Melissa Harris-Perry, a weekend talk show host on MSNBC, who could have the victim of the politics of bullying. Recently, some cretin approached her at the Iowa caucuses and started acting in a threatening way. Although the situation had a "happy ending", one can easily understand why people live in fear when they are in the minority. (And in this case, I do not refer to color, as much as I refer to being in ANY minority.) Bullying people is a tactic which has been used since time immemorial, and will continue to be used until potential victims have ALL the tools to resist bullying.
Compare today's positions of the two major political parties. The Democrats are the more pacifistic party, seeking greater "gun control'. The GOP is the more bellicose party, defending "gun rights" every chance they get. So the supporters of our political left and its positions that are more likely to be bullied by people who are a few french fries short of a "Happy Meal". And, for the most part, we tolerate that.
Why do potential victims tolerate bullying? There are many reasons. For some, they do not wish to stoop to the level of the intellectually incompetent. For others, they are afraid of being chosen to be sacrificial lambs for the sake of social cohesion. As I said, there are many reasons, none of them good. It would make more sense for people to stand up to bullies and "go 'all in'". Yet, this goes against a primal instinct to run in the face of danger.
Recently, a different cretin barged into the offices of a Texas state legislator. Texas has both open carry and concealed carry. And there are no provisions to keep firearms out of the state capitol, where a few deranged madmen could take down the entire legislative branch of government, as well as its executive, if done at the right time. As much as I believe that the people must preserve the right and ability to rebel against a tyrannical government, this was hardly the time and place where that right was needed. This lawmaker had real reason to fear for his life. And all Texas is doing in response is to put "panic buttons" in legislators' offices - a potential case of "too little, too late."
Sadly, it looks like we're letting the bullies control us. Hopefully, we won't go down without a good fight....
This image makes it seem like the Baltimore police had the situation under control. However, given 4/27's news reporting on both Fox and MSNBC, this would be the furthest thing from the truth.
Normally, I lean left of center (based on today's politics) when interpreting affairs of the day.When it comes to riots, I have no problems with police being able to "shoot to kill". "Why?" you may ask... To me, the answer is simple - a riot is like a quick moving cancer. If it is not put down quickly, a community gets labeled as a bad place to make an investment. And, as a result, there is a loss of jobs which can force the community into an economic death.
Sadly, the fact that riots are taking place are indicative of a bigger social problem. We have an excess supply of people who are willing to work, but can not find gainful work. We have draconian laws (especially in regard to recreational substances) whose net effect is to disenfranchise large segments of the population, to warehouse them where they can't compete for jobs against a blissfully unaware but shrinking middle class, and to function as a tool to keep the lower economic classes in check.
If we look at the people in places like inner-city Baltimore, we see poor people who have poor educations, who will not be able to qualify for the jobs of tomorrow. They are frustrated, and do not have the ability to articulate their complaints against the larger society. Strangely enough, Fox had a reporter on the ground, interviewing one of the locals in front of the police, while MSNBC only had talking heads in the studio. But the message was clear, no matter which side of the political aisle you were on - the people in inner-city Baltimore are tired of living in conditions of little hope.
Watching the Fox interview of the unnamed Baltimore local, I noticed that the local mentioned that he just got out of prison on a trumped up drug charge, where the policeman planted the evidence that was used to convict him. In the past, I'd be inclined to think that this would be someone lying to save face. However, with these incidents (and others) on file, I'm not so certain we can put the word of the police above the average citizen any more:
Can we assume that the police are telling the truth? Not anymore. Yet, I believe that most of the police are getting a bad reputation from these "bad eggs", and from policies meant to detect crimes, even when no crimes have been committed.
Let's assume that this unnamed Baltimore local's statement is true. Then this is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. The people we've entrusted the duty to protect us have become part of the problem. In an article on where Baltimore's police went wrong, the author notes that dealing drugs is the only "industry" left in the inner city - and that our current drug laws are creating a police force that no longer polices neighborhoods to keep them safe, but instead, becomes a tool used to keep the poor and disenfranchised in line, and afraid to challenge the corrupt status quo.
Most policemen starting out are good people who are put under a lot of stress every day. However, our elected leaders set policies that often demand that the police meet quotas to show that crime is being reduced - and our police oblige them, out of fear that they will become victims of politics. Instead of being the trusted members of the community that one could count on to find out who is committing crimes, they become the distrusted outsiders responsible for keeping a sector of society out of public sight.
The big question is - how long will it be before the lower classes in American society rebel, as the French did in their 1784 revolution? I have no idea, but I hope that we can humanely fix the problem with the disenfranchised poor before they find a way to create a successful revolution of their own....
Gone are the days where we could trust our newscasters to provide us with a version of the news biased towards the middle of the road. We as a nation may not have been objective, but we trusted our newscasters to be so - even when the news didn't agree with our political views. Today, we have "Narrow-casted" news, where cable channels broadcast to narrow market segments, feeding them the pablum they want to hear, and interpreted through the lenses of people who agree with them - never challenging the viewer to look at the world through a different perspective.
Recently, Brian Williams has been in the news for not being truthful in his news reports. Supposedly, he will be out for 6 months - until things cool down - but I'm not sure if he'll be back for long. I don't think people like him are the real problem in news. Instead, the problem is the firms that encourage excessive bias in the news.
Years ago, I learned a simple fact. If a country had to use "Democratic" in its official name, the odds were that the country had an authoritarian regime. A good example of this is the DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't believe that anyone outside North Korea believes that the Kim family really cares for its subjects. But I digress. The same idea also applies for news outlets. If an outlet claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the odds are that it is Unfair and Biased. I am very wary of claims from both the left and the right - both tribes are led by opportunist conspirators, and will cloak themselves in the garb of caring for the little fellow.
Why is it that MSNBC ignores Al Sharpton's past? Even though he might be a reformed man now, he still strikes me as an opportunist who works on a more subtle level than when he was younger. And why has Fox News ignored the lies coming from its own editorial staff? If one of its big shows claims to be a "No Spin Zone", why did a high school have to take his show to task for violating journalistic ethics? It seems like both sets of talking heads get their marching orders, and ignore the indiscretions of their own teams in order to sell their agendas to the unthinking public.
One of my friends believes in every conspiracy theory that comes her way. Most have been proven false. However some might be true - but not in the way she understands the world. The way I look at it, 99.44% of us are effectively pawns in the games of the rich and powerful. There are many power blocs among the elite, and they conspire against each other for greater power. Some of them believe in over population (which results in lower wages and fear of job loss), as this is an easy way for this elite to maintain positions of power. Other groups within the elite believe that greater wealth and power can be gained by fulfilling the wishes and needs of the other 99.44%. And still others benefit from dividing the 99.44% against each other. It is plausible that blocs within the elites conspire against each other, and we are affected, being mere pawns in the game.
I attempt to see reality by skipping over the BS being spewed by the two major factions in our society, and by reading media from sources (often overseas) who have less skin in the games being played in America. I compare their reporting against what is being said in America to develop a better idea of what the truth might be, and test that idea against the objective facts as I know them. And so far, luckily, I have been on target more than I would have been otherwise. Is the media biased? Yes. Are the spinmeisters hypocritical? Of course. But that doesn't make it impossible to see the truth - if one is willing to let one's own prejudices drop by the wayside....
