Bad Cop, No Doughnut

It's nothing new that people behave badly. Even less surprising is that people in positions of authority behave badly. Power corrupts, after all. We are all guilty at some point or another of abusing power, manipulating the system or simply doing something petty or malicious. However, in recent weeks it has come to my attention that police are getting an especially bad reputation for being....dicks.

Technology makes recording the actions of police officers very easy and very common. This is a good thing, because in many cases of police misconduct there is a thin blue line that protects its own. Remember, it is legal to record the police as long as you are not interfering with their duties. The supreme court had repeatedly upheld this. As a result of the ease of recording, the internet has been lit up the last few years with examples of possible police misconduct. Judge for yourself:

Cops shoot unarmed woman to death for rolling her window up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPhC916GQM

Cop shoots and kills dog while asking for directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvIWFXbHNo&feature=player_detailpage

Cops shoot another dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJVnA5KXJw&feature=player_embedded

Cops shoot unarmed man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ins9VAo-xLY&feature=youtu.be&t=55s

Cops shoot another unarmed man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNYVRGUmGpY

Here's a 40 minute compilation of police brutality in the news from June 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAyprC3p80

Cops shoot unarmed man more than 40 times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZCnI7RdlMI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m10s

Cops enter without warrant and tase man for filming them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PaGAy5XEv-o

Police arrest bystander and shoot his dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qv-D7hyWKs&feature=share

Police enter wrong home and shoot dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIf6o_7pMTw&feature=youtu.be

(Seriously, what is it with dogs?)

Police kill dog of homeless man who had a seizure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tx68uvOqug&feature=player_embedded

Police beat and tase man after he surrenders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNfxt2KiqI&feature=youtu.be

I seriously could go on and on with this, but it's depressing. I know there are plenty of good cops out there. When I witnessed a hit&run vehicular assault the other week I called 911 and the cops handled it well. If I were in trouble, it's who I would call, but that's honestly because there aren't any other options. I know police have what might be the most stressful job on the planet and that each day is a risk to their lives. But you know something else? I don't care about that when it comes to situations like those above. I just don't give two shits.

Cops are supposed to work for the people, not against them. Your uniforms, fancy tasers, guns and badges are given to you by the people for the good of the people. When I have a malicious episode at work, I save a spreadsheet with bullshit information on it. When a cop decides to flex his nuts, people die. What's worse is the way that the ranks close around police to protect them from the public. Internal Affairs is a joke.

Nobody is perfect, but you know something cops...you sure as hell aren't trying very hard to be.

Problem Solved

Amrerica is facing a wide range of issues at the moment. Perhaps not more issues than at any time before, but it certainly seems like it thanks to the 24 hour news cycle. In no particular order we're facing the Fiscal Cliff, Gun Control, the Debt Ceiling, Unemployment, Medicare solvency, Tax Reform, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Judiciary Appointments, so on and so forth. Washington, or at least the people we send there, are unable or unwilling to actually solve any of these issues.

There exists a wide variety of why inaction is better than action on the part of our elected officials. Some stand to personally profit from circumstances they create. Many are effectively pressured by groups that lobby for certain industries or interests. Some are seeking to fulfill personal vendettas, I'm looking at you John McCain. Many claim to be answering to the will of the American people. I suspect if that were true Congress would have higher than an 11% approval rating. What is really happening here is easy to fix, but sadly would rely on those people who are the problem to fix it.

There once was a time when we the people would elect representatives who would go to Washington and they would vote on stuff we didn't care to pay attention to and then in a few years they would come back to us, lie about what they had done and we would elect them again, or not. Now though, the campaign season begins as soon as the previous election is over. As we speak, buzz exists of the 2016 race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, a month before the inaguaration of Obama's 2^nd term. Every action, every vote, is part of the effort to get reelected because we do not have term limits for Congress. This means that opposition to the other side is a feat in and of itself, no matter what you're opposing.

Take the case of taxes. Both sides openly agree about extending the Bush tax cuts for 98% of Americans. One side says 98%, the other 100%. In a rational world, the 100% side would take 98% of what they want and would then fight for that last 2% if they really thought it was important. Compromise in any other context is not a fight over one side getting 98% of what it wants comparted to 100%. But, we live in an era of opposition politics, not compromise.

Gun contraol is similarly and needlessly confused. Even 75% of NRA members believe that if you're on the Terrorist Watch List, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. More than 60% of them believe that limitations on assault rifles and high capacity magazines are reasonable. But, in a case where both side can reach many points of agreement, one side is saying things like "We need more guns in schools, not less!" because it panders to the opposition.

The Fiscal Cliff and Debt Ceiling are classic examples of opposition until the last possible second on ideas that both side clearly agree on. The Cliff will be dealt with. The Ceiling will be raised. Before that happens there will be weeks of public speeches and whining and whimpering and rumors and implication because that is the process now.

If we want to solve all these problems and all those that will come in the future we need leadership that is concerned only with doing the right thing for the people that sent them to do that thing. We need severe term limits on Congress and the Senate. Senators serve for 6 years per term now. Being a Senator brings a lot of power and perks and frankly, it is time to flush the entire system that allows people to serve 50 years in that legislative body. One term. One six-year term. Senators have too much power to be allowed to use it for reelection. For the House, two 2-year terms, then you're out.

I believe that if we remove the need for constant grandstanding, obstruction, manipulation and pandering, we can accomplish quite a lot more. Our founders expected terms of service from our representatives that would be temporary. They were quite correct on that point. Limited terms are the first step toward a broader solution to the issues at hand.

Peace Revisited

Not terribly long ago I started a post about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It was a serious mess. Posting about such a complex issue is impossible to do casually without exceptional mistakes being made. So, here I go again. But I think I have a point to make that I so rarely see expressed elsewhere.

All too often I see the conflict being traced back to the roots of the state of Israel and even beyond. As though there will be some original document or claim that will bring peace to an area that has known conflict for thousands of years. No such silver bullet will be found in the past. There may be one found in the present, but it will take moral courage and honesty that I seriously believe the people involved are unable to express. Also, we should agree on some points up front.

1: Neither side is innocent. This is a war. A slow, long-term war where each side uses the weapons it has. Just because one side has a more organized military does not mean its actions are not equally as reprehensible as the side that does not. Mutual guilt.

2: Neither side can remain true to being a religion of peace by violently cleansing the other from it's "Holy Land".

3: Neither side will accept the claims of the other on the area as a whole.

4: The international community in general desires peace between the two countries.

5: In the end, yes, they are two countries.

I contend that it doesn't matter now who started the conflict. Peace will only be achieved through non-violence. The first side willing to stop will be the side that wins public support and will be granted the security that each side claims they want. All eyes are on the middle east. As we saw today, most of the world supports Palestine in their bid for statehood.

If there were a massive, non-violent movement of civil disobedience, like the civil rights movement of America's 1960s, Israel would have to fold to pressure from around the world, even U.S. pressure. The challenge as I see it is that the radical elements of each force will not put down their arms and seek peace.

Ah well. What are you to make of the holiest land on Earth, where bloodshed is a daily occurrence.

Lines in the Sand

Well, thanks to the unparallelled brilliance of the Bush administration, the doctrine of preemptive war has been unleashed on the world. That's right. The logic goes: We better start a war or else there might be a war.

I know a ridiculous number of 'Merica-loving rednecks thought that was an awesome idea; as did those who would profit from endless war as part of the military-industrial complex. Today though, I really came to realize the dangers of making war-to-prevent-war a worldwide norm.

The US is actively involved in drone strikes against terrorists cells in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Think about that for a minute. US aircraft are actively committing lethal attacks in sovereign nations that we are not at war with. In the case of 3 US citizens in Yemen, drones were used to kill them without due process for what they said, not did. The war on terror apparently trumps international law and our own Constitution as well.

But a further danger arises. How can we now tell another nation that it cannot invade another country, or cannot establish a no-fly zone, or perform ground attack missions against whomever they want? In 2008 we saw the conflict of this when Russia performed an incursion into Georgia to combat what they called terrorism. The US objected, but with what right?

Now that Israel is demanding, yes demanding, that the US plan to attack Iran, we see the logical conclusion of our own irresponsibility. President Obama has said that the US will not attack Iran, or assist Israel in an attack, without a clear danger to US interests. Israel has continued saber-rattling and now says that the US has no right to prevent or discourage an Israeli attack on Iran. And you know, they have a point. We introduced the concept. We're still using it to justify our own attacks. How can we tell somebody else to stop?

There is one thing to be examined though: I am not a fan of Israel. I believe that a state built on religious segregation is, in and of itself, a bad thing. I do understand the "need" for it, as it were though. So, like it or not, Israel has the right to exist. Through formidable military strength, Israel has claimed it's spot among a landscape of countries that want it destroyed. However, it has always been on the defensive. Defending itself has been part of its moral justification for existence.

We are seeing the transition from clear defense to offense-as-defense and that makes the moral high ground less clear. I believe that in the long term Israel will be putting itself at more risk if it can be seen as the aggressor. Just as the US did not have a coalition for the invasion of Iraq, Israel will alienate itself from the allies it traditionally had. It is not a wise course of action.

Peace is not accomplished through killing the other guy first.

Entitlement Culture

I read the news of the consulate attacks in Benghazi and immediately felt a low-key outrage, if such a thing exists. I felt a superior frustration with the ignorance that would motivate such an act against people who are innocent of causing offense.

What we seem to know is that a guy in California made some YouTube video that was offensive to Muslims. In retaliation, Libyan hardliners attacked the US consulate and killed or injured a number of people who were definitely not YouTubers from California. My initial thought was: What a short memory they have. Didn't the U.S. and many countries in Europe just drop millions of dollars to topple their oppressive regime and assist in their happy little rebellion?

But, I stopped myself from getting all too high and mighty. What if these "activists" have a good point? What if we evil Americans are really doing long-term psychological damage to them by drawing cartoons or mocking their pedophile prophet? I bet you Allah's ability to smite the wicked is diminished every time I snicker at a funny post on r/atheism.

I don't have a problem with people taking offense. I'm offended by things all the time. People have that right. What you don't have is the right to rectify your offense through violence. That is not something you are entitled to, no matter what your sheep-herder-written book might say.

We are not, none of us, as entitled as we think we are. People will do things that we don't like. When we don't differentiate between those things that offend us and those things that actually harm us, we are making the world a less-safe place. Don't expect me to have respect for your "religion of peace" when you're acting like the bronze-age tribesmen you idolize.

Bad Medicine

So I've been watching the GOP convention...if watching is the appropriate term for it. It's all I can do to sit through speeches full of lies and CNN's coverage that is devoid of any fact checking. I look at the faces, almost all white, on the convention floor and I see the same glassy-eyed devotion to a lie that I see in churches. It got me really thinking about what it is that bothers me so much about "them".

It's the disingenuous facade of it all. It's people voting against their own financial interests just to oust the black guy from office. It's people cheering policies that make us less safe so they can feel more safe. It's the false choice offered every year between D and R. It's the same reason I dislike the "faithful" who are no different from me in their flaws, faults and follies and yet hold themselves up on a pedestal of smoke and mirrors.

Honesty is the most important quality I can seek in a person. Honesty to others and honesty to yourself. It's why I dislike almost all politicians. It's why I'm so disappointed in the religious. It's why those who can't even be honest with themselves garner my disdain.

I would have a much higher respect for the GOP if their convention were all about making corporations stronger, making it harder for minorities to vote, lowering Mitt's taxes, endless war and the inevitable black-lung we will all die from once pollution regulations are eliminated. I mean, I wouldn't vote for them, but I could respect them.

I also find my personal relationships strongly influenced by this. I can switch gears from adoration to aversion in a matter of minutes when I see that somebody is unable or unwilling to be honest. In the end, being true to yourself, knowing who you are and loving that person, is hard to swallow but it isn't going to change. Afterward though, comes a liberation that few will realize because they're not just afraid of the big bad world, but of themselves.

All About Mormons

Not really...but that is an awesome South Park episode.

The other day I was the very pleased recipient of two Mormon missionaries who came to my door. I was overjoyed to have the opportunity to speak with them. I mentally clapped my hands...at least I hope it was only in my mind.

As an atheist, and a rather proud one at that, I love when people try and convert me. But more importantly, I love when people of a faith I know nothing about try and convert me. I'm always open to the option that I might be wrong, so this was another learning experience. The doorbell rang and I was pleased to converse with two nice young women about their faith and my lack thereof.

The conversation went so well that we had another meeting a week later at the house of one of their members. I learned a lot about what they believed and I can see why a lot of Christians don't consider LDS to be a Christian faith at all. I also experienced their conversion tactics and I have to say, they're good.

Apparently, Mormons rely very heavily on the Book of Mormon. And I mean..for a lot. Almost daily scripture study, Sunday services that last 3+ hours. They immerse themselves in their Book like Christians claim to. When talking to somebody new, they do their best to get them to read passages from the Book as frequently as possible (I declined). They hold an opening and closing prayer, of course inviting the new person to participate and even offer their own words (I also declined). It isn't exactly cult-indoctrination behavior, but it is an excellent example of social pressure. I hope I wasn't smiling all too much.

You see, there was a time when I would have bowed my head, said the words, faked my way through it and in the end, maybe even gone along with a conversion experience in the long run. I was not as strong in my non-faith as I am today. Their suggestion that I pray to a being I don't believe in and listen for an answer (thereby assuming there might be a being to provide an answer) was a suggestion that might have had some power before. I hope I was not actually as "aloof" as one of them suggested I was.

I can't say that I didn't understand the appeal of what they had though. They were quite happy in the shackles of their faith. They accepted circumstance as God's will and trials as a passing moment of suffering before an Eternity in Heavenly bliss. As nice as they were, the doe-eyed expressions were ones that haunt me more than any imagined Hell. They had found peace. They found a peace in not having choices, in not having responsibility for their actions, in servitude. I hope my life is one of constant chaos by comparison.