I've always felt that if you need a solid viewpoint on a position that requires professional insight, you should go to a professional. Well, when speaking of positions found in the Kama Sutra there is no finer pro than Susie Bright, and she of course has a very professional analysis of the Spitzer Scandal.
Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who became famous prosecuting Wall Street crooks, has been caught on a federal wiretap, making arrangements with a high-priced prostitute.
The pro, named Kristen, called her booker after her session with Eliot to confirm that all had gone well. She said she didn't find Spitzer "difficult,"€ as some of the other girls had complained.
The booker replied to her that "Client 9," as Eliot was called, was known to ask the women "€œto do things that, like, you might not think were safe."
Aside from the kinky slap to his Mr. Clean reputation, Spitzer is also facing legal jeopardy, since, among other things, the feds are hitting him with the Mann Act, a 1910 prostitution law designed to crack down on interstate "white slavery."
And as they say on Fark: "Hilarity Ensues." First Suzie has a few rings on the gong, and then her readers chime in. I won't spoil it- it's best enjoyed in it's compellingly NSFW context.
Oh, maybe just ONE more little nibble:
If we could give a truth serum to all the parties involved—€” or wiretap their personal diaries— here's what we might listen in on:
The $4,300 an Hour Prostitute:
Well, first of all, I got less than half of that, and my manicurist charges almost as much.
The Wife:
There's not a political wife alive who's been schtupped by her own husband in years. If you want a career as a high profile spouse, you can kiss your sex life goodbye.
The John/Governor:
Those sons of bitches. I know who did this, and I'll destroy them if it's the last thing I do.
The Escort Service Booker:
There's a couple dozen high end joints like us operating at any time to service the Pol crowd, and we just can't charge enough. Once they start ratting out each other, they'll mess us over so bad there'll be forty people filing bankruptcy as a result of their bullshit.
She's had a lot to say about previous scandals of this sort, all of it compelling, insightful and wickedly pointed. But as amusing it is to see an arrant hypocrite hoist upon his own crusader's petard, it's really "Dog bites Man."
But, thanks to Susie, I was directed to this article on BoingBoing:
You know, that might well be the most compelling headline of the decade.
Shannon Larratt, founder of the body modification online publication BMEzine, pointed us a few days ago to a first-person essay that a person named Yard[D]og was writing, regarding the adoptive father of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove (shown in the image at left). Yard[D]og claims to have been a close personal friend of the now-deceased elder Rove.
I've also had occasion to exchange emails with Shannon over the years, and there's nothing in my interactions that would cause me to either doubt his word or think that this might be concocted. [BK]
And now I wondered if that son ever cried for the man who raised him and watched him grow up? I’d be curious as to how Karl Rove would ever explain his pierced, gay father? He never told the people in Louis’ phone book that he had died, nor invited them to a service if there was one. No one even knows where he is buried.
As for me? Well, I am the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s pure, solid gold cock ring! I’ve put it away with a few memories and pictures of his father. And in my garden grows a nasty, prickly little cactus from Louie’s backyard ... alive and well.
- - - - - - - -
Link to full text. NSFW advisory: Contains links to photographs of pierced genitals said to those of Karl Rove's father, with a "modesty mosaic" imposed over the thumbnail images at that main link.
Well, now; that explains a lot, don't it? Oh, and Karl was raised in Sparks, Nev, just for that local interest angle.
I've always thought that Karl was a little bit "queer" myself. Not in the way his dad was, but in the sense of being ooozingly, off-puttingly not quite right. In the old sense, before the word came to be a synonym for homosexuality, one connotation was the sort of person that caused you to wipe your hand on your pants-leg after shaking their hand.
And oddly enough, Karl is the exact sort that would like you to confuse those terms, with the sort of pasty phiz you see in sex-offender registries.
So, with that unpleasant but entirely too plausible association in mind, let us now observe that Glenn Greenwald is wondering aloud if this might be the result of a politically motivated "sting" by the Department of Justice.
Is it really the case that any elected official who ever breaks the law should be righteously condemned by all decent people and then forced from office -- without regard to how serious the offense is or whether there are even any victims? If so, I don't think there are going to be very many elected officials left.
I believe that's one of them Rhetorical Questions.
I'm minded how easy it was for Larry Flindt to scare up awkward details on people howling for Clinton's head during the Lewinski matter. The odds are very good that if there is any political figure of any party that you would like to pressure or put out to pasture, that you will be able to find dirt enough to do it. The only requirement, of course, is that you somehow believe that "sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander."
Glenn points to a damn fine Harper's take on this and in a later update heaves a nod toward firedoglake.
UPDATE II: Harper's Scott Horton, one of the country's foremost experts on the Bush DOJ's overtly political prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, compiles numerous additional questions regarding this quite unusual, massive federal law enforcement effort directed at a small prostitution ring that just so happens to have had Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer as a client (leading, in turn, to the disclosure of all sorts of salacious details in the "Client-9" paragraphs of the Complaint having no bearing whatsoever on the actual criminal issues).
It will be difficult for the questions Horton raises to attract much attention given all of the fun, titillating details concerning Spitzer's sexual activities which are already preoccupying so many, to say nothing of the invigorating charge that comes from being part of an upstanding mob so righteously condemning the private lives of others. But the issues Horton raises are of far greater significance than how Eliot Spitzer and other consenting adults chose to spend their time with one another.
That, of course, would be the sort of operation we have come to describe in the Blogosphere as being "Rovian."
In light of all of this, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what precise national security imperative drives the White House toward insisting on the need to be able to listen to our phone-calls or mine your data without so much as a warrant or a by-your-leave.
Their idea of "national security" is a permanent Republican majority, if not in name, than in effect. Odd, is it not, how so many Democrats failed so frequently to frustrate such obvious abuses of power by George Bush and his cronies?
This may well be intended as an object lesson as to what happens to people who poke their noses into Republican business.
But I wonder what a decent investigative reporter could dig up on major Republican figures - given a few grand for expenses?
A very interesting article on why gay marriage upsets the fundie applecart. Turns out said apple cart is hauling horseapples anyhow - the rationale for opposing gay marriage hinges on the despicable abomination of a man submitting to another man.
a heterosexual marriage that deviates from "God's plan" can be condemned as such, and there is always hope that through "good Christian example" teaching, preaching, and prayer, these "misguided sinners" can be shown the proper path. (And the true dominionists can hope they will have the power of the state at least to teach students properly, and even have laws that will correct the poor, deluded "equalitarians".)
But there is no way that a gay couple can choose to conform to these teachings. The roles, in the minds of the radical Christians are biologically and theologically based. The question of which gender should be submissive is not a matter of choice. It is rooted in the idea that "man was created first and woman sinned first" in Eden. Yes, a woman may (and should, according to voices like Stormy Omartian's) freely choose to submit to her husband and act according to God's plan. But that is because she is a woman. A man who should choose to submit to his wife, in the same way, would be an unnatural abomination.
And, obviously, same-sex marriages either do not have a woman to "willingly submit to whomever it is we need to be submitted to", or they lack a man to be submitted to. No amount of preaching can change this, no amount of Christian example will change this. Any gay marriage, by existing, challenges this idea of a proper, "traditional" marriage.
Well, you know MY methods, Watson. Not only should gay marriage of all sorts be recognized - to the extent that I admit that the state has any business recognizing any relationship at all - but more heterosexual couples should make a point of giving the horselaugh to this nonsense:
For a similar view let's look at the Southern Baptists. In an article on subjugation of women in that denomination, Dr. Bruce Prescott & Dr. Rick McClatchy (who have become "Mainstream Baptists", a group which split from the Southern Baptists as a protest against the emergence of extreme and rigid conservatism in the older group) write in Baptist Faith and Message, a Baptist "Confession of faith"):
"subjugation of women extended to the privacy of Baptist homes when a statement on the family was added to the BF&M. In line with the chain of command made explicit in the 1984 resolution, the 1998 family amendment advised wives that they must ‘graciously submit' to their husbands."
"The unconditional nature of the wife's subjugation became clear at the official press conference following the statement's adoption. Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige Patterson and a member of the committee that drafted the family statement, said, ‘When it comes to submitting to my husband even when he is wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.'"
But these groups are relatively liberal. I could go on and on -- oh, you've noticed -- but I'll end this by requoting Tedd Tripp, from my article on baby beating.
"You must provide examples of submission for your children. Dads can do this through biblical authority over their wives, and Moms through biblical submission to their husbands." p. 142
"Don't waste time trying to sugarcoat submission to make it palatable. Obeying when you see the sense in it is not submission; it is agreement. Submission necessarily means doing what you do not wish to do. It is never easy or painless." p. 145
"Your children [and by implication, your wife] must understand that when you speak for the first time, you have spoken for the last time." p. 151
Yep. Funnymentalism; the last refuge of the bull asshole - and those to weak and stupid to lead a household without violence. But nonetheless, I support the right of those who wish such relationships and are above the age of consent to enter into them.
However, raising children to behave this way is, I think, child abuse. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that the widespread abuse of children by people who loudly adhere to such beliefs is all the force this argument against it being either Christian OR American needs.
I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, and whatever the outcome of the nomination process , I will be voting for Ron Paul in November, 2008 unless some better choice comes along.
But having said that, I must say that Mike Huckabee is a surprisingly appealing candidate. He says many of the right things in an unassuming and safe-seeming way... But unfortunately he fails a major ethical smoke test. You see, he's running to be President for those who agree with him - with the explicit promise of imposing a price on those who do not.
I cannot support or abide any such thing. It's not due to him supporting an anti-choice constitutional amendment - though that is the superficial case. Rather, it's because he is in favor of making ANY particular moral choice over the objections of any individual without the willingness to compensate the individual for that lost of liberty or any costs that may be imposed.
Like Ron Paul, he believes in the sanctity of life and isn't hypocritical about it; after all, if abortion is bad, so is capital punishment and malnutrition. This isn't a position I disagree with. Further, I cannot and will not ever say that an abortion -taken in isolation - is ever a good choice.
However, by it's very nature, the choice to have an abortion is not and can never be taken in isolation, nor is it ever likely to be all that clearly a defined choice from an position other than the uncomplicated moral high ground of those who will pay no price for the choice made or imposed.
I genuinely appreciate and applaud his choice to stand for something, even if it's something that I must take issue with. It is, unfortunately, made utterly moot by the fact that he is standing for imposing a moral choice that he has no right to make, no matter how compelling the arguments he may make in favor of it.
I agree that human life is sacrosanct in my own way, but I do not happen to believe that life without choice is meaningful. That's not my politics, per se, that's a fundamental tenant of my own first-amendment ensured faith.
The problem with the issue of abortion has always been that it places the rights of one person in tension with another person without admitting that there is such a legitimate tension.
And in supporting a Constitutional "right to life" amendment, Mike is, unavoidably choosing on behalf of others which is more important - the innocent pre-born over the person who, in getting pregnant, "ought to have known better."
I imagine that in a large percentage of cases where abortion happens, that probably someone - possibly even the female - did know better. But having been wrong on one thing does not mean she's wrong on another thing - nor does the one thing either relieve her of the responsibility of dealing with her own situation, or permit anyone the right to dismiss her capacity to decide.
And that is the problem here. In supporting an amendment that forestalls such a choice, it presumes that consideration of one's own life, and one's current responsibilities to unambiguously living individuals is so immoral that it should be forbidden, but it does not carry with it any admission that the state, in forbidding that choice, takes on the responsibilities FOR that choice.
No tolerable government is in any position to ensure that all outcomes other than abortion are better, assuming we could agree what "better" was for every possible combination of individual and circumstance. Even if it were, I question whether those who most vehemently agree with Mike on this matter would be willing to tolerate the expenditures required to make this invasion of privacy and restriction of choice even arguable from a "balance of harm" perspective.
You see, Mike, this is my problem with all anti-choice activists, in all areas of life. It presumes that a group viewpoint, a blanket moral or cultural prescription is by definition better than the informed conscience of the actual individual in the actual circumstances.
Either of us could point to all kinds of testimonial examples to support the superficial case, pro and con, but all such all such arguments are moot. Of course some subset of individuals will make bad decisions. Some groups may well make better ones on average. The question is, does that give us the right to impose or forbid? I assert that it does not.
Further, I state and assert that some unpredictable number of individuals WILL make poor moral and ethical choices, they will suffer the direct moral, ethical and (arguably) spiritual consequences, even if there is no legal penalty or even publicly apparent costs.
On the other hand, should government decide, against all the very persuasive evidence to the contrary, that it can productively substitute it's judgment in a wholesale manner for that of every individual in a given situation without regard to individual circumstances? But wait, there's a greater fundamental issue here.
NO person can be held accountable for consequences - in either a legal, moral or ethical sense - when they have no ultimate choice.
We do not consider a person guilty of murder if they are forced to kill at gunpoint. We admire them if they choose to die rather than be killed, but we don't penalize them for choosing to live at the expense of another.
Well, in some irreducible and unpredictable number of cases, the individual in question will literally be in that situation. They must choose between their own survival, and that of another.
Furthermore, this is an absolutely subjective and situational judgment and as visceral as that of any cop trying to decide wither to risk the assumption that the object in someone's hand is a cell phone or a gun.
So, Mr. Huckabee, does you amendment come with the stipulation that society will absolutely and without question accept all the costs to the individual (and all future costs of that putative life) when society guesses wrong?
Because, well, it will. It is an inevitability - one I imagine will bear long and short term fruit on a very regular basis, and it is absolutely immoral to offload the costs of a moral choice on those who may or may not agree - or be able to pay the price for your preferred outcome.
Bluntly, sir, in choosing one side over the other, you are making a statistical choice that some sorts of persons are more worthy of life than others. No amount of emotion or reason can avoid that reality. This is why think of no better illustration of the precept that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" than the whole 'right to life," debate.
And yet, sir, I see no evidence that you acknowledge this absolute moral and ethical obligation to pay for the consequences of your choices. THAT is why I support Ron Paul and not you.
I respect your beliefs, just as I respect Paul's - since they are the same. The difference is, Paul is NOT willing to force his equally strong beliefs on me, OR expect me to subsidize HIS personal faith with part of my personal freedom of choice.
Further, Mike, whatever you views (and I do not presume to know them fully) on the intricate, individual ethics of sexuality, morality, faith, belief and such, I do know that some fairly large percentage of people support your position because they see pregnancy as the just due for fornication - a social consequence that should be made as unbearable and insupportable as possible. So remember, in this you are actually gaining the support of people who in fact have less respect for the fetus than abortionists do - for they are perfectly willing to compel a person to live a short, brutal, horrifyingly scarred life in order to punish an act of fornication on the part of the parents.
I, personally, happen to think there ARE fates worse than death - and not just the one, either. When we expect people to not die or not kill as an alternative to facing them, we have the obligation to do whatever that individual sees as being a viable alternative to abortion, death or mayhem.
Now, Mr. Huckabee; draft for me any policy by a government that is superior to the judgments of those individuals in the situation acting to the best of their own moral and ethical understanding and I will be astonished and respectful of your wisdom.
But in fact, I strongly doubt that you can draft any policy that is superior to simply letting individuals choose as best as they can. So long as you are against individual choice, and against the principle of the right to make private decisions in this most ultimately personal decision, you are unfortunately and inarguably stating that your morality, your faith and your religion privileges you to intrude into the homes and private lives of others and make choices on behalf in order to satisfy YOUR moral vision. And that offends me viscerally, sir.
These are truths that you or I have no right to even know. Understand that even as I may object to the public portion of a moral choice - I must also allow the fact that personal and private considerations also affect individual moral choices, and the fact that I do not know them does not mean I'm owed an explanation if the choices do not involve me or mine.
Let us consider one moralistic exception to forbidding abortion (and in some cases emergency contraception); rape or incest. In making this grudging exception, we also demand that the person wronged elaborate for our edification why she should not be forced to endure a penalty for her moral failure - and the only reason acceptable is if it can be proven, in time, that there is a greater moral failure on behalf of the others. To many, a more politely stated version of that exception is considered a reasonable "compromise," but in some ways, the exception makes things worse.
How then is a fetus less deserving of life if it is the result of incest or rape? That's an absurd and appalling argument. But then, the converse is no better; How is a fetus MORE deserving of life if it is conceived under morally acceptable consequences?
The fact that these questions confound most pro-life activists shows that there are some rather ugly assumptions hovering in their hind brains, assumptions about the motives and morals of others that should obviously affect their ability to form a sound moral and ethical judgment.
To me, life IS choice. To the extent that you choose to preclude my choices to your economic benefit or spiritual comfort, you are saying that your life, your lifestyle, and your personal moral comfort is more important that mine.
And herein lies the inherent moral flaw to the Pro-life movement in practice - you cannot be "pro-life" when you are "anti-my-life."
To the extent that you arrogate unto yourself to make critical life-choices on my behalf (or unto others at my expense), you have chosen to take part of my life.
Now, I'm an ethicist, not a moralist and therefore I am in fact perfectly well aware that such compromises are part of life. But since I AM an ethicist, not a moralist, I do not pretend or excuse the cost. If you take something from me, or at least try to, you create an action that will cause a reaction. This is a fact, not a belief or an opinion; it is a matter of cause and effect.
And, Mr. Huckabee, you do not have the right (much less the practical ability) to ensure a particular outcome at my expense, nor the wisdom to claim the ability to predict blowback to the extent that you can honestly claim that the choice that you impose on all is less costly than that of permitting some "bad" outcomes.
I cannot and will never support a constitutional amendment that requires any donation of liberty without just compensation.
And sir, your position does not even recognize that there is, in fact, a large and perhaps even ultimate price being asked.
That is my moral and ethical argument against your "Right to Life" stance.
But I have a second string to my bow, one that should be ultimately even more persuasive for being pragmatic.
NO law and no order should ever be given by anyone in authority in the full and certain knowledge that it will be widely evaded and disobeyed.
Why? Because all such laws, no matter how well-intentioned, can only be imposed and consequences extracted when the breech is noticed.
This situation means that the moral and ethical authority of that authority is eroded in the name of some unattainable moral "good."
Those who are clever, those who are well prepared, those who can leave your jurisdiction for a critical period can evade having such goodnesses done unto them - meaning that, aside from any other consideration, it fails the "equal protection" test.
In point of fact, the fetus of a wealthy woman can never be as well protected by government as that of a poor woman, for the wealthy can always more easily evade restrictions on their choices. And yet, of course, a poor child is also never so well advantaged as that of the child of a rich parent - because poor people have fewer choices.
That, ultimately, is why I am pro-choice; if I wish you to make any particular choice, as a Libertarian, I feel that I should either PAY you to make the choice I wish you to make - or shut the hell up.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - and there sure as HELL is no such thing as a free child. They cost a bunch to raise, and it costs about as much to do it badly as to do it well - admitting that the cost is often in different coin, of course.
Imposing parenthood upon those who might have considered another course bears a price - and that price will be extracted whether or not you willingly and officially recognize that obligation.
Even more fundamentally, I argue that the provision of more and better choices is a far better model for any government that wishes to maintain it's mandate than the restriction of individual choices.
No authority can be or should be expected to be wise enough to make profoundly personal value judgments on the behalf of millions of individuals.
Of course, we may and should have high expectations. I note that most people do actually live up to the expectations of those they respect, most of the time.
Therefore, it's unwise, unfair and unreasonable to presume that in cases when that does not happen, it's due to malicious, willful perversity. It's far more likely to be circumstantial incapacity - something that it far easier and far cheaper to address than willful contempt.
Government that chooses to support collective moral consensus over conscience has have removed the need for the informed and deliberate conscience in many cases - leaving it unavailable in those cases where the collective judgment and the power of the state are either unavailable or unpersuasive. Aside from that, it's lost the right to complain when it's moral and ethical assumptions and excuses turns out to have unforeseen, practical consequences.
Allow me to illustrate with a bit of recent history.
One of the inarguable factors in 9/ll and indeed previous terrorist actions against us was in fact our government's choice to ignore (on our behalf) the moral and religious sensibilities of conservative Islam.
Now, I would not go so far (or even NEAR) the idiot presumption that we somehow 'deserved' 9/ll due to our 'cultural insensitivity."
Any religion or culture that gets homicidal in the face of real people who persist in solving their social and ethical dilemmas in ways that seem better to them deserves a bad outcome - and I'd be the first to utter a horselaugh at the thought that Islam or any other religion has the right to demand concessions from society in order to make living within the confines of their own superstitions more bearable.
Nonetheless, life is rarely as black and white as all that, sometimes folks are offended by things that must nonetheless be done. In those cases, recognition that a cause for offense existed is a reasonable expectation.
But there's a huge difference between observing an obvious karmic debt and presuming the right to state that the debt has come due with explosives.
If you think it a good thing to impose the discipline of humility on another - you had best be aware that there will be a price to pay - and have arranged that payment in advance. And note that this paragraph can and should be taken to apply to Al-Queda, the Taliban AND the Bush Administration with equal force.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that our armed reprisals upon Iraq and Afganastan should be taken by the medieval minded middle east that it's about time they grew the fuck up, developed as sense of humor and accepted that their women and children have the right to exist independently of their own manliness. Is teaching such a lesson worth the price?
In my personal opinion, it would have been a cheap lesson at twice the price. Had it been learned. And had it been a price my government had the right to pay.
Nether is in fact true.
This brings us back to you, Mike. Because these are NOT separate issues. They are in fact the exact same issue.
This is all about the individual right to life - and the individual right to choose. Without the second, the first is meaningless. And the only way to legitimately establish this point, as a government, a people, or even as a religious movement worthy of distant respect is to honor choice as a validation of life - even when you would choose otherwise.
We cannot "kill" wahabist idiocies as a moral, ethical and social choice when our own society is arguably no better, with no greater respect for individual liberty and choice.
Alas, liberty is a messy concept, and a decent and honorable respect for individual choice means that in many cases we will - both as individuals and as a society, be forced to witness various dramas and train-wrecks. Many will argue that a decent respect for a greater moral authority or fear of certain retribution would have obviously prevented such outcomes.
It is a compelling argument by virtue of being obviously true, in the short term. But it's only true because society has chosen to remove a choice and (whether or not it admits it) accepting the price of having removed that choice. Because, whether or not we admit the price or pretend otherwise, the price will always be paid.
That price is often far greater (for being both unadmitted and deferred) than simply accepting that free individuals must pay the price of their own choices.
You see, Mike, I can agree with you that, on balance, as a general statement, that life is better than death. I think that men and women of honor might also agree that any religion that, as a major tenant, places a greater cost upon one group of persons for the support of a particular of social order should practically and honorably understand that there is a debt owed there that if unadmitted will accrue nonetheless.
And if we can see the reality of this in the dusty desolation of our religious cousins, the Saudi Wahabist and Afgani Taliban in their choice to remove choice and clitoris from women in order to improve their virtue; if it is obvious to us that their justice is unjust and their assumptions about women false, immoral, insupportable and of arguably dubious moral and social virtue, how is it that we can in the same breath spout the same sort of pious bullshit catering to our own cultural and moralistic prejudices?
Any time that you decide that it's of overriding importance to impose an outcome on another, you have in fact chosen force over morality.
So, in the words of Jesus, from a spiritual standpoint "Behold, you have your reward."
Don't even presume to lecture me on "establishing a more Christian Nation" when you are engaging in the precise opposite of that. You have chosen the comfort of forcing a comfortable conformity over the promise of spiritual benefit your faith states would accrue to those who do the right thing, when they have the ability to choose otherwise.
I cannot and will never validate the confusion of social and cultural custom and preference with moral truth. It's lovely when they agree, and on occasion they do, but it is not to be taken for granted, and of course, from a spiritual and moral viewpoint, faith untested by circumstance and unsupported by personal reason and choice is either bigotry, conformity, or some measure of both.
Neither much impressed Jesus nor any prophet of any religion I'm aware of.
I think of all the bad reasons to follow any person, prophet, guru, movement, or philosophy, the single least excusable and most common is the fear that one will be noticed if one does not conform. And since it IS so common, it also leads me to treat those who bleat in herds about the moral failings of individuals with all the respect it deserves.
At the end, there can be no moral outcome and no moral profit unless it's possible to make a different choice with no worse outcome than that which might be naturally expected from the mistake itself.
Here is another choice-based example. "Illegal drugs are bad for you." Why? Well, most usual argument is that, since they are illegal and that you will be punished, it's bad. The circularity of this argument is perceptible to a mildly retarded five year old, to the point that the injustice overshadows any conceivable moral, ethical or reasonable argument that using drugs is probably a bad idea.
The second most common argument is nearly as bad: "Because they are illegal, you don't know what's in them."
True enough - so obviously true, in fact, that it leads directly to the obvious response: "Well, why not legalize and regulate them, so that we DO know?"
An excellent question - which of course also assumes that legalizing and regulating would in fact ensure we knew for sure what was in them and and what the effects are better than, say, the credibility of a dealer who'd like your business next weekend.
But that, of course, is a question our general social indoctrination teaches us to never ask - even when we really, really should insist on asking it a lot more and expecting far better answers than we are given.
Immoral, unethical behaviors have their own, inherent consequences, just as merely inadvisable and stupid choices. But in the case of drug laws, these become all but invisible compared to the arbitrary moralistic temper-tantrum that is "the war on drugs."
And here we come back to choices, Mike. A war, ultimately, means the moral decision to say "you are either for me or against me." It is a war that accepts no neutral party or permits rational examination of circumstances or cases. It's a war in which it's considered immoral to even consider the question of "if we win the war on drugs, WHO wins, and what do they win?" For a very, very graphic example of the misbehavior of the FDA in the war on drugs, consider the malicious prosecution of Dr. James Forsythe of Reno.
It's rather gutless, actually. You preclude discussion of the underlying individual choices - and therefore you pretty much abandon the ability to influence most people, even when fact, common sense and personal experience support your argument.
For instance, the use of marijuana among "our youth" has been rampant since I was a youth, and for sometime before that. But before The Demon Weed was ... demonized... ah, go look it up yourself. Some people used it as a recreational drug, but most preferred a good whiskey, and there was no cultural divide over what almost everyone would have considered a triviality.
Either way, If you drink too much, or smoke too much, you tend to do stupid things, and most people figure out pretty quickly what the cost-benefit ratio is for them. There are consequences to one's health to both to those who use heavily - consequences that are well known, easily avoidable if moderation is possible and medically treatable if not.
Nope. I am addicted to nicotine - but I can and have kicked that. (C affine would be a LOT harder) I am dependent on components in tobacco that are currently outside of socially-approved science, apparently so far outside that it's been frustrating for me in finding confirmation other than experiential evidence from people like me.
The people like me were "addicted" on the first puff. I put it more profoundly. Imagine taking a substance that magically and instantaneously reveals to you that you have been dangerously insane for your entire life up to that point.
That is literally my experience, and I don't exaggerate the drama of it. Nor is it entirely a subjective insight. for those who smoke for the reasons I apparently smoke, it seems to be true of most of us to one degree or another. Oh, and I've actually confirmed this by having quit successfully for two years, until I "slipped." One single puff and - I realized that I had been, quite literally, frighteningly insane - and without the slightest idea that I was, even though that insanity had cost me far more than I'm comfortable thinking about.
Now, imagine being told that most profound experience being dismissed as "the addiction talking" and that my choice is "antisocial."
Yeah, "fuck you" is pretty much the minimum level of contempt compatible with a decent sense of self-esteem when confronted with such poorly founded self-righteousness, even when you have reason to think that there is a distinct possibility that the self-righteous, authoritarian dismissal might just be their own unmedicated insanity talking.
And this brings us right back to your right to life amendment. Because, in imposing this choice you are in the same position of dismissing or demonizing all choices you disagree with as being the result of immorality, demon possession or other such excuses that, frankly, permit you to act against the interests of others without admitting to a debt.
How can you honorably advocate for human life when your entire position dehumanizes those you disagree with?
I'll answer for you. You can't. It's dishonorable. It's also unethical and wrong.
Worse than that, it sucks the life out of any efforts to achieve the end of reducing abortion to the absolute minimum possible by giving women more and better choices.
That's why I'm voting for Ron. He's not willing to charge me for his faith. And you are.
Every once in a while I drop Jon Swift a suggestion via Stumbleupon, and sometimes he even takes the hint. Today I noticed that he'd dropped by and so I went to see what, if anything he'd made of my latest study in reasoned incoherence, which is noted for pithy observations such as this:
the only cure for such offensive pornography is, as the saying goes, "more and better pornography." We must not abandon the most reliable handle upon the future behavior of our youth to those who would wank them to destruction.
and this...
Those who seek power over others - sexually, in politics, in commerce, in life - do it because that is a visceral need for them. It's not because they deserve it, or because they can be assumed to be able or willing to do anything useful with that power when they have it. Using power wisely and well is a skill, as well as an under-acknowledged responsibility. Understanding and acceptance that there IS a price to power is, sadly, almost never something that comes with the kink itself. And yes, folks, the need to hold power over others is a psycho-sexual kink, to the point of being a disastrous character flaw if not admitted. (CF. George W. Bush; Hillary Clinton, Wahabism.)
If those who need power like vampires need blood are not trained and guided to seek power wisely and use it well, they will fail - and it will almost by definition be a cascade failure of catastrophic proportions. (CF. George W. Bush; Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabian Justice)
And while Jon made no reference to any of the points I raised here, he did raise an essential point dear to my heart; anonymity on the net, contrasted by the truly bizarre idea that divulging my name, rank and social security number somehow enhances my credibility. This idea, referred to as "transparency," suggests that if you know someone's real name, real job, real phone number and real address, you should somehow find them more credible than someone like Jon Swift, "Publius," famous psudonym of the authors of the federalist papers, or most humbly, myself.
I find it to be a bizarre, if not wildly delusional viewpoint, considering who lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and their established credibility.
Did Publius lack "integrity, maturity and courage," Mr. McKeen? Publius was the pseudonym Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay used when they wrote The Federalist Papers. What about Senex, who many people believe was Patrick Henry? Or Phocion, better know as Alexander Hamilton? Without these great Pseudonym-Americans the United States would not exist or, even worse, might be part of Canada today. Indeed, many great men and women in history used pseudonyms at one time or another. I don't think François-Marie Arouet (better known as Voltaire) was a coward. And Marion Morrison, despite his very effeminate sounding name, was more of a man than Scott McKeen will ever be. At least when he called himself John Wayne. Perhaps we Pseudonym-Americans would feel better about ourselves if we knew how many great people in history, and how many accomplished people today, are just like us. Unfortunately, they don't usually teach this in schools.
Publius would argue, I suspect, that a pseudonym can at times be a useful means to assure that an argument be evaluated on it's own merits, and not upon the reader's prejudgment of the motives, morals and political ambitions of the authors. Jon Swift might add that sometimes knowing an irrelevant personal detail can suck all the fun out of a running gag.
I mean, is the Unknown Comic as funny now that we know who's under the bag? More importantly, what does it say about those who are convinced that they somehow have the right to know who or what is behind the mask?
I have a very personal insight in that matter, because for me, as a multiple personality, it's a matter of more than philosophical significance. At least at first blush, and certainly in more direct and practical terms. My birth name has very little reality to me; indeed, it implies associations that I do not actually have and would have to publicly disavow if they were credited to me. It's a very old and Terribly English name. The use of my birth name would in fact tend to suggest political, religious and cultural associations and beliefs that would be anything but factual, whether or not you thought they reflected well upon me personally.
I mention this for a couple of reasons. First, because the whole idea of multiple personality has a long history of making the sort of people who insist on knowing who people "REALLY" are experience massive virtual cranial detonation. And second, to illustrate what a truly slippery concept it is.
I'm Bob King. It's a use-name, one so well-used that it may as well be my "real name." Indeed, the only reason that has not become my legal name is the expense and inconvenience. It's the name I sign my artwork with, and frankly, that makes it a good deal more personally "real" to me than the name on my birth certificate.
I started to use the name a long long time ago, not because I was embarrassed about it's frankly adult subject matter as I would have been deeply offended and embarrassed at family reactions to "airing my dirty laundry." Like many people of WASP ancestry, the assumption of an impervious facade of denial of a childhood filled with shame, guilt and soul-destroying oppression. And that, I add, is without any presumption of literal incest or physical abuse. Anonomous servers such as anon.penet.fi made a lot of people feel safe enough to discuss these issues among themselves and realize that there experiences, far from being a bizarre therapeutically-induced delusion, was a depressingly common circumstance that was only possible because it could be assumed that nobody would ever talk about it for fear that they would lose all credibility in every other area of life - and of course, for fear of more direct and personal reprisals.
The very existance of that venerable anonomous remailer shows how very long this tension between annonymity and "transparancy" has gone on, and the history of the service as recorded by WikiPedia and the attacks upon it by the Church of Scientology that eventually required it be shut down should inform you of what sort of people are most concerned about knowing "who people really are."
As far as I'm concerned, unless you owe ME money or I owe YOU money, that's as real a name as you have any right to expect. Frankly, you will find out a lot more about me that's useful to you in evaluating the worth of my written views by googling that name as opposed to a birth name I don't use even in Meatlife social contexts.
But those who are deeply suspicious of the motives of those who wish to hold powerful people publicly accountable for their alleged misdeeds have actually tried to criminalize the "annoyance" of people without a "real name" attached. It's not going to survive it's first court challenge; it's merely one more example of ingrown Republicanism and it's annoyance with the awkwardness of living within the dire strictures of the US Constitution.
Much of this whole thrust toward "transparancy" seems to me both delusional and gutless; the idea that, by being "brave" enough to reveal your "real" name, you are somehow more "authoratative" than someone such as myself, or Jon, who have to rely on the actual content of our arguments rather than the results of a data mining operation to convince you of the merit of our words. Jen (That's My Real Name, I PROMISE) Flannigan asserts this principle in her post called "peek-a-boo."
An even bigger reason not to hide is that there is so little to be gained that way. Even if no one ever invests the effort in finding your true identity and you remain safely masked, what do you gain that way? Making yourself heard is very powerful. But what good is it really if it then can’t be used to connect you to communities and people and opportunities. What kind of power do you really have if all you ever do is hide in an office or a living room somewhere and fire off nameless missives into the void? Isn’t the real power in connecting and opening doors for yourself and others? Doesn’t that require more of a presence than a fake name? What is the goal and the power of hiding behind your own words?
So, essentially, you assume that there is "something to be gained" in terms of personal power and influence IF people can be reassured they know who you "really are" and what strings you can "really" pull - and what shibboleths you will endeavor to help preserve.
It seems to me, then, that people who make a great big fat hairy deal about this "real name" thing are pointing toward that which is, paradoxically, the least real thing about them - their personal and social facade. And by insisting that everyone they deal with accede to these same standards, it seems to me that they are investing in a personal and public "network" much invested in keeping all kinds of unpalitable facts and insights at bay.
Jen is choosing to use her "real" name in the same way as masons who stick decals on their Caddy's - and for that matter, choose to drive a chrome-encrusted codpiece instead of something a little more... erm.. anonymous.
You see, the reason you advocate "transparency" is the exact reason I do NOT want my "real name" out there. I do not want people seeing exactly who I HOPE to impress, and presume to know exactly what personal and social advantage I'm perusing. I'm not fanatical about this - but I want to read my stuff before my "credentials," rather than the other way around. Jen's reasoning is exactly what I would have said about many who make more complicated arguments, and who approve of the "real name" policies of social networking venues such as Facebook.
I understand that she and many others attach credibility with the ability to do a quick "due diligence" on a potential contact, and if I were involved in network marketing or dealing in negotiable securities, I would agree within that limited context. But I'm not. I'm a blogger and an artist and there's nothing in my financial data that would aid you in evaluating the truth of what I have said. There is a great deal in it that could be used to convince me to stop telling the truth. Read the story of anon.penet.fi again.
The second reported compromise of the Penet remailer occurred in February 1995 at the behest of the Church of Scientology. Claiming that a file had been stolen from one of the Church's internal computer servers and posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology by a Penet user, representatives of the Church contacted Interpol, who in turn contacted the Finnish police, who issued a search warrant demanding that Julf hand over data on the users of the Penet remailer. Initially Julf was asked to turn over the identities of all users of his remailer (which numbered over 300,000 at the time), but he managed a compromise and revealed only the single user being sought by the Church of Scientology.
The anonymous user in question used the handle "-AB-" when posting anonymously, and their real e-mail address indicated that they were an alumnus or alumna of the California Institute of Technology. The document that they posted was a police report of an incident that had occurred involving a man named Tom Klemesrud, a BBS operator involved in the Scientology versus the Internet controversy. The confusing story became popular as the "Miss Blood Incident".
Eventually the Church learned the real identity of "-AB-" to be Tom Rummelhart, a computer operator responsible for some of the maintenance of the Church of Scientology's INCOMM computer system. The fate of "-AB-" after the Church of Scientology learned his true identity is unknown. Years later in 2003, a two-part story entitled "What Really Happened in INCOMM - Part 1" and "What Really Happened in INCOMM – Part 2" was posted to alt.religion.scientology by a former Scientologist named Dan Garvin, which described events within the Church leading up to and stemming from the Penet posting by "-AB-".
If I need facts, I establish those facts independently of my own word. That's just plain good journalism. I very much try to avoid situations where the whole point relies on the objective factuality of my own experience, although I'll admit that there are special interests of my own - multiple personality, asperger's/autism and all subjectives filtered through those particular wetware biases that must simply fall into the category of "believe it or don't."
But frankly, I cannot imagine how knowing my "real" name or my home address helps you in deciding what value to place on my purely subjective experience. It's only real value is in it's potential to be used against me, or to discredit me, should you or some powerful entity decides I'm a threat. So, this insistence on "transparency" is, I think, not so much about making those decisions about the credibility of insight into socially awkward issues as a "gentleman's agreement" to never raise such issues in the first place.
Remember that my "real" name is attached to many data points that have little or nothing to do with the facts or reasoning of what I might say, but there are many pointy-headed people out there who think that my socioeconmic status, my ethnicity or my age provide them compelling reasons to not be bothered to consider my arguments in the first place.
But, by insisting that I put those things out there, by insisting that internet communities behave as if they were small towns in Siberia, mid-America or Saudi Arabia where everyone knows everyone else's business. What IS assured in such circumstances is that the very conventional values of conformity and intolerance for significant differences in values will be upheld in public by all, no matter how patently and obviously false those values are.
For myself, I don't see any good reason to make it easy for for stalkers and saboteurs to use virtual or actual force against me. I'm not particularly paranoid about it, but I'm of the opinion that waving your personal details out there for any idiot to use means that some idiot is likely to use it.
Goddess forbid she have the choice to engage in premarital; possibly even recreational sex that doesn't actually hurt. And this is aside from the religious and cultural rationalizations and justifications which I dismiss as being just that - justifications and rationalizations.
But for every Ted, or even more odious wankers who think it's their religious duty to rape uppity women, there's a far greater threat; people who think they have a right to interfere in your personal life based on what you have said in public against their treasured causes.
Faux New's John Gibson, who asserts White House deserves medal for outing Plame, in essence arguing that Plaime's "higher duty" was to her FuhrerLeader President, and NOT to the Constitution. Recall that she took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As an intelligence professional, concerned with the very vital issue of nuclear proliferation, that very explicitly does NOT exclude would-be "Dear Leaders" of any nationality - especially not our own.
Aside from the utter immorality of such Brownshirt Media apologias I can't even begin to summarize the towering stupidity of Gibson's argument, any more than I can imagine what news organization with any remaining pretensions of journalistic integrity and independence would air such nonsense. We tolerated the Iraqi Information Minister because everyone knew perfectly well what would happen to him if he did not dispense his twaddle with all the sincerity he could muster. One could even admire his ability to play the game so well, knowing that everyone knew it was a game.
But one does wonder why Gibson is playing the same game with no greater hope of success. Is it because, in having sold his soul and integrity to Faux News, he has the uncomfortable realization that he could be a victim of "Transparency" himself?
I've tried for a day or two to find an angle to respond more directly to the Gibson video, but this parenthetical aside is the best that I can come up with, that Gibson and his ilk are the people most concerned with knowing who is responsible for observations of their moral and mental failures. Them, and the Bush Administration - to the extent there is a distinction between the two, of course.
Again, the actual history of the Brownshirts doesn't give one much comfort - knowing what happened to people who's addresses they, the SS and Gestapo knew at various pivotal points in German history. Nor does one have to rely on German history for such incidents - it just happens to be a rather good, accessible record of some very old ideas implemented with - I must say - a great deal more competence and determination than exhibited by George Bush and people who could only be compared unfavorably to Joseph Goebbels.
A constitutional scholar says President Bush and his administration were working to expand their spy powers months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which provided a "highly convenient" opportunity to dramatically strengthen law enforcement and surveillance authority.
This is why I will not vote for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act or any expansion of presidential powers. This leaves me with Ron Paul for sure, and maybe Kucinich, and rules out anyone who I think to be especially fascinated by the potentials for the ability of a strong central government to "do good" unto me.
Furthermore, anyone opposed to impeaching this president now, before he can start a nuclear war strikes me as being essentially too stupid or opportunistic to hold any political office.
Call this an exercise in free-enterprise intelligence analysis and a strong advisory that in tapping our phones, you might just be distracted from far more significant indicators of what's going on domestically.
I am concerned - as everyone else should be - as to what displays like this do for public respect for the rule of law. It's certainly eroding mine, and making me consider applying for a concealed carry permit so that I may ensure my own safety without involving such people. When a person as risk-averse as myself starts seeing a pistol and a lime pit as being potentially a safer response to aggression than a call to 911, it represents a serious erosion of everything that the word "civilization" represents.
While the possibly racist and certainly political nature of this incident is well worth screaming about, such incidents transcend the importance of those two considerations, because there is one factor that is more important than race or politics.
The day "authorities" assume the right to pick and choose which citizens (even David Duke) may attend on any basis other than fire regulations - it's time to set a match to the place and build anew. If you think that's an Unamerican and unpatriotic thing to say, or even think, I refer you to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Our Revolutionary war and our Civil War both started with what, in my opinion, were far fewer sins of less significance than we have endured under George Bush's misrule. Our self-appointed Masters, our self-styled earls and would-be Counts should thank God and Al Gore that the Internet has for this time proven a more attractive battleground than the fields and valleys that still reek of the blood of Patriot dead. And the forces of reason are winning, the voices supporting the president have steadily diminished until there remain only those that any rational and reasonable administration would be embarrassed to associate with; the Dead-Enders like Coulter, Malkin and O'Rielly - those incapable of uttering a single paragraph without saying something that is either racist, illiterate, breathtakingly stupid or an obvious lie. Often it's all of the above.
Bush is the dog. These are the fleas. Any questions?
But should they be of the cynical opinion that the Internet provides an outlet with no real impact, one they can shut down any time they like - I should advise them that given current technology, the best they could expect to do is choke down the bandwidth - and essentially create a huge, Pearl-Harbor level event to motivate people to switch to more active demonstrations of non-compliance. Amazing how it's progressed from geeky obsession to critical infrastructure in ten years; all, apparently with the implications eluding those who are too self-important to sully themselves by exploring it themselves. Considering it's incredible importance of these here "tubes," it's kind of insulting to have a leadership so technically impaired and intellectually challenged that they cannot grasp the implications.
You can't shut it down. There would be an instantaneous financial panic.
But the fact that SAC was unable to maintain operational security on an attempted clandestine transfer of six nuclear cruise missiles should have been a clue as to the danger it presents to the ambitions of the powerful. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands of former military persons with appropriate knowledge have unhesitatingly shredded every single lame and implausible "explanation" for this incident should be another clue.
And one reason for our seething discontent with our leadership is that they have not bothered to demonstrate any great competence for or even great interest in the the posts of power they hold. Why should we even consider permitting your ambition? Those who lust after the power of kings should be at least capable of wiping their own assess without needing instructions printed on each sheet of toilet paper. And I most especially include politicians of all stripes and sexes noted more for their ambition than their principles. Yes, Ms. Clinton, that does include you.
Right on top of the pile.
It concerns me that your outrage at the transgressions against the American People, our rights and our liberties are so very muted, it seems to me that such powers tempt you unduly. And I give you the credit of being smart enough to be really dangerous.
Yes, we need to talk about health care. But it seems to me that when there's a sitting lame-duck president who is clearly seeking a pretext to nuke a sovereign nation in order to create a "national emergency" that will facilitate whatever increasingly delusional plans exist in his addled brain, it's not the first priority.
I'm going to vote for whoever understands this. And if I don't get the chance to vote, a conspiracy theorist paranoia which seems to have evolved into a very credible suspicion, I will stand up and march alongside anyone with the courage to say "enough!"
I've never taken any precautions regarding having my communications monitored by the government, so I'm sure there is a file somewhere. The only thing I ask is that someone read it, and consider that I - and likely everyone else in same bin I'm in - are saying the same things, have been saying it for some time, and have been expressing increasing frustration and impatience. And as a whole, we have been willing to give endless benefit of the doubt, we have been enormously patient with you, oh, our arrogant masters, and have been rewarded with responses that would make a mildly retarded five-year old feel patronized.
The latest form letter from my Republican Senator, John Ensign, in response to my expressed concerns about illegal detentions, secret trials and erosions of the constitution has convinced me that self-importance and ideology can produce all the same symptoms of congenital retardation. Clearly, he's a 15 watt bulb in a 200 watt socket, barely capable of breathing and holding up his own hair.
As far as I'm concerned, he is the best single argument against the neocon ideology and it's culture of intellectual, social and moral corruption - he appears to genuinely believe and support it's every jot and tittle. Even now. He's THAT stupid.
And apparently, - at least according to his correspondence with me, that is how intelligent he thinks I am.
We all know the intelligence infrastructure is monitoring the Internet, our telephones and indeed all forms of private communications between citizens in defiance of custom, law and constitution. We know this in part because our Dear Leader, he who is propped up by the Assets of Evil, has bragged about it. Publicly. To reassure us that we are safe in his hands from the forces of Terror.
I, for one, am convinced that he would not recognize a real terrorist plot if arrived on his desk wrapped in flayed human skin powdered in anthrax with a video recording of Osama Bin Ladin chanting "this is a terrorist plot."
Dear goddess in heaven, can't you revoke his security clearance or something? But we know you are at least trying to monitor our private communications and our public blog postings. Just in case we are harboring terrorists in Hoboken or Eureka. So, presumably, at least one poor underpaid G4 knows what the rumblings in these here "internets" reveal and has dutifully forwarded it to those who need to know.
How can it be that such critical intelligence can so clearly be dismissed as unimportant; irrelevant to the clear and clearly stupid goals this administration and it's supporters cling to like some unwashed, urine soaked blankie?
Please try again. Use smaller words. Perhaps a big red felt marker would help. Jump up and down if you have to. Supply diagrams.
I'm not hooked into the intelligence community - but with an Internet connection and a three digit IQ, I'm prepared to draw some of my own conclusions, based on access to information and correlative resources Allan Dullies would have cheerfully sacrificed his left testicle to have. I wonder if it's dawned on anyone at CIA, DIA or NSA that millions of people analyzing and sharing publicly available information is a resource that likely trumps anything Carnivore or the NSA eavesdropping can reveal?
There simply are not enough warm bodies with the right security clearances and qualifications for it to shake out any other way. It hasn't helped that gays, liberals, and apparently anyone who speaks Farsi or Arabic is considered a security risk.
You may well be concerned at the resources broadband Internet puts in the hands of rogue and third world states, as well you should be. And I'd be surprised if you were not concerned about the reliability (and motivations) of sources in the EU, Israel and the Middle East.
But you should be even more concerned about what this means in the hands of an increasingly impatient citizenry who are easily able to act on the maxim "Trust, but Verify." I'm sorry, "trust us, we know what we are doing" is no longer a credible response. It's a punchline, as hilarious as President whastisbeard saying "we have no homosexuals in Iran."
So far, and I state this regretfully, that the last seven years have demonstrated either a complete failure on the part of various intelligence agencies to gather useful, actionable and relevant information, the inability to analyze it, or the complete failure to communicate it's implications to people making decisions. What we see expressed in every decision, policy and appointment is a complete ignorance of or a stunningly foolish indifference to consequence.
And I state this without any need to assume "realpoltik" motivations, hidden agendas, or the need to placate the American people with reasons for actions they find palatable.
Even in the most cynical light, taking the word of the "Project for a New American Century" and accepting the idea that it's proper to act with frank and deliberate intent to dominate the world and impose a Pax Americana, this administration's actions have made that vision laughably absurd. We are LESS of a world power now than we were when George Bush took office, with LESS military might, LESS ability to apply economic pressure, LESS influence by any measure - and we are trembling on the brink of irrelevance - of becoming not merely a second-rank power, but a scattered assortment of balkanized, competing states.
Such a consummation is devoutly wished by many - many of them being our supposed allies. Should there be any degree of civil unrest, much less outright civil war, those leading it will find no lack of financial and military support.
And if you can't meaningfully interdict the drug trade - I don't think you are gonna do any better stopping the flow of supplies to any determined insurgency. Our borders make those of Iraq look like the Berlin wall. And we are all painfully aware of how successful we have been in our efforts against determined insurgencies. I think it rather likely that insurgent citizens can do rather better than Iraqis, or even the North Vietnamese Army. After all, while they did have General Giap - an admitted military genius - Bush has fired every military leader that has shown any evidence of understanding the military realities well enough to object to his ambitions - so there will be no "leadership gap."
So the only way for this administration to "win" a civil war is to not declare one. I mention that aloud as it's one obvious possibility, considering all the many and various preparations George has made, against that day.
Why George's manifest and compounded stupidities seem to lead toward some fulfillment of Armageddon matters little. The final battle for world domination is an inherently BAD thing - EVEN IF Jesus comes in glory to save the shell-shocked remnant of the Just. However, I doubt that would occur. The bible is pretty clear that if you think you know the hour and the day, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure He would consider it presumptuous for some world leader to force His hand.
And I think it would be amazing, frankly, if there are many, if any world leaders willing to permit it. If anything, they are tacitly, if not actively conspiring to allow us to destroy ourselves, rather than take more active countermeasures. However, if there are not British, French, Russian and Chinese missiles allocated for every single aircraft carrier and strategic asset - including the Dark Cube With No Address - I would be absolutely flabbergasted.
But have great faith in Bush's ability to fail, even without help. What I do care about is that presumably smarter and saner people continue to permit him to live in the White House, instead of a secure basement suite in Bethesda - along with Dick Cheney, a man with equally obvious and severe mental disqualifications for office.
At some point, you have to decide whether or not you signed on for such a thorough professional cornholing, and consider what price you are paying to continue excusing behaviors you would not tolerate from your toddlers.
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.
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.
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 KrispyKreems 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
