts, equipment and of course... paint balls. The prices seem reasonable, and everything is in one place; the site is easy to navigate, and they take PayPal. That covers the basics.

Oh, it's an awful lot of fun, I'm told. But to me, it's about developing skills - indeed, RE-developing skills our forebears took for granted. From a sport viewpoint, it's certainly both more ethical and less messy than hunting, even while it develops all the same skills, and it can be a genuine family activity.

I firmly believe that citizens should at least understand the reality of those who choose to serve in the armed force - and in the worst case, understand it well enough so that if they are ordered into action to suppress your right to dissent, that you can make that action prohibitively expensive.

There are other things you can do to practice needed skills. Second Life and other MMORPG's offer the chance to develop your leadership (and followership) skills in a forgiving context - games like this are to strategy and Grand Strategy what paintball is to small unit and individual tactics. A "well regulated milita" is one where every member knows their best weapon - and can use it to further the group goals. My favored weapon is the pen, and my "Militia" is those who think that unless we show our government that we are serious about it serving us, rather than vice versa, the end of this nation as what it was and is meant to be is at hand.

What I do when I'm frustrated

I've been having a grand obsess, perseverating like hell on something that at first blush seems utterly unrelated to art, blogging, or Graphictruth, all because I don't want to get into ... hm.

Ok, I've just decided it - as much as I'm impressed with Wordpress - I don't have the spare kiloquads for the learning curve. Blogger and Google may celebrate.

However, back to what I was doing, because I was so rudely interrupted. You see, as an aspie, an interruption in my routine is damnably disturbing, leading to all kinds of bizarre things. I'm lucky, for me, the acting out is almost always creative. It's hell on the people around me, though.

This particular obsession came from a decision to give 2nd Life another try. I'd be happy to tell you what I've been up to, but it might just curl your nose hairs. For the most part, it belongs over on our sister blog, erotictruth.blogspot.com.

Even there, I may just have to include a NSFW warning. However - just as the Internet before it and then the World Wide Web - the sorts of places I have been is where the obsessive people who create the platform hang out, relax, share and develop new ideas in an environment that is neither mission critical nor subject to criticism based on anything other than performance.

If you can depict, simulate, transmit, record, or usefully participate in human sexual activity to the limits of the medium, the system itself is both robust and flexible enough to support eCommerce, government agencies and, of course, spam and "griefers".

2nd Life is now robust enough to support a degree of parasitic activity that is either not based on actively expanding the system and it's communicative and associative intents, or indeed directly aimed at screwing with people and what they would otherwise freely and benignly choose to do. Therefore, the republican mindset says that it's ripe for exploitation and domination. The problem is, you cannot strip-mine an intellectual property, nor meaningfully restrict access to it as a commodity. The commodity itself has a very large say in the matter.

Creative people tend to create contexts wherein they can do what they wish to do, governed only by their own ethics and morality, when that environment is (at least for a time) too challenging for those people who object to the rude rejection of social norms that authoritarian figures would impose by diktat.

So of course, 2nd Life is simply lousy with porn, eroticism, sexual imagery and people humping (virtually) like Bonobos.

One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

I once observed a young male, Kako, inadvertently blocking an older, female juvenile, Leslie, from moving along a branch. First, Leslie pushed him; Kako, who was not very confident in trees, tightened his grip, grinning nervously. Next Leslie gnawed on one of his hands, presumably to loosen his grasp. Kako uttered a sharp peep and stayed put. Then Leslie rubbed her vulva against his shoulder. This gesture calmed Kako, and he moved along the branch. It seemed that Leslie had been very close to using force but instead had reassured both herself and Kako with sexual contact.

During reconciliations, bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression. Not that this function is absent in other animals--or in humans, for that matter--but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.

The Chimps find this behavior both confusing and distracting from their goals of social domination, which generally includes the idea of who gets to do what with whom - and who has to put up with taking it up the ass. Or in other words, authoritarians see sex along with everything else as being about "winners and losers," a world filled with a vast pool of obedient submissive citizens and a few very powerful Alpha figures who display their dominance by some form of symbolic or literal anal rape - and the fact they control the system well enough that they cannot be held accountable in either legal or extralegal senses.

Me, I'm more of a bonobo. Social contexts in which intimate contact, sexual or otherwise - are welcome as an alternative to conflict/dominance models feel a great deal safer to me. I would rather be at a BDSM/Fetish party than a corporate culture retreat or holiday destination for that class of person, even though in both cases, I probably wouldn't get all that intimate with anyone I didn't know, I understand and respect the ethics and social customs of the former better than the latter.

And in general, I've found that the people who populate the fringes tend to be much more honest and with better ethics in general. This may seem paradoxical, but I could and have written reams on the topic.

But, believe it or not, the Justice Department was concerned enough about the specter of gambling in 2nd life to put pressure on Lindon Labs. Their response has been mixed and confused, as they are not really quite sure if their open source platform is really a proprietary content site (such as AOL pretends to be) or a "common carrier," such as any internet access provider. The difference? A common carrier cannot be held accountable for your activities.

I personally think that Second Life has grown way, way too big for LL to realistically even think of controlling content - and they certainly don't have the time to enforce dictates that governments would like to impose. But more on that later. Right now, I'd suggest that Lindon Labs seriously consider the implications of what they have already made possible, with whole areas of Second Life run on independent, sponsored servers, such as Brazil's virtual nation, which, if subject to law at all, are certainly NOT subject to US law.

Second Life - if it's to be governed at all - must be governed from within by the people who "live" there and according to the needs, desires and of course, the available time of the people there. Even more radically, the Internet as a whole depends far more on self-regulation than society does simply because it's realistically impossible to prevent access or demand compliance. We have hand an Anarchic Internet for - well, goodness, since it began, and it's nature is to oppose and network around pesky strictures. There were competing models that were much more government-like, such as Fidonet, but the people voted with their feet when the Internet became widely available.

There are still many safe, protected preserves, where you can pay through the nose for the privilege of being exposed to content and advertising that you are demographically and socially determined to need. In Second Life, I'm sure there are equivalent virtual "gated communities," intended to keep out riff-raff such as myself and the writers of the US Constitution, where all that is not mandatory is prohibited. All of these safe havens are based on code and protocols developed by people who would not bother to tarry there if they were not exceedingly well-compensated - and who generally do contribute to other areas of the network and internet culture with great generosity.

The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can set up their own little kingdom - and nobody can be compelled to stay within it's borders. It had best be a viable, interesting and worthwhile place to be - or people will leave. Increasingly, this is a realization that entire, literal nations are learning. It's easy to control the majority of the people - but it's the minorities that makes a nation work - the people who are exceptional in some way - and who could be equally exceptional anywhere. And on the Internet, "exceptional" does not just mean "rich."

I remember making that point in an AOL "Room" - just before I was banned, that it was not a "privilege" for me to post there - there are any number of far more prestigious fora where I'm quite welcome. By taking the time to post, I was doing THEM a favor and I expected to be treated in light of that reality, with the courtesy and respect due my contributions of time and insight into the issues being discussed.

I was banned nearly instantaneously, just as I was banned from a 2nd Amendment forum there for pointing out that the second amendment exists to protect an implicit social duty of all citizens, to serve as an armed, competent and credible deterrent to government intrusion, so when activism is reduced to slide-jacking and posturing intended to manipulate government in favor of some people - as opposed to opposing it's intrusion on people as a matter of principle and duty - it becomes pointless.

Governments govern by force while sneeringly asking, "whatcha gonna do about it?" Well, on the Internet, at least, the alternates are nearly endless. With the aid of such networking, this is increasingly true in Real Life, by reducing the knowledge and communication barriers that make it difficult for individuals to avoid dependence upon government.

"Christians" attack another book that expodes cultural myths about childhood.

Activist says Nobel laureate's book could be 'child porn' (OneNewsNow.com)

Via Digg, where I hope a lively discussion will ensue.

A pro-family activist in Michigan says legal action against a school district may be necessary after high school students in that district were given a reading assignment which could amount to child pornography.

The president of the American Family Association of Michigan says it's an outrage that officials in one public school district have asked students to read a book that involves the sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl.

Officials in the Howell Public School District were flooded with calls from angry parents after high school students were assigned to read The Bluest Eye by 1993 Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison. The book, originally published in 1970, focuses on Pecola Breedlove, an 11-year-old black girl who, according to comments at Amazon.com, is "spat upon, ridiculed, and ultimately raped and impregnated by her own father."

The top amazon reader review says this:

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful: I would give it a million stars if I could, June 12, 2007 By haile gebre "Rahwa Gebre" (Arcadia, CA) - See all my reviews


Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye, I can safely say, is my favorite novel of all time. It's depressing, complex, and downright tragic as an innocent little girl is destroyed by a vicious society set on convincing her that she is both ugly and worthless. Through a brutal rape by her own father, Pecola's life is ruined as her childhood is permanently destroyed and the one pathetic hope that keeps her alive is her strong desire for blue eyes.

Morrison refuses to depict this story in chronological order, as the narrator explains that it is not the "why" that we are able to answer but rather the "how." With that in mind, Morrison quickly summarizes the story and then dives in to the analysis of how this little girl's tragedy was made possible. We, as readers, are then opened up to a broader explanation of not merely this girl's tragedy on an isolated, individual level. Rather, she is the physical manifestation of the psychological problems faced by African-Americans living in a hostile society that told them they were inferior. Pecola's problems are slightly mirrored from those considered at the high ranks of black society (Geraldine), all the way to black society's most tragic victims (the Breedloves). Morrison refuses to allow the reader to simply pity Pecola's mindset. Instead, she forces us, no matter the background or race, to feel guilty. We, a society that has not yet completely embraced people from all portions of our community, are completely responsible for her downfall. Because, Morrison argues, in a world that continually controls us into believing that all minorities are inferior, we have left her to suffer.

But Toni Morrison doesn't stop there, a point that would already label The Bluest Eye as an amazing novel. Morrison expands the picture from psychological racism into a rarely considered topic of psychological sexism. All of the main female characters in this story are in some shape or form sexually assaulted by the dominant male figures. Morrison brilliantly expands the picture to fearlessly explore sexism and how it has damaged the psyche of our nation's society.

I won't lie, I was initially disgusted by several of the scenes in this novel, the main one being a brutal rape described in great detail. But I realized that this book was meant to horrify me and open my eyes to what Morrison was exposing. The book is incredibly complex, so it deserves your utmost attention. I can not overrate this book; you must read it.

Of course it's worth reading the negative reviews. I kind of get the picture of the usual HS lit requirement that any book that is enjoyable or that doesn't "enlighten" you in some way is no better than reading comic books in class. So, if the objection were that such trenchantly depressing and admittedly complex and difficult-to-follow literature might well sour students on reading for pleasure, I'd be jumping up and down with agreement.

However, many objections seemed to focus on how horrible and dirty it was - equating all descriptions of sexual activity with "porn," no matter what the intent of the artist. And that, of course, is the reason stated by AFAM in pushing to get it banned.

It always seems that these efforts come up when it seems like such a book might get children to disclose similar abuse. My wife, an elementary school teacher, has several stories about that, where a book or video provokes disclosure from 5 or more kids in a class of thirty.

As a long time online sexual abuse and sexual rights advocate, I'm very familiar with the depressing fact that scenes such as the book describes are very real, and far more common than we would like to believe. They are crimes that also tend to be perpetuated by a certain type of person; generally an authoritarian personality.

Ever since the publication, half a century ago, of The Authoritarian Personality (Adomo, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950), the idea that social and political beliefs could be understood in terms of basic personality structure has captured the imagination of psychologists. A gripping issue in the era of World War 11, authoritarianism was conceived by these early researchers as the potential for fascism. Then and now, the authoritarian could be characterized as conventional, submissive to authority, and aggressive toward deviants and outsiders (Altemeyer, 1981). [emphasis mine]
Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism;

Social Behavior and Personality, 2000 by Bulter, J Corey

Attempts to discuss such crimes or disclose such events are often attacked viciously with well-funded smear campaigns and claims that it's "an attack on the family." An examination of the origins of the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation"is highly interesting, as is this Noel Packard paper about their tactics, which might start to seem familiar in the context of this particular controversy.

I think the tactics and strategy the FMS Foundation uses is a formula approach to make people feel unsafe about debating issues about a common sense of truth or morality, or even a personal sense of truth. I think such tactics help set the stage for people to need authority figures such as parents, scientists, doctors and politicians to dictate to them what is truth, justice and trustworthy. Weber
might have called such a network of authority figures a “status society” (1978: 305-6)
History shows us that sometimes people allow others to dictate them - as if they were
“adult-children.” -

Without making any direct accusations, I do observe what anyone can confirm for themselves: the American Family Association of Michigan is the group that is publicly gloating about taking away same-sex benefits from the spouses and children of gay parents.

Personally, I think there should be a special place in hell for those who deliberately and maliciously take actions they know will harm children. In a state the size of Michigan, some spouses and some children will die or become disabled due to their activities as a statistical certainty.

It's also enlightening to read their "religious freedom" page, in which they warn readers that it may become illegal for their kids to beat up "fags" if anti-bullying statutes are passed. The advisory is code-worded, they are not fools - but the message is clear enough, simply by placing the topic ON the "religious freedom" page. They are claiming that they have the right to harass, confront and abuse homosexuals as a legitimate free exercise of religion.

I believe Jesus had something to say about that sort of thing, involving leaping into the ocean with millstone around their neck being a better option than to cause a child to sin.

For myself, I don't find flinging bible quotes to be persuasive, but some do, and whatever else one may say about it, the Bible is a fine guide to practical ethics.

Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)

If you teach your child to blindly follow authority, to trust it above their own sense of right and wrong, you will be doing just that, for they will, sooner or later, be led by the nose to do something vile. So to shield children from a practical understanding of what right and wrong is, within their own social context, is an evil thing.

But clearly, harm to children in the service of an authoritarian, self-righteous cause gives the good folks at AFAM no difficulty sleeping at night. They link to James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Dobson is the author of one of the milder "baby beating manuals', Dare to Discipline."

(IMPORTANT NOTE: In researching this article, it has come to my attention that the Focus on the Family site has dramatically changed it's tone. Any hint of advocacy of physical discipline is gone, as is the emphasis on the domination of wives and children by husbands. It remains legitimately conservative - as well it should - but is nonetheless much improved and with a range of information that now includes useful advice on speaking to children about sexual abuse.)

Alas, I have had personal experience compelling many who know first hand how far such a self-righteous sense of possession and entitlement can go, and how much psychological damage can ensue, even when the abuse does not involve overt incest, literal beatings or both. But far too often, it does.

Please do not confuse this with a condemnation of even the most Conservative form of Christianity. Believe what you will, or do not. My objection is to those who use Christianity to excuse and justify their actions to themselves and to deceptively gain support for those actions from believers. My only criticism is that Christians are far to quick to accept professions of faith at face value, while too quickly forgiving and forgetting manifest and profound violations of trust without requiring serious and credible atonement or recompense.

The same reluctance to "know the tree by it's fruit" seems to be extended, culturally, to those in political office who claim to be serving Christian values.

I have long maintained that the thrust of child porn laws, as written, seem more effective at covering up the prevalence of such crimes or even speaking frankly about the crime than addressing the repulsive fact that certain people - mostly heterosexual males, mostly within families or other structured contexts - tend to use the abuse of children to enhance their own sense of power and self worth. Doing it, getting away with it, and taunting the victim with their powerlessness seems to be a large part of the thrill.

These same people are often those attracted to positions of authority and power - priests, pastors, politicians, police officers - and they tend to co-operate to stifle discussion, investigation and inquiry. For instance, should a reporter choose to do an investigative report on the prevalence of child porn and where it might lead to, they will be hysterically waved off by corporate council. There is no safe way for the media to legally investigate the existence, nature or distribution of child porn in the US or Canada.

You just have to take authority's word that they are taking all necessary steps to thwart a problem that you cannot independently investigate. In any other context, a photograph of a crime is considered evidence. In this case, possession of the image is very often a greater offense in law than the act itself.

I by no means defend the production of child porn. I encourage tracking down those who do produce it to hold them accountable. But such laws make such investigations very difficult indeed, and impossible for any of the actually injured parties who might otherwise be using cheap computer power and face-recognition technology to document evidence of their abuse.

But we are not even speaking of real events. Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye is a work of fiction.

To equate a fictional depiction of all-too-common events written to make the harm such things cause with "child porn" is bizarre. Porn is meant to titillate, and from the description of this book by readers, pro AND con, any judge that got an erection from it clearly would need psychotherapy. This is an attempt to suppress an idea and forestall any discussions or disclosures that idea might provoke. I find their motives repulsive, immoral and essentially if not literally Unconstitutional.

Is child rape indecent? Damn straight it is. And any child suffering it or knowing of another child suffering it should KNOW that it is indecent - and that they can ask for help and be believed. Stories like this serve that task and therefore are very often attacked by such "Family Associations."

It does make one wonder aloud about what their "family values" are, and what the genetic consequences have been over the years.

At this point, drawing attention to the fact that the protagonist is a black girl experiencing life in a segregated town in the 40's seems redundant. It's not that I'm afraid of pointing out the possible racism here, the reluctance to underline that blacks suffer from abuse "just like real white Christians." (I quote from childhood memories.)

I have found that racism is only one small part of the Authoritarian disorder. And without discounting the damage racism does to all those affected by it or tainted with it, it's simply one manifestation of a syndrome that affects all of us every day, limits our freedom, demands our compliance and assigns arbitrary and excessive punishments for failure to conform to Authoritarian demands.

You see, I keep tripping over the same small circle of people who all seem to tie into the activist Christan Right Wing, Social Conservatives, if you prefer to distinguish them from People Who Follow The Words of Christ. It's a very tight network - and if you do not actually belong to that network, they quite likely have an issue with what you are, who you are, what you believe, or things you like to do.

And I'm sick of it. I am going to say right out loud, right here and right now, that one cannot be either a Libertarian or a real Christian without respecting the rights, freedoms and dignities of others, no matter how wrong or profoundly silly they may be.

Libertarianism centers around the ethical concept of the "non-initiation of force." I will take it a step further. Any sensible reading of the Beatitudes underlines a very significant, universal principle found in many other religions and indeed, non-religious ethical systems; that even to think of committing an imposition upon another person - angry thoughts, lustful thoughts, hateful thoughts - is ethically and morally equivalent to committing the act itself.

Therefore, a Libertarian - if we may be doctrinaire about it - does not hate, does not promote hatred and never speaks toward the idea that "some people" should be "rounded up," any more than a Christian would speak lies or demeaning allegations about the behavior or motivations of others.

The foundation of both Christianity and Libertarian philosophy is a system of personal ethics, a personal accountability to one's own conscience and (again, reading the scorn for the Religious Authorities of the day conveyed by Jesus) at best a skeptical regard for what religious authorities say the Bible says.

----

Authoritarian Personality Disorder (DSM) (note ironic sourcing)

Cluster D Personality Disorders

301.92 Authoritarian Personality Disorder

A. A pervasive pattern of power abuse marked by the compulsion to control others and nullify their civil rights while glorifying one's own imagined societal role, usually indicated by at least nine (or more) of the following behavior traits:

1) A compulsion to categorize, label, measure, and control other human beings.
2) An obsession with class, accompanied by the delusion that he/she is in a class above others.
3) A grandiose sense of self-importance, i.e. feelings of omnipotence and omniscience. Believes he/she knows the psychological and spiritual functionings of others. A persistent belief that he or she is "special" in the sense that he or she is "a healer", "has all the answers", has more knowledge about the mind than others, etc.
4) A fascination with writing and embellishing disparaging fictions about others.
5) A delusion that all people with whom he/she comes into contact are "sick", accompanied by a need to talk about that "sickness" in a compulsive manner.
6) Fetishism: Over a period of at least 6 months, an obsession with wearing expensive and fashionable attire that specifically excites (either sexually or non-sexually) a personal sense of power and control because it raises his/her imagined social plane and advertises the delusionary class difference between him/her and others.
7) Fear of human emotions, accompanied by the strong desire to subdue the emotions of others through the administration of drugs, restraints, electroshock, incarceration, etc.
8) Shows arrogant, haughty, and/or sadistic behaviors or attitudes.
9) Requires excessive admiration and seeks constant proof of being needed by others, usually demonstrated by acquiring larger caseloads.
10) Unconsciously projects his/her own unresolved psychological issues onto others within his/her care.
11) Engages in fictitious gestures of caring and concern (i.e. provoking a false sense of trust), while lacking empathy: is unable to recognize the true needs of others.
12) Commits frequent boundary violations, while at the same time displaying an obsession with the perceived boundary ‘irreverence' of others. Sets arbitrary, pre-mature, bizarre, and/or compulsive limits, as an excuse to humiliate, berate, control, and de-humanize others.
13) Exhibits a fascination with making money off the psychological pain of others.

B. The symptoms of Criteria A developed during, or within a month of graduating from, a clinical training period in Psychology, Psychiatry, Social Work, or Counseling Psychology.

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Substance Abuse, Shared Psychotic Disorder (Folie `a Deux), a Manic Episode with delusions of grandeur, Paranoid Type Schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur, or other Psychotic Disorder.

Cafepress T-shirt sale reminds me, I need at least 4 new shirts!

The timing on this sale could not be better - I've worn my favorite designs to death. My "No Whining" shirts are especially threadbare and stained, and I really want to get one of my cool new metallic versions on black or dark colors.

Now, you might think of this as a commercial post. I'll admit, there's an overlap, but this post is what I am gonna buy. This is actually sparked by something Randi Rhodes said some months back, talking to people who felt that they "couldn't do anything" about the way things are going in this country. They either couldn't afford to donate to a cause, or didn't have the time to get involved, or really didn't see how either thing could make a difference.

She said, at the very least, you can wear a t-shirt! If you are a social sort of person, if you like shopping, if you go to the mall or the movies, put on a shirt that takes a stand and wear it. Yes, it takes some guts. You might endure some rude stares, maybe even rude questions about your patriotism. But that's the whole idea. Have some answers ready to go. Remember, if you are wearing your message to a mall during peak hours, it could be seen by hundreds, even thousands of people. That, folks, is something. It's something very important, because it said you, personally find this message important enough to be seen in public.

This design is one that I have had some real success with: On the back, it says "surefire exit strategy: send chickenhawks, not body armor."

This speaks to my strongest reason to not support the war; the loudest supporters are the farthest behind the lines.

I'm absolutely sick of the obvious fact that those who stand to gain the most from this illegal, immoral and misrepresented "war on terror" are the last ones to go and put their pink butts on the line for it. Could it be because they know how little such sacrifices matter, in the end? Could it be that they understand that it's intent is to cripple the ability of the states to defend themselves from the Federal government? The fed can hire endless numbers of mercenaries using a bottomless purse filled with debt-based currency, while the states cannot, and currently rely on the Pentagon for rcrutment and pay. Hm. There might be a problem there...

Or could it be that they are just fine with it because it's a Republican war, they have Republican connections, so "rocking the boat" is bad for business - but sending off the second son isn't any good for it, either.

Anyway, it's some combination of greed, evil and complacency, and I won't stand for it. The only people I will suffer to tell me about my duty to "support the troops" or argue the merits of the war on terror have an Iraq Combat Ribbon.

Now, I like to create shirts that support my views from the moral and political high ground. When it comes to high ground on both fronts, it's hard to argue with Thomas Jefferson, at least when he's speaking of the Constitution and the duties of the citizenry.

This shirt combines an elegant design with some very pointed words:

I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and is as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical.

I intend to wear this proudly, as a patriot who is deadly serious about his duty to question authority with the annoying persistence of a three-year-old.

Or you might prefer the version that says this:

When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

I'm too old, too fat and too slow to even bother to arm myself against the eventuality of joining a militia, as defined under the Second Amendment. But when it comes to the First Amendment, I can snipe with the best. And in a very direct way, these shirts are ammunition in what the "other side" has branded a "Culture War" with the intent of imposing a theocracy that will literally outlaw everything even vaguely fun, and any and all speech that's critical of our new churchstate, it's leadership and Prophets. Or is that Profits?

Ok, this one is a zazzle shirt - so I only have two for the Cafepress sale. But this one can be customized with your own blog url on either front, back or both; you can even upload your own graphics. So I really wanted to mention that, in context. If you do that, please link to this post AND upload an image to Zazzle showing your cool new shirt!

I'm seriously thinking of turning it into a graphic for a blogroll if there's any interest.

Ok, well, lets see, what else do I want. Well, I want one of these.

"My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities." Albert Einstein.

You might not think of that as political, but it defines my politics. My views of social justice and ethics are not dependant upon who my frends are, where I go to church or what party I'm affiliated with. I have Asperger's syndrome, and in as an innofensive way as possible, I'd like you to know that your views on these matters don't matter a tinker's damn to me.

It's not you, really. It's my own unique mental wiring.

I damn well adore this feature of my mind. It makes it a hell of a lot easier to be ethical. For instance, it doesn't bother me a bit to shed a friendship over a point of principle. I don't need to "belong" to a group or a cause to feel complete, so I don't have any problem dissociating myself when they go sour.

You won't ever find ME changing my principles to fit my audience and the fortunes of political correctness, unlike Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton - just off the top of my head. One in 166? Only? Clearly we need to breed...

Ok, well, there's the Aspergers keyword for the day, so on to the next shirt. I desperately need a new "no whining" shirt. This one has a newer design and it's BLACK! Woot!
Best of all, it's something everyone agrees on. (Even those who whine incessently themselves.)

Me, when I think of "wining," I think of Bill O'Rielly, and the sort of "Christian" who feels "persecuted" by "happy holidays" signs at Wal-Mart, or grumblings about restrictions on hate speech directed at gays, single mothers and people who believe in abortion choice. Apparently, within the tiny little abscesses they call "brains," they consider it to be a religious right to say that "faggots should be killed" or that "abortion doctors should be hunted down and killed" or that "godless liberals" should be "hung."

This is whining. Aside from hate speech, it's whining, and an admission that none of these "Core Christian Values" are gaining any ground in the marketplace of ideas - even with mainstream Christians. Nope, when you start trying to intimidate and terrorize people into compliance, it means your rational arguements - well, maybe they aren't as rational as you thought. So resorting to hate speech is whining and winging. It's a childish temper tantrum, really. It's a demand of "If you don't let me win, I'm going to hit you/"

I won't let children get away with this, and I've no reason to let grown up, so-called Christians get away with it either. The only difference is that children really don't expect to get away with that tactic if there are any grownups around.

tag: cafepress, t-shirts, sales, black t-shirts, dark t-shirts, activism, political, rude, anti-bush, anti-dominionist