That Quarter

Madame M:

First, let me wish you and all mothers a great Mother’s Day!

Second, let me thank you for covering for me while overload was upon me.

There is as usual, entirely SO much that needs to be talked about in just the American landscape, let alone elsewhere, and that doesn’t even take into consideration all the points I need to address while you’ve had the soapbox solo the last three postings!  I will try mightily to restrain and focus in order that some faint measure of brevity can be attained!

To cover a bit of previous before addressing your recent post:  1) I was not aware we had been “struggling,” but maybe that’s the surest sign, lol, 2) if we had been, your “Digging For Answers” post came through and bulls-eyed it superbly (prime exhibit #1: “We ask people to live under impoverished conditions while pressing their faces up against the glass of wealth and privilege. Then we just can't imagine what all the anger is about”), 3) The “Digging For Answers” post needs to be taught nearly verbatim as part of a lesson in a university social science class, 4) Plan B, the book, listed some correctives to the disconnection that design of our American cities brings, 5) answer to your question:  Community Policing.  It has worked and does work better than anything when it is implemented earnestly (including when police and citizens sit down in relaxed and informal settings), and can work (and has worked in specific instances) in this large country precisely because law enforcement in America still retains large measures of de-centralization,  6) all efforts at law enforcement reform are made harder inside a plutocratic political-economy and widespread poverty, 7) how interesting that the worker bees you illustrate in your Rethink Community post, the cooperative engines of bee society, are female.

As to your post, I see we have swung the pendulum to full agreement, and I am sparked to add some things.

We the undiscerning, mindless robots of tragic failure, in order to perpetuate a more dysfunctional disunion, foment injustice, ensure domestic discontent, feed the devouring military-surveillance-fear-repression consortium, ignore the general Welfare, eviscerate the environment, and undermine the foundations of Liberty to ourselves and our descendants, do hereby disestablish preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution of 1787 in favor of a vague and misty imaginary one we cannot articulate but still“know“ is being “threatened” by those we choose as ideological enemies.

I came up with that after reading your quite on-target “rant.”

Thomas Frank,  born in the heart of America in Kansas City, has chronicled very well the infuriating and frustrating phenomenon you/we relate.  In his books, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right; and his most famous one, What’s The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, he details what has happened.  For those who have not yet read his books, just going to the Wikipedia entry on him will give you some quotes from them that can be instructive.

Kansas has, in the 10+ years since he wrote the book, become even a deeper example.  It has a governor and legislature so in tune with ideological extreme (and demonstrated failure) policy that Kansas has gone into economic and governmental dire straits.  And what was once an educational system that ranked in the top third in the nation has been shredded.

A plutocratic political-economy takes three broad groups, and that’s precisely what we have:  1) The enormously wealthy individuals and corporations.  These are the true rulers.  They are the plutocrats.  2) Their mouthpieces/shills/politicians and other paid or sponsored henchmen.  These are the otherwise “powerful” that have been purchased or forced through money and influence to make the system work for the plutocrats—and to gum it up so that it can’t work against them.  3) the emotionally manipulated (emotions—often false ones—of fear, disgruntlement, resentment, anxiety, greed, distrust, racial “preference,” religious “persecution,” etc.).  The unkind call these low-information voters “suckers” for voting against their economic and democratic interests, but there is no doubt they are vocal, demanding, organized—and they vote in droves.  In so doing they perpetuate the plutocracy.  And in the process do all—and more—of the insensible things you list. 

Including campaigning for Mike Huckabee, a man who, while he doesn’t believe in a minimum wage, believes in a MAXIMUM wage, a limit for those who are EARNING a living.  He, of course, being a shill for plutocrats, says nothing of maximum income.  No, no, no.  That would step on the strings of his puppeteers who thrive on carried interest, dividends, capital gains, and other unearned income.

But there is another catalyst in this plutocratic setup.  The apathetic, the distracted, the ill-informed, the uncritically thinking, the diversion-fanatics, the shallow, the willfully ignorant, the uncaring, the selfish, the overly apolitical, the self-indulgent, and even the despairing and the disgusted share a common trait.

They rarely show up to vote, and even then not consistently.  Or even to register.  And getting them to be engaged and retain focus on an issue is usually beyond their capacity.

Thereby giving excessive, destructive influence to the vocal, demanding, organized quarter of the population who arm and armor themselves to fight cultural wars while the real problems slowly devour all of us.

Hey three-quarters, are you listening?

How Bees Are Making Me Rethink Community

Dear Reader, our good professor is in need of more hours in his day and more days in his week so he asked if I wouldn't post in his stead today. Let's have a little bee lesson. I'm still evolving; how about you? That pesky growing and changing means that sometimes I have to rethink some previous ideas.

Here's an example that I recently wrote about on my blog: 

Bees are perhaps the most organized and productive society on the planet. This is possible because the bees are wired to care about the colony. They do things for the group and have a highly developed sense of community. They don't care who gets the credit for the work they do and they do wacky things like making sure all the work gets done and everyone gets taken care of. Pretty radical.

I have been a lifelong worshiper at the altar of the individual. In the  US it's kind of in our DNA. Everything is about me and my rights, right? God bless America and Ayn Rand.  I remember how I felt when Hillary Clinton said "it takes a village." I arrogantly spouted that is only took a couple of committed parents to raise happy and well adjusted children who would become productive members of society. And hilarious adults. Because frankly if you brought up kids with a lousy sense of humor I am going to judge you.

But on this side of parenting--the done side--I have a confession to make. That village that I claimed didn't exist was crucial. Because while I was claiming all the credit for having the most amazing children (or pretending not to know them depending on the day) lots of people were helping. Grandparents were giving me a break, Sunday school teachers were reinforcing not clobbering and biting, my friends were mindful and caring. Elderly neighbors shared wisdom learned over long lives. Whoever produces COPS was teaching them what NOT to do unless you want to end up on national TV in your underwear. When you are 8 years old that is pretty much the worst fate you can imagine.

As Americans we are terrified that saying that the group matters or that community is important is the pathway to group think and disregarding the needs and desires of the individual. Trust me as a creative person and parent of a couple of free thinkers, you would never catch me saying that. The key is finding the balance in the individual vs.society struggle. We come back to that a lot, don't we?

When I go to schools now to teach about bees one of the important lessons I try to get across to kids is that our actions don't just affect us. Our good actions as well as our bad ones end up affecting everyone. I often ask what their classroom, or home, or neighborhood would look like if everyone did what needed to be done without being asked (or told).

Their eyes light up but then they wiggle uncomfortably. So do I. As an adult this makes it hard for me to walk past trash at the park without picking it up. By the way bees do not tolerate any foreign substance in the hive and are meticulously clean. Just ask the guy who tried to hide 18K in cash from his wife during an ugly divorce. The bees chewed it up and pushed it out of the hive. He found a pile of green confetti in front of the hive.

Another great lesson is decision making by consensus and that a group is so much smarter than any one person (or bee) in it.

So while the bees also do some things we frown upon in society nowadays-- they will kill a queen if they sense she is weak and raise up a new one. They also throw all the males out in the fall because they just use up resources and are only good for mating so they let them starve. We probably shouldn't do that. And while they are super productive and efficient they aren't creative free thinkers which in human society we desperately need. But they have a few things to teach us about things like cooperation and hard work.  Lessons we seem to need to be reminded of.

This beekeeper/citizen/human needs them every day and often more than that.

Talk About This!

Madame M,

While I feel we are missing out on a range of juicy topics—like the Indiana law—there is obviously more to be said on this one.  To wit:

I agree that certain positions of trust can carry with them additional expectations.  Transgression of those expectations should, I feel strongly, be addressed with administrative or societal prescriptions, not criminal ones.

While I have emphasized females a bit more, partly because that was the younger individual in the example originally cited and partly because that’s what society in general winds up more about, I’m not sure I made any such assumption on your part.  But perception is 9/10ths of the, er, blog, so okay! :)

Just because someone may be relationship disadvantaged vis a vis an older individual, are you saying that rises to the level of criminality?  I don’t think you are, and so we may be arguing degrees of difference, rather than areas.

No one feels primal biological urges to enter into a legal contract about buying something, etc.  The justifiable laws for protecting minors by prohibiting their entering into binding legal contracts is to ensure that their lack of knowledge and experience—and their usual lack of resources and skill options as well—do not ruin them financially or unduly burden them economically or legally for much of their lives.  Indentured servitude and child labor exploitation are at least two things that can be avoided by prohibiting contracts before adulthood. 

Sex—with the possible exception of the remunerative kind—creates no contract or binding obligation, assuming pregnancy or other complication is avoided.  It would seem that suitable comparisons between sex and contracts could be somewhat problematic.

Romantic obsession is a phenomenon that knows no age boundaries—and has frequent pitfalls no matter what the ages of the duo, trio, whatever.  The disruption to the individuals that occurs often seems punishment enough without even administrative or societal sanctions, let alone criminal ones.  Would the case of the 28 year old teacher and 11 year old student rise to criminality?  Don’t know.  That would be for a psychologist to determine whether coercion had in reality been involved, but it doesn’t sound like it.  Of course, the teacher could use some administrative re-direction at the very least.  And both the 28 year old and 11 year old need some education and training—including watching the Potsie and Joanie episode from “Happy Days.”

You say I have emphasized females too much as being the younger person in these cases.  Yet picking out the exceptions to the general pattern and presenting those as evidence of equivalency will not satisfy necessary statistical standards of data or evidence.   I do readily agree however that older women can both desire to be and actually be sexual with younger males.  And become just as absurdly criminalized as males have been.

The societal assertion that young consenting males can become “victimized” by  older women having sex with them is, if anything, even more absurd than it is for young consenting females and older men.  Such views contribute to victim mentalities, to further delays in maturity, to evil-izing of sex—and the ruination of lives.

If you feel that I haven’t addressed age well enough, then I am doing a poor job of stating my position clearly, for I thought I had.  I have also sought to show strongly that there is a compelling need to distinguish between criminality and administrative/societal sanctions.  To recap:

For criminality determinations, stated consent should be normally accepted.  However, fair and equitable safeguards should exist to give a boost to justice where appropriate.  Therefore, if there is reason to believe that the stated consent is false, that it is in reality coercion being masked due to fear, trauma, or excessive overconcern for the plight of the offender, a professional examination and determination would be in order.

For criminality determinations, puberty should be the norm for distinguishing between sexual relations and molestation.

Education can be of benefit to young ladies and young men concerning consenting sexual relations in general and with older individuals in particular.  Yet biology is a powerful force (as nature intends it to be), and while education can hopefully improve the patterns of optimal behavior, there are going to be frequent sub-optimals.  While there MAY be appropriate administrative or societal disapprovals of those occurrences, criminality should not be a consideration.

So there’s the essence of my argument and we may not be as far apart as thought.  However, if you are asserting that there is ALWAYS at least subtle coercion on the part of the older one taking place when consensual sex happens before some artificial and arbitrary age, we will have to disagree! 

Enough "Criminals"

Most excellent Madame!  It is what our readers have been waiting for—disputation!  We have been seeing eye to eye quite a lot as of late (as you put it, I have been showing my brilliance by agreeing with you, lol), and now we diverge, and in so doing demonstrate the effect of one of the quotes on our page about “argument among friends.”

I’m not sure how I intimated that the described situation was “harmless,” but I do feel strongly that the circumstances, and others like it, are not criminal.  Your statements about the older person having more knowledge and experience are true, but should be irrelevant as to criminality determinations.    Further, giving emphasis to things like that, in my view, only reinforces the subtly misogynistic  and debilitating “weaker gender” presumption that undermines the independence, strength, confidence, dignity, and treatment of young women in a way not all that dissimilar to prejudicial presumptions about math ability, engineering aptitude, etc.

And I did address the psychological, social, and emotional component—and the greater knowledge and experience of older “suitors”—when I said that male-female interaction information should be taught to both young ladies and young gentlemen just as they get to the immediate pre-pubescent stage.   They also need to know that the successful track records of “relationships,” where the age difference is stark, drop considerably when the younger person is below the age of 25, and further, that many of the relationships end poorly or leave negative emotional effects.  Maturation in many respects can be a slow and gradual thing.

But all that is a far cry from criminality.  I fail to see that whether one makes good relationship or sexual decisions (on the part of the male or the female in this case) has relevance to whether there is criminality.

Presumptions against consent, as you seem to imply when you said that between a 22 year old and 14 year old there would be a “fine line between consent and coercion,” do harm in my opinion, because they serve to reinforce the patronizing idea that girls are silly, what they say can’t be taken seriously, they can’t be trusted to make decisions, etc.   

Your point about the lack of nuance in the law or allowance for the exceptional is well taken.  And I agree that magical points being reached on a birthday are quite artificial.  See!  You thought I was going to just be on a disagreeing roll! :)

Consciousness, internalizing, or accepting of the ramifications of his actions before he took them are anything but assured, given that he reached age 22 in a society that, during his “formative” years,  likely coddled him, shielded him, and threatened him with consequences that never actually materialized.

Whether it was a pattern or a moment of weakness can be relevant—but should not be a criminal consideration, only an administrative one.

I am puzzled by your last two paragraphs, and there is perhaps conflation.  Consensual biological coupling should not be a criminal matter in my view, but at most a societal or administrative one.  You seem to imply that we should presume coercion.  Far too many lives have been ruined by presuming that.  We should instead accept stated consent (with some systemic safeguards; see below).  By the way, it was the 14 year old in the case, in private questioning, perhaps even volunteering the information, who readily said it was mutual, non-coerced, even a “relationship.”

Of course his judgment was poor! His own maturity is probably deficient.  But if poor judgment was a crime, there would be hardly any non-criminals left.  I think it is a sign of a poorly connected, reactive, infantile society when it wants to criminalize so many things that are merely poor judgment.

We as a society contribute to these things by effectively narrowing social circles, forcing teachers into expending large amounts of time just to make it financially  (while also meeting the expectations of serving, grading, coaching, etc.), and then we wonder why “inappropriate” relationships occur inside those circles.

We have a ridiculous hodge podge of age of consent/age of majority statutes in the various states, which apparently range (I have not looked at all 50) from 14-18, with 16-18 apparently predominating.  We need standardization, even if it has to retain elements of artificiality.

Historically, the age of presumed puberty has been 14.  That’s probably the standard with the most prevalent track record.  Of course, the stuff in our hormone injected Frankenfood system has complicated things by frequently throwing that all out of whack, with 11 not being uncommon and even lower ages occasionally showing puberty.  Your rail against Monsanto and other agri/”food” businesses seems well pointed.  Another discussion!

Stated consent should, in this revised system I propose, normally be accepted.  However, the prosecutor or the court can dispute the consent, and should especially do so in cases where puberty does not appear to have been reached.  If the consent is disputed, the defense then is allowed to pick a psychologist, from a list provided by the local sufficiently large psychological professionals organization, and that psychologist will interview, at government expense, the stated consenter.  That psychologist will make a professional determination whether the stated consent is not true, whether it is only stated because of fear, trauma, or excessive concern to not get the older person in trouble.  If the psychologist determines that the consent is invalid because one of those things exists, and therefore is in reality coercion (rape), then the court will be informed and criminal proceedings can begin.

The prosecutor can also attempt to show that presumed puberty is not actual.  The defense would select an MD, from a list of MDs (don’t even have to be pediatricians) that the local sufficiently large Medical Society has submitted as qualified, to make such a determination at government expense.  If no puberty exists, or, in the MD’s assessment, no puberty had begun by the time of the first “incident,” then the judge can examine preliminary investigation evidence and make a determination that there is reason to believe that biology could not have been a factor, and therefore charges of child criminal molestation (a serious crime) can be pursued.

The rule of law is supposed to presume for the defendant, against whom, relatively alone and isolated, the power of government is arrayed in prosecution and judgment and imprisonment.  Consent should be the first hurdle, and puberty the second, to restore fair treatment before the law in these matters.  America already has a disgraceful and appalling incarceration rate, far higher than most countries, probably the highest in the world.  Let’s quit adding to it and cease to criminalize biology.

Punitive Biology

Madame:

Good reminder that the actions of even a single individual can matter quite a lot.  In matters of reasoning as well.  Because when we fail on those, we set in motion far reaching effects.

Discernment?  Sanction fitting the transgression?  Apparently we don’t care to have those at all.

Instead, we ruin lives.  Criminalize non-criminals.  I could be speaking of marijuana, but I’m not.

I’m speaking of biology.  Rape?  Murder?  At best, we get brief mild or moderate outrage on those.  But insert some biology, and people lose their minds and the outrage meter goes off the scale.  There are few who can seem to resist using the sexuality of others as a weapon against them.  Even teenagers, who will mightily resist “snitching” for just about everything else, will readily employ this particular weapon.

In the capitol of Nebraska, a 22 year old first year teacher is about to have his life ruined for good, be labeled a sexual deviant and sexual offender, and spend a good deal of his life behind bars.  And even when he gets out, he will be a registered sex offender, something that will haunt everything he does or tries to do, including where to live.  Economically, he will have few options, almost none of them worthwhile.  The resulting despair and depression that confront those like him have driven many to suicide.

His “crime”?  Oral sex with a consenting 14 year old.  Whoops.  Sorry.  She can’t “consent.”  The law and society considers her woefully bereft of reasoning or judgment.   What’s more, it considers virtually any older male as having sorcerous powers of charm and persuasion that she is helpless to assess, let alone dismiss or ignore.

How degrading.  How insulting.  That we think so little of our young ladies.  How is this presumption supposed to help them become strong minded, strong willed, confident women?

It also flies in the face of what common sense and common reality (backed up by extensive research literature) tell us, which is that 14 year old girls make a great number of meaningful cognitive decisions, from internet, phone, television, and social media exposure (and levels); to manners of dress and appearance; to who they associate with; to the subjects discussed; to personal hygiene; and so on.

So instead of implied helplessness, how about we try this instead:

-Teach our young ladies (and young gentlemen), once they start reaching puberty (13? 12? 11?), the various aspects of male-female interaction, and not just physical, but social, psychological, emotional, etc.  This wouldn’t have to be done at school.  Could be at church, could be at another school, could be at home, could be at a girls club of some kind, or any number of places.  The parent(s) would decide in each case and certify it.

-Decriminalize natural biology and get way more perspective about all that.  I wrote a whole post about this on the Professor over 2 years ago.  See it here: http://passionateexamination.blogspot.com/2013/01/biology-not-deviancy.html

-In situations where there are other considerations (such as the matter of educational/administrative power over the student, such as this case), administrative options, not criminal penalties, are far more warranted.  For instance, in the Nebraska instance I mentioned above, the school district, presumably in command of far more in-depth facts than outsiders, would have a range of administrative options.  Everything from brought into group counseling or mentoring therapy; asked/made to apologize to the school, students, and parents for transgressing their trust and confidence; fine and/or suspension for a time; advised to learn from the incident and transferred to another school for a probationary period; given a short-term administrative position and not having the contract renewed, meaning the teacher would have to go elsewhere or into another profession; or any number of sanctions or remedies (guidelines—not prescriptions—could even be drawn up for school districts to reference).

I think Elton John needs to modify another of his songs.  It should go like this:  “Discernment seems to be the hardest word.”

Perspective and Prospective

Madame:

The “drifting” of power and money to the few does indeed take place all the time, because the majority of people are concerned with living their lives, not seeking to amass great power and wealth.  And power and wealth tend to slowly beget more power and wealth.

Largely, only the driven, ambitious, focused, etc. care to amass great power.  Unfortunately, those are also more likely to have among them great numbers of sociopaths, megalomaniacs, the dangerously insecure, the unenlightened, the monstrously selfish, etc., not to mention the hypocritical and shallow.  Even more unfortunately, many of them will not even be satisfied with fomenting the “drift,” but will move rapidly to strongly and unscrupulously to either 1) serve bad power, or 2) amass bad power for themselves.  The cycle will continue at least until we both infuse in ourselves the sentiment that Jefferson repeated—the price of liberty is eternal vigilance—AND find a way to improve the human mental, emotional, and spiritual condition to vastly reduce the numbers of sociopaths, megalomaniacs, etc.

Which also means the better rule sets we craft and enforce, the better the playing field can contain the attempted excesses.

Still, there is no doubt that perspective needs to be maintained.  For instance:

“News is about things that happen, not things that don’t happen.  You never see a TV crew reporting that a country isn’t at war, or that a city hasn’t had a mass shooting that day.  Or that millions of 80 year olds are alive and well.

“Violent crime has fallen by half since 1992, and fiftyfold since the Middle Ages.  Over the past 60 years the number of wars and number of people killed in wars have plummeted (Prof note: The carnage of WW2 made that comparison too easy).  Worldwide, fewer babies die, more children go to school, more people live in democracies, more can afford simple luxuries, fewer get sick, and more live to old age.

“Problems that look hopeless may not be; human ingenuity can chip away at them. “We will never have a perfect world, but it’s not romantic or naïve to work toward a better one.” Steven Pinker, Harvard psychologist

“When things are bad, do good.”  Little known motto of a major charitable organization.

“I could do other things.  Make more money.  But I choose to be here, teaching here, because I believe in YOU.  That some of you are going to change the community, our society, even the world for the better. May your days be filled with passion, may you have a wonderful, exuberant career.”  Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, explaining to students why he teaches at Berkeley.

“The free MUST remember the oppressed.” Amnesty International motto.

Muslim countries often don’t charge interest.  They have fees for transactions and pay dividends instead.  There are ways to think outside the box, and it may make greed not quite so damaging.

And if we are paying attention, we will always find life more wonderfully complex than we realized.  For instance (‘free market” fanatics may want to hold their heads to contain any explosive force), competition in Europe has often been CREATED by governments.  Certainly this is so for the phone service there, with the added twist that the governments forced the phone companies to be interoperable (one of the reasons phone service is generally much better in Europe than in the US).

I am, as you know, no advocate for pollyanish thinking, outlooks, or behavior.  But I also know that we can do much to make ourselves better.  One of the ways is to embrace the written word.  As Levar Burton asks, do your children, friends, family, and colleagues see you reading?  How many books do you have around home?  Do you have an evening a week where you don’t watch TV or do other things, but just read?  

Our reply to those who focus ONLY on negativity, who do so without contribution or desire for action to change, can thus be two simple questions: “What good book are you reading?  What are you filling yourself up with intellectually and emotionally?”

And yes, good Madame, I realize that I am speaking to the choir!  Try not to roll your eyes. :)

Un-Polarize

Madame:

Nice job tying up many of our subject divergences.  Permit me to add one tie-in to the original post before going on to another topic.

"My generation, labeled Millennials (b. 1981-2000), is less formal, less concerned with customs and traditions, and honest about our view that excessive work demands might not be worth the cost of advancement.  In general, we have an affinity for digital technology and social media. We look for meaningful work in a collaborative environment and value a results-based promotion system over the traditional tenure track. Many of us desire a more sustainable work/life balance than previous generations, and we are willing to work for less money to achieve it. We like to ask 'why?' and desire to innovate and change our workplace rather than operate under the status quo. Millennials want to operate in an efficient workplace that values obtaining results over managing prescribed processes. We want clear direction and timelines on assignments followed by the flexibility to complete the tasks within the given parameters. On the aggregate, we admit our seniors have a stronger work ethic, but we do not accept the premise that time at the job equates with efficient mission completion.  The notion that we require excessive positive praise for doing our job is overplayed and insulting. We do, however, desire candid feedback, either positive or negative, more often than previous generations." From "Lead Us!" by  Lt Michael Mabrey, USN, Proceedings Magazine, February 2015.  Read the full article here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-02/lead-us

I watched the recent vaccination brouhaha and noticed it took on an all too familiar pattern: the shallow corporate media slid into easy groupthink, and after that, there was only polarization—one was either on board with vaccination in toto and without question for any and every vaccine, all the time, or one was a soft-headed pampered liberal or paranoid conservative kook.  Not surprisingly, John Rosemond was one of the few to make any discernment and take a calm and rational approach, although perhaps even he didn’t go deep enough.

Let’s get some facts out there:

The 1998 study that linked autism with vaccines has been thoroughly discredited.

However, that does NOT mean vaccines are “safe.”  Vaccines carry some risk, usually small, of an adverse, sometimes even fatal, reaction, depending on the individual, and, very rarely, even on the quality of the vaccine.

That risk is usually outweighed by the benefits of being inoculated, especially given the seriousness of what is being protected against.

Inoculation is especially important in attaining “herd resistance” and preventing small outbreaks from spreading (and particularly from them going epidemic).

Some individuals cannot be given a particular vaccine, for various reasons, whether allergies, immunity system condition, medical condition, etc.  This increases the importance of others becoming inoculated,  to attain “herd resistance.”

A few inoculations “don’t take.”  That is, the individual was inoculated, but, for whatever reason, resistance or immunity is not attained.

The younger a child is, the harder on its system a vaccine typically is.  This is a nervous dilemma for parents, as intellectually they may know the increased risk taken in inoculating a small child or baby is still low, and the probable benefit is great, but this is their child, and emotionally, that’s a big hurdle.

This dilemma is made even harder by the fact that there is correlation (although no proven causation) between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccination.  As a parent, I can sympathize with the concern.  As a historian who is familiar with the historical record of disease devastation to children under age five, I can tell you statistically, on both a local and grand scale, the difference between inoculated and un-inoculated populations is vast and tragic.

At one time, a case could be made that vaccination zealotry had overreached, that we were urging inoculation for a number of things that did not require it—flu, chickenpox, HPV, etc.  Now, however, the research seems to indicate that, despite sometimes mixed results, the overall benefit is warranted.  Still, we must be wary that we don’t carry it too far.

Understanding the above could help unstiffen the polarization.  For instance, I wouldn’t suggest a parent forego inoculation for their children in most cases, and would instead urge them to follow the advice of a trusted medical professional.  However, if they did, contrary to advice, choose to forego inoculation until age five, I could understand it.  We could even allow a number of un-inoculated children to attend public school (kindergarten or pre-school), but once the statistical (small) limit had been reached, un-inoculated children would have to find another school or be home schooled.  We don’t need to throw the parents in jail, as some, incredibly, chillingly, advocate.  We need to continue to present evidence, and increase the chance of persuasion.  We also need better research to help us make better decisions and increase confidence.

What we HAVEN’T had on all this, aside from Rosemond’s column, is a calm and rational discussion between the sides.  We have had instead the emotion-driven certainty of the ABSOLUTE correctness, enforceable by force if necessary, of one’s position.  A hallmark of fanatics. 

And there in the unvisited middle, is, again, the lonely truth, waiting for discernment to come calling.

Educational Shift

Professor J,

Wonderful photo! Recently I took a short cut through an unfamiliar neighborhood in town. In someone's front yard near the sidewalk they had built a giant bird house with a glass front that opened, I could see the books inside. The sign said "Take a book. Leave a book." I just wanted to buy the house next door so I could be neighbors with those people.

Watch now as I attempt to tie together some of our recent posts so that we don't look quite so adrift and focus challenged.

Harkening back to the original problem that you brought up at the beginning of this somewhat frayed thread of posts I have some resources to offer up, not just for boys but for all young people and any adults who care to listen.

First, wouldn't you know it but before I outlined my idea for an ideal school system some 13 year old  hipster skier has gone and given a TED Talk about it. Well not exactly but he makes some of the same points.

Surely our invitation to speak at TED on "How to Carry on an Endless Discussion" or "Who Says You Have to Settle on a Topic?" simply hasn't arrived yet. 

Second, Sir Ken Robinson has a wonderful book out that I'm reading now, Finding Your Element. It is complete with exercises to help anyone work through the process. Of course Sir Ken doesn't fail to include lots of the kinds of stories that we've come to expect from him about the late bloomer and misunderstood genius. We can't ask teachers in the current system to add teaching in every student's preferred style to the endless list of things already required of them. But the more we understand about how differently people's brains process information, learning styles, and various intelligences hopefully we'll come to see how flawed the present system is and how unsustainable. If the point of education isn't to maintain a system but to educate individuals to be free thinking problem solvers then much change is needed.

Third, is a no-nonsense kick-ass book by Steven Presserfield. The War of Art has a deceptive title because it is advice that would apply to any venture that people find difficult to begin and stick with to the end. There isn't any hand holding or self esteem building going on here but practical advice from someone who comes across as the crusty uncle who wants the best for you and will tell you the hard truth that coddling parents won't. A young man who might reject anything that looked like "self help" would find a useful resource in this book.

One thing we need to relate to any young people we have influence on is that, as Sir Ken says, life isn't linear, it's organic. It's perfectly okay not to have it all figured out at the beginning. It's okay to make your own path and take chances. It's okay to try lots of things. It's okay to fail. Just keep getting up and heading in the direction you want to go. Keep learning. You'll find your way eventually in ways that may not even exist yet. You may even have to make a way that's right for you. That's what all the great innovators do. They all start out looking crazy and lost. In the end they look like geniuses and maybe they are. But mostly they are just brave.

Preserve, Inform, Inspire

Madame:

My, my, we have been flitting from subject to subject.  How odd we are!  We can take a year on a single book and then change to three different subjects in a single post!

Your mention of the return of virulent anti-semitism and other hatreds we thought were on their way to fading out:  have you noticed that they may be fulfilling Toynbee’s famous warning  with just a slight modification—that when the last survivors, the last direct rememberers of a horrible mass evil have departed this life, the next one begins to form.  Or even  the departure of rememberers of “just” a systemic injustice.

It’s so easy to be cynical and revel in our supposed helplessness, to give ourselves permission that nothing can be done.

That’s what the status quo’ers want. 

But we don’t have to play, and particularly, don’t need to use their playbook.

We can instead choose a little pushback, or a determination to do good, to be a positive light; to be, as you remind us, our own little light. 

Like this person:

For those who can’t read the sign, it says

“Welcome Young Readers! This is a ‘Little Time Library’ Please take a book and return it for another book.  Read often! Read every day!”

Ah, libraries.  The mission of one near me is “to preserve yesterday, inform today, and inspire tomorrow.”

A good mission.  Whether it’s a public library, or, like above, a private one opened to the public!

This Little Light

Professor J,

Last night I watched the movie, Gentleman's Agreement. If you haven't seen it it's shocking to watch American antisemitism portrayed shortly following WWII. The film was released in 1948 and confronts prejudice among people who think themselves just a little bit better (or perhaps a lot) than other groups. It shines a light on subtle discrimination as well as name calling and violence. It depicts in a gut wrenching way the reservation that simply can't be found or the hotel manager suddenly realizing that there isn't a vacancy after all.

Yesterday's news of the death of Kayla Mueller is on my mind. Though it probably was carried out some time ago, it is to her family and the world as if it did just happen. What a life of compassion and service to others. I love that the global community is exhibiting an appreciation for her sacrifice for the good of others not just in death but in life. We see the pictures of her smiling face as she sought to make a difference and we feel small.

What are we doing?

Then tonight I turn on the news to hear of the tragic and senseless killing of 3 Muslims in Chapel Hill by an Atheist neighbor. And I wonder again...

what are we doing?

I just finished reading I Am Malala about the Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban. Draped in her pink headscarf on the cover her fearless smile reminds us that evil doesn't always win. That there are  ways to be part of the solution. That a cause like education for girls can change the lives of people. I added the picture at the top of Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama as a reminder of what can be when we transcend the small hatefulness that abides in us and can spew out so easily. Great spiritual leaders are good reminders that there is another way.

What are we doing?

We are currently having an exhibit of Civil Rights photography at the museum where I volunteer. The title of the exhibit is This Little Light of Mine. Apparently that song was instrumental during the 50s and 60s among civil rights protesters and it brought home an important point during sit ins and marches. This little light of mine. Not the collective we or us where we can get lost and think no one will miss our voice or think that if we don't participate someone else will bring about needed change. My light. My speaking up. My standing up. My personal protest. My stance against injustice. In other words...

What am I doing?

Destructive, Consuming Stress and Anxiety from living in Constant Uncertainty

Madame:

The home educator in you has burst forth brilliantly.  I am in awe of your “I Think We Could Fix This” post, and there is nothing I can add that would contribute more value.  It is the Rx we should try immediately.  I think a bold state or two should authorize a few communities to begin doing so immediately and we should see how they fare. 

Hedges has written much on the cycling through the prison system that you mentioned.  How we even have an industry that feeds the demand for it.

And your post of four days ago?  I agree with it.  Self-justifying biases can be asserted in much of what the researcher says.  Perhaps even more importantly, studies are only as good as the data tools they use to analyze.

Since we’re topic flying, the title of today’s post is it.  How many citizens the world over, and how many Americans in particular, are being consumed by an uncaring oligarchical structure that uses them up and discards them without thought, compassion, or, especially, responsibility?  The bargain once struck by the wealthy with a needed professional and administrative (middle) class has partially and sometimes completely dissolved.  For even white collar employees are often exploited—or even abused—wage slaves these days.

So they join their blue collar disempowered former union brethren in the draining slog.  One done in a fog where nothing is clear economically about next year, let alone one’s “future.”  And this utter lack of ability to reliably plan or chart an economic course is that way for both individuals and the larger society and economy as a whole.  The selfish, uncaring, or devious oligarchs and their servants have forced workers into nervous serfdom.   Those serfs are both afraid to upset their masters, and yet uncertain when, through no fault of their own, they may be upended and turned out—impoverished or even made homeless—by the whims or designs of oligarchs with other agendas that have nothing to do with the greater good.

It’s one of the reasons why, in an economy where the basic indicators—unemployment and otherwise—would lead one to expect hot pressure for wages to rise significantly, that the “rise” is more like the change from cool to something distantly approaching lukewarm.

See, six paragraphs.  And you all thought I was too much of a windbag to hold forth that little.  Oh, wait, this is the third sentence, which means this technically counts as paragraph seven.  Darn it, failed again. :)

Does Your College Major Tell How Smart You Are?

Professor J,

I'm going to deviate a bit (3 posts in a row gives me such license, it's in the blogging rules somewhere-- the ones I made up) from our discussion about young males and the problems they face within our culture. I came across an article this morning that sent fireworks of questions and speculation off in my brain.

Your College Major is a Pretty Good Indicator of How Smart You Are

I had a few problems with the way the author of this article interpreted the data he shows. What he sees as a long term trend because these tests have been around for so long I see as the issue. 

This measure of intelligence is becoming outdated. Beyond the standard testing of math and verbal skills researchers now recognize as many as seven and sometimes as many as nine different kinds of intelligences. The concept of multiple intelligences is becoming more widely accepted.  A professional quarterback who has a knack for knowing where everyone is on the field or the basketball player who can perform seemingly impossible feats have physical intelligence that cannot be measured on a written test. Counselors have interpersonal skills. Intelligence is far more complex and interesting than we've realized up until now. 

I've known a couple of brilliant engineers who would be the worst teachers imaginable. Teaching is an art that involves not just possessing vast amounts of knowledge but being able to communicate that knowledge in a way that is interesting, engaging, and memorable.  There are some truly brilliant people who aren't capable of doing that.

He does well in pointing out that places like Finland require their teachers to meet much more rigorous standards than the US. He fails however to take into account the cultural and economic differences, though he hints at how they might be connected . It is quite unlikely that a student is going to pursue a post graduate degree or doctorate if it means incurring additional student loan debt when the pay in education is so inferior to other professions.  

He's using pretty standard tests that measure mathematical and verbal skills. The Project Talent graph which looks like it proves what he's trying to say about education is a test based on verbal, math, and spatial aptitude skills. Of course people who go into engineering would likely have better spatial aptitude skills than most people. That graph also shows that the proportion of PhDs in the studies on the right to be higher than the other courses of study. As a scientist or mathematician it's going to be quite difficult to gain any recognition or be published without the doctorate.

I suspect that since the author gives his title as "researcher" that he may have a bit of bias about the information he's seeing in the data. Or maybe he's trying to make is cousin who is getting a degree in education feel inferior. 

Let's provide free higher education and pay educators a wage comparable to other professionals and see how the statistics change over the next 40 years. 

 

I Think We Could Fix This

Professor J,

The definition of maturity from your previous post has me concerned indeed. Though mostly about myself by those standards. ;)

I liked the link that you posted about how to fix college. It would certainly be a start. It would be even more effective if we implemented my idea for overhauling education (covered in some post in the archives I couldn't locate). You may recall it would be a combination of classroom instruction mainly in the form of advice and steering, self teaching, and community projects. My vision is two days of home study, which I think is important because students need to understand that an education is actually something that they provide themselves. Any teacher, system. or curriculum can only offer it.

Two more days would be spent in a classroom setting with teachers acting more as guides and mentors than just information dispensers (picture a Pez dispenser with Ben Stein's head). Fridays would be spent out in the community working on a project similar to what Boy Scouts are required to do to attain the rank of Eagle Scout. This would also be a community day for teachers. I'd want to see this implemented in middle school so that by the time a child graduated high school they would have 5 or 6 problems in their community that they have solved. If helplessness can be learned then helpfulness can too. We know that volunteers are more likely to vote and be informed. They are more likely to take action when they see things that need to be addressed. Imagine what could happen if that was part of the system.

Or we could just scrap our entire system and invite some Finns over to tell us how it can (and I suspect, should) be done.

As you know, my own son is off having an adventure (and volunteering) and this week was the first time he'd called home and been really sick. But he was still going out on his "hitch." We discussed how he could treat himself and when it might be wise to see a doctor. Knowing how to take care of yourself when you're sick (or how to prevent illness) is an important life skill.

Remember the woman who was labeled America's Worst Mom a few years ago for giving her son a twenty dollar bill and a map and telling him to get home on his own? She has her own show, Free Range Kids, now teaching helicopter parents to let go. It'll be interesting to see how that goes.  In our case Mr. Snarky has an over protective sister instead which is charming to watch. When he informed us that he'd seen a rattlesnake her reply was "I knew that would happen. I'm FedExing him a snakebite kit immediately." Because of course no one in Arizona would think to have a snakebite kit. 

So clearly our boys need more help in some areas and a lot less in others. Many times they just need instruction and then freedom. And again the desperate need is time. Time. And more time. Unscheduled. Time to pursue things they really care about instead of being managed to the point of exhaustion. Parents who know how to just kind of be around without thinking that every moment needs to be put on the agenda or qualify as quality time.

Maybe we should actually start with a school for parents.

Let's Not Make Them Swamp Things

Good Madame M:

It used to be disturbing that so many teens and twenty-somethings did not respond when addressed (“good morning,” “how’s it going?”  “great weather eh?”), but now it’s actually the exception when one does.  Not a particularly good sign for community. 

Maturity is defined by psychologists and social researchers as: 1) desire and ability to assume greater responsibility; 2) ability and willingness to delay gratification; 3) ability to sufficiently channel and control emotions, especially when confronted with adversity, whether relationship, professional, economic, or social interaction; 4) ability to encounter information and reasonably choose the likeliest course for desired result (and seeking counsel or wisdom beforehand is a turbo sign of maturity); 5) ability to focus, be dependable, and keep long-term commitments; 6) secure enough in identity that neither flattery nor criticism excessively alter identity;  and 7) the desire to connect with others and realize that others are necessary to have a satisfactory life and satisfactory social structure (and gratitude is another boost to maturity).

Of course, well-intentioned hovering parents have often contributed to the delayed maturity.  So has, according to some researchers, cannabis use.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on the shameful state of higher education student support in this country.   By the way, here’s a wild idea to fix much of that problem:  A Crazy Idea to Fix College <https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=4rjfok-i45gsda4-46&t=plh&midToken=AQHZMDARaTq38g&ek=b2_content_ecosystem_digest&li=5&m=hero&urlhash=Nhiq&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elinkedin%2Ecom%2Ftoday%2Fpost%2Farticle%2Fbig-idea-2015-lets-rethink-jeff-selingo>

And your last two paragraphs of your post: absolute gold.  We sometimes forget that our collective decisions, not just our individual or family ones, have fomented the fetid, diseased, vast swamp we expect our young adults to somehow make it through and thrive. 

Once we have corrected other things,perhaps we should give thought to deglamorizing alcohol, as many of the Europeans have.  When it is no longer so “forbidden,” perhaps it will bring with it more maturity toward it.  Camille Paglia, in the May 19, 2014 issue of TIME, makes a strong argument for bringing the drinking age, at least for beer and perhaps wine, back down to 18. 

Of course, if the culture keeps treating young males like disposable deviants, a bad problem is only going to get worse.  While we can seem to devote no focus toward civilizational problems, we are diverted by a plethora of less critical matters.  For instance, the silliness of affirmative consent.  In attempting to address a real problem—violence against and demeaning of women—we not only craft wonky, unworkable “solutions,” but we spend so much focus on them that the truly urgent and civilization-threatening crises go unattended to.

There is a need to reglue community and transform a manipulative culture.  But  put-upon young males get the barely disguised message: “Most of you can’t be trusted.” 

Oh yes, THAT will bring about the desired good effects! Grrr.  Sometimes the lack of vision, discernment, and thinking through to second and third order results is maddening.  We sure as heck need to get a whole lot wiser!

30 Years Later

Madame:

Hard to believe, but the year just passed was 30 years after the year George Orwell set his famous novel in.

I am quite under the weather, but my concern about this topic is undiminished. 

Don’t expect Britain, Orwell’s country, to be the vigilants:

http://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/1984-in-2014-have-we-learned-nothing-from-george-orwell/

From the land of Finland comes this warning (and TED talk):

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/22/1984-vs-2014-george-orwell-was-an-optimist/

And who has been successfully prosecuted for the monstrous intrusions into private lives along with the manipulation?  What entire country has been up in arms over Watergate Exponential?

No one.  And none.  In fact, the only ones persecuted, prosecuted, jailed, or made fugitives have been—the whistleblowers.

Pullitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist James Risen has been one of those persecuted through both the Bush and Obama  administrations.  His latest book, “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War,” is worth picking up as well.  While he does not believe we are yet in the 1984 mold, he believes we have traveled far down that road.

What would Huxley and Orwell think of us?

Year in View/Review

Madame M and Readers:

Good video.  The world needs considerable counterweight to the movement by corporations to gain control of the new precious resource:  clean drinking water.

At this year end, I thought a look back would be interesting.  While woefully incomplete and entirely random, here’s a list of 2014 dimly noted “importantes.”

40 million people came close to running out of water in Brazil.  (our insular-focused media probable barely or never told you).

The Islamic State group ran into all sorts of problems, as it was fated to.  When it started falling down on delivering electricity, repaired roads, and the like, the people started to get turned off by its repression.  Funny, someone might have mentioned that previously. :)

Scotland held a referendum that determined whether it remained part of the United Kingdom or became completely independent.  Voting was around 90%.  It stayed part of, by the way.

Voting in the US 2014 November elections averaged 37% of eligible voters, the lowest since WW2—when many voters were away because of the war.

Conservative George Will said these words:  “The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history, coincided with mission creep (“nation building”) in Afghanistan.”

29 year old Brittany Maynard was successful in her quest to show, in retired professor John Hardwig’s words, “that the best death is not necessarily the one that can be postponed the longest.”

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck said this about the Eric Garner case: “How this cop did not go to jail, was not held responsible, is beyond me.  It’s obscene.  It’s grotesque.”

Somebody actually said it: Congress should randomize all its chamber seating so that people sit with those not like them.  Now, according to standard molasses in winter time response in DC, it will be 10 years before this good idea MIGHT be acted on. Lol.

The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee finished its Benghazi investigation, and concluded, like all the other investigations before it, that…there was nothing significant to report.

Those working the hardest, dirtiest, most dangerous, and most dead-end jobs that nobody wants, in the places nobody wants to be, got a reprieve from threat of deportation.

A U.N. mandatory periodic review of U.S. compliance with the 156 nation, 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment, cited the high incidence of US police brutality and shootings, the harsh conditions of imprisonment, and the severe interrogation methods used on detainees.  The review is ongoing.  Would seem the rest of the world has grown up, and we have regressed.  At the same time, neuroscientists released a report that says torture, even in the instances of no lasting physical harm, mentally damages the tortured person for life (sympathy for John McCain).  It also often leaves a mark on the torturer, as the documentary “The Act of Killing,” demonstrated.

In a body camera experiment in California, the use of force plummeted by 60 percent, and the number of complaints by 88 percent, because police and suspects “both knew that their actions would be observed by outsiders to the situation.”

How bitterly, tragically ironic that those policemen killed by the crazy murderer in New York were an Asian-American and Latino-American.

Net neutrality, Trans Pacific Partnership, and Ocean Acidification: Some of the most important, yet under-reported, issues this year.

ECONOMIST Roger Bezdek, a highly paid consultant to energy companies, was carted out by them as a “scientist,” to say that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing because “trees will grow faster.”

Some failing, violent Philadelphia schools were turned around, not by adding even more security, but by stripping most of it away.  There is so much that can be said about that…

Even while many other indicators may not have been good, the worldwide rate of violence and mortality continued to go down.

Wanted to end my 2014 posts on an upbeat note. :)

The Taking In Of Ferguson, 1

Brilliantly said Madame.  All should take heed of your entreaty, for it is maybe the only way we can move forward peacefully out of our isolated deadlocks.  We are all “others,” and in this disconnected society, we all want—no, NEED—to be heard, to feel that we matter, that some measure of good preservation and good change can be made.

I was going to write about how the economic squeezing of people in the plutocratic economy mean that they need to come out on Black Friday/Black Thanksgiving Night (an original negative connotation to the shopping spree has now often become a neutral or even a positive) as many of the bargains are real because the stores are taking advantage of the foot traffic that really does need those bargains to have any chance of pulling through another Christmas season.  Sort of holiday version of the Walmart spiral of low wages/low prices.

But like you, I recognize there are other matters to attend.  Therefore, I am announcing today a:

Special Four Part, Four Consecutive Days, Series of the P&H From The Professor.

“The Taking In Of Ferguson, 1, 2, 3, 4.”

Reading anything less than all four parts will give an incomplete and possibly inaccurate picture. There are important things that need to be said, and quickly, which is why they are being dispensed in rapid fashion. 

Alas, if only other and probably even more societally urgent matters could get the public’s and media’s attention…

People in a busy, information overloaded world want to make snap judgments about particulars without all the facts, without considering contributing factors, or even the history and background that mold, in your words, “thinking, perception, and judgment.”

Let’s begin by addressing that.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Police and Prosecutors

Most police forces in America today are structured quite problematically.

It begins with the very lexicon, and how we perceive them and how they perceive themselves:

At one time we called them peace officers, who worked in tandem with justices of the peace.  Yes.  To keep the peace.

Then we moved on to calling them police officers.  Purpose?  To keep people and places safe.  Not as good or gentle as peace officers, but okay.

Now, although we still refer to them as police, we more often use the broad term law enforcement officers, to include state police, sheriffs, etc.  Purpose?  To enforce laws, including property rights, and, especially, enforce the desires of those who sit at the top of the power structure.

Their civilian oversight?  Effectively none.  Members of the military report to a civilian Secretary of Defense and a civilian President, but most local police have at best a loose structure of accountability to civilians.

Then we isolate the individual officers, and make them feel alone.  They work their days by themselves, the lone wolves of law enforcement.  The reduced money in this plutocratic economy means there are usually not enough resources to hire two officers to ride in the same patrol car in low to medium risk areas, let alone cover the reduced area one or two could get to by walking the community.

Think what this means.  No partner.  No one to talk to, no one to get close to, no one to soften the hard edges, no one to reaffirm your humanity with. No check on emotions or actions.  No one to have your back.  No one who can call for backup while you handle an incident.  How vulnerable and edgy you’d be every time you go into a dicey or even just unknown situation.

Think about that the next time you see two law enforcement cars stopping so the occupants can talk to each other.  It’s a human need that is missing from their everyday work lives, and they try to get in some small snippets to partially compensate. 

We are very far from community policing.  There are not enough officers to take the time to get to know and meaningfully interact with citizens.  Fear, suspicion, distrust of the unknown, etc., often result between citizens and police because of this lack.  Disconnection is bred.  Without the confidence and trust from the citizens, the job of the police, especially detectives, becomes exponentially harder.  After a while, precincts can de-evolve into a fortress and surge mentality.  And very much an us vs. them outlook, or even as occupying troops suppressing a heatedly simmering native insurgency.

Of course, body cameras would help things, but that level of transparency seems to be a ways off.  Indeed, in too many localities, it is illegal to video a law enforcement officer performing his or her duties. 

The difference in training, equipping, outlook, and expectation between civilian and military police is stark.  Military police have very few incidents of discharge of their weapons.  They handle things quite well without doing so. They also often attract higher caliber individuals than civilian departments.   

Ironic then, that more civilian police departments have been getting all sorts of surplus military equipment from the federal government, raising fears of a police state among the aware.  When one has military toys, one is constantly tempted to use them.  That police can seize cash and property from suspects without having to prove a crime further contributes to the reservoir of resources that can be designated only for equipment—and military style equipment gets the strongest interest.

Police departments with military equipment can start to think in terms of “force projection,” and “battle,” and “occupation,” and “crushing resistance.”  And the individuals in those police departments, many of them frustrated from being denied entry (for any number of reasons) into the military, can itch to be part of an “operation,” or a “war.”

Without redress, it bodes ill for the already struggling American democratic experience.

It’s a fact:  Prosecutors don’t want to prosecute the cops they work with.  From murder to even just involuntary manslaughter, cops are generally not charged when they kill a citizen.  They are given wide (sometimes VERY wide) latitude if they believe (or at least state they believe) their life was in danger.  Since it is THEY, the cops, that get to make that “determination,” and usually no other law enforcement officers are around to weigh in even if they wanted to (see above), most prosecutors let it go.  Especially for departments that are too small or resource strapped to afford adequate internal review/investigation divisions.

The Stage Where Things Act Out

For too many communities in America today in the new plutocratic economy, there are plethoras of problems that intersect and interact, with second, third, fourth and further effects.

The impact of poverty, lack of economic opportunity (jobs in general and living wage jobs in particular), and marked income inequality affect the community as a whole, the base from which the citizenry come.  Sociologists and criminologists can tell us well that where those conditions exist, crime and problems go up as well, often dramatically, further stressing the resources of that community to address those crimes and problems and the fallout from them.  The lack of money/resources to devote to police departments, who suffer in salaries (and attracting top people), training, and professionalism (and maybe respect) as a result, is sometimes nearly crippling.  A community without much economic opportunity has upticks in aberrant behavior.  Policing such a community tends to jade and even authoritarianize the policing members.  If there is marked racial disparity, as there is in Ferguson, this is accentuated even more.

Towns like Ferguson, where 22 percent of people live in poverty, are today the result of malicious unofficial housing industry practices and decades of government policies that—however well intentioned they may or may not have been—had a decidedly racist outcome.  Those policies and practices limited African-American citizens to certain areas of major cities and metropolitan areas. 

The federal government, deliberately or de facto, participated in the segregation of communities.  It built segregated public housing and provided subsidies and loans to developers if they agreed to build segregated neighborhoods in a number of cities—greater St. Louis among them.  Local authorities both jumped on the bandwagon and pre-empted things by passing ordnances (or directing their inspectors and enforcers) to prohibit liquor stores and other supposedly degenerate businesses from establishing in many white neighborhoods, only permitting them to set up where African-Americans lived, thereby overconcentrating such establishments and further undermining African-American community economic and social integrity and wholesomeness.   Utility companies carried out anything-but-benign neglect in many black neighborhoods as well. 

White flight—the moving of residences by white people as “those people” moved in to the neighborhood—contributed heavily to things also.  For all of the above and more, today, 2/3rds of Ferguson is black.

FERGUSON

Fairness, justice, education (public education defunding in Missouri is heavy; in Ferguson, it is extreme), opportunity—Ferguson’s indicators in all of them have pointed downward.

There is reliance on ticketing for Ferguson government income, like many towns in the new plutocratic economy where the wealthy and corporations no longer pay anywhere near their former share of supporting the cost of government.  Inflated traffic tickets, court fees, and fines for minor violations make up a large part of not only the Ferguson police budget, but Ferguson government’s budget in general.  Citizens perceive that as harassment, which only feeds the seething resentment.

The resources poor department can’t hire many top quality officers.  It also apparently can’t afford tasers (non-lethal weapons), as it only has one, and Wilson stated he doesn’t like to carry a taser (for flimsy reasons, even though military police carry them all the time).

Ferguson lives an apartheid existence.  It has a white government (only one black city council member, at last count), a nearly all white police force and political power structure (mayor, school board, etc.), and practices that clearly favor the white residents, workers, and businesses.  For instance, during the rioting, white businesses got protected.  Black ones didn’t.

Ferguson responds like an apartheid government would, with military like actions.  For instance, during the initial protests in August, it met them with military equipment —  mine-resistant armored vehicles, assault rifles, and combat fatigues.   Even US Attorney General Eric Holder, a corporate lawyer who will soon go back to corporate service,  remarked that by responding in force, local law enforcement needlessly antagonized the situation, risking further erosion of the community's trust.   Things still didn’t change much after that, leading to an investigation by the US Department of Justice into the practices of the Ferguson Dept.

MISSOURI

The incestuous--excessively close and resistant to outside influence--nature of Missouri politics and Missouri police and prosecutors meant that the lack of an indictment was effectively a foregone conclusion.  Which is undoubtedly why Missouri’s governor prepped state police and the National Guard to already be there.  They weren’t worried about an indictment setting the African-American majority city aflame with anger, but rather the probable lack of one.

One of the US Senators from Missouri is a former prosecutor.  Her rather odd statement about the case seemed to non-Missourians to further demonstrate  how very very (overly?) close the law enforcement network is in Missouri.