J-Pod puts the Eric Garner case in perspective

Podhoretz calls the decision inexplicable, and I tend to agree with him. Policing strategies and tactics need to change with the landscape. This is a much different case than Ferguson. Excerpt:

What happened to Eric Garner was certainly not deliberate, but rather the result of a series of horrible choices. First, by Garner, to resist, and then by Officer Daniel Pantaleo to immobilize Garner by using a choke-hold, which New York City cops are trained not to use (but which is not in fact illegal). It strikes me as understandable that a grand jury would look at the events and not see something they would call a murder.

But a murder charge was not the only choice open to them, or so we are being told right now. There are gradations of illegality involving the unnecessary death of someone, and it seems likely that (as was the case with the 1994 choke-hold death of Anthony Baez) the federal government will secure some kind of charge now that it has involved itself in this matter.

The real question that is going to be asked, now, is just how aggressive law enforcement can and should be in an era of low crime, which is what we’re in now. If you defang cops, you are inviting a return to trouble. As I wrote last week, “if we send police officers the message that it is safer for their careers and reputations to stand down, stand down they will. We are the ones who will have to reckon with the results.” At the same time, no civilized society can view the tape showing Garner’s desperate pleading and not ask some very difficult questions of itself.

I can see why people would protest this case because Garner's death seems like a completely disproportionate result of his noncompliance. He wasn't trying to kill Pantaleo like Michael Brown was evidently attempting to kill Darren Wilson. And I don't feel bad for Pantaleo who is probably going to lose his job. He made a bad choice, whereas Wilson wasn't even given a choice.

Something I've been thinking of for the last few weeks with regard to the whole Ferguson fiasco, and especially after Michael Medved echoed my thoughts on his show about a week ago, saying something like "Why this case? Why Michael Brown? What is there about this case which has everybody so excited?" My theory is that the race-hustlers like Sharpton and Holder know that in order to achieve their desired level of chaos they need to have the maximum amount of divisiveness and polarization about an incident. A black man who is innocent being killed wouldn't work for the purposes of demonstrating systemic injustice because everybody would agree on the injustice of the event. Obviously disproportionate responses on the part of police would also get more of a unanimous condemnation, thus precluding any type of claims of enduring racism and injustice. My theory is that if you want to cause maximum chaos, pick an incident which divides people along racial, demographic or ideological lines. Then you can easily create the perception that the system is utterly unjust and biased in favor of the rich, the white or those nasty conservative people. One side says "Michael Brown was a criminal thug and Darren Wilson was forced to act in self-defense. Everything else is irrelevant." The other side says "Michael Brown was a young black man and a white cop, Darren Wilson, harassed him for no reason. Everything else is irrelevant." The lines are drawn, time to go to war.

This is only a theory, and doesn't sound particularly strong to me, but I'm not a psychopath like Al Sharpton so I can't mimic his thinking exactly. There is an interesting comment at the end of this piece along the lines of my thinking:

But it is interesting how the Ferguson situation has calloused people like me who would normally be dismayed by the Garner grand jury verdict. Ferguson is a tipping point.

We have to resist the urge to say "OK, you don't like the police, fine. We won't send them to your neighborhoods anymore." That would just punish the silent, innocent majority, and I think it would give CNN and the race-hustlers just what they want: more chaos. This is why I tell people I had to move out of the City of Cleveland. I felt like if I stayed, I might become a racist.

More laughs from OWS

Here's a treat for your Easter Basket. Excerpt from beginning:

As the nascent Occupy movement attempts to revive interest in its radical left-wing agenda, it is burdened with a host of organizational and financial problems left over from some of the bitter infighting that took place during the winter.

Last night, the two main organizational bodies of Occupy Wall Street were dissolved, and a new group running OWS’s finances is admitting to a lack of transparency, financial discrepancies and poor financial decisions by the previous custodians of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations.

There are a lot of laugh lines in here like "Who’s accountable if this is a ‘leaderless’ movement?" But the main takeaway for me is that no one among the general populace really cares that much for their ideas, let alone their methods. Sure, they may get propped up by Soros or Obama if they are needed for the election, and for that reason I don't think OWS is dead as a political force. Who knows, maybe the ranks will be combed for drones to staff the next incarnation of ACORN.

However, the Occupy movement is not vibrantly alive as a grassroots organization like one of the Tea Party groups. I believe that one reason is that the Tea Party groups aren't tied to bizarre manifestos touting obscure ideals like horizontalism, General Assemblies or Facilitation Working Groups. My theory is that most of the people who really believe these kinds of structures can work on a large scale are dyed-in-the-wool academics who have seen it work in some pointless non-profit agency or a group home they worked in while working on their degrees. In other words, only on a small scale in a controlled environment. These theoretical models haven't been tested for real until now, and they are failing.



This is a bit rambling, but I'll offer a line to sum this development up as follows: "Seeking to be peaceful anarchists, they became contentious bureaucrats." Maybe someone can improve on this summation. Or just enjoy a laugh at their expense.

"Last week was free love"

The NY Post talks about some problems at the good ol' #OWS gatherings that we didn't really see so much at the Tea Parties.

A volunteer at the park admitted concern among protesters about STDs.

“We give directions to clinics if people ask for information regarding STDs,” said the volunteer, who identified himself only as “Captain” and added that pregnancy tests are also a hot item.

“Like anything else, it happens. People ask, and we do the best we can for them.”

Volunteers at the medical tent hand out cash, usually $15 or $20, so the randy radicals can visit clinics that cater to a low-income clientele, the source said.

Experts said it’s the right thing to do.

“My advice for the protesters would be to practice safer sex. It’s a lot cheaper to buy a condom than get treated for an STD,” said Dr. Lisa Oldson, medical director of Chicago-based Analyte Health, which provides testing services for labs nationwide, including STD Test Express New York.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who is a registered independent and what I describe as a Radical Moderate, i.e., someone who thinks the conservatives and liberals are all a bunch of asses. He is smart and working on his doctorate, but he worked construction for many years with older guys who came of age in the sixties. His contention is that the vast majority of men in all the protest movements of the sixties were really just about scoring sex with as many women as possible, and that was an integral part of the energy of the movement. He said that this is evident from the way that so many of them remembered all the political upheaval that went on from the peace movement to civil rights.

So nothing has changed. I suppose this week will be Free Love Week as well, and Analyte Health will be raking in even more dough for their services.

"But maybe in the next world, maybe in the next world"

A major fracture in the Occupy movement? Say it isn't so! Major down twinkles, man. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. All honeymoons end. Here's the full article, and here's a highlights piece from Verum Serum. Excerpt:

Because even by the time the General Assembly was ready to meet at 7:30 p.m., things were unraveling. A large group, made up almost entirely of men, stood in a circle denouncing the General Assembly and their efforts to "police" the camp, particularly regarding drinking or smoking weed. Anyone who spoke in favor of a code of conduct was aggressively booed. Adding to the morass were four different men looping in and out of the circle, each armed with his own megaphone, shouting their own grievances and rhetoric. When a runner from the General Assembly made the announcement that they would begin the meeting, he was thunderously shouted down, then someone yelled out “The GA is dead!” and the crowd erupted in both celebration and shock: "We don’t want you or your fucking procedure!" One male protester, in an army helmet and no shirt, cried out as shoving matches erupted between several groups of men. The young man who was leading the informal group yelled: "This is the People’s Forum! There are no committees, there are no rules, everyone gets to speak. Get in a circle! GET IN A CIRCLE!" A majority of the crowd abided, although they were openly chastised when the circle took on non-circle shapes.

If there are no rules, then what is the next statement when he says "Everyone gets to speak"? Sounds like a rule to me, albeit a dumb rule. There's an old proverb, something like "Anarchists should be seen and not heard" which I think is mainly based on the content of their blather and not the threatening tone or the megaphonic volume.

The next paragraph mentions how everything eventually degenerated into "spastic dancing and primal bellowing". This is the most consistent thing to do shortly after denouncing rules, authority and order of any kind.

Reminds me of the lyrics to Death of a Disco Dancer by the Smiths:

Love, peace and harmony ?
Love, peace and harmony ?
Oh, very nice
Very nice
Very nice
Very nice
...but maybe in the next world