[Note: as this hiatus continues, I've been going to physical therapy to try to deal with my increasing left-side lameness. Mixed results: able to walk a bit better most of the time, but various hip and back pains following treatments suggest the onset of sciatica -- which the therapist acknowledged might be triggered. What a drag it is getting older...]
There's been a fairly regular spate of police killings in the news lately, reminding me a bit of the coverage uptick after Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, MO, all those years ago. (Can it be almost four years now?) Of course, it was the shooting of James Boyd in Albuquerque in March of 2014 that set off numerous protests, not just of his killing by police, but of dozens of killings over the previous few years. I was involved in some of those protests though not as much as I might have wanted to be -- thanks to my lameness even then.
The killing of Stephon Clark in his grandmother's Sacramento backyard was very disturbing. I didn't know him, but I know the Meadowview neighborhood where it happened, and it's easy to imagine how terrifying the whole thing has been. Meadowview is not an easy place to live, but many people who live there have no choice. They have been pushed out of other neighborhoods, either through gentrification or because of some stain on their records.
I understand Stephon's grandmother had lived in the neighborhood for decades, and for all the trouble with the law Stephon had been in, he was a potential community leader with a magnetic personality and a vibrant presence who was "turning his life around."
This is a common enough story in many communities of color throughout the nation. What's also common is that up and coming black male community leaders are intentionally or accidentally targeted for elimination.
This seems to be an "accidental" elimination perpetrated by a couple of panicked cops on the hunt for someone who was reported to be breaking car, truck and house windows. They found a Negro who they thought had a gun and blasted away at him until he was a riddled mess of bullet holes and then let him bleed out until he was dead, dead, dead.
In New York, Saheed Vassell, well-know to be a harmless kook in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, was shot down pretty much on sight by specialist crew of killer cops deployed because of reports of a Negro with a gun threatening people on the streets.
In American society, cops consider an armed Negro or the report of an armed Negro -- doesn't have to be with a gun -- to be an existential threat to be neutralized promptly. Saheed was reported to have a gun. He didn't, but it didn't matter. The reports were sufficient, and apparently cops are not trained or required to ascertain the truth of the matter; in the case of Saheed, they were deployed to kill, which is what they did, BAM, BAM, BAM. Dead.
There was a recent incident in Portland, OR, in which a deranged white man, said to be armed with a knife, was being hunted by police based on accusations of a carjacking earlier in the day and a wreck of said car on the poor side of town. Man enters homeless shelter, shirtless and acting bizarre. He has a knife and (apparently) is threatening to kill himself with said knife. Police converge, man is cornered and (according to reports) man starts stabbing himself in the neck. Police "deploy lethal force." Man is "deceased."
And so it goes. It should be stated this goes on all the time. More than a thousand times a year, every year (looks to be even more this year) are killed by police, and some of these killings become news items that garner a lot of attention nationally and internationally. The US has a widely recognized problem with gun violence, police killings and mass shootings, a problem that seems completely intractable on some levels, is rather easily dealt with on others.
Police killings are an issue because the officers involved are almost never held to criminal account, are rarely even reprimanded by their departments. Many times, officers who kill -- regardless of circumstances -- are rewarded and hailed as heroes, in part because police consultants like David Grossman and William Lewinsky have been going around the country for decades telling police that killing the Bad Guy is their highest accomplishment, and they'll have the "best sex of their lives" afterwards. No lie.
Many of these killings are nothing but summary executions disproportionately afflicting black, brown, and poor white subjects, many suffering mental health crises for which no treatment or services are available. Obviously something is wrong but supposedly nothing can be done about it.
Much like periodic episodes of mass shooting, it's just something Americans have to live with as "the price of freedom." Or something.
It's happened so much for so long, I believe we're dealing with deliberate, cynical and cruel policies of murder/mayhem that are intended to keep the Rabble in fear and helplessness... Over and over again, the Rabble are shown that they cannot rely on police or officials to protect them; over and over again, they are shown that they are helpless in the face of American Gunners. Over and over again, they are shown that they are targets of whoever wants to target them, and there is nothing they can do about it.
So here we are, again.
And what do we do about it? Ideally we change it, but our policy makers don't seem to be interested. They're satisfied with things as they are (except for the movements and demonstrations that arise). A relatively steady number of police killings, infrequent but increasingly deadly mass murders, constant low-level gang and other murders, constant suicide by gun, all of it just fine with our Overclass -- because it never (or very rarely) affects them. It is always something for the Lower Orders to deal with. Too bad if they can't.
I'm too old and infirm to have much of an effect on these things anymore, but I hope and pray the young folks will make the changes necessary. As many people have testified in the recent cases, "We know what's wrong and we know what to do about it."
Yep.
Showing posts with label rabble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rabble. Show all posts
Monday, April 9, 2018
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Why Wypipo Are Dying
I've been reading this deeply flawed Brookings study (60 pg pdf) on morbidity and mortality in the 21st Century. It has so many problems it's almost useless, but it nicely fits the narrative of suffering, despairing rural white folks -- who elected Trump in their misery -- that it's become something of a go-to "proof" that white folks are dying in their multitudes (ostensibly from despair at their future-less lives.)
The statistics do not support the conclusion. The simple facts don't. But don't let that stand in the way of a good narrative.
The primary issue for the authors is the increase in opioid addiction leading to overdose deaths in rural America -- even though it is not the leading cause of death, but so what. It involves drugs, and everyone knows drugs are eeeeeevil.
There have been any number of reports that parts of rural (white) America have been flooded with prescription opioid pain killers; millions and millions of doses sent to pharmacies in areas that have populations in the tens of thousands if that. Surprisingly, these areas then experience a spike in opioid addiction and overdose death. How interesting.
The authors of the Brookings study, however, are careful to hold harmless the prescription drug manufacturers, pharmacies and doctors in those areas. The problems associated with opioids are entirely on the shoulders of the patients who, apparently, falsely claim to be in pain in order to procure a scrip, then trade the meds among themselves. Or something.
It really doesn't make sense given the already restricted access to opioids and other narcotic pain medications. And at least 9 times out of 10, patients presenting with pain are in pain, not "despair," real, physical pain, and the medication is intended and used for pain relief.
Yet the narrative says, "No, no! These people are not in physical pain. They suffer from Wypipo-despair!"
OK.
Interestingly, in other drug abuse frenzies (the crack epidemic, the crank era) nobody cared a whit about the why of such drug use. They wanted to see the users and their unpleasantness eradicated forthwith.
And so it was with the ever-present War on (some) Drugs and (some) Drug Users.
Now, though, the issue is Salt of the Earth Wypipo in rural communities who voted for Trump and all of a sudden, treatment, love and compassion for the despairing victim-users is the general attitude toward the Unfortunates.
No war on these people and their drug use at all. No sirree.
Except.
Well, there is an exception. What is being proposed and in some cases enacted are further tightening of the restrictions on the prescription and dispensing of opioid pain medications.
In other words, the point is not to "help" the victims -- poor, rural Wypipo that they are -- the point is to make it difficult or impossible for people in pain to legally obtain opioids for pain relief. There. That should solve the problem, right?
Jeebus.
In some areas it is already nearly impossible for people in pain to legally obtain opioid or other narcotic pain relief medication because doctors are terrified of the DEA and refuse to prescribe it -- or any effective medication for pain.
They refuse outright and patients are left on their own to find medications to deal with their pain -- or just live with it. Too bad, so sad. The proposed additional restrictions and prohibitions will simply mean that more people in pain will be refused medications to alleviate their suffering.
I think that's the point of the narrative. "Suffering is good for the soul," right?
Whatever else Our Rulers want to do, they want to impose sufficient suffering on the Rabble to keep them in line, and they want to punish anyone who gets out of line.
That's Doctrine.
Of course I have a personal interest in these things. Until recently, pain associated with my condition was fairly well controlled without specific medications for pain. But about two weeks ago, I started having what they call a "flare," something that hasn't happened since before I started treatment, and it lasted a good long time, despite attempts to mitigate/control the pain with steroids. I received no pain medication at all.
Steroids alone were supposed to be enough to control the pain, but they weren't. What was happening was that generalized joint pain would concentrate in one joint or pair of joints and at one point I could not walk because of the intensity of pain. Standard pain killers like Aleve had no effect.
As it happened, I had some left-over pain medication from a previous bout of sciatica, and sure enough, within minutes of taking it, the pain was controlled.
But it's an opioid, and it was never offered by my doctor -- nothing was -- for pain relief, only the steroids, which did not control the concentrated joint pain that made basic functioning impossible.
According to what I'm being told, my condition has "evolved" into a new and more serious phase that requires more aggressive treatment with stronger immunosuppressants an other drugs that can have serious or fatal side effects. But that's how it goes. I'm not as concerned about that as I am about being stuck in a painful situation (another "flare" for example) without access to effective relief.
Given the urge of policy-makers to further restrict or prohibit the use of opioids for pain relief, I wouldn't be surprised...
[This Politico article explores some of the criticism of the Brookings study. Still, the general thrust of it is accepted.]
The statistics do not support the conclusion. The simple facts don't. But don't let that stand in the way of a good narrative.
The primary issue for the authors is the increase in opioid addiction leading to overdose deaths in rural America -- even though it is not the leading cause of death, but so what. It involves drugs, and everyone knows drugs are eeeeeevil.
There have been any number of reports that parts of rural (white) America have been flooded with prescription opioid pain killers; millions and millions of doses sent to pharmacies in areas that have populations in the tens of thousands if that. Surprisingly, these areas then experience a spike in opioid addiction and overdose death. How interesting.
The authors of the Brookings study, however, are careful to hold harmless the prescription drug manufacturers, pharmacies and doctors in those areas. The problems associated with opioids are entirely on the shoulders of the patients who, apparently, falsely claim to be in pain in order to procure a scrip, then trade the meds among themselves. Or something.
It really doesn't make sense given the already restricted access to opioids and other narcotic pain medications. And at least 9 times out of 10, patients presenting with pain are in pain, not "despair," real, physical pain, and the medication is intended and used for pain relief.
Yet the narrative says, "No, no! These people are not in physical pain. They suffer from Wypipo-despair!"
OK.
Interestingly, in other drug abuse frenzies (the crack epidemic, the crank era) nobody cared a whit about the why of such drug use. They wanted to see the users and their unpleasantness eradicated forthwith.
And so it was with the ever-present War on (some) Drugs and (some) Drug Users.
Now, though, the issue is Salt of the Earth Wypipo in rural communities who voted for Trump and all of a sudden, treatment, love and compassion for the despairing victim-users is the general attitude toward the Unfortunates.
No war on these people and their drug use at all. No sirree.
Except.
Well, there is an exception. What is being proposed and in some cases enacted are further tightening of the restrictions on the prescription and dispensing of opioid pain medications.
In other words, the point is not to "help" the victims -- poor, rural Wypipo that they are -- the point is to make it difficult or impossible for people in pain to legally obtain opioids for pain relief. There. That should solve the problem, right?
Jeebus.
In some areas it is already nearly impossible for people in pain to legally obtain opioid or other narcotic pain relief medication because doctors are terrified of the DEA and refuse to prescribe it -- or any effective medication for pain.
They refuse outright and patients are left on their own to find medications to deal with their pain -- or just live with it. Too bad, so sad. The proposed additional restrictions and prohibitions will simply mean that more people in pain will be refused medications to alleviate their suffering.
I think that's the point of the narrative. "Suffering is good for the soul," right?
Whatever else Our Rulers want to do, they want to impose sufficient suffering on the Rabble to keep them in line, and they want to punish anyone who gets out of line.
That's Doctrine.
Of course I have a personal interest in these things. Until recently, pain associated with my condition was fairly well controlled without specific medications for pain. But about two weeks ago, I started having what they call a "flare," something that hasn't happened since before I started treatment, and it lasted a good long time, despite attempts to mitigate/control the pain with steroids. I received no pain medication at all.
Steroids alone were supposed to be enough to control the pain, but they weren't. What was happening was that generalized joint pain would concentrate in one joint or pair of joints and at one point I could not walk because of the intensity of pain. Standard pain killers like Aleve had no effect.
As it happened, I had some left-over pain medication from a previous bout of sciatica, and sure enough, within minutes of taking it, the pain was controlled.
But it's an opioid, and it was never offered by my doctor -- nothing was -- for pain relief, only the steroids, which did not control the concentrated joint pain that made basic functioning impossible.
According to what I'm being told, my condition has "evolved" into a new and more serious phase that requires more aggressive treatment with stronger immunosuppressants an other drugs that can have serious or fatal side effects. But that's how it goes. I'm not as concerned about that as I am about being stuck in a painful situation (another "flare" for example) without access to effective relief.
Given the urge of policy-makers to further restrict or prohibit the use of opioids for pain relief, I wouldn't be surprised...
[This Politico article explores some of the criticism of the Brookings study. Still, the general thrust of it is accepted.]
Thursday, December 8, 2016
"No You Can't" -- On Tone Policing, Recounts and Other Matters
Sometimes I go off on people, not necessarily nicely, either. The other day, a friend called me from California. He'd just read in the New York Times that Trump had "fired" Michael Flynn, Jr. from his transition team for spreading fake news stories about that pizza place in DC. Didn't I think that was a good thing? And then he read about Trump tweeting something about canceling the new Air Force One from Boeing because it cost too much. Didn't I think that was a good thing? And then he said something about China and Trump, and wasn't that good, too?
"Gee," he said, "he [Trump] might not be so bad after all."
I went off on him, up one side and down the other. I told him I didn't want to hear him defending Trump, that there were already too many on our supposed side doing that, just like they did with Baby Bush when he was installed in the presidency by the Supreme Court, and we know how that turned out, so let's not do it this time, m'kay?
We've been friends for close to forty years, so it's not like we haven't had knock down drag outs more than a few times over things we disagree about. I think we understand one another well enough that it's OK to fiercely disagree with one another from time to time. But this time it really got under my skin -- because he did something I see way too much of.
He saw something in the newspaper (he gets hard copy NYT daily) and even though he was by no means a Trump supporter*, what he's read in the papers about him and seen in other news sources is convincing him that Trump just might be OK, because, according to what he's been seeing lately, Trump is trying to do the right things.
He "fired" Flynn, Jr. He denounced Boeing and the costs of Air Force One, he's standing up China. The Trump regime won't be so bad after all. And he saved all those jobs in Indiana. How bad could it be?
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Anecdote: He said he had a "feeling" election night and went to bed before the polls had even closed in California. He's met Hillary a number of times over the years, and met her once during this year's campaign. No, he didn't have to pay $150,000 or whatever she was charging for meet and greets, he gets into these things free (another story for another time). Anyway, he said this last time he saw her, he felt there was something off, he didn't know what. Maybe she was just tired. But what he said really came across to him was that she didn't care. Not any more. The "fire" had gone out. He said to himself, "Uh oh."
He said it was a sign to him that she might not win the election, even though every media outlet and poll except the Los Angeles Times was certain she had it in the bag. Her election was all but a done deal, and yet he had his doubts.
When he got up the morning after election night, he opened his paper and saw the headline and he said he felt sick to his stomach, but he wasn't surprised. Yep. That's what he sensed would happen, and sure enough. There it was in black and white.
He's spent the last several weeks going through the stages of grief, and I think when he called me about the Times stories the other day, he was reaching for "acceptance."
------------------------------------------------------
Trump just couldn't be so bad, the thinking goes, because the American People wouldn't elect a monster. We are a Good People, and even though our presidents are flawed, they ultimately reflect the Goodness of America and Americans by being elected.
Except the voters didn't elect him. A majority of voters chose someone else. That's what happened. The narrative that got going on November 9, however, has been hammering the false notion that "WE", "America" or "the American people," or "the voters" elected him. No, an unverifiable and minuscule number of votes in a handful of states provided him with a sufficient margin in the Electoral College for him to be declared victor on election night by the media. The EC hasn't met. Consequently, every bit of Trump fluffing going on since election night is a matter of expectation and speculation. He is not officially "president-elect" because he hasn't been elected by the EC. Etc.
The point I try to make -- and it's uphill -- is that "WE" -- the voters, the American People, the Rabble -- did not elect this man. The voters' preference is clearly Not Trump. Hillary's popular vote lead is historic. Combined with the third party votes, the Not Trump vote is more than a majority of votes cast. When turned around, it looks like Trump does not get a majority by combining his votes with third party votes, but there was also a substantial Not Hillary vote, which I don't discount at all. So many people really wanted neither one of these candidates... Add in the people who either couldn't vote because of voter suppression efforts or chose to sit this one out, and we've got a serious level of disenfranchisement and voter resistance on our hands.
Yet our media, cowards and toadies to power that they are, can barely acknowledge these simple truths. Good heavens, no. It might stir the Rabble to action if they do, and we can't have that.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are devolving fast, but that's OK with me because what's been revealed so far shows conclusively that the way elections and recounts were conducted in those states makes it essentially impossible to comprehensively verify the vote. It's particularly true in Pennsylvania where most votes are cast on DRE machines that have no audit trail or any other means of checking their accuracy or even providing a separate record of votes cast. It's all internal and unverifiable. So the request has been to do a forensic examination of the machines to determine whether they were tampered with. That is pending in court -- and given the Michigan court ordered halt to the recount there, I expect the court to halt the recount in Pennsylvania too as well as prohibit any examination of the machines.
In Michigan, where paper ballots are used, a rather remarkable election law states that if the number of ballots in the ballot box does not match the number of ballots given out in the record books, the votes in that precinct cannot be recounted. The original report stands. Whut? This is crazy. But them's the Rules. The all-important Rules. And in any case, both state and federal courts have ordered a halt to the recount there on specious grounds. Ah yes, here we go again.
In Wisconsin, as I understand it, precincts were given the option of hand-counting paper ballots or running them through the scanners again. Some have chosen hand counts, others are repeating the election night scans on the same machines. That proves nothing and verifies nothing. But oh well. There are apparently some counties in Wisconsin that are notorious for vote padding and other chicanery, some of which cannot be detected easily. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be surprising if they just repeat the scans and come up with the same padded results as they did initially. Uh, that's not really verifying the vote. But they have the choice, so...
There is a recount effort in Florida that will have to be decided by the courts, and another partial recount is going on in Nevada, all well and good. There are apparently routine precinct level recounts under way or completed in many jurisdictions.
We're once again privileged to witness what an incomprehensible muddle American elections are. Once again, the outrage will get ramped up and go almost nowhere.
It will be unlikely to go anywhere because the current chaos and arbitrary nature of electoral practice and law is beneficial for preserving the status quo of the Duopoly, kakistocracy, and keeping the interference of the Rabble in their Rulers' work to a minimum. The fact that courts are expected to interfere in elections is now institutionalized. Thanks Scalia!
Doing more than quietly grumbling about it is considered impolite and arrogant by the Tone Police. It's really funny. The Tone Police are practically self-parodies. "You shouldn't say that, it's rude. We can't be like them after all. We are better than that!" But then, I'm seeing a lot of self-parody online, especially among Trump Fluffers -- who seem to be losing their minds. When I point out that this is actually dangerous and people are getting hurt, some will likely be killed as the situation devolves into even greater chaos, the crazy increases.
After all, "What about Clintooooon!!!!"
Yeah, right. Nope, won't play that.
I started this post with the story of lighting into a good friend who was trying to come to grips with a potentially positive view of Trump in the White House. I don't want him to do that, but of course, my desire is not germane to what he does. I am not the boss of him. His objective, like mine, is to get through this chaos alive and in good enough shape to carry on. He can see a way forward by acknowledging that a Trump regime won't necessarily be all that bad. I say it will be worse than we can imagine.
This is the fundamental divide in the country. Many of us can recognize the clear signs of catastrophe that Trump and his toadies, cronies, and hench-people carry with them. This is no joking matter. It's on display 24/7 from all of them. They saying quite clearly that they are intent on a course of destruction, and they will not let anything stand in their way. Many of us say "Stand and fight."
Others internally recognize the same signals and signs and choose not to fight against the whirlwind that's gathering strength. Rather, they find something "good" in the Apocalypse, and would prefer to go with the flow, even as they're swept up into the Maelstrom. The operating concept being "You can't fight it, so go with it."
"No you can't." Now that was Hillary's opening gambit during the campaign. "No you can't. No you won't. Not on a bet." It's been internalized by her supporters and is the bedrock belief of the Tump partisans. "No you can't. But just watch while we do what we want. You can't stop us. Suckers!"
So. Here we are. Chaos is increasing by the hour. Tone Police are working the refs to tamp down alarm and outrage and keep the Rabble divided and inactive. The political class and media are all in with the New Boss, currying favor, showing their bellies. Our Betters are either still in shock, or they're anticipating huge profits on their assets as an inflationary pre-Trump bubble strikes the Markets. Oh my oh my!
In fact, the passivity of Our Betters in this situation is one of its more striking aspects. They're almost all sitting on their hands, "letting it play out." Let the Rabble have their fun! They're so amusing, no?
Bah.
"Gee," he said, "he [Trump] might not be so bad after all."
I went off on him, up one side and down the other. I told him I didn't want to hear him defending Trump, that there were already too many on our supposed side doing that, just like they did with Baby Bush when he was installed in the presidency by the Supreme Court, and we know how that turned out, so let's not do it this time, m'kay?
We've been friends for close to forty years, so it's not like we haven't had knock down drag outs more than a few times over things we disagree about. I think we understand one another well enough that it's OK to fiercely disagree with one another from time to time. But this time it really got under my skin -- because he did something I see way too much of.
He saw something in the newspaper (he gets hard copy NYT daily) and even though he was by no means a Trump supporter*, what he's read in the papers about him and seen in other news sources is convincing him that Trump just might be OK, because, according to what he's been seeing lately, Trump is trying to do the right things.
He "fired" Flynn, Jr. He denounced Boeing and the costs of Air Force One, he's standing up China. The Trump regime won't be so bad after all. And he saved all those jobs in Indiana. How bad could it be?
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Anecdote: He said he had a "feeling" election night and went to bed before the polls had even closed in California. He's met Hillary a number of times over the years, and met her once during this year's campaign. No, he didn't have to pay $150,000 or whatever she was charging for meet and greets, he gets into these things free (another story for another time). Anyway, he said this last time he saw her, he felt there was something off, he didn't know what. Maybe she was just tired. But what he said really came across to him was that she didn't care. Not any more. The "fire" had gone out. He said to himself, "Uh oh."
He said it was a sign to him that she might not win the election, even though every media outlet and poll except the Los Angeles Times was certain she had it in the bag. Her election was all but a done deal, and yet he had his doubts.
When he got up the morning after election night, he opened his paper and saw the headline and he said he felt sick to his stomach, but he wasn't surprised. Yep. That's what he sensed would happen, and sure enough. There it was in black and white.
He's spent the last several weeks going through the stages of grief, and I think when he called me about the Times stories the other day, he was reaching for "acceptance."
------------------------------------------------------
Trump just couldn't be so bad, the thinking goes, because the American People wouldn't elect a monster. We are a Good People, and even though our presidents are flawed, they ultimately reflect the Goodness of America and Americans by being elected.
Except the voters didn't elect him. A majority of voters chose someone else. That's what happened. The narrative that got going on November 9, however, has been hammering the false notion that "WE", "America" or "the American people," or "the voters" elected him. No, an unverifiable and minuscule number of votes in a handful of states provided him with a sufficient margin in the Electoral College for him to be declared victor on election night by the media. The EC hasn't met. Consequently, every bit of Trump fluffing going on since election night is a matter of expectation and speculation. He is not officially "president-elect" because he hasn't been elected by the EC. Etc.
The point I try to make -- and it's uphill -- is that "WE" -- the voters, the American People, the Rabble -- did not elect this man. The voters' preference is clearly Not Trump. Hillary's popular vote lead is historic. Combined with the third party votes, the Not Trump vote is more than a majority of votes cast. When turned around, it looks like Trump does not get a majority by combining his votes with third party votes, but there was also a substantial Not Hillary vote, which I don't discount at all. So many people really wanted neither one of these candidates... Add in the people who either couldn't vote because of voter suppression efforts or chose to sit this one out, and we've got a serious level of disenfranchisement and voter resistance on our hands.
Yet our media, cowards and toadies to power that they are, can barely acknowledge these simple truths. Good heavens, no. It might stir the Rabble to action if they do, and we can't have that.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are devolving fast, but that's OK with me because what's been revealed so far shows conclusively that the way elections and recounts were conducted in those states makes it essentially impossible to comprehensively verify the vote. It's particularly true in Pennsylvania where most votes are cast on DRE machines that have no audit trail or any other means of checking their accuracy or even providing a separate record of votes cast. It's all internal and unverifiable. So the request has been to do a forensic examination of the machines to determine whether they were tampered with. That is pending in court -- and given the Michigan court ordered halt to the recount there, I expect the court to halt the recount in Pennsylvania too as well as prohibit any examination of the machines.
In Michigan, where paper ballots are used, a rather remarkable election law states that if the number of ballots in the ballot box does not match the number of ballots given out in the record books, the votes in that precinct cannot be recounted. The original report stands. Whut? This is crazy. But them's the Rules. The all-important Rules. And in any case, both state and federal courts have ordered a halt to the recount there on specious grounds. Ah yes, here we go again.
In Wisconsin, as I understand it, precincts were given the option of hand-counting paper ballots or running them through the scanners again. Some have chosen hand counts, others are repeating the election night scans on the same machines. That proves nothing and verifies nothing. But oh well. There are apparently some counties in Wisconsin that are notorious for vote padding and other chicanery, some of which cannot be detected easily. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be surprising if they just repeat the scans and come up with the same padded results as they did initially. Uh, that's not really verifying the vote. But they have the choice, so...
There is a recount effort in Florida that will have to be decided by the courts, and another partial recount is going on in Nevada, all well and good. There are apparently routine precinct level recounts under way or completed in many jurisdictions.
We're once again privileged to witness what an incomprehensible muddle American elections are. Once again, the outrage will get ramped up and go almost nowhere.
It will be unlikely to go anywhere because the current chaos and arbitrary nature of electoral practice and law is beneficial for preserving the status quo of the Duopoly, kakistocracy, and keeping the interference of the Rabble in their Rulers' work to a minimum. The fact that courts are expected to interfere in elections is now institutionalized. Thanks Scalia!
Doing more than quietly grumbling about it is considered impolite and arrogant by the Tone Police. It's really funny. The Tone Police are practically self-parodies. "You shouldn't say that, it's rude. We can't be like them after all. We are better than that!" But then, I'm seeing a lot of self-parody online, especially among Trump Fluffers -- who seem to be losing their minds. When I point out that this is actually dangerous and people are getting hurt, some will likely be killed as the situation devolves into even greater chaos, the crazy increases.
After all, "What about Clintooooon!!!!"
Yeah, right. Nope, won't play that.
I started this post with the story of lighting into a good friend who was trying to come to grips with a potentially positive view of Trump in the White House. I don't want him to do that, but of course, my desire is not germane to what he does. I am not the boss of him. His objective, like mine, is to get through this chaos alive and in good enough shape to carry on. He can see a way forward by acknowledging that a Trump regime won't necessarily be all that bad. I say it will be worse than we can imagine.
This is the fundamental divide in the country. Many of us can recognize the clear signs of catastrophe that Trump and his toadies, cronies, and hench-people carry with them. This is no joking matter. It's on display 24/7 from all of them. They saying quite clearly that they are intent on a course of destruction, and they will not let anything stand in their way. Many of us say "Stand and fight."
Others internally recognize the same signals and signs and choose not to fight against the whirlwind that's gathering strength. Rather, they find something "good" in the Apocalypse, and would prefer to go with the flow, even as they're swept up into the Maelstrom. The operating concept being "You can't fight it, so go with it."
"No you can't." Now that was Hillary's opening gambit during the campaign. "No you can't. No you won't. Not on a bet." It's been internalized by her supporters and is the bedrock belief of the Tump partisans. "No you can't. But just watch while we do what we want. You can't stop us. Suckers!"
So. Here we are. Chaos is increasing by the hour. Tone Police are working the refs to tamp down alarm and outrage and keep the Rabble divided and inactive. The political class and media are all in with the New Boss, currying favor, showing their bellies. Our Betters are either still in shock, or they're anticipating huge profits on their assets as an inflationary pre-Trump bubble strikes the Markets. Oh my oh my!
In fact, the passivity of Our Betters in this situation is one of its more striking aspects. They're almost all sitting on their hands, "letting it play out." Let the Rabble have their fun! They're so amusing, no?
Bah.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The Aleppo Thing vs the Mosul Thing vs the Fallujah Things vs All The Other Things...
I'm no Syria expert, far from it, but the propaganda out of Syria especially over Aleppo, is grating to say the least.
We are constantly informed ("") that Russia (read Putin) and Syria (read Assad) are "destroying" Aleppo and that the city might "fall" to these Evil Ones as they kill and maim innocent women and children (the children seen on heartrending video practically every day) and repeatedly blow up the "last remaining hospital" in Aleppo... etc. The horror show just never ends, and obviously Putin-Assad-Satan are guilty of War Crimes worse than those that led to the Nuremberg Trials. Oh, much worse.
Except b over at Moon of Alabama has been explaining in exhaustive detail that this narrative is false from top to bottom. It's not just propaganda, it is the definition of The Big Lie.
"Aleppo" is a very large city in northern Syria, and most of its population has always been under official Syrian government control. The eastern part of the city is under the control of a hodgepodge of "rebel" groups (b insists they're fraudulent and mostly jihadist/terrorist groups -- al Qaida, ISIS and the like -- paid by the USA/CIA to oppose Assad). The eastern part of the city is far less residential than the western part, and not surprisingly most of Aleppo's population lives in the western city, not the eastern.
We never hear this in our "news" about what's going on in Syria. "Aleppo" is always presented as one city united and valiantly fighting for its life against the cruel aggression of Assad and Putin, never is it even hinted that there has always been a large population -- a majority -- living more or less normal lives (as much as anyone can be said to be living "normally" under the circumstances) in West Aleppo. That part of the city and its residents don't exist in the propaganda narrative. They've been erased.
There is a struggle going on for control of East Aleppo, and that struggle is ugly and violent. The Syrian army and Russian air power are involved in that struggle as they jointly attempt to retake East Aleppo and drive out the jihadists/terrorists. They are making some progress. But it is not without cost. There is much destruction to be sure, but it's nothing like the claims of the "rebels." False reports out of East Aleppo are routine, and everything we hear, see and read about it must be taken skeptically, because most of it is a lie.
One part of the Big Lie is that "Aleppo" -- that is to say East Aleppo -- has a civilian population of several hundred thousand under siege and bombardment by the Evil Ones. b assures us that's false.
He insists there are no more than about 20-30,000 civilians in that part of the city -- and there may be far fewer. There were never as many in East Aleppo -- which is mostly an industrial and quasi-rural part of the city -- as there were in the Western city, which is mostly residential and commercial.
He insists that most of the civilian population of East Aleppo left long ago and those that remain are mostly the families of the jihadists and terrorists -- paid by the USA to fight Assad.
So if I'm understanding this story correctly -- and I can't say I do understand it fully -- most of the population of Aleppo has always been under Syrian government authority. A jihadist/terrorist faction supported and paid by the USA took control of the eastern part of the city some years ago, and now the Syrian government and their Russian allies have launched a campaign to take it back.
This almost exactly parallels the just launched effort of Iraqi armed forces together with their American allies to "retake" Mosul from jihadist/terrorist ISIS control, just as previously similar campaigns were launched against Fallujah (for what, the fourth time?) and Tikrit, among other cities in Iraq.
And during these campaigns, the cities are essentially flattened, and the civilian population that can't escape are exterminated. That's the pattern set years ago during the American occupation. It's happened over and over again. And that's the pattern being followed by the Syrian government in East Aleppo and other cities under jihadist/terrorist control in Syria.
Everything that our propagandists claim Putin/Assad are doing in Aleppo is being done or has been done in Mosul, Fallujah and other cities in Iraq by combined American/Iraqi armed forces, and for essentially the same reasons, with approximately the same result. Ruined cities and dead civilians -- and escaped jihadi/terrorists.
It beggars belief.
Accusations of War Crimes are flying thick and fast, and calls for a No Fly Zone over northern Syria -- to protect "Aleppo" -- are intensifying. Of course such an action would mean War With Russia. Which must be approached gingerly, as Russia is a heavily armed nuclear power, and one doesn't want to mess with that unnecessarily. Does one?
You would think not, but according to many observers, our NeoCon rulers are actually spoiling for a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union -- er, Putin's Russia -- and would welcome the chance to go nuclear on Putin's ass.
How much of this is brinksmanship and posturing I have no idea, but the thought is understandably troubling to more than a few Americans. Are Our Rulers crazy?
Well, I think we've long understood that they are. They are out of their freaking minds.
On the other hand, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin in particular, appear to be among the sanest of international rulers. They are not going to start a nuclear war with the United States.
There's a widespread assumption among Hag-Haters that Hillary is bound and determined to engage the US with Russia in a nuclear exchange. I think that's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the notion that Trump won't start a nuclear war.
We're in realms of pure fantasy and projection when we believe that one or the other will or won't start a war with Russia. There is no way for us to know one way or the other. There is always a risk of nuclear annihilation no matter who sits in the Big Chair, simply because there are so many nuclear weapons on both sides (and others, it's not just two nuclear powers after all) and we can't predict how our rulers or other rulers will behave. We can hope, but we can't know.
Brinkmanship is a long known and practiced form of international "diplomacy," and I think that's what's going on with the current round of nuclear threats. Those of us who lived through the Cold War ought to be thoroughly familiar with the tactic. It's frightening and potentially deadly, though the point of it is intimidate the other side sufficiently to gain one's objectives without resort to the Ultimate Weapons. A side advantage of Brinkmanship is that it so frightens the domestic population that they are kept in line. Patriotism and all that.
Meanwhile the meatgrinders continue without let up.
Proxy wars without end.
That would be true no matter who sat in the Big Chair, and unless we're willing and able to rise up as one, we the Rabble have no control over it.
I wish it weren't so, but it is.
We are constantly informed ("") that Russia (read Putin) and Syria (read Assad) are "destroying" Aleppo and that the city might "fall" to these Evil Ones as they kill and maim innocent women and children (the children seen on heartrending video practically every day) and repeatedly blow up the "last remaining hospital" in Aleppo... etc. The horror show just never ends, and obviously Putin-Assad-Satan are guilty of War Crimes worse than those that led to the Nuremberg Trials. Oh, much worse.
Except b over at Moon of Alabama has been explaining in exhaustive detail that this narrative is false from top to bottom. It's not just propaganda, it is the definition of The Big Lie.
"Aleppo" is a very large city in northern Syria, and most of its population has always been under official Syrian government control. The eastern part of the city is under the control of a hodgepodge of "rebel" groups (b insists they're fraudulent and mostly jihadist/terrorist groups -- al Qaida, ISIS and the like -- paid by the USA/CIA to oppose Assad). The eastern part of the city is far less residential than the western part, and not surprisingly most of Aleppo's population lives in the western city, not the eastern.
We never hear this in our "news" about what's going on in Syria. "Aleppo" is always presented as one city united and valiantly fighting for its life against the cruel aggression of Assad and Putin, never is it even hinted that there has always been a large population -- a majority -- living more or less normal lives (as much as anyone can be said to be living "normally" under the circumstances) in West Aleppo. That part of the city and its residents don't exist in the propaganda narrative. They've been erased.
There is a struggle going on for control of East Aleppo, and that struggle is ugly and violent. The Syrian army and Russian air power are involved in that struggle as they jointly attempt to retake East Aleppo and drive out the jihadists/terrorists. They are making some progress. But it is not without cost. There is much destruction to be sure, but it's nothing like the claims of the "rebels." False reports out of East Aleppo are routine, and everything we hear, see and read about it must be taken skeptically, because most of it is a lie.
One part of the Big Lie is that "Aleppo" -- that is to say East Aleppo -- has a civilian population of several hundred thousand under siege and bombardment by the Evil Ones. b assures us that's false.
He insists there are no more than about 20-30,000 civilians in that part of the city -- and there may be far fewer. There were never as many in East Aleppo -- which is mostly an industrial and quasi-rural part of the city -- as there were in the Western city, which is mostly residential and commercial.
He insists that most of the civilian population of East Aleppo left long ago and those that remain are mostly the families of the jihadists and terrorists -- paid by the USA to fight Assad.
So if I'm understanding this story correctly -- and I can't say I do understand it fully -- most of the population of Aleppo has always been under Syrian government authority. A jihadist/terrorist faction supported and paid by the USA took control of the eastern part of the city some years ago, and now the Syrian government and their Russian allies have launched a campaign to take it back.
This almost exactly parallels the just launched effort of Iraqi armed forces together with their American allies to "retake" Mosul from jihadist/terrorist ISIS control, just as previously similar campaigns were launched against Fallujah (for what, the fourth time?) and Tikrit, among other cities in Iraq.
And during these campaigns, the cities are essentially flattened, and the civilian population that can't escape are exterminated. That's the pattern set years ago during the American occupation. It's happened over and over again. And that's the pattern being followed by the Syrian government in East Aleppo and other cities under jihadist/terrorist control in Syria.
Everything that our propagandists claim Putin/Assad are doing in Aleppo is being done or has been done in Mosul, Fallujah and other cities in Iraq by combined American/Iraqi armed forces, and for essentially the same reasons, with approximately the same result. Ruined cities and dead civilians -- and escaped jihadi/terrorists.
It beggars belief.
Accusations of War Crimes are flying thick and fast, and calls for a No Fly Zone over northern Syria -- to protect "Aleppo" -- are intensifying. Of course such an action would mean War With Russia. Which must be approached gingerly, as Russia is a heavily armed nuclear power, and one doesn't want to mess with that unnecessarily. Does one?
You would think not, but according to many observers, our NeoCon rulers are actually spoiling for a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union -- er, Putin's Russia -- and would welcome the chance to go nuclear on Putin's ass.
How much of this is brinksmanship and posturing I have no idea, but the thought is understandably troubling to more than a few Americans. Are Our Rulers crazy?
Well, I think we've long understood that they are. They are out of their freaking minds.
On the other hand, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin in particular, appear to be among the sanest of international rulers. They are not going to start a nuclear war with the United States.
There's a widespread assumption among Hag-Haters that Hillary is bound and determined to engage the US with Russia in a nuclear exchange. I think that's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the notion that Trump won't start a nuclear war.
We're in realms of pure fantasy and projection when we believe that one or the other will or won't start a war with Russia. There is no way for us to know one way or the other. There is always a risk of nuclear annihilation no matter who sits in the Big Chair, simply because there are so many nuclear weapons on both sides (and others, it's not just two nuclear powers after all) and we can't predict how our rulers or other rulers will behave. We can hope, but we can't know.
Brinkmanship is a long known and practiced form of international "diplomacy," and I think that's what's going on with the current round of nuclear threats. Those of us who lived through the Cold War ought to be thoroughly familiar with the tactic. It's frightening and potentially deadly, though the point of it is intimidate the other side sufficiently to gain one's objectives without resort to the Ultimate Weapons. A side advantage of Brinkmanship is that it so frightens the domestic population that they are kept in line. Patriotism and all that.
Meanwhile the meatgrinders continue without let up.
Proxy wars without end.
That would be true no matter who sat in the Big Chair, and unless we're willing and able to rise up as one, we the Rabble have no control over it.
I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Monday, June 13, 2016
The Massacres Will Continue Until Morale Improves and Everyone Gets With the Program
Jeeze.
Yet another mass killing, this time -- they say -- with the largest number of casualties of any single incident of mass murder in the nation's history.
Well, actually, no. If we're measuring massacre casualties accurately, we have to go way back into American history and start with the New England immigrants, Pilgrims they were, who came here and started killing right off the bat. If we want to go back further, we need to go back to the Spanish adventurers in the Southwest who killed Natives with abandon -- though many of their accounts may be false.
It was not unusual for hundreds -- even in one case, thousands -- of Natives to be killed at one go. So no, the Orlando Massacre is by no means the largest number of mass-murder casualties in the nation's or its colonial history. Not even close. Some are beginning to say that it is the largest mass murder toll since Wounded Knee, but even that might not be accurate.
Still, it's a shocking and terrible thing and deeply traumatic to Orlando and the gay community. It has shaken the Hispanic community as well since almost all the casualties were Latin men, it being Latin Night at the venue.
Ultimately, this mass killing has shaken the nation, but... well, there have been so many of these incidents over the years, so very many mass shootings at various sites -- schools, shopping centers, movie theatres, churches, bars and clubs, etc., etc. It's an American tradition by now.
The victims of these incidents are almost always ordinary folk, people going about their ordinary business or recreation, bothering no one, at least not intentionally. The routine is that some "lone wolf" with issues targets a particular site where random people gather and starts shooting more or less randomly until the shooter is dispatched by the overwhelming firepower of authorities -- or surrenders or escapes to be captured later.
What never happens in these incidents is that the High and the Mighty are targeted and slaughtered one by one and in batches. Never.
The targets are always perfectly ordinary people doing perfectly ordinary things with others of their kind.
The pattern is almost always the same: the shooter with his weapons and ammunition goes to a site where he knows people will gather, he makes his way in with little or no difficulty, he sets himself up and starts shooting while watching his targets panic and cower or run in fear. He kills and wounds however many he can before police or others intervene. He may or may not be killed on the spot, with or without a gunfight. But shooter does essentially the same things no matter when or where the incident takes place. No matter the motivation.
This is the exact pattern followed in nearly every mass murder incident in the nation's recent history. I'm so old, I remember what's considered to be the first of these incidents, at the University of Texas in 1966. It was a shocking and appalling incident, unprecedented, bloody and awful. It was considered an aberration at the time, a gross anomaly, but it set the pattern that nearly all incidents of the type have followed ever since.
And so it was in Orlando.
So it was in San Bernardino, too.
Despite the fact that these two recent incidents are widely considered to be Islamist "terrorist" incidents, they follow the precise pattern of mass killings that has become the tradition in the USofA.
There's long been a suspicion that these incidents are not really random. The pattern is too similar, the victims too ordinary, the chosen sites too commonplace, the response too nearly identical. (More thoughts and prayers, please.) Most obviously, these incidents induce panic and fear in general population.
In addition, these incidents all depend on ease of access to firearms. Our political class absolutely refuses to restrict access to firearms, citing the Sacred Second -- the only provision in the Bill of t that politicians and their sponsors seem to recognize and care about.
Panic and fear. More panic and fear. Futile calls for gun control. Official disinterest. More gun sales. And still more panic and fear as there is no place safe from the lone wolf killers seeded among us. No place at all.
Except that if you are rich enough or important enough, you will never be a victim of one of these lone wolf killers seeded among us. Nope, not a chance.
Isn't that interesting?
However, Gabby Giffords, an elected member of Congress was a victim -- who survived a mass shooting in Arizona. Interestingly, after she was shot, the usual calls for gun control were issued, and Congress in its wisdom and majesty refused to do anything. Not their problem. Even though one of their own was a victim. It didn't matter. Too bad so sad. Tough luck, Gabby. At least she survived.
What's going on? Why is it impossible to do anything to control access to the weapons that make these incidents possible? Not just possible but certain?
The lack of action is often blamed on the NRA and its lobbying prowess. That's a traditional response. It's their fault. Blame it on the boogy-man.
But what happens is that Congress and state legislatures and local authorities refuse to act. They cite the constitution and court decisions which they claim prevent them from acting, but those excuses fall flat. The simplest explanation is that they are satisfied with the way things are even if, from time to time, one of their own is shot by a mass murderer. They gain some kind of benefit from keeping the Rabble endlessly fearful of attackers. It's almost as if they believe the survival of the Nation depends on keeping the masses constantly fearful and filled with dread.
The fact that some of the international terror groups like to congratulate the killers or take responsibility for encouraging them should be a red flag. There's something very odd going on. The Powers That Be seem pleased enough, as whatever is going on doesn't affect them directly at all. But it does help keep the riff-raff in line.
I have no way to know what the motivation of the Orlando killer was. Speculation has focused on some mental issues (possibly untreated bipolar disorder) and inchoate rage at gay men. That may be. I don't know. His supposed ISIS affiliation would be interesting if true, but there's no sign yet that it is (though it will be flogged forever). The fact that he was able to get into the club with his weapons and ammunition, past a fully armed and uniformed off-duty cop who was working security for the club, is evocative of something, but I don't know what. From reports, he started shooting soon after he entered the club, he shot and killed or wounded over 100 patrons, and then he retreated to a restroom where he barricaded himself with a number of hostages and started making phone calls. He was in contact with police for hours. During that time, there was no help for the wounded. How many bled out while the shooter was barricaded in the restroom is anybody's guess. But it was probably a significant number.
Eventually, the police forced an opening in the wall of the restroom where the killer was barricaded. According to reports, the hostages then escaped, and the killer emerged. There was, they say, a shootout and the killer was killed. End of story.
But was at 5am after a long and grisly night. It's right to ask how many of those who died were victims of friendly fire or neglect. And was there really a shoot out? Who can say and will we ever know for sure?
These mysteries and many more will compound over time. An official story will be promulgated and we will go on. Till the next time, and the next and the next and the next.
The massacres will continue until morale improves...
Yet another mass killing, this time -- they say -- with the largest number of casualties of any single incident of mass murder in the nation's history.
Well, actually, no. If we're measuring massacre casualties accurately, we have to go way back into American history and start with the New England immigrants, Pilgrims they were, who came here and started killing right off the bat. If we want to go back further, we need to go back to the Spanish adventurers in the Southwest who killed Natives with abandon -- though many of their accounts may be false.
It was not unusual for hundreds -- even in one case, thousands -- of Natives to be killed at one go. So no, the Orlando Massacre is by no means the largest number of mass-murder casualties in the nation's or its colonial history. Not even close. Some are beginning to say that it is the largest mass murder toll since Wounded Knee, but even that might not be accurate.
Still, it's a shocking and terrible thing and deeply traumatic to Orlando and the gay community. It has shaken the Hispanic community as well since almost all the casualties were Latin men, it being Latin Night at the venue.
Ultimately, this mass killing has shaken the nation, but... well, there have been so many of these incidents over the years, so very many mass shootings at various sites -- schools, shopping centers, movie theatres, churches, bars and clubs, etc., etc. It's an American tradition by now.
The victims of these incidents are almost always ordinary folk, people going about their ordinary business or recreation, bothering no one, at least not intentionally. The routine is that some "lone wolf" with issues targets a particular site where random people gather and starts shooting more or less randomly until the shooter is dispatched by the overwhelming firepower of authorities -- or surrenders or escapes to be captured later.
What never happens in these incidents is that the High and the Mighty are targeted and slaughtered one by one and in batches. Never.
The targets are always perfectly ordinary people doing perfectly ordinary things with others of their kind.
The pattern is almost always the same: the shooter with his weapons and ammunition goes to a site where he knows people will gather, he makes his way in with little or no difficulty, he sets himself up and starts shooting while watching his targets panic and cower or run in fear. He kills and wounds however many he can before police or others intervene. He may or may not be killed on the spot, with or without a gunfight. But shooter does essentially the same things no matter when or where the incident takes place. No matter the motivation.
This is the exact pattern followed in nearly every mass murder incident in the nation's recent history. I'm so old, I remember what's considered to be the first of these incidents, at the University of Texas in 1966. It was a shocking and appalling incident, unprecedented, bloody and awful. It was considered an aberration at the time, a gross anomaly, but it set the pattern that nearly all incidents of the type have followed ever since.
And so it was in Orlando.
So it was in San Bernardino, too.
Despite the fact that these two recent incidents are widely considered to be Islamist "terrorist" incidents, they follow the precise pattern of mass killings that has become the tradition in the USofA.
There's long been a suspicion that these incidents are not really random. The pattern is too similar, the victims too ordinary, the chosen sites too commonplace, the response too nearly identical. (More thoughts and prayers, please.) Most obviously, these incidents induce panic and fear in general population.
In addition, these incidents all depend on ease of access to firearms. Our political class absolutely refuses to restrict access to firearms, citing the Sacred Second -- the only provision in the Bill of t that politicians and their sponsors seem to recognize and care about.
Panic and fear. More panic and fear. Futile calls for gun control. Official disinterest. More gun sales. And still more panic and fear as there is no place safe from the lone wolf killers seeded among us. No place at all.
Except that if you are rich enough or important enough, you will never be a victim of one of these lone wolf killers seeded among us. Nope, not a chance.
Isn't that interesting?
However, Gabby Giffords, an elected member of Congress was a victim -- who survived a mass shooting in Arizona. Interestingly, after she was shot, the usual calls for gun control were issued, and Congress in its wisdom and majesty refused to do anything. Not their problem. Even though one of their own was a victim. It didn't matter. Too bad so sad. Tough luck, Gabby. At least she survived.
What's going on? Why is it impossible to do anything to control access to the weapons that make these incidents possible? Not just possible but certain?
The lack of action is often blamed on the NRA and its lobbying prowess. That's a traditional response. It's their fault. Blame it on the boogy-man.
But what happens is that Congress and state legislatures and local authorities refuse to act. They cite the constitution and court decisions which they claim prevent them from acting, but those excuses fall flat. The simplest explanation is that they are satisfied with the way things are even if, from time to time, one of their own is shot by a mass murderer. They gain some kind of benefit from keeping the Rabble endlessly fearful of attackers. It's almost as if they believe the survival of the Nation depends on keeping the masses constantly fearful and filled with dread.
The fact that some of the international terror groups like to congratulate the killers or take responsibility for encouraging them should be a red flag. There's something very odd going on. The Powers That Be seem pleased enough, as whatever is going on doesn't affect them directly at all. But it does help keep the riff-raff in line.
I have no way to know what the motivation of the Orlando killer was. Speculation has focused on some mental issues (possibly untreated bipolar disorder) and inchoate rage at gay men. That may be. I don't know. His supposed ISIS affiliation would be interesting if true, but there's no sign yet that it is (though it will be flogged forever). The fact that he was able to get into the club with his weapons and ammunition, past a fully armed and uniformed off-duty cop who was working security for the club, is evocative of something, but I don't know what. From reports, he started shooting soon after he entered the club, he shot and killed or wounded over 100 patrons, and then he retreated to a restroom where he barricaded himself with a number of hostages and started making phone calls. He was in contact with police for hours. During that time, there was no help for the wounded. How many bled out while the shooter was barricaded in the restroom is anybody's guess. But it was probably a significant number.
Eventually, the police forced an opening in the wall of the restroom where the killer was barricaded. According to reports, the hostages then escaped, and the killer emerged. There was, they say, a shootout and the killer was killed. End of story.
But was at 5am after a long and grisly night. It's right to ask how many of those who died were victims of friendly fire or neglect. And was there really a shoot out? Who can say and will we ever know for sure?
These mysteries and many more will compound over time. An official story will be promulgated and we will go on. Till the next time, and the next and the next and the next.
The massacres will continue until morale improves...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)