Life After the One Percent

DDI don’t know any members of the one percent, but my daughter does. She’s my eyes and ears in their camp. She’s been trained since birth to observe, synthesize and project at multiple levels, with the virtue and creativity of the human experience at the center of her assessments. We complain about the violations of privacy via our phones and e-mails, but the massive collection of our electronic imprint has no meaning without the hands and minds of people—and we should be focused on their intent along their methods.

History shows that the end game matters. And the goals of the game. I have always been less concerned about surveillance round-ups and wrongful prosecutions than I have about willful prosecutions—the kind I see in Florida and other states, where often those in the cross-hairs don’t reach the courtrooms.

Every police department now has the firepower—and mentality—of a paramilitary unit on rogue missions with a wink and little oversight from the state. New York City had the widest net, but other cities occupied neighborhoods in the name of crime which never seemed to drop. And when it did, it was rarely related to the local version of stop-and-frisk. Neighborhoods don’t require mass round-ups or the concentration camps supposedly being built somewhere in the northwest. Local rogue missions hide behind a screen of local crime and stereotypes; it parallels the gangs; it spirals until communities in the cities are isolated, targeted by legal and illegal operators until they spin out of control and the mechanisms of group actions required for safety and safe passage are broken down. Recording these cell phone calls didn’t improve security or domestic tranquility for many older working neighborhoods in urban areas.

In fact, I wish Florida had an accessible electronic database of calls in the case of Trayvon Martin. A quick check would have shown calls to his father, who lived in the complex where he was walking, and that he was talking to a friend about the usual teenage things. Maybe electronic surveillance would have exonerated him.

It’s a fantasy—and a stretch—but you see my point: the rapid accumulation of police and citizen armed confrontations with other citizens is increasing, and the alarm is silent. We are monitoring the wrong things. But America habitually looks the wrong way.

Turn your attention to the states for a moment. Both Florida and Virginia have developed state standards that are set at different levels by race and ethnicity. Asians and whites have to meet higher standards than blacks and Hispanics. Hear the outrage? No? Learning itself is being re-segregated by developing a two-tier system for knowledge, even when students attend the same schools. Discrimination, in the form of inequality, is officially mandated by the state.

In the meantime, in some systems, upper-income families are receiving vouchers to be used at charter, private, and parochial schools. This takes money away from public schools by allowing tax dollars to be assigned to the child rather than the system. It’s a plan that kicks the poor. Continue reading Life After the One Percent

Newtown: Evil May Be Its Source

Have we lost our way? I don’t think so. But we are definitely missing the point. There is a body of wisdom and mistakes that we have accumulated from past millennia that tell us about living, about love and despair. There are voices old and new outside of policy makers, practitioners, and others trained to stick to scripts of talking points and scripts that are great for looking at the components of issues but are at a loss for new ideas or how to use the wisdom of old. Those voices fall short when confronting new challenges outside of their reach and training.

In the face of fear and grief, of hurt and pain, we jump on the visible, the available. We look for single source, sensible cause and solution. I often see people blame Barney Frank for the housing bubble, blaming one man for the out-of-control practices that defined an industry printing faux money in every state, selling its junk as derivatives, backed by thousands of untraceable pieces valued at billions. I see others who ignore the global recession and Europe’s retreat into a second recession with its rise in regional unemployment, and blame President Obama even as the US leads the recovery. Especially, I see virtually no one in our public conversation who provides a sources of new ideas and facts. So we return to the sound bites of old speech (as distinct from ancient speech). Now, we are at a loss. What do we do?

The killing of innocent children breaks our hearts. We fail to understand how or why.

I think we miss a major point of explanation. The killings had to do with the most ancient of forces, evil. Not evil the adjective, the dark, angry monster of the movies and novels, not the paralyzing fear that exists in many minds, nor the ugliness assigned to its carnage; but evil the noun. The thing itself.

Surprisingly, evil is a small force. As a thing, it is closer to a quark or Higgs boson than a hurricane. Think about small forces for a minute: they have incredible power. The transistor and miniaturization of electronics unleashed the tech revolution—and put music, voice, images, and the globe in your hand. But the invisible holds a darkness. The most deadly weapons that create the most massive destruction are tied to small forces—the explosion or implosion of the particles of atoms. The most deadly diseases are global epidemics linked and spread by wee little viruses which rapidly transmit their illnesses, killing thousands daily, in irreversible agony.

Metaphysics says parallels in the material world are signs for things in the world of the spirit. The parallels of destruction and plague point to evil actually being a small force. Evil is also small because it cannot sustain itself; it replicates through other means. That’s a fail safe that adds to our confusion! Because evil goes and comes without our knowing, and ebbs and flows, we deny its role and miss the steps to take to guard against it. We think of it being associated with individuals and lone incidents, but its expression and form is social.

Why is evil ever present if it is not able to sustain itself? It is efficient at finding hosts, yet follows no patterns, and has no preferences. Ironically, it is a creative force, not in terms of ends but means. Evil requires a host. To find a host, it can access pathways and levels in ways that are the non-repeatable real numbers of the dark side. We look for patterns and signs, try to trace its logic, and miss the point that evil absolutely has no preferences for its means. Because of its nature, it can be routed through time and space by very long or quick random changes, and use conditions and people well within the range of social norms. Think about breast cancer, the randomness with which it affects women. All ages, income, race. (With some statistical preferences, but none absolute.)

One of evil’s strengths is its facile randomness, swift and slow; its impromptu shifts, its pattern not repeated, even when the ends are the same. Its randomness makes early detection hard. Without the right personnel, it’s impossible to read. Evil can’t be profiled. Continue reading Newtown: Evil May Be Its Source

Digging Deeper: Who Shields the Occupiers?

It’s time for the conversation about police tactics—specifically about whether police actions against the Occupy movement have crossed the bright line. When an officer empties a canister of pepper spray on sitting, non-resisting participants from three feet away and is joined by a fellow officer as others step out of range, the paradox at the heart of police work–how the expectation for order translates into enforcement that preserves rights and freedoms—needs review. Police spokespersons cite such use of chemical force as appropriate, note that those assembled have been warned and put on notice, that individuals may experience random injuries if crowds resist or ignore police orders, but more than constitutional issues flare as buttons are pushed and batons are raised.

Taking place is a radical and aggressive shift in police attitudes and approach about what constitutes appropriate force. Streaming evidence shows repeated surges of violence by unidentified officers who wade into groups and appear to take a perverse delight or indifference to inflicting punishment and pain on unarmed citizens that goes above and beyond what the job or situation calls for. Their departments and chiefs are calling these acts justified. So far, these acts have resulted in a military veteran receiving a traumatic brain injury, a 70-year-old former US poet laureate beaten in the ribs by a baton-wielding officer (his wife was knocked to the sidewalk), countless women being pulled by their hair, and the elderly being confronted. Pepper spray has been forced into people’s mouths. But the strongest evidence of crossing of the line is not the shocking video captures. That evidence is in the methods police have abandoned—the equipment and tactics carefully developed to control large crowds.

Harper's Weekly, New York City Draft Riots. August 1, 1863.

After the Vietnam protests, effective measures for crowd control minimized the use of violence. These tactics have been tested, refined, trained, and widely used in urban areas, but are now being shelved and ignored.

To put this into relief, focus on a single piece of equipment: the riot shield. Riot shields, used worldwide, have a two-fold purpose: to protect police from injury and assaults and to direct large, resisting crowds. Riot shields have designs adapted to specific situational demands. The shield’s material construction and even the placement of the handles are well thought out to maximize police control and protection. Most urban police departments have shields. Departments typically require every officer to be trained in their use. A phalanx of well trained police arrayed shoulder-to-shoulder with shields is a formidable force. Shields are physical, but not violent. And they reduce the use of batons, pepper spray, hand-to-hand take-downs.

Yet in many cities, police are deploying shields on a limited basis. The option, a free-wielding, self-initiated use of batons and pepper spray is reasoned as a response to an implied threat that shields were designed to manage effectively–without the violence now being associated with police actions.

The police response, that spraying participants is less risky and “standard” since bodies “don’t have handles” to move them, is disingenuous. Nursing home personnel are taught safe ways to lift and move immobile, even resisting bodies. Moving a person after he or she has been pepper sprayed is more risky than moving participants before they are sprayed. Departments are suggesting that by disobeying, the participants have taken on the risks of the deliberate and calculated hurt being meted out by individual or small groups of police acting under the cover of authority, as officers and commanders on the scene tacitly observe. Continue reading Digging Deeper: Who Shields the Occupiers?