J. Richard Singleton's Blog, page 7
January 3, 2015
Officer cameras could be defeated by a sticker.
Last year at the Metro/7th subway stop (for non-Angelenos, that's a hub that connects several rail lines, including the hellish passage into Compton), I saw two sheriff deputies--white or Latino, a male and a female--deputies conversing with a mentally ill black man, who was quit animate about some point. (It is safe to say that they were arguing about fare non-payment.) The fellow raised his hands high above his head, and that was the cue for the male cop to tackle him. The two went to the floor, and the female deputy joined in and arrested him. To my knowledge, no one died during that arrest. And though someone could've been killed, the deputy made the judgment call that he needed to end this confrontation. From my distance, it looked like police brutality.
The cops in the Eric Garner case were attempting to grab Garner by the wrists, but he waved them off. (Garner, who was 6-3 and over 350 pounds, had a history of resisting arrest.) It is a myth that Garner wasn't trying to resist arrest at the time of his death--though no loose cigarettes were found on him--he was clearly arguing with the cops on scene. He clearly didn't want to be arrested or touched. (I don't like being touched either, by the way. However, I can also recognize that the cops are allowed to touch me in a non-sexual manner in order to aid their investigation.) In Officer Pantaleo's brilliance, he thought to use a chokehold on the much larger adversary. It was a dick move, and it was against NYPD policy. In hindsight, the cops should've tried harder to negotiate a favorable outcome. There will be a million dollar settlement going to Garner's family. But none of that changes the fact that it wasn't a murder.
Let's get the terminology correct. "Homicide" means an unnatural death, not murder. Jeffrey Dahmer strangled over ten black men to death--he murdered black men, and he often used strangulation. Dahmer was not a cop trying to arrest anyone. He had the motive of needing to assert control and an incredibly bizarre fascination with death, leading to one of the most bizarre true-life American horror stories of the 20th century.
I am concerned with how sarcastic the "hands up" movement is. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, BLACK MEN, DO NOT COME AT POLICE WITH YOUR HANDS RAISED!!! (There.) When the cops want you to come over, they will ask you to come over. You can yell and curse at cops all you want from the comfort and anonymity of the crowd. When the cops are talking to you, check your attitude. NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS. Any number of these shooting incidents have been caused by racism, yes, but also by black men oblivious to how they are perceived by others. YOU KNOW that you're a nice guy, but the cops don't know this.
There is an unfortunate anti-authoritarian attitude among so many American blacks that leads to self-destruction. American doctors so often just don't want to be subjected to the argument or accusation that they are attempting to enforce an Anglo-centric standard of beauty onto blacks. (I'm not making this up: Doctors refuse to tell black people to lose weight.) "Fat" is certainly a relative term, to be clear; there is a stigma among African American girls of being "boney." Mo'Nique has built an entire persona around criticizing "skinny bitches." Meanwhile, diabetes is striking down blacks and numerous blacks seem confused as to the cause. Libertarians tell us that blacks should be allowed to eat whatever they want--and the government shouldn't pay for poor blacks' healthcare. Thank God for Michelle Obama, in all seriousness. Can you imagine the accusations of racism if Laura Bush had told black women that they were too damn fat?
The use of video footage "proves" that it was a murder. We are overly reliant on video footage and not logic--if the cop wanted to kill Garner, he would've shot him. If you're planning to brutalize a suspect, you wouldn't do it while a camera is rolling. You would turn the camera off. (Advocates of officer-mounted cameras tend to ignore that the cops will be able to cover up the lens with a sticker. Or experience "battery failure" or "forget" to wear it--I can go on.) You wouldn't do it on a public street, in broad daylight. The image of this arrest is haunting, certainly. However, if he hadn't died, this never would've made the news. What makes the video haunting is that he did actually die after proclaiming that he was about to die.
Garner should've yelled: "I'm experiencing shortness of breathe." Rather he yelled: "I can't breath." Garner was not an educated man, and he used more common vernacular to describe his current health state. The cops, lacking much medical knowledge ("shortness of breath" being a red flag for a health crisis) and well-attuned in the art of BS, assumed he was faking it. They weren't really strangling him. They weren't really roughing him up--no healthy man should've been injured during the course of THAT arrest. Numerous rightwingers, bizarrely, are still using this as proof that he was faking it: If you cannot breath, how can you say that you cannot breath? Science!
This death brings to mind the late LAPD Chief Daryl Gates, who proclaimed in the early '90s that so many black men were being killed during chokeholds not that his people were using too much force but that "black people didn't respond to chokeholds like normal people." This statement has two potential meanings: Black men are so belligerent that they end up being accidentally killed or that black men are biologically unable to withstand a few seconds of strangulation. In either case, Gates was throwing out a nonsensical and fairly racist justification for his people's actions. You can be right and completely tone-deaf to the person whom you're explaining your logical conclusions to, and Gates's political idiocy led to the LA Riots. The use of chokeholds was abandoned for nightsticks...which led to the beating of a suspect named Rodney King, which led to the Riots. Thus both a controversial police tactic and the attempt to rectify a controversial police tactic led to the Riots.
According to the coroner: Contributing factors to Garner's death included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Garner was not going to live a long life. He didn't follow doctor's orders--or he was never given doctor's orders. He also didn't listen to the cops, having been arrested multiple times--including for resisting arrest. His death was not entirely caused by his bad decisions, both legal and medical. He suffered an attack from overzealous law enforcement officers.
Still not murder.
The cops in the Eric Garner case were attempting to grab Garner by the wrists, but he waved them off. (Garner, who was 6-3 and over 350 pounds, had a history of resisting arrest.) It is a myth that Garner wasn't trying to resist arrest at the time of his death--though no loose cigarettes were found on him--he was clearly arguing with the cops on scene. He clearly didn't want to be arrested or touched. (I don't like being touched either, by the way. However, I can also recognize that the cops are allowed to touch me in a non-sexual manner in order to aid their investigation.) In Officer Pantaleo's brilliance, he thought to use a chokehold on the much larger adversary. It was a dick move, and it was against NYPD policy. In hindsight, the cops should've tried harder to negotiate a favorable outcome. There will be a million dollar settlement going to Garner's family. But none of that changes the fact that it wasn't a murder.
Let's get the terminology correct. "Homicide" means an unnatural death, not murder. Jeffrey Dahmer strangled over ten black men to death--he murdered black men, and he often used strangulation. Dahmer was not a cop trying to arrest anyone. He had the motive of needing to assert control and an incredibly bizarre fascination with death, leading to one of the most bizarre true-life American horror stories of the 20th century.
I am concerned with how sarcastic the "hands up" movement is. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, BLACK MEN, DO NOT COME AT POLICE WITH YOUR HANDS RAISED!!! (There.) When the cops want you to come over, they will ask you to come over. You can yell and curse at cops all you want from the comfort and anonymity of the crowd. When the cops are talking to you, check your attitude. NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS. Any number of these shooting incidents have been caused by racism, yes, but also by black men oblivious to how they are perceived by others. YOU KNOW that you're a nice guy, but the cops don't know this.
There is an unfortunate anti-authoritarian attitude among so many American blacks that leads to self-destruction. American doctors so often just don't want to be subjected to the argument or accusation that they are attempting to enforce an Anglo-centric standard of beauty onto blacks. (I'm not making this up: Doctors refuse to tell black people to lose weight.) "Fat" is certainly a relative term, to be clear; there is a stigma among African American girls of being "boney." Mo'Nique has built an entire persona around criticizing "skinny bitches." Meanwhile, diabetes is striking down blacks and numerous blacks seem confused as to the cause. Libertarians tell us that blacks should be allowed to eat whatever they want--and the government shouldn't pay for poor blacks' healthcare. Thank God for Michelle Obama, in all seriousness. Can you imagine the accusations of racism if Laura Bush had told black women that they were too damn fat?
The use of video footage "proves" that it was a murder. We are overly reliant on video footage and not logic--if the cop wanted to kill Garner, he would've shot him. If you're planning to brutalize a suspect, you wouldn't do it while a camera is rolling. You would turn the camera off. (Advocates of officer-mounted cameras tend to ignore that the cops will be able to cover up the lens with a sticker. Or experience "battery failure" or "forget" to wear it--I can go on.) You wouldn't do it on a public street, in broad daylight. The image of this arrest is haunting, certainly. However, if he hadn't died, this never would've made the news. What makes the video haunting is that he did actually die after proclaiming that he was about to die.
Garner should've yelled: "I'm experiencing shortness of breathe." Rather he yelled: "I can't breath." Garner was not an educated man, and he used more common vernacular to describe his current health state. The cops, lacking much medical knowledge ("shortness of breath" being a red flag for a health crisis) and well-attuned in the art of BS, assumed he was faking it. They weren't really strangling him. They weren't really roughing him up--no healthy man should've been injured during the course of THAT arrest. Numerous rightwingers, bizarrely, are still using this as proof that he was faking it: If you cannot breath, how can you say that you cannot breath? Science!
This death brings to mind the late LAPD Chief Daryl Gates, who proclaimed in the early '90s that so many black men were being killed during chokeholds not that his people were using too much force but that "black people didn't respond to chokeholds like normal people." This statement has two potential meanings: Black men are so belligerent that they end up being accidentally killed or that black men are biologically unable to withstand a few seconds of strangulation. In either case, Gates was throwing out a nonsensical and fairly racist justification for his people's actions. You can be right and completely tone-deaf to the person whom you're explaining your logical conclusions to, and Gates's political idiocy led to the LA Riots. The use of chokeholds was abandoned for nightsticks...which led to the beating of a suspect named Rodney King, which led to the Riots. Thus both a controversial police tactic and the attempt to rectify a controversial police tactic led to the Riots.
According to the coroner: Contributing factors to Garner's death included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Garner was not going to live a long life. He didn't follow doctor's orders--or he was never given doctor's orders. He also didn't listen to the cops, having been arrested multiple times--including for resisting arrest. His death was not entirely caused by his bad decisions, both legal and medical. He suffered an attack from overzealous law enforcement officers.
Still not murder.
December 6, 2014
#Ferguson Redux
If Bill Cosby were in Ferguson, the first thing he would do is rape someone.... Then the second thing he would do is criticize blacks.
I was a young child during the LA Riots back in '92, and though I didn't participate in those riots, I can tell these present riots are for rank amateurs. Like the rioters out here, they're not demonstrating outrage so much as damaging other people's property. The rioters aren't violent enough to be revolutionaries and are not peaceful enough to be protestors. They are posers--pseudo-revolutionaries--and most hate the cops more than they have been victimized by the police. They hide amongst the legitimate protestors, so really, I would just stay home. The rioters are ruining the legitimate points that you might be making about racial profiling and police brutality. And here's what's going to happen: Business people will not want to build in Ferguson--not for a decade--and the land will become blighted. And this wouldn't be the cops' fault. Because one black guy was killed in self-defense, this place is going to get worse, not better. There is no dialogue--and any dialogue that might occur would lead to shouting and mutual recriminations. Cops come and go, but these riots will last long in Missourians' (Missourites'?) minds. Long after Wilson is dead, the history books will speak of those assholes who burned down a piece of Missouri.
Of course, this really isn't about the one black guy. The media--especially the rightwing media--are attempting to condense this into a Mike Brown/Ferguson PD issue. We are supposedly recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression--a recovery that has largely benefited the wealthy/middle-class more than the poor. In 2014, some people still cannot believe a brown guy named "Hussein" could have been born in America. Voter ID laws (that prevent blacks from voting) are good but gun control laws (that might protect blacks' right to stay alive) are evil. Screwdrivers and hoodies are burglar tools. Don't film cops because they're shy.
These systemic issues do not change certain problems with the DA's case: Scanning the grand jury transcript, the pro-Brown witnesses did not understand that their recollections were wrong. They didn't see lies as lies, and they repeated what they thought members of THEIR community wanted to hear: Brown had his hands up, and he wasn't fighting back. Some of the prosecution's witnesses didn't see what happened but were repeating hearsay. And the forensic evidence supported the defense. The video of Brown assaulting another man supported the defense. A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, and thus the case for self-defense was so strong that Wilson does not have the culpability of a ham sandwich. (What does need to be explained was the apparent shift in the police's story that Brown was stopped for the violent robbery that he'd just committed, not walking in the street.)
Meanwhile Wilson does himself no favors by speaking. His conscious is clear, which are HIS exact words. (He said this--Google it!) Really? No regrets? I know almost nothing about Darren Wilson, but I can think up at least one thing that he did wrong in his life. I can think up one thing he did wrong. When you kill someone, you should show remorse for your actions--even if it was just in self-defense, not murder. Nope. He has no regrets. I like Darren Wilson a whole lot less now. He was once a good cop, but he'll never be a cop again.
The protestors are legitimate in putting forth the issue of police corruption. I have the creeping suspicion that whites would care a lot more about what's happening in Ferguson if a Chipolte were burning. The immaturity of the rioters has been used as an example of the animalistic behavior of blacks. Plus they probably voted for Obama, including the ones under 19.
The thug Mayor Rudy Giuliani exemplifies the problems with so many of the rioters' critics by pointing out this: Well, black people are always killing each other too--so why not agents of the government? He is a LAWYER! He should know that's not how the law works, damnit! Just because black guys are shooting each other doesn't give cops permission to shoot them too--y'know, get in on the action. Soon all Americans will run out of black guys to shoot. Then white people will have to start importing them--from somewhere.
Giuliani's points are based on the neo-racist notion that most black people agree with conservatives and that racism no longer exists. In antebellum America, slaveholders believed that blacks revolted not because they were legitimately outraged but because outside agitators (white liberals) were turning them against their benevolent masters. The police are totally honest and not racist at all. The "race hustlers" ( re Al Sharpton--always with Sharpton) and the media are tricking black people into believing the status quo is racist. Now there are rumblings that Brown's stepfather should be prosecuted for "inciting" these riots. (In his anger that the government just killed his son, he expressed support for tearing down the government.) Shockingly, in this story, only the black guy might end up being sent to prison.
Ferguson PD, demonstrating how big their balls are, have demanded the NFL should apologize to them for inflaming racial tensions after several Rams performed the "hands up" protest gesture. (Oh, and to the people of American, putting your hands up is a good call when confronted by the police--this movement is more sarcastic than I would like to see.) Of all the evils of the NFL, they are not causing riots. They are in the unenviable positions of having to choose between showing support for law enforcement and abiding by the cops' sheer stupidity.
Rudy Giuliani, however, is a certified asshole. Unlike Mitt Romney, it feels like Giuliani is an asshole to his own family, which makes him a very special asshole. He should go back to New York and try to exploit 9/11 some more.
I was a young child during the LA Riots back in '92, and though I didn't participate in those riots, I can tell these present riots are for rank amateurs. Like the rioters out here, they're not demonstrating outrage so much as damaging other people's property. The rioters aren't violent enough to be revolutionaries and are not peaceful enough to be protestors. They are posers--pseudo-revolutionaries--and most hate the cops more than they have been victimized by the police. They hide amongst the legitimate protestors, so really, I would just stay home. The rioters are ruining the legitimate points that you might be making about racial profiling and police brutality. And here's what's going to happen: Business people will not want to build in Ferguson--not for a decade--and the land will become blighted. And this wouldn't be the cops' fault. Because one black guy was killed in self-defense, this place is going to get worse, not better. There is no dialogue--and any dialogue that might occur would lead to shouting and mutual recriminations. Cops come and go, but these riots will last long in Missourians' (Missourites'?) minds. Long after Wilson is dead, the history books will speak of those assholes who burned down a piece of Missouri.
Of course, this really isn't about the one black guy. The media--especially the rightwing media--are attempting to condense this into a Mike Brown/Ferguson PD issue. We are supposedly recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression--a recovery that has largely benefited the wealthy/middle-class more than the poor. In 2014, some people still cannot believe a brown guy named "Hussein" could have been born in America. Voter ID laws (that prevent blacks from voting) are good but gun control laws (that might protect blacks' right to stay alive) are evil. Screwdrivers and hoodies are burglar tools. Don't film cops because they're shy.
These systemic issues do not change certain problems with the DA's case: Scanning the grand jury transcript, the pro-Brown witnesses did not understand that their recollections were wrong. They didn't see lies as lies, and they repeated what they thought members of THEIR community wanted to hear: Brown had his hands up, and he wasn't fighting back. Some of the prosecution's witnesses didn't see what happened but were repeating hearsay. And the forensic evidence supported the defense. The video of Brown assaulting another man supported the defense. A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, and thus the case for self-defense was so strong that Wilson does not have the culpability of a ham sandwich. (What does need to be explained was the apparent shift in the police's story that Brown was stopped for the violent robbery that he'd just committed, not walking in the street.)
Meanwhile Wilson does himself no favors by speaking. His conscious is clear, which are HIS exact words. (He said this--Google it!) Really? No regrets? I know almost nothing about Darren Wilson, but I can think up at least one thing that he did wrong in his life. I can think up one thing he did wrong. When you kill someone, you should show remorse for your actions--even if it was just in self-defense, not murder. Nope. He has no regrets. I like Darren Wilson a whole lot less now. He was once a good cop, but he'll never be a cop again.
The protestors are legitimate in putting forth the issue of police corruption. I have the creeping suspicion that whites would care a lot more about what's happening in Ferguson if a Chipolte were burning. The immaturity of the rioters has been used as an example of the animalistic behavior of blacks. Plus they probably voted for Obama, including the ones under 19.
The thug Mayor Rudy Giuliani exemplifies the problems with so many of the rioters' critics by pointing out this: Well, black people are always killing each other too--so why not agents of the government? He is a LAWYER! He should know that's not how the law works, damnit! Just because black guys are shooting each other doesn't give cops permission to shoot them too--y'know, get in on the action. Soon all Americans will run out of black guys to shoot. Then white people will have to start importing them--from somewhere.
Giuliani's points are based on the neo-racist notion that most black people agree with conservatives and that racism no longer exists. In antebellum America, slaveholders believed that blacks revolted not because they were legitimately outraged but because outside agitators (white liberals) were turning them against their benevolent masters. The police are totally honest and not racist at all. The "race hustlers" ( re Al Sharpton--always with Sharpton) and the media are tricking black people into believing the status quo is racist. Now there are rumblings that Brown's stepfather should be prosecuted for "inciting" these riots. (In his anger that the government just killed his son, he expressed support for tearing down the government.) Shockingly, in this story, only the black guy might end up being sent to prison.
Ferguson PD, demonstrating how big their balls are, have demanded the NFL should apologize to them for inflaming racial tensions after several Rams performed the "hands up" protest gesture. (Oh, and to the people of American, putting your hands up is a good call when confronted by the police--this movement is more sarcastic than I would like to see.) Of all the evils of the NFL, they are not causing riots. They are in the unenviable positions of having to choose between showing support for law enforcement and abiding by the cops' sheer stupidity.
Rudy Giuliani, however, is a certified asshole. Unlike Mitt Romney, it feels like Giuliani is an asshole to his own family, which makes him a very special asshole. He should go back to New York and try to exploit 9/11 some more.
November 19, 2014
November 8, 2014
Lena Dunham: Not a pedophile!
There are so many reasons to hate Lena Dunham. She is a hipster-poser whose parents never pointed out that she wasn't special as they sent her to a liberal arts college. She's like the JD Salinger of girls who've had a boyfriend. She's the Woody Allen minus the life experience. She's not as stupid as a Kardashian-Jenner, but she's not as attractive as one. However, recently people have been claiming that Dunham is also a pedophile because of some questionable passages in her latest book concerning her own sexual exploration, which I will not name, because I don't want to promote her.
There are a serious of problems with their allegations. For starters, pre-sexual people cannot be sex offenders, since being an offender requires knowledge of the inappropriateness of their behavior and a desire to receive sexual gratification from their conduct with youths or unwilling partners. Dunham's critics are contorting reality in claiming that she is currently or was ever a part of such perversion. Dunham's actual perversion is reason enough to criticize her.
Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Jerry Seinfeld, Wilmder Valderrama, Mila Kunis (probably), Karl Malone, Ted Nugent, Justin Timberlake, Steven Tyler, that Asian guy who's dating Lorde--all these people received sexual stimulation from people under the age of 18, and thus are better examples of pedophiles. Taylor Swift was 19 when she dated 17-year-old Taylor Lautner, but I'm not sure what encompassed dating the teenage Swift. Maybe a lot of handholding and unicorn drawing as she gathered material for her next album on everything you're doing wrong.
[There is a double-standard in May-December relationships that favor women. (South Park addressed this excellently. Nice.) This can be seen in cases where a teacher--almost always a woman--has a sexual relationship with a teen. And some of these teachers were hot. I mean, unusually hot. Lena Dunham is not hot. She does not look good naked. (Take. A. Clue.) However, this does not entail incest.]
In talking about her masturbating habits, she is relating how ludicrous her sleeping arrangement was at this time, and I'm wondering what her parents were thinking in forcing kids to share beds when there was presumably no financial need to. She was not testifying that she enjoyed touching herself near her sister--she was saying the exact opposite. She was using an analogy, not making a confession. It is an analogy that any man with a lick of common sense would never use, but Dunham is neither a man nor does she have a lick of common sense. Dunham is a needy runt (switch out a letter), and her behavior towards her sister was not molestation but a manifestation of that. What we should take of this is Lena Dunham lacks self-awareness.
Dunham does herself no favor by blaming rightwingers or men for taking her comments out of context. This was a ploy of rally their troops before the midterm. This is "slut shaming," as she would claim. I disagree. No, no one cares about what Lena Dunham thinks, politically, so there is no reason to attack her. You're Taylor Swift but you have a TV show and you're not pretty, Lena Dunham. You're also not Hillary Clinton, who witnessed real oppression of women in the real world, not Manhattan or Hollywood.
A normal woman would not have written about such things. Dunham is of the generation that believes that even the most humiliating things should be written about and thus recorded for posterity. These things are things that you're supposed to take to your grave--same as Michelle Phillips's acknowledgement that she once had a sexual relationship with her father. But Dunham has nothing else to write about.
There are a serious of problems with their allegations. For starters, pre-sexual people cannot be sex offenders, since being an offender requires knowledge of the inappropriateness of their behavior and a desire to receive sexual gratification from their conduct with youths or unwilling partners. Dunham's critics are contorting reality in claiming that she is currently or was ever a part of such perversion. Dunham's actual perversion is reason enough to criticize her.
Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Jerry Seinfeld, Wilmder Valderrama, Mila Kunis (probably), Karl Malone, Ted Nugent, Justin Timberlake, Steven Tyler, that Asian guy who's dating Lorde--all these people received sexual stimulation from people under the age of 18, and thus are better examples of pedophiles. Taylor Swift was 19 when she dated 17-year-old Taylor Lautner, but I'm not sure what encompassed dating the teenage Swift. Maybe a lot of handholding and unicorn drawing as she gathered material for her next album on everything you're doing wrong.
[There is a double-standard in May-December relationships that favor women. (South Park addressed this excellently. Nice.) This can be seen in cases where a teacher--almost always a woman--has a sexual relationship with a teen. And some of these teachers were hot. I mean, unusually hot. Lena Dunham is not hot. She does not look good naked. (Take. A. Clue.) However, this does not entail incest.]
In talking about her masturbating habits, she is relating how ludicrous her sleeping arrangement was at this time, and I'm wondering what her parents were thinking in forcing kids to share beds when there was presumably no financial need to. She was not testifying that she enjoyed touching herself near her sister--she was saying the exact opposite. She was using an analogy, not making a confession. It is an analogy that any man with a lick of common sense would never use, but Dunham is neither a man nor does she have a lick of common sense. Dunham is a needy runt (switch out a letter), and her behavior towards her sister was not molestation but a manifestation of that. What we should take of this is Lena Dunham lacks self-awareness.
Dunham does herself no favor by blaming rightwingers or men for taking her comments out of context. This was a ploy of rally their troops before the midterm. This is "slut shaming," as she would claim. I disagree. No, no one cares about what Lena Dunham thinks, politically, so there is no reason to attack her. You're Taylor Swift but you have a TV show and you're not pretty, Lena Dunham. You're also not Hillary Clinton, who witnessed real oppression of women in the real world, not Manhattan or Hollywood.
A normal woman would not have written about such things. Dunham is of the generation that believes that even the most humiliating things should be written about and thus recorded for posterity. These things are things that you're supposed to take to your grave--same as Michelle Phillips's acknowledgement that she once had a sexual relationship with her father. But Dunham has nothing else to write about.
October 25, 2014
The Amanda Show...
Let me tell you a story about a family member of mine. We will call him "TJ," because I want to protect his privacy and because I've always wanted to know a TJ. TJ was a quirky child, but not so quirky as other members of our family. He was bright and active. He was a striver and a hardworker who merely dreamed of entering the American middle class and having a family. He went to a college, got a degree, got a decent-paying job. He moved out on his own. Immediately around this time--in his early 20s--TJ's drinking increased. He began doing drugs--weed and mushrooms. He became difficult to work with and he drove erratically. He began hanging out with people he shouldn't have. To all of us, he seemed to have had a drug and alcohol problem--that would be the logical conclusion. The simpler conclusion is normally the correct one.
In a period of a few months around 2001-2002, his behavior spun completely out of control. He lost his job, lost his car--and it was impossible to get an explanation out of him as to how exactly he lost his job and car. He cashed in his 401K--to buy more drugs and booze. He became difficult to talk to, even when he was sober. For another decade, he drifted between a meatpacking plant in Nebraska, a cult and group housing. Eventually his father did intercede--enough to get him his own place and a medication schedule that he would both accept and calm him down if not necessarily make him "better."
Now TJ has a home, but he spends his days drinking beer and watching TV. He likes football. He has no chance of getting another job because he is so non-personable. Sometimes he gets so drunk that he shits himself. He has more friends than me.
We were all entertained by Amanda Bynes downfall at first, namely when she announced that she was quitting acting, the one thing that she had clearly excelled out. She had acted her entire life, without exaggeration: She started doing stand-up as a child, before transitioning to the Nick network, then the WB. She did mediocre teen movies that nonetheless made money, and she could've made many more if she wanted to. Her Twitter feed became erratic--with her desire to be vaginally murdered by Drake and her use of "ugly" as catchall to describe anyone whom she didn't like. She pierced her face. (There's no better sign that you don't want to return to acting than piercing your face.) Then it became apparent to those of us who know anything about psychiatry that there was suddenly something wrong with her. Suddenly it became less funny. You didn't need to know her personally or have a psychiatric background to know that there was a mental issue in play here--but I knew long before. She was a "good girl" throughout her youth, then she became acting completely bizarre in her early 20s. (Lindsay Lohan: not crazy.)
In recent months, Bynes' parents had refused to acknowledge their daughter's psychiatric problems--she's doing fine. She's just a brat. She smokes too much weed. Her stint at one of the FIDM recently ended on account of her belligerence and apparent paying other students to do her assignments. The now infamous YouTube clip of her shopping certainly cleared a few things up for them--and the world--and she's now been pressed into rehab for possible schizophrenia and bipolar.
It is fortunate that Bynes has the resources to receive help--even if that help is commitment to a hospital. There is no cure, and there probably never will be.
In a period of a few months around 2001-2002, his behavior spun completely out of control. He lost his job, lost his car--and it was impossible to get an explanation out of him as to how exactly he lost his job and car. He cashed in his 401K--to buy more drugs and booze. He became difficult to talk to, even when he was sober. For another decade, he drifted between a meatpacking plant in Nebraska, a cult and group housing. Eventually his father did intercede--enough to get him his own place and a medication schedule that he would both accept and calm him down if not necessarily make him "better."
Now TJ has a home, but he spends his days drinking beer and watching TV. He likes football. He has no chance of getting another job because he is so non-personable. Sometimes he gets so drunk that he shits himself. He has more friends than me.
We were all entertained by Amanda Bynes downfall at first, namely when she announced that she was quitting acting, the one thing that she had clearly excelled out. She had acted her entire life, without exaggeration: She started doing stand-up as a child, before transitioning to the Nick network, then the WB. She did mediocre teen movies that nonetheless made money, and she could've made many more if she wanted to. Her Twitter feed became erratic--with her desire to be vaginally murdered by Drake and her use of "ugly" as catchall to describe anyone whom she didn't like. She pierced her face. (There's no better sign that you don't want to return to acting than piercing your face.) Then it became apparent to those of us who know anything about psychiatry that there was suddenly something wrong with her. Suddenly it became less funny. You didn't need to know her personally or have a psychiatric background to know that there was a mental issue in play here--but I knew long before. She was a "good girl" throughout her youth, then she became acting completely bizarre in her early 20s. (Lindsay Lohan: not crazy.)
In recent months, Bynes' parents had refused to acknowledge their daughter's psychiatric problems--she's doing fine. She's just a brat. She smokes too much weed. Her stint at one of the FIDM recently ended on account of her belligerence and apparent paying other students to do her assignments. The now infamous YouTube clip of her shopping certainly cleared a few things up for them--and the world--and she's now been pressed into rehab for possible schizophrenia and bipolar.
It is fortunate that Bynes has the resources to receive help--even if that help is commitment to a hospital. There is no cure, and there probably never will be.
October 11, 2014
Stephen Collins, Jennifer Lawrence: Caught with their pants down--not together; that would be weird.
We've learned a lot of things from recent leaked this year. Kate Upton is dating down. Apparently Anna Kendrick likes pot and coke. Jennifer Lawrence, however, is the biggest star to have her images leaked to the Internet via a third party--still, the revelations concerning veteran actor Stephen Collins's predilections are actually the most destructive.
Ladies, that part of your body is only meant to be seen by you, Jesus, your husband and America's medical professionals. Lock it down, ladies. Lock it down. There. I fixed sexting. Next controversy! Ebola?
Honestly, I never got the appeal of vaj shots. I always assumed that women were smarter than that. (A giant penis warrants a "da fuck?") Almost 15 years since Pamela Anderson had a sex tape featuring her and ex-husband Tommy Lee stolen from their home, it should be assured that celebrities have learned nothing about filming their private moments. If anything, owing to technology, celebs have gotten worse at capturing their shame for posterity. Benjamin Franklin said that three people can keep a secret if two are dead. Now there's the fuckin' cloud. Try killing a cloud. Go ahead. I'll wait. Get your gun and go outside of your house, then pick a cloud at random, and go shoot that sucker. See?... Oh my God--I hope you didn't just discharge a firearm into the air!
Lawrence's first comments discussing this matter were spot on: Her privacy has been violated. She did not intend for this images to be released to the public. The leakers were disrespectful towards women. As a matter of common sense, we are all entitled to privacy, as consenting adults. Lawrence has a point here, if only via a strawman argument: That Lawrence was publicizing these images--no, no one is claiming that she has been. However, Lawrence produced these images. She transmitted them. She's now trying to distract from her bad decisions by blaming people who had done worst, and I don't approve of that--but, yeah. Other people had done worse in this case than transmitting homemade porn via email to another person.
Lawrence should've stopped speaking there. However, she went on: "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense," Lawrence told Vanity Fair. "You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, 'Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.' I don't want to get mad, but at the same time I'm thinking, I didn't tell you that you could look at my naked body." And on: "It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you."
I'm 99% sure that he looked at both your nudes AND porn, Jennifer. Because it is my understanding that Nic is a dude, and that's how men roll. There's really no well-defined quota to how much nudity that men intend to see. We are never full. Additionally, Hoult probably shared them with numerous male friends. (Sir Ian McKellan looked at them, and he said: "Sweeeet." Exact quote.) Did any boyfriend in Lawrence's past tell her he needed a constant stream of her nude or else he would look at porn or maybe go gay? Was this a ransom situation where a man was threatening to switch teams unless he was provided with a ransom, and Lawrence was forced to pay this ransom by sending in photos of her boobs? Well...was it?
No one needs permission from Jennifer Lawrence to look at images of Jennifer Lawrence. She opened a door, and the breeze came in. She's personally offended that people are looking at images that she created--she crafted a message, then she tried to control the deliverance of a message. Don't be an Anne Hathaway.
Celebrities have long been the first to act as early adapters for new technology--including social networks--while simultaneously refusing to socialize with their legions of fans. For too long, sexy celebs have been living the high life (hey, another Anna Kendrick joke!), exposing themselves to the public thru their celebrity-whoredom but not wanting to own up to it. Some of them are cool with you--to a point--as they put on a façade of self-deprecation. The Fappening took them down a notch. The one thing most shocking, besides the volume of data stolen, was how non-shocking these images are.
In contrast to the hackers, Stephen Collins, has apparently committed sex crimes beyond the digital world. Horrible sex crimes. He allegedly intentionally exposed his genitals to very young girls, and tried to get them to touch him. His career is over. (He knows this, resigning from SAG and slinking away. Consult his attorney.) Unless this is a hoax, we won't be seeing him in mainstream entertainment anymore. Questions remain as to why the police can't find the victims, who are clearly being named in the leaked tapes, and why it took two years for these tapes to be leaked. Why did wife Faye remain married to this creep? His salvation will arrive when these tapes are exposed as a hoax, but this event will not happen. We know this because Collins's message is one of embarrassed defeat.
Over ten years of episodes--down the tube! No, this series has been rendered unwatchable! This is not an exaggeration. Collins was in literally every episode--he was the anchor of the show--and now no one can watch the series without wondering what was going on in the actor's head. What's truly fucked-up is that the series was like a clearinghouse for Millennial-era starlets. Mackenzie Rosman, who was closest to the victims' ages at the time of their alleged molestation, must now search her memories for instances where Collins was inappropriate with her. And, for the love of God, Internet Movie Database, change this photo: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2442042624/tt0115083?ref_=tt_ov_i!
One thing that we can be sure about this scandal: Chris Martin traded up.
Ladies, that part of your body is only meant to be seen by you, Jesus, your husband and America's medical professionals. Lock it down, ladies. Lock it down. There. I fixed sexting. Next controversy! Ebola?
Honestly, I never got the appeal of vaj shots. I always assumed that women were smarter than that. (A giant penis warrants a "da fuck?") Almost 15 years since Pamela Anderson had a sex tape featuring her and ex-husband Tommy Lee stolen from their home, it should be assured that celebrities have learned nothing about filming their private moments. If anything, owing to technology, celebs have gotten worse at capturing their shame for posterity. Benjamin Franklin said that three people can keep a secret if two are dead. Now there's the fuckin' cloud. Try killing a cloud. Go ahead. I'll wait. Get your gun and go outside of your house, then pick a cloud at random, and go shoot that sucker. See?... Oh my God--I hope you didn't just discharge a firearm into the air!
Lawrence's first comments discussing this matter were spot on: Her privacy has been violated. She did not intend for this images to be released to the public. The leakers were disrespectful towards women. As a matter of common sense, we are all entitled to privacy, as consenting adults. Lawrence has a point here, if only via a strawman argument: That Lawrence was publicizing these images--no, no one is claiming that she has been. However, Lawrence produced these images. She transmitted them. She's now trying to distract from her bad decisions by blaming people who had done worst, and I don't approve of that--but, yeah. Other people had done worse in this case than transmitting homemade porn via email to another person.
Lawrence should've stopped speaking there. However, she went on: "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense," Lawrence told Vanity Fair. "You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, 'Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.' I don't want to get mad, but at the same time I'm thinking, I didn't tell you that you could look at my naked body." And on: "It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you."
I'm 99% sure that he looked at both your nudes AND porn, Jennifer. Because it is my understanding that Nic is a dude, and that's how men roll. There's really no well-defined quota to how much nudity that men intend to see. We are never full. Additionally, Hoult probably shared them with numerous male friends. (Sir Ian McKellan looked at them, and he said: "Sweeeet." Exact quote.) Did any boyfriend in Lawrence's past tell her he needed a constant stream of her nude or else he would look at porn or maybe go gay? Was this a ransom situation where a man was threatening to switch teams unless he was provided with a ransom, and Lawrence was forced to pay this ransom by sending in photos of her boobs? Well...was it?
No one needs permission from Jennifer Lawrence to look at images of Jennifer Lawrence. She opened a door, and the breeze came in. She's personally offended that people are looking at images that she created--she crafted a message, then she tried to control the deliverance of a message. Don't be an Anne Hathaway.
Celebrities have long been the first to act as early adapters for new technology--including social networks--while simultaneously refusing to socialize with their legions of fans. For too long, sexy celebs have been living the high life (hey, another Anna Kendrick joke!), exposing themselves to the public thru their celebrity-whoredom but not wanting to own up to it. Some of them are cool with you--to a point--as they put on a façade of self-deprecation. The Fappening took them down a notch. The one thing most shocking, besides the volume of data stolen, was how non-shocking these images are.
In contrast to the hackers, Stephen Collins, has apparently committed sex crimes beyond the digital world. Horrible sex crimes. He allegedly intentionally exposed his genitals to very young girls, and tried to get them to touch him. His career is over. (He knows this, resigning from SAG and slinking away. Consult his attorney.) Unless this is a hoax, we won't be seeing him in mainstream entertainment anymore. Questions remain as to why the police can't find the victims, who are clearly being named in the leaked tapes, and why it took two years for these tapes to be leaked. Why did wife Faye remain married to this creep? His salvation will arrive when these tapes are exposed as a hoax, but this event will not happen. We know this because Collins's message is one of embarrassed defeat.
Over ten years of episodes--down the tube! No, this series has been rendered unwatchable! This is not an exaggeration. Collins was in literally every episode--he was the anchor of the show--and now no one can watch the series without wondering what was going on in the actor's head. What's truly fucked-up is that the series was like a clearinghouse for Millennial-era starlets. Mackenzie Rosman, who was closest to the victims' ages at the time of their alleged molestation, must now search her memories for instances where Collins was inappropriate with her. And, for the love of God, Internet Movie Database, change this photo: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2442042624/tt0115083?ref_=tt_ov_i!
One thing that we can be sure about this scandal: Chris Martin traded up.
October 4, 2014
On Mumia Abu-Jamal, SOG...and waiting for Goddard to not be stupid.
There's a saying in the criminal justice system: SOG (or SOP), which is an acronym for "some other guy." It's a catchall for anytime a defendant claims that he couldn't have committed the crime despite all evidence to the contrary. "I didn't shoot my wife--it was some other guy!"
Mumia's supporters have advanced this series of events: A black man matching Mumia's description but not Mumia entered the scene, after Officer Daniel Faulkner had stopped Mumia's brother in a traffic stop. He shot Faulkner, then he ran away, possibly leaving the gun behind. Somehow, Mumia got shot by Faulkner. Reading the Free Mumia movement's webpages, I am still confused as to how Mumia got accidentally shot.
There's a mental condition where a person believes that a loved one has been replaced by a replicate. It is called Capgras delusion. If possible, this is the case here, where everyone except the witnesses think someone else shot Faulkner, and the witnesses who did not confirm to Mumia's innocence were really witnessing a fake Mumia shooting Faulkner. The witnesses were thus wrong--or being coerced--into claiming the real Mumia murdered Faulkner. But no. It was the fake Mumia.
The police, seeing the downed cop and the wounded black man, decided the black man did the shooting. They proceeded to plant the same model gun (the model, a .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver, which Mumia also coincidentally owned) that the SOG had used, then they slid a shoulder holster on Mumia's body. To insure conviction, they told the witnesses what to say. He was tried by a racist kangaroo court. (It's biggest mistake, however, was probably allowing Mumia to defend himself. He was a political activist, not a lawyer. He delivered long-winded speeches and called character witnesses, but he could not dispute the evidence against him. He wanted to put the system on trial, but no sane judge would allow that; this was his trial.)
Why is Mumia such a cause celeb? Unlike most prisoners--whether white or black, regardless of era--Mumia is a well-spoken and literate man. A man of letters, and educated people can't possibly be "bad," academia teaches us. (Bad people speak incoherently and don't challenge conventional wisdom--wisdom like not inviting probable murderers to give speeches at your college.) The appearance of putting the Panthers or the Black Power movement on trial led to this backlash, even if it was necessary to establish a motive in the case. Philadelphia had notorious racial conflicts in this era, so it's easy to imagine that the judge and jury were trying to set up a heroic black man. Like Rodney King, Mumia came about at a time and place for Babyboomers to adopt him as a symbol of all that's wrong with policing and American racial relations, and the facts become irrelevant. Like all conspiracy theorists, his supporters first made up their minds about what happened, and worked backward to obtain evidence of their interpretation of events. Lack of evidence is evidence.
Mumia could never defend his innocence, so he has long positioned himself as a political prisoner. He is a martyr of American racism. Before he was about to be executed, he was prepared to die for America's sins. Give me a break! Of all the hundreds of thousands of blacks wrongfully convicted in our nation's 228 years, most of their crimes weren't as severe as murder--and most of them were factually innocent.
Mumia's supporters have advanced this series of events: A black man matching Mumia's description but not Mumia entered the scene, after Officer Daniel Faulkner had stopped Mumia's brother in a traffic stop. He shot Faulkner, then he ran away, possibly leaving the gun behind. Somehow, Mumia got shot by Faulkner. Reading the Free Mumia movement's webpages, I am still confused as to how Mumia got accidentally shot.
There's a mental condition where a person believes that a loved one has been replaced by a replicate. It is called Capgras delusion. If possible, this is the case here, where everyone except the witnesses think someone else shot Faulkner, and the witnesses who did not confirm to Mumia's innocence were really witnessing a fake Mumia shooting Faulkner. The witnesses were thus wrong--or being coerced--into claiming the real Mumia murdered Faulkner. But no. It was the fake Mumia.
The police, seeing the downed cop and the wounded black man, decided the black man did the shooting. They proceeded to plant the same model gun (the model, a .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver, which Mumia also coincidentally owned) that the SOG had used, then they slid a shoulder holster on Mumia's body. To insure conviction, they told the witnesses what to say. He was tried by a racist kangaroo court. (It's biggest mistake, however, was probably allowing Mumia to defend himself. He was a political activist, not a lawyer. He delivered long-winded speeches and called character witnesses, but he could not dispute the evidence against him. He wanted to put the system on trial, but no sane judge would allow that; this was his trial.)
Why is Mumia such a cause celeb? Unlike most prisoners--whether white or black, regardless of era--Mumia is a well-spoken and literate man. A man of letters, and educated people can't possibly be "bad," academia teaches us. (Bad people speak incoherently and don't challenge conventional wisdom--wisdom like not inviting probable murderers to give speeches at your college.) The appearance of putting the Panthers or the Black Power movement on trial led to this backlash, even if it was necessary to establish a motive in the case. Philadelphia had notorious racial conflicts in this era, so it's easy to imagine that the judge and jury were trying to set up a heroic black man. Like Rodney King, Mumia came about at a time and place for Babyboomers to adopt him as a symbol of all that's wrong with policing and American racial relations, and the facts become irrelevant. Like all conspiracy theorists, his supporters first made up their minds about what happened, and worked backward to obtain evidence of their interpretation of events. Lack of evidence is evidence.
Mumia could never defend his innocence, so he has long positioned himself as a political prisoner. He is a martyr of American racism. Before he was about to be executed, he was prepared to die for America's sins. Give me a break! Of all the hundreds of thousands of blacks wrongfully convicted in our nation's 228 years, most of their crimes weren't as severe as murder--and most of them were factually innocent.
September 27, 2014
Hey, white folk, stop saying "playing the race card." THAT'S racist too!
I have been reflecting on my own interaction with a cop, several years ago, at a Ralphs Downtown. I was looking around, minding my own business, and a middle-aged white woman in business attire said "hello" to me. Normally people don't say hello to me, so I was immediately confused. She was not particularly attractive, and I had no desire to have intercourse with her. She was not mentally deficient, so I saw no reason to return the greeting. I looked down and noticed that she had a shield on her belt, and I deduced that she was a detective with the LAPD. Here was my moral quandary: Do I smile back?Ultimately I did not smile at her--I did not know her, and I had no desire to know her. Nor did I make any clever pig jokes, which would've been rude. (She was slightly overweight, and it would've worked on several levels.) I maintained my moral principals, and I walked away without comment. I was not under arrest.
The reason for this quandary was not that I hate cops or that I hate white people. My problem was that she had a problem with blacks. She surely did not say "hello" to all the blacks whom she'd encountered, so she immediately characterized me as one of the "good ones," and she should say "hello" to at least one this morning to improve community relations. So, she was racially profiling me by being civil towards me--that's right--and I find racial profiling offensive.
I am not one of the good ones. I am one of the complicated ones. Like 15 million other black men, I live my life in accordance to the way that I have been treated. In turn, I treat all white people as individuals. I do not subdivide whites (or people) in accordance to morality, but on their current behavior towards me, understanding that this behavior might change based on the situation that they are in. We are all driven by our same base needs: foods, pooping and sex (and sometimes we do two of the three things at once, with the adventurous trying all three). In my life, I have encountered white conservatives who have divorced their views from racism (conservatives frequently lack self-awareness, and they associate things as "right" or "wrong" without acknowledging moral relativism) and white liberals who preach tolerance while in reality are massive tools.
I do not listen to rap music. I do not follow sports. I do not call all women "bitches" and "hoes" because I have not met every woman in the world, thus I am not qualified to assess how big of a bitch or how big of a ho every woman might be. I do not use the word "nigger." "Nigger"/"nigga"/"niggah" is exclusively a word for non-blacks to use on blacks... So blacks know whom to punch. This is just an easier way to live life.
Well, the police were just doing their jobs, so many might say. According to Sgt. James Parker, the cop caught on tape calling Watts a liar, they weren't interested in recording this, which further complicates matters. They just wanted her ID. Of course, Watts didn't know this. If they did tell her, it would've sounded like a trick.
Someone, somewhere calls the cops about public sex, then the cops come--maybe days later--then start asking people who it was. The cops didn't see anything. They are just rounding up interracial couples looking for "lewd conduct." (It's like the LAPD does not have history books--they're going o start accusing interracial couples of "lewd conduct." The department might be legally correct but lacking in COMMON SENSE. The appropriate thing was to pretend that nothing happened. They couldn't find the suspects, and there was nothing the police could do about it.) From her perspective, she was just a black woman standing on a street corner, then some cops come by and ask her to identify herself and, oh, they wanted to quiz her about her sex life. From the little I know about women, they do not appreciate being quizzed about their sex lives.
No, Watts probably was not trying to take a principled stand against racial profiling. She was trying to walk away from a situation that risked her embarrassment. (Ninety percent sure that the decision to have car sex was the boyfriend's idea.) She thought "sex offender"--and her career would be over, so as an existential mater, she could not risk TMZ learning that she was busted for car sex. She is not Eddie Murphy. (I'm using Murphy because he was a big celebrity when he was busted giving a ride to a transsexual hooker, not because they're both black. His career survived. He is a man.)
Was this cop doing his job? Probably. He was, about to leave no stone unturned in his investigation of car sex in Los Angeles. You can smell weed coming from open car windows as people drive by you, but Colombo here was going to stop the car sex.
My problem is that the police were doing their jobs, I suppose. They were behaving in a legally correct manner but were not exercising COMMON SENSE. This sergeant was being a dick, accusing her of "playing the race card," which exacerbated her mental anguish. Ignoring racism is perpetuating racism; most white Americans would still like blacks to ignore racism, which is why they've invented "playing the race card." Everyone else seems proud of the way this sergeant handled himself, without commentating on how he made the situation worse. He had a possibly mentally unstable woman, and he was either calling her a nigger or a liar. (I'm guessing he was calling her a liar.) He should've arrested her silently or not arrest her. He chose the most dickish path, and both handcuffed her and didn't complete his duties. Parker was doing the bareass minimum. In doing so, he kicked a hornets nest and wondered where these hornets came from. Finally her boyfriend--yeah, a white guy--broke the standoff and handed the cops her ID. He recognized that it was just easier. Personally, I would've liked to see them actually arrest her. She should've made the cops earn their pay.
The outrage should be the DOUBLE STANDARD. Paris Hilton--who had committed a bunch of crimes--was originally only required to serve TWO DAYS of a 45 DAY JAIL SENTENCE. Why? The jailers though she was "sad," and Hilton was so sad, the compassionate thing to do was to let her out of prison having served less than 5% of her jail time. This was such a glaring example of systematic misconduct that it caused a public outcry and Hilton had to be sent back to jail, which was also an extraordinary move. If Watts had been a cop herself or cop's daughter, she never would've been cuffed. No, she wouldn't have freaked out, because there would be no record of it. The cops knew her, and they wouldn't want to embarrass her by inquiring her about her sex life. The event would've been handled quietly. This is a different kind of police corruption than the "shoot you in the head and steal your drug money" variety.
But, above all, the thesis of this post, is that these cops were dicks.
The reason for this quandary was not that I hate cops or that I hate white people. My problem was that she had a problem with blacks. She surely did not say "hello" to all the blacks whom she'd encountered, so she immediately characterized me as one of the "good ones," and she should say "hello" to at least one this morning to improve community relations. So, she was racially profiling me by being civil towards me--that's right--and I find racial profiling offensive.
I am not one of the good ones. I am one of the complicated ones. Like 15 million other black men, I live my life in accordance to the way that I have been treated. In turn, I treat all white people as individuals. I do not subdivide whites (or people) in accordance to morality, but on their current behavior towards me, understanding that this behavior might change based on the situation that they are in. We are all driven by our same base needs: foods, pooping and sex (and sometimes we do two of the three things at once, with the adventurous trying all three). In my life, I have encountered white conservatives who have divorced their views from racism (conservatives frequently lack self-awareness, and they associate things as "right" or "wrong" without acknowledging moral relativism) and white liberals who preach tolerance while in reality are massive tools.
I do not listen to rap music. I do not follow sports. I do not call all women "bitches" and "hoes" because I have not met every woman in the world, thus I am not qualified to assess how big of a bitch or how big of a ho every woman might be. I do not use the word "nigger." "Nigger"/"nigga"/"niggah" is exclusively a word for non-blacks to use on blacks... So blacks know whom to punch. This is just an easier way to live life.
Well, the police were just doing their jobs, so many might say. According to Sgt. James Parker, the cop caught on tape calling Watts a liar, they weren't interested in recording this, which further complicates matters. They just wanted her ID. Of course, Watts didn't know this. If they did tell her, it would've sounded like a trick.
Someone, somewhere calls the cops about public sex, then the cops come--maybe days later--then start asking people who it was. The cops didn't see anything. They are just rounding up interracial couples looking for "lewd conduct." (It's like the LAPD does not have history books--they're going o start accusing interracial couples of "lewd conduct." The department might be legally correct but lacking in COMMON SENSE. The appropriate thing was to pretend that nothing happened. They couldn't find the suspects, and there was nothing the police could do about it.) From her perspective, she was just a black woman standing on a street corner, then some cops come by and ask her to identify herself and, oh, they wanted to quiz her about her sex life. From the little I know about women, they do not appreciate being quizzed about their sex lives.
No, Watts probably was not trying to take a principled stand against racial profiling. She was trying to walk away from a situation that risked her embarrassment. (Ninety percent sure that the decision to have car sex was the boyfriend's idea.) She thought "sex offender"--and her career would be over, so as an existential mater, she could not risk TMZ learning that she was busted for car sex. She is not Eddie Murphy. (I'm using Murphy because he was a big celebrity when he was busted giving a ride to a transsexual hooker, not because they're both black. His career survived. He is a man.)
Was this cop doing his job? Probably. He was, about to leave no stone unturned in his investigation of car sex in Los Angeles. You can smell weed coming from open car windows as people drive by you, but Colombo here was going to stop the car sex.
My problem is that the police were doing their jobs, I suppose. They were behaving in a legally correct manner but were not exercising COMMON SENSE. This sergeant was being a dick, accusing her of "playing the race card," which exacerbated her mental anguish. Ignoring racism is perpetuating racism; most white Americans would still like blacks to ignore racism, which is why they've invented "playing the race card." Everyone else seems proud of the way this sergeant handled himself, without commentating on how he made the situation worse. He had a possibly mentally unstable woman, and he was either calling her a nigger or a liar. (I'm guessing he was calling her a liar.) He should've arrested her silently or not arrest her. He chose the most dickish path, and both handcuffed her and didn't complete his duties. Parker was doing the bareass minimum. In doing so, he kicked a hornets nest and wondered where these hornets came from. Finally her boyfriend--yeah, a white guy--broke the standoff and handed the cops her ID. He recognized that it was just easier. Personally, I would've liked to see them actually arrest her. She should've made the cops earn their pay.
The outrage should be the DOUBLE STANDARD. Paris Hilton--who had committed a bunch of crimes--was originally only required to serve TWO DAYS of a 45 DAY JAIL SENTENCE. Why? The jailers though she was "sad," and Hilton was so sad, the compassionate thing to do was to let her out of prison having served less than 5% of her jail time. This was such a glaring example of systematic misconduct that it caused a public outcry and Hilton had to be sent back to jail, which was also an extraordinary move. If Watts had been a cop herself or cop's daughter, she never would've been cuffed. No, she wouldn't have freaked out, because there would be no record of it. The cops knew her, and they wouldn't want to embarrass her by inquiring her about her sex life. The event would've been handled quietly. This is a different kind of police corruption than the "shoot you in the head and steal your drug money" variety.
But, above all, the thesis of this post, is that these cops were dicks.
September 13, 2014
Ray Rice--hey, you ladies can change him!
Somewhere Solange Knowles is like "See! It's normally the other way around!" And it is. I'm starting to worry about successful black people fighting in elevators. Is that now going to be their thing? The new Captain America is black, so maybe that fight scene in Captain America 2 is a precursor or foreshadowing.
Feminists have been pushing for Rice's ouster since the YouTube video of him dragging his apparently unconscious fiancée earlier in the year and a lot of people are pointing out how disturbing the NFL's stance on tolerating domestic violence while condemning illegal drug use. What's disturbing is the NFL's long refusal to acknowledge that concussions are bad. (The sports broadcasters narrating the game shouldn't be yelling "Oh, boy, he got his bell rung!" but they should be asking: "Is he still alive?") That the NFL didn't fire Rice immediately--over a video--is not as bad. Marijuana is illegal, and although it clearly has some medicinal value and a person might be drugged or take it unknowingly, people choose to take the marijuana. When people are involved, things become more complicated. Relationships are complicated, and love doesn't necessarily make sense, especially outside the movies. When the victim isn't indicating that she (someday, he) is not a victim, what are we to do? What is the NFL supposed to do when a woman walks into a wall? Are the cops supposed to ignore the woman's wishes and do what the cops want--what would make us, as a society, feel better? The Rices did a lot to cover up the battery--as did, apparently, the courts and the league.
I do think it is safe to say that the NFL's stance on domestic violence is zero. However, there is and should be evidentiary issues when making a claim of domestic violence, and ending a man's career on a lie is always a plausibility. Having studied the media all these years, I have realized that not everything is as it appears. A picture says a thousands words, but it is up to the viewer to decode them. Janay might've been injured after he beat her or she might've been drunk or they both might've been drunk or she might've been dead this entire time--we do not know.
It turns out he totally decked her. She was lashing out at him, then he totally dropped that chick like McLovin in Superbad. That slug was nasty and excessive for the amount of energy the attacker had expunged on him. Really, he's the Israel of people. NOW we know what happened (or at least have a better idea)--why he was dragging her out of the elevator--and the question should be how much the NFL can enhance its previous two game suspension, for now he has truly embarrassed the league. A damn elevator cam stripped away their plausible deniability. Hey, maybe someone should've checked that cam when the first footage was exposed?
This leads us to why Janay doesn't just leave him. The first reason is the psycho-mumbo-jumbo that abused women have been brainwashed into believing that they can't leave their abuser, that their marital bonds are physical in nature--and that is a realistic interpretation of the situation. However, I think the more practical explanation is that Janay Rice enjoys being a football wife. The wives are her friends, and it is a world that will be denied to her if she doesn't stand by her man--she is not so much fighting for her husband's life but for her own. (So nothing happened in the elevator.)
The flipside is that Rice will never be able to find work as lucrative as an NFL player; he probably has limited job skills and Janay probably isn't independently wealthy. His wife and daughter will have less--the family's financial outlook is about to take a hit. (Oh, you see what I did?)The feminist fantasy is that Janel will leave her abusive husband and sue him, taking everything he has. But he has nothing now--thanks to the feminists. Ultimately feminists have made this into a gender issue; they are exploiting the situation for the noble goal of lowering the level of spousal abuse in this country. (White people could use this to show how violent blacks are; communists could show the violence of the upperclasses.... Etc.) The "big picture" is that now the NFL will take domestic violence more seriously. The commentators have found a solution, I suppose.
People tend to destroy themselves. YouTube just facilitates it. Ultimately there is no sadder commentary than that.
Feminists have been pushing for Rice's ouster since the YouTube video of him dragging his apparently unconscious fiancée earlier in the year and a lot of people are pointing out how disturbing the NFL's stance on tolerating domestic violence while condemning illegal drug use. What's disturbing is the NFL's long refusal to acknowledge that concussions are bad. (The sports broadcasters narrating the game shouldn't be yelling "Oh, boy, he got his bell rung!" but they should be asking: "Is he still alive?") That the NFL didn't fire Rice immediately--over a video--is not as bad. Marijuana is illegal, and although it clearly has some medicinal value and a person might be drugged or take it unknowingly, people choose to take the marijuana. When people are involved, things become more complicated. Relationships are complicated, and love doesn't necessarily make sense, especially outside the movies. When the victim isn't indicating that she (someday, he) is not a victim, what are we to do? What is the NFL supposed to do when a woman walks into a wall? Are the cops supposed to ignore the woman's wishes and do what the cops want--what would make us, as a society, feel better? The Rices did a lot to cover up the battery--as did, apparently, the courts and the league.
I do think it is safe to say that the NFL's stance on domestic violence is zero. However, there is and should be evidentiary issues when making a claim of domestic violence, and ending a man's career on a lie is always a plausibility. Having studied the media all these years, I have realized that not everything is as it appears. A picture says a thousands words, but it is up to the viewer to decode them. Janay might've been injured after he beat her or she might've been drunk or they both might've been drunk or she might've been dead this entire time--we do not know.
It turns out he totally decked her. She was lashing out at him, then he totally dropped that chick like McLovin in Superbad. That slug was nasty and excessive for the amount of energy the attacker had expunged on him. Really, he's the Israel of people. NOW we know what happened (or at least have a better idea)--why he was dragging her out of the elevator--and the question should be how much the NFL can enhance its previous two game suspension, for now he has truly embarrassed the league. A damn elevator cam stripped away their plausible deniability. Hey, maybe someone should've checked that cam when the first footage was exposed?
This leads us to why Janay doesn't just leave him. The first reason is the psycho-mumbo-jumbo that abused women have been brainwashed into believing that they can't leave their abuser, that their marital bonds are physical in nature--and that is a realistic interpretation of the situation. However, I think the more practical explanation is that Janay Rice enjoys being a football wife. The wives are her friends, and it is a world that will be denied to her if she doesn't stand by her man--she is not so much fighting for her husband's life but for her own. (So nothing happened in the elevator.)
The flipside is that Rice will never be able to find work as lucrative as an NFL player; he probably has limited job skills and Janay probably isn't independently wealthy. His wife and daughter will have less--the family's financial outlook is about to take a hit. (Oh, you see what I did?)The feminist fantasy is that Janel will leave her abusive husband and sue him, taking everything he has. But he has nothing now--thanks to the feminists. Ultimately feminists have made this into a gender issue; they are exploiting the situation for the noble goal of lowering the level of spousal abuse in this country. (White people could use this to show how violent blacks are; communists could show the violence of the upperclasses.... Etc.) The "big picture" is that now the NFL will take domestic violence more seriously. The commentators have found a solution, I suppose.
People tend to destroy themselves. YouTube just facilitates it. Ultimately there is no sadder commentary than that.
September 6, 2014
HAVE YOU HEARD THE NEWS!?!
Yep, there's a bunch of leaked nekkid photos of celebrities online, so this will be a brief post. That is all.
