The shooting death of John T. Williams, a Native American and part-time wood carver and full-time inebriate, by a Seattle police officer was merely the most egregious lethal event of that particularly weekend. It was still a week before Labor Day, and the police were already busy having holiday “fun.” Williams was just one of five people killed by police within a few days. In the case of the near-deaf Williams, he was clearly a no threat to anyone (let alone the officer) but Ian Birk, a 2-year “veteran” looking for “action,” decided on his own to create a “Dirty Harry” movie with a Native American who was walking past his patrol car holding a piece of wood and a three-inch knife. Birk’s inability to adequately “size-up” the situation points to poor training and lack of cultural awareness; the culture that allows police shoot to kill first and think later needs to be addressed, but that will never happen so long as police internal investigations are white-washing farces and all-white inquest juries find police who kill even unarmed people “justified.” In any event, while police who are killed in the line-of-fire are in fact rare occurrences but get plenty of media coverage; I read a story in a Chicago publication that of 84 deaths by police fire over the past decade, only one made the front page of the Tribune and Sun-Times. A google search for the number of people killed by Seattle police in 2009 only turned-up recent stories about the police killed in two separate incidents in Lakewood and Seattle.
Two of the other four people killed two weeks ago were tasered to death. One was an unarmed man who allegedly was running up and down the street, causing a “disturbance.” The 5-foot-6, 125-lbs man allegedly “wrestled” two police officers to the ground before being tasered, causing his heart to stop. Death-by-taser seems to be an ever increasing affair; an Amnesty International report stated that between June 2001 and August 2008, there had been 351 reported death by taser, and another report found that in the first six months of 2009, there were 96 deaths by taser. Amnesty noted that the manufacturer of the taser has purposely limited or doctored medical studies on their effect, so no one really knows their actual effect on bodily organs or what a “safe” shock is. Whether-or-not Amnesty’s suggestion that police departments ban the use of tasers or limit their use to otherwise “lethal” encounters will decrease the number of deaths by police is admittedly problematic, however; it will merely give police what in their minds are fewer “choices” in their reaction to confrontations that all too often are exacerbated by their own actions—meaning even more deaths.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A superhero I can believe in
Robert Rodriguez’s current film, “Machete,” is clearly meant to be an antidote to the current anti-Mexican political rhetoric and anti-immigrant hysteria. Anyone who looks “Mexican” is fair game to bigots and racists, and against these evil forces even the right to self-defense—orally or otherwise—is denied. Thus “Machete” serves as a long overdue Mexican-American revenge fantasy, with Danny Trejo looking every bit the part of a gringo’s stereotypical nightmare. Unlike “The Expendables,” where Sylvester Stallone and his right-wing friends go to some unnamed Latin American country and serve out right-wing mayhem depopulating yet another non-Caucasian country, Rodriguez’s film turns the tables on the bigots, with comic book violence and with a discernable political and social subtext.
All the evil-doers of the present time are present: Robert De Niro plays the Tom Tancredo/Russell Pearce politician using his hatred of Latinos to stir-up more hate; Jeff Fahey plays a businessman who sees profit in the anti-Mexican hysteria; Don Johnson is the racist border patrol agent who gets his jollies killing anyone he sees crossing over, even children; and Steven Seagal as a crime lord with whom Trejo’s Machete has a special score to settle with. Machete is a former member of the Mexican federal police with a reputation for just mayhem, but who winds-up as a day laborer in Arizona. The businessman, looking for a particular “type” of laborer, picks-up Machete and offers him a job he can’t refuse, for monetary and ethical reasons. It turns out that it is all a set-up: Machete is supposed to assassinate the politician, except that he is the one who is to be killed as the Mexican “terrorist” to be used as a prop to further advance the politician’s mission of race hate. Machete manages to escape detention, and decides that since he is taking-out the people who set him up, he might as well take care of the rest of the racists and bigots, with the help of a priest, an ICE agent and a immigrant-rights revolutionary—and an army of the targeted oppressed and the like.
This is over-the-top, exploitation business, but it does feel good—unless, of course, you are one of the bad guys and girls who treat “Mexicans” like vermin and garbage. And there is the possibility of truth to the set-up; no one knows who killed the Arizona rancher whose death was used to incite support for the Arizona immigration law, although it was recently reported that the killer is likely an American. The rancher was known to be sympathetic to border crossers; for all anyone knows, he was killed by a person or persons who wanted his death to be blamed on illegal immigrants for the purpose of providing political cover for a law patently based on racial profiling.
The film has received mostly positive reviews. An exception is Karina Longworth of the Village Voice, but then again she also mercilessly trashed Oliver Stone’s “South of the Border,” so she may merely be allowing her anti-Latino bias to cloud her judgment; it’s not a good sign when a reviewer slobbers over (white) women’s films and pukes on minority films. Meanwhile, the anti-Mexican agitators are busy stirring-up paranoia about the film inciting a “race war” targeting whites, which is of course BS, but it is useful for people to note that "If you're going to hire Machete to kill the bad guy, you better make damn sure the bad guy isn't you!" Or as the original fake trailer pronounced, "They f--d with the wrong Mexican."
All the evil-doers of the present time are present: Robert De Niro plays the Tom Tancredo/Russell Pearce politician using his hatred of Latinos to stir-up more hate; Jeff Fahey plays a businessman who sees profit in the anti-Mexican hysteria; Don Johnson is the racist border patrol agent who gets his jollies killing anyone he sees crossing over, even children; and Steven Seagal as a crime lord with whom Trejo’s Machete has a special score to settle with. Machete is a former member of the Mexican federal police with a reputation for just mayhem, but who winds-up as a day laborer in Arizona. The businessman, looking for a particular “type” of laborer, picks-up Machete and offers him a job he can’t refuse, for monetary and ethical reasons. It turns out that it is all a set-up: Machete is supposed to assassinate the politician, except that he is the one who is to be killed as the Mexican “terrorist” to be used as a prop to further advance the politician’s mission of race hate. Machete manages to escape detention, and decides that since he is taking-out the people who set him up, he might as well take care of the rest of the racists and bigots, with the help of a priest, an ICE agent and a immigrant-rights revolutionary—and an army of the targeted oppressed and the like.
This is over-the-top, exploitation business, but it does feel good—unless, of course, you are one of the bad guys and girls who treat “Mexicans” like vermin and garbage. And there is the possibility of truth to the set-up; no one knows who killed the Arizona rancher whose death was used to incite support for the Arizona immigration law, although it was recently reported that the killer is likely an American. The rancher was known to be sympathetic to border crossers; for all anyone knows, he was killed by a person or persons who wanted his death to be blamed on illegal immigrants for the purpose of providing political cover for a law patently based on racial profiling.
The film has received mostly positive reviews. An exception is Karina Longworth of the Village Voice, but then again she also mercilessly trashed Oliver Stone’s “South of the Border,” so she may merely be allowing her anti-Latino bias to cloud her judgment; it’s not a good sign when a reviewer slobbers over (white) women’s films and pukes on minority films. Meanwhile, the anti-Mexican agitators are busy stirring-up paranoia about the film inciting a “race war” targeting whites, which is of course BS, but it is useful for people to note that "If you're going to hire Machete to kill the bad guy, you better make damn sure the bad guy isn't you!" Or as the original fake trailer pronounced, "They f--d with the wrong Mexican."
The WNBA is calling all die hard fans who aren't dead yet
Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with the acronym “WNBA,” it stands for Women’s National Basketball Association, or something like that. In order to drum-up interest in the play-offs, ESPN is using the catch phrase “Giving Everything They’ve Got,’ I think. I don’t know if whatever that is will be enough to lure viewers in, although the most current stats show that television viewership for the play-offs is about the same as the regular season—that is to say anemic, averaging about 260,000 per nationally televised game. This is about 60 percent of last year’s figure, but in line with previous years. Attendance this year is also at record lows, even given the fact that announced attendance rarely jibes with the actual attendance. It is easy enough to blame the economy, but the reality is that the product the WNBA offers is, well, boring.
Don’t take my word for it. Natalie England of the San Antonio Express-News recently opined that “The pace of a typical WNBA game goes like this: shot-miss-rebound-turnover-miss-rebound-foul-free throws. Furthering the boredom is that most teams still average in the 70s, although the switch to the 24-second shot clock this season did quicken the pace somewhat.” That is to say, it is lacking in the aesthetic department.
Women’s basketball is boring as all beat; I mean, who wants to risk involuntary suicide consuming a whole bottle of aspirin to get over the headache-inducing play? How bad can it get when the only notable thing you can remember is when Brittney Griner of Baylor deposited a roundhouse right flush in the nose of Texas Tech’s Jordan Barncastle last spring—in a college game? Worse, those baggy outfits don’t do a thing for me. Why don’t they wear something more form-fitting? Why do you think women’s tennis is more popular than men’s tennis? I’d even prefer to watch an LPGA tournament over a Tigerless PGA event.
The Seattle Storm are the only team with a winning record in their conference this year, and appear to be the favorite to “win it all”—whatever that means. The Seattle Times has done its level best to pump-up the team, to no avail. Outside the play-by-play announcer and a female radio host who played basketball, the local sports DJs can’t disguise their disinterest when they are not openly disdainful. But my own disinterest is not merely due to the level of play, but the fact that, at least in Seattle, the team is being “sold” on the “appeal” of two white players, Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird; the nature of that “appeal” is something I will leave on the table, although it might be pointed out that during the 2004 Olympics, Jackson appeared with numerous other Australian Olympians in the raw in an “art” magazine.
They are also white, in a city that allowed its NBA franchise to be moved to Oklahoma City; on sports radio talk shows, many “fans” had plainly negative feelings about the black “culture” in the NBA, and couldn’t care less if there was a team in town or not (the fact that Seattle is not exactly a sports town does nothing to help the Storm’s viability). Recently, I saw a photograph of the Storm team after a game: five players, two white, three black; Jackson and Bird were eying each other as if they were lovers, while the black players were conversing amongst themselves. Now, Jackson is from Australia, a place where Aborigines are referred to by the “n-word.” Bird played for Connecticut in college, which was until recently a depository for white and European players. Although I never paid much attention to the University of Tennessee women’s basketball program while I attended school there, I can say that since then I always root for them to take-out Connecticut in the tournament, because unlike most women’s basketball coaches, Pat Summit isn’t afraid to recruit black players in “bad” neighborhoods, even if they are superior athletes. I wouldn’t know if there is, precisely, racial animosity in women’s basketball, but it is a sure bet that that the “competition” level goes beyond team. In the 2008 Olympics, the starters on the women’s basketball team that trounced the opposition were all-black, with Bird a bench player and Jackson on her all-white national team that placed in the Toilet Bowl.
I mention earlier the incident between Griner and Barncastle. After a foul had been called, Barncastle, a blond-haired white player, deliberately, and for no apparent justification other than her defense being third-rate, grabbed Griner, who is black, by the arm and literally swung her around and let her “fly.” The AP story claimed that they “were battling for position near the lane before Barncastle spun around and sent Griner lunging toward the baseline.” But the actual video flatly contradicted this version of the incident. It was a “punk” move, and as she strolled away with a punk’s haughtiness, one could read in Griner’s face indignation at this high-horse arrogance.
Does it seem I actually “care” more than I let on? Not at all. It’s just that it seems politics has more to do with the game than the actual play.
Don’t take my word for it. Natalie England of the San Antonio Express-News recently opined that “The pace of a typical WNBA game goes like this: shot-miss-rebound-turnover-miss-rebound-foul-free throws. Furthering the boredom is that most teams still average in the 70s, although the switch to the 24-second shot clock this season did quicken the pace somewhat.” That is to say, it is lacking in the aesthetic department.
Women’s basketball is boring as all beat; I mean, who wants to risk involuntary suicide consuming a whole bottle of aspirin to get over the headache-inducing play? How bad can it get when the only notable thing you can remember is when Brittney Griner of Baylor deposited a roundhouse right flush in the nose of Texas Tech’s Jordan Barncastle last spring—in a college game? Worse, those baggy outfits don’t do a thing for me. Why don’t they wear something more form-fitting? Why do you think women’s tennis is more popular than men’s tennis? I’d even prefer to watch an LPGA tournament over a Tigerless PGA event.
The Seattle Storm are the only team with a winning record in their conference this year, and appear to be the favorite to “win it all”—whatever that means. The Seattle Times has done its level best to pump-up the team, to no avail. Outside the play-by-play announcer and a female radio host who played basketball, the local sports DJs can’t disguise their disinterest when they are not openly disdainful. But my own disinterest is not merely due to the level of play, but the fact that, at least in Seattle, the team is being “sold” on the “appeal” of two white players, Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird; the nature of that “appeal” is something I will leave on the table, although it might be pointed out that during the 2004 Olympics, Jackson appeared with numerous other Australian Olympians in the raw in an “art” magazine.
They are also white, in a city that allowed its NBA franchise to be moved to Oklahoma City; on sports radio talk shows, many “fans” had plainly negative feelings about the black “culture” in the NBA, and couldn’t care less if there was a team in town or not (the fact that Seattle is not exactly a sports town does nothing to help the Storm’s viability). Recently, I saw a photograph of the Storm team after a game: five players, two white, three black; Jackson and Bird were eying each other as if they were lovers, while the black players were conversing amongst themselves. Now, Jackson is from Australia, a place where Aborigines are referred to by the “n-word.” Bird played for Connecticut in college, which was until recently a depository for white and European players. Although I never paid much attention to the University of Tennessee women’s basketball program while I attended school there, I can say that since then I always root for them to take-out Connecticut in the tournament, because unlike most women’s basketball coaches, Pat Summit isn’t afraid to recruit black players in “bad” neighborhoods, even if they are superior athletes. I wouldn’t know if there is, precisely, racial animosity in women’s basketball, but it is a sure bet that that the “competition” level goes beyond team. In the 2008 Olympics, the starters on the women’s basketball team that trounced the opposition were all-black, with Bird a bench player and Jackson on her all-white national team that placed in the Toilet Bowl.
I mention earlier the incident between Griner and Barncastle. After a foul had been called, Barncastle, a blond-haired white player, deliberately, and for no apparent justification other than her defense being third-rate, grabbed Griner, who is black, by the arm and literally swung her around and let her “fly.” The AP story claimed that they “were battling for position near the lane before Barncastle spun around and sent Griner lunging toward the baseline.” But the actual video flatly contradicted this version of the incident. It was a “punk” move, and as she strolled away with a punk’s haughtiness, one could read in Griner’s face indignation at this high-horse arrogance.
Does it seem I actually “care” more than I let on? Not at all. It’s just that it seems politics has more to do with the game than the actual play.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
How we forget
If you did not know who Sarah Palin was, and you had to sit through one of her speeches, you might think to yourself “What a smarmy, arrogant, sarcastic, self-involved bore.” This person speaks in simple-minded clichés and inflammatory stereotypes that are essentially meaningless by themselves, but appeal to the reptilian portion of the brain. I recall seeing a photograph of Palin giving an interview while governor. The sofa she was sitting on was adorned with a skinned bear, head and all. On the coffee table was a King Crab. Were these props, or toys? Those things might have been “cool” when you were a kid, but there comes a time when you put away childish things. And Palin has shown time and time again that she hasn’t the personality or maturity to put away her juvenile mean-spiritedness. It is as if she is still in high school, playing “Sarah Barracuda.”
CNN’s—and that of the mainstream media in general—effort to puff-up Sarah Palin into some kind of political powerhouse reached new lows recently with Joe Miller’s surprising showing in Alaska’s senate Republican primary (but then again, Alaskans also found Palin acceptable), her tweet responding to criticism from a union official by blaming Obama for the state of the economy, and defense of Laura Schlessinger’s use of the “N-word.” I understand the “need” by some to find a woman to be an influential “player” on the national stage. But Palin? Palin reminds me of Paris Hilton—famous for being “famous” due solely from subjective media exposure, not for any particularly significant thing she has ever done. But then again, I’m probably doing a disservice to Hilton, since if she is dangerous, it is only to herself, not the country. Thanks to John McCain, the unknown Palin turned from a cynical political prop to overnight media sensation--albeit an empty skirt.
The Palin profile in the latest edition of Vanity Fair--which characterizes her as often violent and emotionally unhinged when crossed and out of public view--is not unexpectedly being called a "hit piece" by the right and "sexist" by feminists. The real crime here, of course, is that the piece exposed the part of Palin that we suspected existed but many did not wish to be confronted with. What's the point, they might ask. Nobody is seriously considering voting for Palin as president--are they? But the reality of Palin speaks for itself, even if CNN continues to do her publicity work rather than reporting the truth.
Truthful reporting would, for instance, include the question of why would anyone entrust Palin with anything, let alone the country? She lied about the reason why she decided to bail on her governor’s position, which she referred to as her “last few months,” when in fact she was barely half-way through her term. While other governors were battling their budget crisis in this unstable economy, Palin simply walked away. The reality was that Palin and her husband owed a half-million dollars in legal expenses—and more, from Troopergate and other as yet unreported revelations of corruption; hell, Rod Blagojevich has more balls (euphemistically, of course) than Palin. There is no doubt that being governor bored her, with all that studying and reading and working with people and all, and the prospect of a lucrative speaking tour funded by wealthy right-wing donors keeping her in the spotlight she allegedly doesn’t crave, was all right too. And maybe there is the issue of competence; with Alaska was gushing with oil revenue, governing was easy because there was so much money to play around with that every citizen of the state received a dividend from the state oil fund (instead of being used for public education, for which Palin had refused stimulus money for). With the spotlight on Palin, her actual aptitude would have been under greater scrutiny had she remained in office.
Palin, for all the rope she has been given by the slovenly media to prove herself a viable quantity, has demonstrated that she can’t be trusted to go the distance. I think that “Sarah Barracuda” is what she has always been: an individual who has a pathological lust for power for its own sake, and will tread on anyone who is in her way to get it. She is also someone who has an uncanny ability to incite a mob mentality with over-the-top “populist” rhetoric that appeals to the darkest instincts of human nature. Yet when she was required to be a leader, she abandoned the field like a coward—which makes her announcement on the eve of the Fourth of July seem just that more incomprehensible. For her own sake and ours, she should bail-out of politics altogether. As for the Republicans, if they see Palin as their future, be afraid—be very afraid, or at least they should.
How people have forgotten about many gaffes that reveal the real Palin. As Troopergate demonstrated, this is an individual prone to abuse power for petty personal interest. As her attacks on Obama during the campaign indicated, she is not “above” using racism, fear and paranoia to “advance” her agenda. As her book demonstrates, she is not “above” engaging in dishonest personal attacks, refusing to take personal responsibility, and being incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. One reviewer of her book noted that she seemed incapable of “introspection,” meaning the inability to rationalize her beliefs, or reflect on her own errors of judgment and correct them (like, say, George Bush); she prefers to blame others for her mistakes and shortcomings. Perhaps because Alaska is so backward and isolated from civilization, only there could someone like Palin advance from a mayor’s office that resembled a “Louisiana bait shop” to the governor’s “mansion” by stepping on numerous toes, making more enemies in her own party than the opposition, and fooling a lot of people.
Some people remember the Couric interview, but there was, of course, much more. After a 2007 interview with a Pittsburgh radio station, Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros called Palin the Republican’s “beacon of light.” He stated that she was “pragmatic” and “principled,” and was “the brightest light in the land of the midnight sun.” He went to say that Palin regarded the Constitution as her “Bible for governing.” The amusing part of this report was that Vassilaros was not jesting. During the interview Palin’s response to the repeated question if she was planning to run for president was giggling, laughing nervously, behaving as if a 10-year-old being asked if she has a crush on some boy. She never said yes, but she didn’t say no, either. Vassilaros called it “self-deprecation”; it sounded to me more like an embarrassing lack of self-discipline, forthrightness and firmness.
However, radio jockeys in Florida did peg Palin correctly when they exposed her massive ego and lack of common sense when the “President of France”—actually a Canadian prankster—called in to engage in small chit-chat—the ridiculousness of which Palin utterly failed to catch-on to; she actually believed that the “President of France” would call her on some small-time radio show with a less-than-serious news format.
On the campaign trail, in between the annoying, rude speech mannerisms in the same vein as the gut-churning spectacle of other white people trashing a black man in a demonizing and dehumanizing manner, Palin spoke as if she wasn’t aware of media revelations that called into question her “maverick” status. She talked about battling the “good old boys” and ethics reform, yet she was being investigated over unethical actions in the “good old boy” vein in the firing of the public safety commissioner, who had the temerity to not to fire her sister’s ex-husband. She then claimed she stood up to oil companies, yet neglected to mention she is sought to weaken the Endangered Species Act to facilitate drilling in ANWR. More outrageously, she claimed to oppose earmarks, yet media reports say she repeatedly sought–and received–them.
Another reality Palin’s “fans” seem to like about her is that like Dick Cheney, Palin really is a rogue operator who believes she is above the law and even her own self-proclaimed “ethics”–especially given her limited “knowledge” of the Constitution. During the vice presidential “debate,” Joe Biden had to correct her belief that the Constitution didn’t apply to her. One might recall as well during that so-called “debate” the moderator tossed out cream puff questions (abortion wasn’t even mentioned) that were easy for Palin to digest, but at least Biden respected the debate format; his opponent behaved as if this was a campaign speech, interrupted occasionally by someone else talking. Palin’s arrogance (and perhaps a tacit confession of incompetence) was on full display when she announced she wasn’t going to answer questions “the way you want me to.” This apparently happened quite frequently, considering the shallowness of her responses throughout when she wasn’t completely off topic. This “maverick,” “agent of change” and “Washington outsider” repeated the same “folksy” clichés, right-wing talking points and fear propaganda we had been force-fed by the Bush administration for eight years.
It is also interesting to note that while Palin felt she had an “obligation” to denounce “radical” black preacher Jeremiah Wright and “expose” the “full extent” of his influence over Obama to frightened white people, the media paid little attention to Palin’s “anointment” by a Kenyan preacher named Thomas Muthee as the future governor of Alaska. Muthee was known as a “witch-hunter” in Kenya, accusing at least one woman of being a “witch,” her possession by the devil causing a car accident. References to Muthee’s “witch-hunting” expertise could be found on the website of Palin’s church, until it was removed after she announced that she was running for governor. Is this the “godly” woman Palin’s “fans” are referring to?
Is this what Palin’s Tea Party “fans” see in themselves? Is this the “future” we want?
CNN’s—and that of the mainstream media in general—effort to puff-up Sarah Palin into some kind of political powerhouse reached new lows recently with Joe Miller’s surprising showing in Alaska’s senate Republican primary (but then again, Alaskans also found Palin acceptable), her tweet responding to criticism from a union official by blaming Obama for the state of the economy, and defense of Laura Schlessinger’s use of the “N-word.” I understand the “need” by some to find a woman to be an influential “player” on the national stage. But Palin? Palin reminds me of Paris Hilton—famous for being “famous” due solely from subjective media exposure, not for any particularly significant thing she has ever done. But then again, I’m probably doing a disservice to Hilton, since if she is dangerous, it is only to herself, not the country. Thanks to John McCain, the unknown Palin turned from a cynical political prop to overnight media sensation--albeit an empty skirt.
The Palin profile in the latest edition of Vanity Fair--which characterizes her as often violent and emotionally unhinged when crossed and out of public view--is not unexpectedly being called a "hit piece" by the right and "sexist" by feminists. The real crime here, of course, is that the piece exposed the part of Palin that we suspected existed but many did not wish to be confronted with. What's the point, they might ask. Nobody is seriously considering voting for Palin as president--are they? But the reality of Palin speaks for itself, even if CNN continues to do her publicity work rather than reporting the truth.
Truthful reporting would, for instance, include the question of why would anyone entrust Palin with anything, let alone the country? She lied about the reason why she decided to bail on her governor’s position, which she referred to as her “last few months,” when in fact she was barely half-way through her term. While other governors were battling their budget crisis in this unstable economy, Palin simply walked away. The reality was that Palin and her husband owed a half-million dollars in legal expenses—and more, from Troopergate and other as yet unreported revelations of corruption; hell, Rod Blagojevich has more balls (euphemistically, of course) than Palin. There is no doubt that being governor bored her, with all that studying and reading and working with people and all, and the prospect of a lucrative speaking tour funded by wealthy right-wing donors keeping her in the spotlight she allegedly doesn’t crave, was all right too. And maybe there is the issue of competence; with Alaska was gushing with oil revenue, governing was easy because there was so much money to play around with that every citizen of the state received a dividend from the state oil fund (instead of being used for public education, for which Palin had refused stimulus money for). With the spotlight on Palin, her actual aptitude would have been under greater scrutiny had she remained in office.
Palin, for all the rope she has been given by the slovenly media to prove herself a viable quantity, has demonstrated that she can’t be trusted to go the distance. I think that “Sarah Barracuda” is what she has always been: an individual who has a pathological lust for power for its own sake, and will tread on anyone who is in her way to get it. She is also someone who has an uncanny ability to incite a mob mentality with over-the-top “populist” rhetoric that appeals to the darkest instincts of human nature. Yet when she was required to be a leader, she abandoned the field like a coward—which makes her announcement on the eve of the Fourth of July seem just that more incomprehensible. For her own sake and ours, she should bail-out of politics altogether. As for the Republicans, if they see Palin as their future, be afraid—be very afraid, or at least they should.
How people have forgotten about many gaffes that reveal the real Palin. As Troopergate demonstrated, this is an individual prone to abuse power for petty personal interest. As her attacks on Obama during the campaign indicated, she is not “above” using racism, fear and paranoia to “advance” her agenda. As her book demonstrates, she is not “above” engaging in dishonest personal attacks, refusing to take personal responsibility, and being incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. One reviewer of her book noted that she seemed incapable of “introspection,” meaning the inability to rationalize her beliefs, or reflect on her own errors of judgment and correct them (like, say, George Bush); she prefers to blame others for her mistakes and shortcomings. Perhaps because Alaska is so backward and isolated from civilization, only there could someone like Palin advance from a mayor’s office that resembled a “Louisiana bait shop” to the governor’s “mansion” by stepping on numerous toes, making more enemies in her own party than the opposition, and fooling a lot of people.
Some people remember the Couric interview, but there was, of course, much more. After a 2007 interview with a Pittsburgh radio station, Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros called Palin the Republican’s “beacon of light.” He stated that she was “pragmatic” and “principled,” and was “the brightest light in the land of the midnight sun.” He went to say that Palin regarded the Constitution as her “Bible for governing.” The amusing part of this report was that Vassilaros was not jesting. During the interview Palin’s response to the repeated question if she was planning to run for president was giggling, laughing nervously, behaving as if a 10-year-old being asked if she has a crush on some boy. She never said yes, but she didn’t say no, either. Vassilaros called it “self-deprecation”; it sounded to me more like an embarrassing lack of self-discipline, forthrightness and firmness.
However, radio jockeys in Florida did peg Palin correctly when they exposed her massive ego and lack of common sense when the “President of France”—actually a Canadian prankster—called in to engage in small chit-chat—the ridiculousness of which Palin utterly failed to catch-on to; she actually believed that the “President of France” would call her on some small-time radio show with a less-than-serious news format.
On the campaign trail, in between the annoying, rude speech mannerisms in the same vein as the gut-churning spectacle of other white people trashing a black man in a demonizing and dehumanizing manner, Palin spoke as if she wasn’t aware of media revelations that called into question her “maverick” status. She talked about battling the “good old boys” and ethics reform, yet she was being investigated over unethical actions in the “good old boy” vein in the firing of the public safety commissioner, who had the temerity to not to fire her sister’s ex-husband. She then claimed she stood up to oil companies, yet neglected to mention she is sought to weaken the Endangered Species Act to facilitate drilling in ANWR. More outrageously, she claimed to oppose earmarks, yet media reports say she repeatedly sought–and received–them.
Another reality Palin’s “fans” seem to like about her is that like Dick Cheney, Palin really is a rogue operator who believes she is above the law and even her own self-proclaimed “ethics”–especially given her limited “knowledge” of the Constitution. During the vice presidential “debate,” Joe Biden had to correct her belief that the Constitution didn’t apply to her. One might recall as well during that so-called “debate” the moderator tossed out cream puff questions (abortion wasn’t even mentioned) that were easy for Palin to digest, but at least Biden respected the debate format; his opponent behaved as if this was a campaign speech, interrupted occasionally by someone else talking. Palin’s arrogance (and perhaps a tacit confession of incompetence) was on full display when she announced she wasn’t going to answer questions “the way you want me to.” This apparently happened quite frequently, considering the shallowness of her responses throughout when she wasn’t completely off topic. This “maverick,” “agent of change” and “Washington outsider” repeated the same “folksy” clichés, right-wing talking points and fear propaganda we had been force-fed by the Bush administration for eight years.
It is also interesting to note that while Palin felt she had an “obligation” to denounce “radical” black preacher Jeremiah Wright and “expose” the “full extent” of his influence over Obama to frightened white people, the media paid little attention to Palin’s “anointment” by a Kenyan preacher named Thomas Muthee as the future governor of Alaska. Muthee was known as a “witch-hunter” in Kenya, accusing at least one woman of being a “witch,” her possession by the devil causing a car accident. References to Muthee’s “witch-hunting” expertise could be found on the website of Palin’s church, until it was removed after she announced that she was running for governor. Is this the “godly” woman Palin’s “fans” are referring to?
Is this what Palin’s Tea Party “fans” see in themselves? Is this the “future” we want?
Police Report II
It has just been reported that, not unexpectedly, the Seattle police officer who used racially-charged language and kicked a prone native of Mexico in the head—before discovering that he wasn’t a “suspect”—will not be charged by county prosecutors for malicious harassment. The officer, Shandy Cobane, supposedly “did not intentionally target or threaten the man because of his race or national origin.” The victim was seen on video moving his hand toward his face when Cobane, allegedly intending to kick the hand, planted his boot hard into the victim's head. The prosecutor’s office claimed that Cobane’s actions and words were aimed at the victim’s “lack of compliance, not his ethnicity." But one may fairly ask what part of "I’ll beat the [expletive] Mexican piss out of you, homey. You feel me?" that the prosecutor’s office didn’t understand. There is no doubt that the officer’s actions (and that of officer Mary Lynn Woollum, who subsequently stomped on the victim’s leg with no apparent justification), was motivated by stereotypical attitudes common among police and public, and a contempt for “Mexicans” fueled by the media. Cobane felt he needed to apply “extra” effort to “get” his point across because the man was “Mexican,” even if he wasn’t, after all, wanted for a crime.
Once more, police get away with a crime. Once more, local authorities will not take seriously crimes against Latinos, because they are Latinos. After all, former Bellevue police officer Mike Hetle, who now works for the Department of Homeland Security, was allowed to simply walk away from killing an unarmed Guatemalan immigrant who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to move back to California. But prosecutors and judges will feed the police thirst for revenge, such as they did against the man who shot the video of Cobane’s assault. Jud Morris, who at the time worked freelance for a local Fox affiliate claimed that he shot the video on his “off-time” but offered the video to his employer. The Fox affiliate allegedly did not find the actions in the video “egregious” enough to air, so Morris took the video to another station. The Fox affiliate claimed that because Morris shot the video with their camera, it the video belonged to them. The Fox affiliate then fired Morris, who neglected to return the camera gear he had been allowed to use--which led to his arrest on robbery charges. The Fox affiliate, Q-13, is known to have a cozy relationship with the police and was plainly embarrassed by the revelation that its management had tried to cover-up the beating incident; that it would easily shed any suggestion that it was a nonpartisan news organization shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Once more, police get away with a crime. Once more, local authorities will not take seriously crimes against Latinos, because they are Latinos. After all, former Bellevue police officer Mike Hetle, who now works for the Department of Homeland Security, was allowed to simply walk away from killing an unarmed Guatemalan immigrant who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to move back to California. But prosecutors and judges will feed the police thirst for revenge, such as they did against the man who shot the video of Cobane’s assault. Jud Morris, who at the time worked freelance for a local Fox affiliate claimed that he shot the video on his “off-time” but offered the video to his employer. The Fox affiliate allegedly did not find the actions in the video “egregious” enough to air, so Morris took the video to another station. The Fox affiliate claimed that because Morris shot the video with their camera, it the video belonged to them. The Fox affiliate then fired Morris, who neglected to return the camera gear he had been allowed to use--which led to his arrest on robbery charges. The Fox affiliate, Q-13, is known to have a cozy relationship with the police and was plainly embarrassed by the revelation that its management had tried to cover-up the beating incident; that it would easily shed any suggestion that it was a nonpartisan news organization shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Police Report I
In the Sydney Lumet film “Prince of the City,” based on the novel by a former “prince of the city,” New York City police detective Danny Ciello admits to a special investigator looking into police corruption that officers lie under oath on the stand all the time. But what else do you expect? Prosecutors want convictions, and sometimes the difference between a flimsy case leading to an acquittal or one that leads to a conviction is a police officer fabricating a tale. Jurors will always believe a police officer over a defendant, particularly if the latter is a racial minority.
On Monday, a Seattle police officer fired four fatal shots into a Native American named John Williams, who had a “criminal” record of being inebriated and exposing himself to a staff worker at a home for chronic drunks. When he wasn’t drunk, he was described as “buoyant” and “compassionate.” He was also a wood carver, who whittled walking sticks and miniature totem poles. The police had two versions of the incident, which occurred in broad daylight on a busy city street. First they said that Ian Birk, a two-year “veteran” on the force, was sitting in his patrol car at a red light when observed Williams sitting on a short wall whittling on a small piece of wood. Birk got out of the car, advanced to Williams, demanded that he drop the knife, and fired his weapon when Williams allegedly “advanced” toward him with the knife. Now, the problem with this story for the police is that Williams was clearly not engaged in an activity that was in any way a threat to anyone; he was merely occupied in his trade. On Tuesday, the police changed their story to jibe with a video recording that showed Williams crossing the street in front of Birk, who decided that he needed something to do and chased after the apparently dangerous suspect. Birk demanded that Williams drop the knife (but not the piece of wood), and off camera the shots were fired in quick succession. The police claim that Williams turned toward Birk, although it wasn’t yet determined if he “advanced” toward the officer in a “threatening” manner.
But a witness at the scene told the Seattle Times that Williams had his back to Birk when the officer approached him, and Williams did not appear to respond to the Birk’s commands, or was even aware that Birk was talking to him. Williams didn’t appear threatening or aggressive. Birk was at least two car lengths away from Williams when he opened fire.
For me, the question is not who to believe, although I am inclined to believe the story of the witness, given the police habit of lying. The question is why do police have such a difficult time in sizing-up a situation before they start firing away. It is one thing for a man barricaded in a building exchanging gunfire with police; it is quite another thing to arbitrarily select a target who is not empirically engaged in a criminal act, try to prove to be the “tough” guy by intimidating the “suspect,” deliberately escalating an invented “confrontation” and finally “misinterpreting” body language as a “threatening” bodily harm—all within a span of a minute.
Every time a police officer is killed, it is as if the President was assassinated. But when a police officer kills an unarmed man, or deliberately creates a “threat” out of thin air that leads to a fatality, we are supposed to accept it as part of normal life. But for a few of us, the stench of hypocrisy is too powerful to overcome.
On Monday, a Seattle police officer fired four fatal shots into a Native American named John Williams, who had a “criminal” record of being inebriated and exposing himself to a staff worker at a home for chronic drunks. When he wasn’t drunk, he was described as “buoyant” and “compassionate.” He was also a wood carver, who whittled walking sticks and miniature totem poles. The police had two versions of the incident, which occurred in broad daylight on a busy city street. First they said that Ian Birk, a two-year “veteran” on the force, was sitting in his patrol car at a red light when observed Williams sitting on a short wall whittling on a small piece of wood. Birk got out of the car, advanced to Williams, demanded that he drop the knife, and fired his weapon when Williams allegedly “advanced” toward him with the knife. Now, the problem with this story for the police is that Williams was clearly not engaged in an activity that was in any way a threat to anyone; he was merely occupied in his trade. On Tuesday, the police changed their story to jibe with a video recording that showed Williams crossing the street in front of Birk, who decided that he needed something to do and chased after the apparently dangerous suspect. Birk demanded that Williams drop the knife (but not the piece of wood), and off camera the shots were fired in quick succession. The police claim that Williams turned toward Birk, although it wasn’t yet determined if he “advanced” toward the officer in a “threatening” manner.
But a witness at the scene told the Seattle Times that Williams had his back to Birk when the officer approached him, and Williams did not appear to respond to the Birk’s commands, or was even aware that Birk was talking to him. Williams didn’t appear threatening or aggressive. Birk was at least two car lengths away from Williams when he opened fire.
For me, the question is not who to believe, although I am inclined to believe the story of the witness, given the police habit of lying. The question is why do police have such a difficult time in sizing-up a situation before they start firing away. It is one thing for a man barricaded in a building exchanging gunfire with police; it is quite another thing to arbitrarily select a target who is not empirically engaged in a criminal act, try to prove to be the “tough” guy by intimidating the “suspect,” deliberately escalating an invented “confrontation” and finally “misinterpreting” body language as a “threatening” bodily harm—all within a span of a minute.
Every time a police officer is killed, it is as if the President was assassinated. But when a police officer kills an unarmed man, or deliberately creates a “threat” out of thin air that leads to a fatality, we are supposed to accept it as part of normal life. But for a few of us, the stench of hypocrisy is too powerful to overcome.
End of summer airport blues
The vendor I work for at the airport had an end-of-summer barbecue, ostensibly in appreciation of all our hard work. It was on my day “off,” although I spend most of my “off” time working at my real job, which is writing. I had to make a decision: Free food, or spend two quality hours writing. It was a difficult choice, but I decided on the free food. Not a good choice. When I arrived at the site of the function, in “civilian” clothes but wearing my ID badge, I was treated with contempt by a Port of Seattle rent-a-cop standing “guard” there. He was apparently discombobulated by the sight of a “Mexican” in the vicinity, because “Mexicans” are target number one for the various paranoid airport security outfits. I decided I didn’t want to stay, so I picked-up a burger and hot dog (where was the potato salad and baked beans?) and promptly left, but not before being given the tough-guy routine by a female rent-a-cop on my way out. Geez, some “thank you” for all my hard work—especially with having to look forward to “Winter’s Worst”—what AccuWeather is predicting to be what the Pacific Northwest should expect in a few months.
Since I’m in a bad mood now, I will talk about the airport business. I have an acquaintance who manages a motel, and is a native of India. Knowing I work at the airport, he related an incident that occurred that disturbed him greatly. His mother was traveling to India for some family function; as he stood by to see her off, he observed that the TSA Blue Shirt screeners were greatly upsetting his mother. He advance to see what the problem was; the Blue Shirts were demanding that his mother remove a gold ring that she was wearing around her neck. He tried to explain to the Blue Shirts that a married Indian woman always wears this neck ring for as long as her husband is alive, and to remove it would mean that something bad might happen to him. But they would not listen; they continued to demand the ring’s removal, with the mother equally adamant that she would not remove it. The son admitted that he became angry and demanded to see the Blue Shirt supervisor; the Blue Shirts, not wanting to explain themselves to a supervisor, and conscious of the fact that they were becoming a spectacle in front of numerous witnesses, finally ceased their demands. I don’t think this incident requires further commentary.
News stories have also been circulating about airlines charging mysterious new fees for previous “benefits” that are normally part of the flying experience, with United Airlines a particularly egregious offender. According to SmartMoney.com, these offenses include many airlines charging booking fees for reservations done over the phone; UAL charges $25 for this “privilege.” Using frequent flyer benefits is no longer “free” on some airlines; US Airways charges as much as $50 for the use of frequent flyer benefits. Exit row seats can also cost you extra; UAL charges as much as $109 extra for an aisle seat. One airline, Spirit, actually charges you extra if you have the temerity to request any seat. If you change your flight plans to another flight, you can be charged an extra $150 (UAL). Of course, we’ve all heard the horror stories about fees for checked bags, but it gets worse; one airline (UAL), charges $175 if you have a bag that is one pound over the 50 lbs limit for one bag. “In-flight amenities” like pillows, soft drinks and snacks will cost you extra on some airlines.
And don't get me started on those pampered numbskulls who occupy Operations, the so-called "brain center" of the airline I work for. It's more like an institution-- and not the one for higher learning.
The lesson to be learned here? Don’t make me mad.
Since I’m in a bad mood now, I will talk about the airport business. I have an acquaintance who manages a motel, and is a native of India. Knowing I work at the airport, he related an incident that occurred that disturbed him greatly. His mother was traveling to India for some family function; as he stood by to see her off, he observed that the TSA Blue Shirt screeners were greatly upsetting his mother. He advance to see what the problem was; the Blue Shirts were demanding that his mother remove a gold ring that she was wearing around her neck. He tried to explain to the Blue Shirts that a married Indian woman always wears this neck ring for as long as her husband is alive, and to remove it would mean that something bad might happen to him. But they would not listen; they continued to demand the ring’s removal, with the mother equally adamant that she would not remove it. The son admitted that he became angry and demanded to see the Blue Shirt supervisor; the Blue Shirts, not wanting to explain themselves to a supervisor, and conscious of the fact that they were becoming a spectacle in front of numerous witnesses, finally ceased their demands. I don’t think this incident requires further commentary.
News stories have also been circulating about airlines charging mysterious new fees for previous “benefits” that are normally part of the flying experience, with United Airlines a particularly egregious offender. According to SmartMoney.com, these offenses include many airlines charging booking fees for reservations done over the phone; UAL charges $25 for this “privilege.” Using frequent flyer benefits is no longer “free” on some airlines; US Airways charges as much as $50 for the use of frequent flyer benefits. Exit row seats can also cost you extra; UAL charges as much as $109 extra for an aisle seat. One airline, Spirit, actually charges you extra if you have the temerity to request any seat. If you change your flight plans to another flight, you can be charged an extra $150 (UAL). Of course, we’ve all heard the horror stories about fees for checked bags, but it gets worse; one airline (UAL), charges $175 if you have a bag that is one pound over the 50 lbs limit for one bag. “In-flight amenities” like pillows, soft drinks and snacks will cost you extra on some airlines.
And don't get me started on those pampered numbskulls who occupy Operations, the so-called "brain center" of the airline I work for. It's more like an institution-- and not the one for higher learning.
The lesson to be learned here? Don’t make me mad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)