Institutional Narcissism

A reporter at NPR yesterday reported about the atmosphere around the home of Martin Richard, the boy who was killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. The reporter, Jeff Brady, had this to say:
"At the Martin family house in the Dorchester section of Boston, there is a bouquet of flowers and a candle out front. No one answered the front door. In a statement, the family asked for privacy."

A young boy is killed in a bombing, and the next day National Public radio sees fit to pester his family. It is likely that no one was home, so no harm, no foul, but not for lack of trying. I wonder if the intrepid reporter read the statement before or after seeking answer at the door. I responded to the NPR report with the following:

...the reporter said that no one answered the door at the Richard home. The only way he would have known this is if he rang the bell himself. A family has just lost its son, and an NPR reporter comes a-knocking. Or ringing.

To coin a phrase, have you no decency? Of course not. It's the story that matters, not the people. Or, more accurately, the story FOR the reporter and NPR, not the people involved or even the listening audience. It's the nature of the beast.

I can just see the frenzy and clawing at each other for air time. I don't expect anything to ever change. I'm just bearing witness.

Media tastelessness and cravenness started almost immediately after the bombing. I heard the news on the radio, and turned the TV on to CBS. They played a video of the bombing repeatedly, without a break, over and over again, about fifty times or more.

Today the plot thickened. CNN created a frenzy of activity in the news-o-sphere, claiming that a suspect in the bombing has been arrested. Fox and the Associated Press followed suit, repeating the claim. They may have been "scooped," but almost scoop is apparently good enough. The report was completely false. No one has been arrested.

The Boston Marathon coverage is another example of a hologram, the part revealing the whole. We are institutionally frozen in self-dealing. We are in the advanced stage of bureaucratic mass society - individuals within an organized, structured and stratified civilization. Advanced, that is, in time and complexity. We all are in the same predicament of existing as one among many, fending for ourselves as best we can. It has devolved into something of a free-for-all, "Lord of the Flies" on a bureaucratic mountain.

Today I was listening to another NPR program, Talk of the Nation. The topic of the hour was "Public Safety: The Measures Taken To Keep Crowds Safe." It was a pretty unenlightening conversation. I let them know:

There is a certain silliness in in this conversation. We live in a mass system with built-in vulnerabilities because of this massness. We wring our hands every time something like this happens, largely to assuage our feelings of helplessness, anxiety and fear. Eventually some bureaucratic measure will be enacted, because this is the way mass societies attempt to solve problems. Even the discussion of these bureaucratic measures is bureaucratic, such as on the bureaucratic radio network National Public Radio.

In other words, what do we - the masses of "Americans" - do collectively to prevent, in a bureaucratic manner, wild card or idiosyncratic attacks that are exogenous to the bureaucratic system? Or, to put it still another way, what's the best dumb way to look at this problem and solve it?

Wild card events cannot be prevented. They CAN be minimized. The sad thing for people addicted to the bureaucratic model of looking at the world is that the answer lies outside the system. Though outside, it can be implemented within the system.

The number one solution to idiosyncratic attacks is to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This applies in our actions toward the rest of the world equally to our actions within our borders, and in our daily lives. Don't go around the planet willy-nilly invading people. If the president tries to lie you into war, impeach him and put him in prison for the rest of his life. His helpers too. If the president authorizes torture, impeach him and put him in prison for the rest of his life. His helpers too. If the president is bombing innocent people and/or starving them through "sanctions," impeach him and put him in prison for the rest of his life. His helpers too.

If prosecutors and police frame people for crimes, put them in prison for the sentences they gave to those they framed. If police wantonly shoot and kill innocent people, remove them from the force and prosecute them, depending on the situation. If people in bureaucratic situations of authority, such as teachers, health care workers, jail and prison guards, and even various clerks and other bureaucratic staff behave in abusive ways, deal with it.

Of course, this is asking for a lot. The Task Force on Detainee Treatment released its report yesterday, implicating the Bush Administration in authorizing and implementing a torture regime. Will there be prosecutions? Absolutely not. Presidents and their helpers have institutional impunity.

The president and his helpers may have impunity, but the rest of us don't. AT this point we don't know who planted the bombs at the Boston Marathon. It could be anyone with a grievance, or just someone who takes pleasure in killing people. But in an atmosphere of institutional disrespect for human life, to expect to prevent "blowback" from this disrespect with institutional preventive measures is delusional. The institutional response will be intrinsically disrespectful. I expect tomorrow you will have a similar discussion, being capable of only looking at problems and solutions bureaucratically. That's the way to keep your job and get a pay raise in a bureaucracy. I may or may not listen, depending on my own bureaucratic predicament.

If there weren't so much pain, suffering and death involved this whole mess would be comical. It could be argued that the "Tea Party" and other "right wing" manifestations are hysterical and pretend attempts to live as raging individuals within a mass bureaucratic system. "Liberalism," the supposed opposite, can be seen as the being nice alternative, but still within the mass bureaucratic overstructure.

With no advance planning, I may have come up with an alternative approach, in lieu of the Golden Rule example above. On still another media venue, I watched the Public Broadcst System (PBS) documentary last night that told the story of the boys who were wrongfully convicted of the 1989 vicious rape and beating of a woman in New York City's Central Park. Titled The Central Park Five, the program covered in stark detail how the youths were coerced into signing confessions, then convicted and sent to jail, while the real culprit continued to rape and kill other women. Another example of self-dealing, in this case by police and prosecutors, in the mass bureaucratic society.

As maddening as this case is, the broadcast was even more maddening. Wisconsin Public Television, the local outlet for PBS programs, placed its logo prominently on the screen, creating a distraction and an annoyance. I gave them some feedback:

I'm watching the Central Park Five, and it's a great story, except for one thing: Wisconsin Public Television. I have written about this before, to no avail and no response. The bureaucrat manager who makes decisions at WPT has insisted on placing the WPT logo in a place that interferes with the program, creating a distraction and making text, such as interviewees names, unreadable.

The intelligent and respectful of the audience thing to do would of course be to not have the logo there at all, but I realize this would be asking too much. The semi-intelligent and respectful thing to do would be to move the logo farther down and to the right, where it would not interfere with the broadcast.

In the past WPT has seen fit to interfere with the current program with blurbs for the next show. I sent a complaint about this practice, and though I don't remember receiving a response, the practice seems to either have been discontinued or reduced.

When a service like a public television station does things like this, it can only be for bureaucratic reasons: self-promoting managerial decisions by bureaucratic managers. Teams get involved, and bureaucratic groupthink will tend to silence dissent. Inevitably the bureaucracy will implement such a practice not for the viewers, but for itself. The bottom line is that WPT is about itself, not the audience.

Being about itself, it would seem that WPT's justification for this obnoxiety is for copyright protection, to make recording programs traceable. One might ask how prevalent this practice actually is, given the annoyance it generates. People are going to record programs for private use no matter what you do, so the real question is the likelihood that people are going to sell WPT programs, and to whom. I wonder if the notion of next to no one has occurred to anyone at WPT. I suspect it is next to no one.

Is there a way out of this practice? Yes. Undercut and subvert the bureaucrat manager who came up with the idea, should he (almost certainly) still be there. Embarrass him with whispering and laughter. Ridicule the silliness of defacing a valuable program. Bureaucracies exist by dictate, and cohere by support of dictate. If the dictate is the butt of jokes and ridicule, the dictator will tend to redictate, generating out of his genius the idea of moving the logo lower and to the right, where it wouldn't interfere with the broadcast.

Have fun.

This may be a less friendly approach, but bureaucracy is a force of unfriendliness as its default mode. I know from a lifetime of subverting bureaucracy that undercutting it and finessing it can be a lifesaving method. I wouldn't have gotten through the Army if I hadn't learned how to maneuever in and around bureaucracy. In lieu of the extremely unlikely prospect of reforming the behemoth of the mass system, outsmarting may be our only hope.
______________________________________

Mr. Rogers had the best advice for dealing with traumatic events. This too.

Kids in "Iraq" are old hands at dealing with bombings, thanks entirely to us. They offered their help.

This song came to mind. This too.

Can't forget the Dropkick Murphys.

This band was big for a while.

I almost forgot this song.

Ten Years After

PBS's News Hour ran a segment yesterday about the anniversary of the invasion of "Iraq," inviting viewers to offer their remembrances and observations. I had this to offer:

"I thought the war could be stopped. I had joined a group called Veterans for Peace, and was confident that the nationwide effort would deter Bush and his criminal enterprise.

I was naive. I actually believed these people cared about such things as morality and ethics, decency and respect for human life. They cared about none of these things. What they cared about was empire, profits for their friends, and exercise of power.

We will be reaping the whirlwind for this war for many years to come. The death, destruction and ruined lives are bad enough. The worst part is the lowering of our standards as a people. As we are seeing on a daily basis, a continued lowering of standards at the top filters down to the rest of the culture with a vengeance. Now that we are winding down our killing overseas, we are killing each other at a feverish pace.

One final legacy of the war is the enshrinement of presidential impunity. If a president can lie a country into war, he can do anything. Anything, that is, except run afoul of Wall Street."

There isn't much more that can be said. Salon has a few posts that shed a bit of light. Donald Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary, apparently Tweeted that people should be thankful for the invasion. He got plenty of replies. Read about it here. Another post observes how the news media are attempting to rewrite history. Finally, there is the open letter to Bush and Cheney from a dying "Iraq" war veteran.
_____________________________________

R.I.P. Alvin Lee. His performance at Woodstock is the stuff of legend.

Easy Answers

The topic of gun violence is going to be with us for a long time, it seems. We're in the hand-wringing phase now, and, this being "America," groping for easy answers. The easy answers have largely been framed by two opposing political factions: "Lberals" advocate gun controls, and "Conservatives" are in favor of more guns for law-abiding citizens.

If only the answer were so easy, as if there is such a thing as THE answer. If there is an easy answer, I have it. Nobody should shoot anyone. There. Settled.

Even though I like my easy answer better than the popular ones, it isn't any more likely to solve the problem of gun violence. Maybe the difficulty lies in our perceptions, and abilities to perceive. Frontline attempted to expand our perceptions in last night's program, titled Raising Adam Lanza. For the unaware, Adam Lanza was the killer of 27 people and then himself last December 14. Most of those killed were first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The Frontline segment didn't shed any light. There was more information about Adam Lanza and his mother, whom he shot and killed before heading for the school. There were some new pictures. Local people for and against gun control were interviewed, as well as a few parents of slain children. It turns out that Newtown is the location of the National Shooting Sports Federation, a trade association for the firearms industry.

Most telling for me was a couple of gun enthusiasts who were shown shooting at a target that was taped to a tree. Just a little innocent target practice, eh? Not so innocent if you are the tree, but nature doesn't matter when you're having fun. Trees are just objects for man's enjoyment.

This is what I call a holographic moment, where the part reveals the whole. People who believe they have the right to do whatever they want pretty typically are narcissists. The only thing that matters is what they want for themselves. Corporate polluters are like this. Politicians, by and large, are like this. Many who are involved in law enforcement are like this, as this story reminds us.This too.

A number of people posted comments to the program, and, seizing the opportunity to stir things up, I added my thoughts to the mix:

The weakness of conventional approaches to this problem is that the context is too narrow: gun control vs. good guy with a gun. The greater question is can you have a mass society without mass shootings? It was inevitable in the trajectory of the Industrial Revolution that it would devolve into pursuit of cheap thrills.

Because of our history of rapacious violence (slavery, displacement of previous occupants, wars of opportunity, brutal prison system, etc.), it would naturally follow that this pursuit of cheap thrills would be heavily skewed towards violence. Thus we have a glut of violence in our entertainment - TV, movies, video games, gun "enthusiasm," sports, and even comic books. Then there's the various forms of violence that go on in families, and between married and otherwise mated couples.

The implication of this story is that we need to do a better job of identifying the Adam Lanzas among us. Good luck. Some other type will appear. Maybe if we weren't rolling in violence like dogs in excrement we might be able to have a mass society without mass shootings. I doubt it. There's too much money involved.

We have enough stadiums to honor survivors of shootings at any number of football games. We even have moments of silence for football players who kill others and themselves. The featured player in the "Super Bowl" is a double murderer, given a misdemeanor because he provides vicarious thrills with his violence. I think the real question is this: Are we capable of learning from experience? The answer, I suspect, is no, not if money is the essence of life, and violence brings money. Tons of money.

Some guy added a silly comment about Adam Lanza's father, saying he should "man-up," admitting his guilt, and that he should have tossed his son around. I find such stupidity irresistible, and responded thusly:

I see "man up" has become part of our macho lexicon. It used to be called male one-upping. Then "punking." Who knows what it's called now? Out-manning other men? I've been around some pretty tough guys in my life, as tough as you like (bikers, combat veterans, pro football's "bad boy," construction workers), and never heard any of them question anyone else's manhood. That was well before the Internet, of course. As for getting physical with kids, isn't that what Jerry Sandusky did? I think he called it rough housing.

Hopefully I raised the level of dialogue a bit. I'm not holding my breath. If you look at the "American" experiment in civilization, it seems to be past its prime. We have an unsustainable economic system, we are degrading (if not destroying) the ecosystem, and our system of governance has descended into rampant corruption. Our entertainment sphere is little more than crude bread and circus. Our religious leaders have engaged in any number of unethical and criminal activities.

Maybe we should just sit and watch as things descend into chaos. I remember Thomas Merton saying a long time ago that those who pursued the contemplative life were improving the atmosphere for everyone else, something to the effect that the vibrational field is enhanced. I tried it years ago, and it seemed that things did get better. It's time I got back to where I once belonged.
___________________________________________________

This calls for a song. One isn't enough. Here's another.

This blog, by former Madison police chief David Couper, offers great insights in how to change our violent and oppressive police practices. Here's some more insight, from a former Seattle police chief.

In the realm of not-so-surprising surprises, "whites" are twice as likely to own guns as "blacks."

Different Strokes for Different Folks

There was a "Guns Across America" rally yesterday at the Wisconsin State Capitol, similar to rallies at other state capitals. It wasn't very big compared to past rallies in Madison, probably about two hundred people, maybe as many as three hundred.

I was in the area doing errands, and stopped by to take a few pictures. I didn't stay long. It was a pretty angry crowd, angrier than any other that I've been among, and some of them were armed. It was also 100% "white," almost all male, and from their looks, not the most well-off or highly educated among us. There were more "Don't Tread on Me" flags than I've seen in the past, raising the question of who might be "treading" on so many people, and why. There were signs referring to Hitler, Chairman Mao, and, most bizarrely, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz.

Just as strange were the "leftists" who showed up, the usual suspects, but also much fewer of them than what one would see at "Tea Party" and other "right wing" rallies. There must have been about eight of them, no young people among them. One woman paraded around with a sign that said "Guns do not replace a penis." I'm no expert on these things, but in my experience this falls under the general category of looking for trouble. Arguments ensued, resolving nothing.

If this crowd is any indication, fervor one way or another about gun control is not the highest priority for the vast majority of people. There are 72 counties in Wisconsin. Even granting a high estimate of 300 people at the rally, that works out to 4.1666 people per county was represented at the event. For sure the number of extreme gun enthusiasts (read: gun nuts) is higher than four per county, but it is hardly a majority.



All in all, it was just another Saturday in Madison. My own view on guns is their appeal is to our lower nature, but the challenge in reducing shooting deaths is in creating a society that is supportive of our higher natures. We can start with progressive taxation, minimum and maximum income, a thriving public school system, and a de-empireization of our relationship with the rest of the planet. As it is now, we roll in violence like dogs on s#!t. When the smell is no longer attractive, we will find something else to roll in. Let's hope it smells good.

It helps to look at things within their broader context. I only stuck around the rally long enough to take some pictures, then went to the Walgreens across the street to buy some kleenex (not Kleenex) and other knick-knacks. I cruised by the magazine rack, hoping to find a Rolling Stone to browse through. I didn't see any, but did see plenty of what "Americans" are really concerned about: their bodies. Or, more accurately, their dream bodies. Wisconsin, known as the Dairy State, has a high rate of obesity, but by no means the highest rate in the country. We have a fat country. People are obsessed about their weight, but not to the degree to which they translate obsession into results.

There are other obsessions. Continuing my travels, I rode by Monona Bay, where the usual crowd of ice fishermen was tempting fate in their endless quest for mercury-laden fish. All it takes is a whisper of ice to get people out in their shanties, plastic buckets, or nothing - just standing there fishing.The temperature yesterday reached a high of 45 degrees Farenheit, making ice fishing a risky endeavor. It must be worth it. They are out there every day, as long as the ice will support them.

Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. We all have interests that seem crazy to other people. I followed a guru and lived in ashrams for about eight years. When I get my health care at the VA, my interest in holistic health is met with derision and/or condescension, though not as much as in the past. My advocacy of a zero-gowth "Steady State" economy is heresy in the Economics profession, but that is changing. We are in a time of ferment. We would do well to have a sense of proportion and balance about our various likes and dislikes. The Sun comes up every morning. It shines on all of us.
___________________________________________

Here's one of the gun rallies, this time in Albany, the Capital of New York State.

We're all just everyday people, thankfully letting ourselves be ourselves (again).

Here's a little sunrise music. Happiness is a warm gun, except when it is being pried from your cold, dead fingers. Life goes on.

 Some gun "enthusiasts" haven't learned the basics of safety.

There are other things to be concerned about.

Bureaucratic Truth

A popular local musician was killed by a police officer last November under highly suspicious circumstances. The man, Paul "Paulie" Heenan, had been out at one of the local nightspots, and on the way home entered a neighbor's house, believing it was where he lived. Police were called, and the one police officer who entered the house shot Heenan after a short confrontation.

This happens from time-to-time in Madison. Typically it is a "mentally ill" person who gets shot, and the police story is pretty stock: the suspect reached for the officer's gun, and feeling his life was in danger, the officer engaged his weapon. Or some such.

It was different this time, because Paulie Heenan was a much loved local rock musician and sound engineer, and his family and friends are not happy with the official version of what happened. Heenan had no criminal record, and no history of violence or threatening behavior.

Further complicating the matter, the man whose house was entered disputes the official police story, but was ignored. Indeed, in today's Wisconsin State Journal the City Attorney of Madison claims that an "independent" investigation has already been conducted, and it supports the previous finding that the officer, Stephen Heimsness, was not at fault.

Even the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin has gotten involved, and - surprise of surprises - cleared Heimsness of any wrongdoing.

Who knows for sure what happened? One thing I can say from personal experience is that a bureaucracy NEVER finds against itself. NEVER. The fact that other bureaucracies support the bureaucracy of the Madison Police Department just means that similar bureaucracies unite when faced with a common adversary. In this case the common adversary is the general public.

Bureaucracies, as I have written before, are about themselves. Individuals within bureaucracies exist on favorable terms as long as they are loyal to the bureaucracy. They rise through the ranks to the degree that they conform to bureaucratic norms and dictates. Members of police forces can kill with impunity if they are getting along in the department, subservient to bureaucratic power structures, and do not dissent or reveal department practices to outsiders.

I wrote previously about recent encounters I had with police, in which all went well as long as I was behaving within police guidelines. Deviate in the slightest from their rules and the situation will rapidly deteriorate. The problem for most people is that the internal rules by which police operate are known only to them.

The number one thing citizens should be aware of about modern policing is that officers' own concerns about themselves and their safety have top priority. If a citizen fails to understand this, and deviates from police internal rules to the degree where the officer pull his or her gun out and shoots, it is to kill. Gone are the days where subduing a suspect, or in Paulie Heenan's case, just an inebriated neighbor, is an option. Police do have tasers, but Stephen Heimsness for some reason entered the house alone and killed Paul Heenan before any backup could arrive to back him up.

So Paulie Heenan is dead, killed for the crime of thinking he was home when he wasn't. If you find yourself in a similar predicament, good luck. To avoid getting yourself killed, I recommend two steps. First, get a second opinion. Make doubly sure that you are indeed home. The second thing is when a police officer arrives, do whatever he says. I do mean "he" here. It is unlikely that a female officer would enter a house alone on an emergency call. It isn't that she would be afraid, though she might be. A female police officer would be more likely to follow police procedures. For some reason, Stephen Heimsness didn't. But in the system of police bureaucracy it didn't matter. The bureaucracy protects its own.
______________________________________________

Paul Heenan's father was interviewed on a local television program today.

Madison's WKOW covered last Saturday's rally at the City-County Building.

Here's some more TV, this time about the "independent" investigation. Madison's NBC affiliate has some update information here, including some video.

This link is to a site with letters you can send demanding an independent investigation.

The Madison Police Department has gone to great lengths to exonerate Stephen Heimsness. They even made a video reenactment. It occurs at 0:17:47. Here's the official denial on the City of Madison website.

This song is for the family and friends of Paulie Heenan. Hang in there.

For some background on Paul Heenan's music career, click here. 

Here's a song for Stephen Heimsness (click here for tabs, lyrics, chords). Here's another song that fits. This too. He has a history. Here's some of his handiwork. His prior suspension is described here. A pattern is beginning to emerge.

What professions do psychopaths gravitate towards? Click here to find out.There's a book on the subject, which you can get here. For further research, click here.

I first saw the term bureaucratic truth in a book by John Kenneth Galbraith titled "Who Needs the Democrats" many years ago. I don't have the book anymore, but remember bureaucratic truth. I encounter it frequently. You probably do too. Here's an example.

A similar police shooting happened in Kenosha on the same day of the year, November 9, except in 2004. The shooting victim's father has been placing ads on Madison TV stations, using the money he won in a lawsuit over his son's death. He compares the two killings, and calls for an independent investigation. Here's his website. He is renting billboards too.

There's a meeting next week to discuss the incident. If you are interested, click here.

Here's a transcript of the police report. 

The chief of police held a long press conference on January 9. Click here to watch it. Of particular interest is at 18:28, where the questioning of witness Kevin O'Malley is itself questionable.

Update, January 24:  Here's an interesting development. Former Madison police chief David Couper is questioning current police practices.

Update, January 25: Here's a way you can help.

Update, January 30: A community meeting was held in Madison last night, with a panel headed by the chief of police answering questions. Nothing was resolved.

Update, January 31: The "U.S." Department of Justice will "review the shooting," it was announced today, to see if there was a violation of Paulie Heenan's civil rights. In the arcane world of bureaucratic truth, shooting an unarmed man and killing him is reduced to a possible civil rights violation, which a team of bureaucrat lawyers will "review."

Update, February 2: The effort to have an independent investigation has grown exponentially, beyond anything Madison has ever seen, according to Madison.com.

Update, February 6: Here's a little something from the New York Times, a story about why police lie under oath.

Update, February 12: An explanation of why we don't have good data on police use of force. Why police are rarely prosecuted. Why firing a bad cop is near impossible. And how Officer Heimsness is receiving overtime pay while on administrative leave.

Update, February 16: Salon adds to the mix with this story about police impunity and self-prioritizing. Most pertinent is this paragraph: "That innocent people get shot by cops who think their own safety is paramount, whose actions show they value their own lives more than those of people they are sworn to protect, is part of a major problem in America that has not abated much despite decades of efforts to make policing more professional and less brutish. It is the policy of police departments that police cannot kill innocents to save themselves, in effect, that sometimes your sworn duty is to die. But, on the streets, it is far too often another story entirely."

Full Circle

Likely the most misunderstood concept from Eastern spiritual traditions is the Law of Karma. Westerners tend to interpret it in terms they understand - retribution from "God" for misdeeds. What Karma actually means is cause and effect, no wrath of "God" needed. Consequence depends entirely on antecedent.

It took a couple of days after the Sandy Hook School shooting for the notion of Karma to sink in. I was grieving deeply for the people murdered, and the senselessness of it boggled my mind, like it did for most other people. Though the news media botched the story at almost every turn, a picture started emerging of a dysfunctional family that combined divorce, isolation, mental "illness" and assault weapons in what turned out to be a deadly mix.

A guy at the Guardian says that Nancy Lanza, the killer's mother, is a "scapegoat," but I'm not buying it. Owning an assault rifle is an irresponsible act regardless of the circumstances. Assault weapons by definition are for assaulting. While humans may hunt wild animals, they assault other humans. The only reason to buy an assault weapon is for the purpose of assaulting people. I've been searching the Web for a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but can't find it. Supposedly he said a gun changes the home and its occupant.

Whether Gandhi said this or not, I have found it to be true. When I was growing up guns were always present in the home - for hunting and sport shooting. The ideas of home invasion or second amendment "rights" were unheard of in those days.

For a few months while I was in my late 20s I kept a shotgun in my apartment for hunting and self-protection. Life had gotten serious, and for a while I felt a need to be prepared for trouble. It became a burden, and I eventually gave the shotgun back to my dad, glad to be rid of it. I haven't had a gun since, and I feel safer than I did when I had one. More accurately, I don't feel safe or unsafe. I'm free of the possibility of using a gun to harm or kill another person, which would more likely than not be under regrettable circumstances.

Assault weapons were unheard of in those days, but gradually have encroached on "American" consciousness since then. Though "we" may have "lost" the "Vietnam" war, it has left a lasting legacy. Kill people. Make up a reason, any reason. Just kill. Enjoy it or don't, it doesn't matter. Just kill.

"We," as a people, invaded "Iraq" twice, finding useful enough reasons both times. Many children died both times, and our "sanctions" between invasions ensured the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children. "We" have also invaded "Afghanistan," again with a useful enough reason at the time, though the "mission" was quickly abandoned. "We" are still there, for different reasons, mostly, it seems, to postpone the embarrassment of the carnage that will follow "our" exit.

Karma works in mysterious ways, but I think it is safe to say that a casualness about killing people elsewhere will inevitably find its way home. I served in the U.S. Army during the "Vietnam" war, and though I "served" mostly in "Germany," I heard countless stories of casual brutality, sadism, random killing, and destruction of villages, crops, forests and countryside in "Vietnam." Committing such crimes was bad for the soldiers involved, for their commanders, and for the lying politicians who concocted the "incursion." But it was worse for the country as a whole. A culture of killing was spawned, and is now in full bloom in "America."

What do our high priests of public discourse have to say about this? A perfect example is Joe Klein, Time Magazine columnist, who said in a recent interview defending indiscriminate drone attacks, "the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get(s) killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror." Thanks Joe, Oracle at Delphi, er, Washington, D.C.

I suppose we could redefine the killings in Sandy Hook as indiscriminate acts of mental illness, but the effect has certainly been to terrorize, more so than the "911" attacks. This type of mayhem comes from "us," and "we" don't know who will be next or where.

Recently on Democracy Now a "Canadian" physician, Gabor Maté, was interviewed about the great unhappiness that has beset modern civilization. Dr. Maté's work is focused on drug addiction, but his findings are pertinent for society as a whole. He described the his findings on brain development to show host Amy Goodman:

...the human brain, unlike any other mammal, for the most part develops under the influence of the environment. And that’s because, from the evolutionary point of view, we developed these large heads, large fore-brains, and to walk on two legs we have a narrow pelvis. That means - large head, narrow pelvis - we have to be born prematurely. Otherwise, we would never get born. The head already is the biggest part of the body. Now, the horse can run on the first day of life. Human beings aren’t that developed for two years. That means much of our brain development, that in other animals occurs safely in the uterus, for us has to occur out there in the environment. And which circuits develop and which don’t depend very much on environmental input. When people are mistreated, stressed or abused, their brains don’t develop the way they ought to. It’s that simple. And unfortunately, my profession, the medical profession, puts all the emphasis on genetics rather than on the environment, which, of course, is a simple explanation. It also takes everybody off the hook.

It is safe to say, I believe, that something went wrong in Adam Lanza's brain development. Somewhere along the line he wasn't getting the attention and nurturing that humans need to grow into responsible, sane citizens. It might have had something to do with his parents' zeal for becoming rich, which seems to have held top priority in their lives.

And owning assault weapons. At least in his mother's case. We have come full circle. Casual assassinations, coups d'état, invasions, incursions, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, torturings, indefinite detentions, drone attacks, no fly zones, bombings, napalmings, and on and on and on - they have come home with a vengeance. It was dumb to foment violence around the planet and not expect it to come back to haunt us. Now that we're haunted, maybe "we" will think twice about the next drone attack or rendition for torture.

Not likely. As in "our" response to climate change, connecting the dots of antecedent to consequence is beyond our collective intelligence. There are some encouraging signs, as in the scorn that is being heaped on National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre. Momentum is building for enactment of some law or laws controlling the sale of assault weapons. The political and economic priorities of the wealthy are under increased scrutiny.

Still, there is no hint that our "leaders," have any intention of changing the way we behave towards the rest of the world. Or towards ourselves. We have the highest rate of imprisonment of any country on the planet. Why, one might ask, does a people so zealously want to put its fellow citizens in prison, where they will be mistreated, by and large, and have their lives ruined? It bespeaks an attitude towards our fellow-man and woman, and ultimately ourselves.

We can't go on forever like this. We will have another Newtown, maybe this year. We will have pictures like these to grieve over again. We don't grieve over the children of "Iraq" and "Afghanistan." Joe Klein speaks for us on this matter. When we speak for ourselves, and render the callousness of Joe Klein to the proverbial dustbin of history, maybe we can save our civilization. Otherwise, we might ourselves end up in the proverbial dustbin of history, like so many empires before us. The warning signs are abundant.

I'm optimistic. We have a dysfunctional political establishment. The "Republican" party is little more than a criminal organization, and the "Democrats" aren't much better, both obsessed with plotting each other's defeat, and gathering "power" to themselves. A slow awakening is taking place. People are starting to see our power structure for what it is - craven, self-rewarding, murderous, greedy, sociopathic. It's a house of cards. Strong winds are blowing. They will most certainly blow away our power structure. Let's hope they don't blow us all away too.
____________________________________________

I wrote about guns and hunting in previous posts, here, here and here. I wrote about mass shootings here,  here, here and here. One would think that one has covered the subject by now, but each new incident brings out new explorations. I should reread them to make sure I'm being consistent and not repeating myself. There's only so much time in the day. There are some things to link to at the bottom of these posts.

Here's a song from Steve Miller. I bought the album when I was a soldier (in a PX, yuk, yuk), and never forgot it. Here's another, from a different album. This is some of the music that got me through the Army.

Dylan had a song about reaping many years ago. He predicted climate change too.

Bill Moyers had a bit to say this week about the NRA, and its money interest in gun sales.

For some good technical info and myth debunking about assault weapons, gun ownership and the NRA, click here.

Slate posted a history of school shootings.

The Daily Kos made note of the racial disparity in news coverage of gun deaths.

On another, but not completely unrelated topic, I managed to get the last comment in on this New York Times article. As the unsustainability of our infinite growth economic system becomes more problematic we can expect more chaos, and, given our national proclivity for violence, more shootings.

Here's a Gabor Maté video.  You can read more about his work at this site. This site also. Here too.

This video is of someone I used to know. He pursued inner peace heroically, and died in a motorcycle accident not long after this video was shot.

R.I.P. Ravi Shankar. I saw him perform twice, in 1972 (New Harmony, Indiana, of all places, at a pathetic rock fest. He was great, far more gracious than the event deserved.) and 2007 (Madison, with his daughter Anoushka. He was better in 1972.).Here's an example from the first of his albums that I owned. The tune, or raga, is titled Raga Multani. For a story on his memorial service, click here. Here are a couple of Beatles songs he influenced: Norwegian Wood and Within You and Without You.

The Beatles delved into the topic of guns in this song. It is from the legendary White Album.

Update, January 9: Jon Stewart talks about gun control.

Curiously, there haven't been any mass shootings by females. Maybe this is why. For the full show, better quality, click here.The pertinent song is at 1:12:10. If you want to play along, it's only two chords, B and E, barred at the 7th fret. Here's the words. Enjoy!

Update, January 11: It turns out the "right wing" claim that Adolph Hitler was a gun control enthusiast is false. Read about it here.

Not to be outdone, a group of Sandy Hook "truthers," who believe reports of the shooting are part of a big hoax, has emerged from the woodwork. 

Live by the sword...

January 13: Here's a surprise. Miss "America" venturing out of her safe zone, and winning.

Here's another surprise. The NRA grip on politicians is weakening.

The PBS show Religion & Ethics Newsweekly discussed the proliferation of prisons for profit. It is known as the Prison Industrial Complex.

January 15: Sandy Hook "truthers" have reached a new low, harassing people in Newtown.

Families in Sandy Hook have started an organization they named Sandy Hook Promise. The goal of the organization is to make communities safe from gun violence.

January 16: Salon has a great story today about the long history of conspiracy theorists in the "U.S."

January 28: Here's something about our Karma from the "Vietnam" war. It turns out the slaughter of civilians was pretty routine. Jounalist Stanley Karnow died Sunday at age 87. He told the truth about what we were doing in "Vietnam" decades ago. Here's an interview from 1989.

Disaster Politics

One of the curiosities of modern-day politics is how in the face of clear, blatant "Republican" criminality, especially in elections, "Democrats" say nothing. It is left to everyday citizens and interest groups to sound the alarm.

Today is a perfect example. I trust the polls that show President Obama winning reelection with relative ease. Nate Silver of the New York Times gives Obama an 90.9% likelihood of winning. However, as Thom Hartmann, Credo Action and others are shouting from the proverbial rooftops, the "Republicans" are stealing the election in Ohio, Florida, and likely other states.

I live in Wisconsin, where the governor ushered in a restrictive voter ID law last year. It has since been declared unconstitutional, but the "Republicans" have done everything they could to rig the election, from inundation of the airwaves with phony advertising to threats of prosecution of voters. They are also spreading innuendo about illegal voting by immigrants and other ineligible voters. They have been stymied in their efforts, not because of the "Democrats," but because the people won't put up with their shenanigans, and various groups like the League of Women Voters sue them on a regular basis.

In my experience the first criminal "Republican" at the presidential level was Richard Nixon. His greatest crime may have been his lie in 1968 that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam, but the criminal syndrome we are most familiar with is the Watergate scandal. Lest we forget, the Watergate burglary was committed in order to gain information about "Democratic" party strategy in the 1972 presidential election. The "Republicans" were in great fear that George McGovern, the honorable candidate, might defeat Nixon.

We have come a long way since then. Reagan had his "October Surprise." Bush 41 had Willie Horton. Bush 43 had the Florida "recount" and the curious result in Ohio in 2004. For some reason it seems John McCain's candidacy was free of any decisive election chicanery. I suspect it was because the "political genius" Karl Rove was disinvolved in the race.

I believe the criminal nature of the "Republican" party is intrinsic, pathological, psychopathic and unrelenting. They REALLY want to have it all, to "win" every "election," no matter what it takes. The only question is why "Democrats" treat them as a legitimate opposing civic entity, different only in philosophy of government and constituency.

If they were to recognize this organization as inherently criminal and name it as such, we might be able to institute a genuine democracy. Especially in this time of economic decline and encroaching climate change, we don't have a whole lot of time to make the necessary changes. As long as a criminal organization is able to rig our elections we will be stuck in the status quo of inaction and skewing of reward to the already filthy rich.

If it turns out that Mitt Romney is able to "win" Florida and Ohio, and thus the "election," will the "Democrats" cry foul? Not if history is any lesson. Al Gore could have fought for a full recount in Florida in 2000, but instead gave in, eventually declaring George W. Bush as "my commander in chief." My commander in chief indeed. He lied us into one, maybe two wars, wrecked the economy, and instituted domestic spying, among other crimes. John Kerry could have asked for a paper ballot recount in Ohio in 2004, but gave up immediately.

What will Obama do if he loses under questionable circumstances? Nothing. He's not that kind of fighter, and historical precedent indicates that something behind the scenes dictates that "Democrats" go along with "Republican" vote fraud. We may indeed be getting a new president tonight. It will be a disaster.

_________________________________

Here's some more election fraud info. This too.

For a more mainstream view, read here.

Political criminality fits within the larger context of Disaster Capitalism, outlined by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine.

For a video on voting machine chicanery, click here.

For an example of how voting machines can be hacked, click here.

Here's some theme music. Here's some more.

Ahh, but we were warned decades ago.

Then, of course, there's good old fashioned "American" avarice and stupidity. This is from Brookfield, Connecticut, courtesy of Salon.

Here's an interesting update from the New York Times. As in 2000, Karl Rove seems to have information about the election results that no one else has. If his understanding is that the fix was in, why did Obama win? I believe it was because the fix wasn't in enough. Obama won overwhelmingly in Ohio, and in areas where the vote totals couldn't be rigged. Will the Department of Justice finally investigate Karl Rove, and prosecute him if he is found to have committed crimes? Maybe. The president seems to be ready to clean up the voting process. This could be the start of something big.

Here's another update worth reading. Even "conservatives" are abandoning the "Republicans." Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute didn't touch on their criminality, but he does say their ideological rigidity and obstructionism is making them a marginalized party of rich "white" men and religious crackpots (my term, not his).

In the realm of the surreal, Karl Rove is accusing Obama of voter suppression. This to me is proof not just of his attempted (and likely more successful than we will know) vote theft. It reminds me of the Bush criminal regime's hysterical reaction to the "911" attacks, ginning up two wars. To me this was always about deflecting attention away from their own active negligence before the attacks. Could Karl Rove have been the mastermind of this (so far) successful criminal scheme? Maybe we'll find out one of these days. I warned about the folly of invading "Afghansitan" in 2001, and tried in a number of ways to stop the invasion of "Iraq," unsuccessfully, as we know all-too-well.

______________________________________________

November 9 update: It seems Karl Rove has fallen into disrepute with "Conservatives." Not for ethical reasons, but because he is a LOSER. Could it be that crime doesn't pay after all?

What are other LOSERS doing? This.

Here's another angry LOSER.

Desperate much? Psychologists have been remiss in not calling this phenomenon what it is - mass psychosis. What someone might want to ask Pat Robertson is what he would like "Christians" to do. Does he advocate violent "revolution?" I wonder what these sore LOSERS will do next.

For a detailed explanation of how close we came to having the election stolen, click here. They will try again.

Here's another angle on election fakery.

For a little Karl Rove criminal history, click here.

David Letterman had some fun with the election results. He also referred to Karl Rove as a "tubby little weasel" who tried to frighten the electorate.

_______________________________________

Update, November 11: Here's some info on Ohio's Secretary of State. I suspect he will not be able to carry out his plans for the next election. We have had enough.

Even the Simpsons had something to say about Karl Rove, world criminal.

_______________________________________

For some background on how our electoral system got so corrupt, click here. Of particular note is that BOTH political "parties" are complicit in this criminal institution, and neither has any intention on changing it. They cherish their status and comfort too much.

December 8 update: This reappeared on the Web for some reason.