ADULTHOOD'S END: Did Kathleen Parker do the right thing?

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2020

Could the monsters be something like us?:
We've noted the fact that, in cases like this, the facts are always wrong.

The logic is often cockeyed too! Consider what happened yesterday when CNN anchor Brianna Keiler interviewed CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez.

Excitement was running high in this, the 2 P.M. Eastern hour. It had been announced that Minnesota's attorney general had reached a decision concerning possible charges against all four officers on the scene at the time of George Floyd's death.

Keilar began the hour with an exchange in which she and correspondent Josg Campbell pretended that they didn't know what the decision would be. They also pretended that the community had so much confidence in Ellison that they would accept his decision whatever it might turn out to be.

Surely, everyone already knew what the decision would be—what it would have to be. But Keilar was now engaged in the active play-acting which passes for journalism among such creatures as we.

Campbell played his assigned role well. Then, Keillor turned to Jimenez and she offered this:
KEILAR (6/3/20): And Omar, you've spoken with so many people there in Minneapolis. And we've heard from them over and over again, right?

They say, if these were three people who were not police officers and they witnessed someone, they just stood by, feet away, doing nothing for minutes and minutes, and they witnessed third-degree murder, they would be held accountable. So why aren't these police officers being held accountable?
Say what? In fact, various people who weren't police officers had done exactly that! As they "stood by, feet away," they witnessed Officer Chauvin choking the life from Floyd.

None of them intervened, though several of them had videotaped the events. But to say what is blindingly obvious, none of those people are going to be "held accountable" for failing to intervene, and no one has ever suggested that they should be.

Except as an example of outrage- and narrative-formation, Keilar's statement made no earthly sense. In fairness, she seemed to have conflated a few mandated talking points, creating a ludicrous muddle.

Keilar's statement made no earthy sense. That said, Jimenez, a good decent person who's also quite sharp, knew how he had to respond:
JIMENEZ (continuing directly): Well, that's right, Brianna...
At one time, the customer was always right. Today, the anchor is.

Meanwhile, because the facts are always wrong, Jeffrey Toobin soon pitched in with a statement "based on the video I've seen," a statement which plainly seems to be wrong.

We don't know what video he has been seeing. But you can search that one out for yourselves.

At any rate, so it goes on cable where, along with everything else, the facts are always wrong. We expect to explore the wrongness of facts in the week or so to come. For today, we ask two important questions:

In the course of human events, how do monsters get invented? Also, did Parker do the right thing?

We have no doubt that Kathleen Parker is a good, decent person. Long before these current events, before she was hired by the Washington Post, we reviewed her syndicated columns with respect to a certain topic.

We were surprised to see that Parker hadn't demonized Naomi Wolf during Campaign 2000 in anything resembling the way other columnists had. This was back in the days when the mainstream journalists we're trained to respect were sliming Wolf in ways which were often openly misogynistic and were absurdly misleading or bogus.

The "liberal" persons and groups we're trained to respect made no attempt to challenge this horrible conduct. A war against Candidate Gore was on—he was a stand-in for President Clinton—and the people we're trained to respect were almost all complicit in the wildings which occurred.

We were surprised to see that Parker hadn't played that game with respect to Wolf in the way others had done. We refer to the game which sent George W. Bush to the White and the army into Iraq.

Parker had played it much more straight with respect to Wolf and Gore. We had a different reaction to yesterday's column in the Washington Post.

In that column, Parker discussed the presence of monsters in our lives. Along the way, she also showcased the manner on their invention.

We all have nightmares involving monsters, Parker wrote at the start of her column. When we startle awake, we realize that monsters aren't real.

Now, though, we see that monsters are real. Today, these monsters even have names. In this passage, Parker named one:
PARKER (6/3/20): Now we wake, if we sleep at all, and the nightmare is real—and the monsters have names.

Chauvin, charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, is surely the loneliest man on the planet.
How does he sleep at night? I try to imagine what he thinks about in those dark hours when the wolf closes in, sniffing the hollowness at the threshold of his cell. Does he replay those nine minutes trying to understand why he did what he did? Does he even care?
Former officer Derek Chauvin is one such monster, Parker said. Indeed, Chauvin's videotaped behavior last week does indeed seem monstrous.

"Does he even care?" Parker asked. We'd offer this provisional answer:

According to a pair of high-profile studies, 3-5 percent of adult males could be diagnosed as sociopaths—and it's commonly said that sociopaths have no ability to care. If we substitute that slightly more grown-up term, it may be that Chauvin doesn't care—though we'd rather see a medical specialist discuss this matter as opposed to ourselves or to Parker.

Is Derek Chauvin a sociopath? We have no way of saying. But as she continued, Parker seemed to spot three additional monsters.
In the course of making her accusation, did Parker do the right thing?
PARKER (continuing directly): We don’t have to second-guess what happened to George Floyd. We saw the video and recoiled in horror. Nor do we have to deploy euphemisms or dodgy words like “apparently” or “allegedly” to recount how Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes, cutting off blood and oxygen as the prone and cuffed man begged for air and his life.

From the video, it’s easy to see that Chauvin not only kept his knee in place despite outraged pleas from onlookers; he pressed his full body weight into Floyd’s neck. Why didn’t the other three officers stop this horror? What fear or evil allowed them to look away? Why didn’t the people taking video compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop? That’s impunity, incarnate.

The minds of monsters are hard to read. They are not like us. Monsters are without qualms, hesitations, empathy or remorse. Certitude animates the beast; power feeds its lust for more.
Monsters "aren't like us," Parker writes. We're not sure we agree with that.

You'll note a remarkable point. Parker almost seems to include those civilian bystanders among her list of monsters. They didn't compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop, the way we would have done.

The people who were taping the incident didn't force Chauvin to stop! If one of them had done such a thing—if one of them had pushed Chauvin off his handcuffed victim—then George Floyd might be alive today, but the person who behaved that way would likely be in jail.

Do we really expect people to do things like that? Apparently, that's what we would have done. Do we really call them monsters when they don't do that?

As emotion runs off with her wisdom, Parker seems to say that. But she certainly says that the other three officers are monsters. As her column ends, there's no Little about that:

"The monsters in this nightmare are real, sure enough. But we know their names," Parker writes.

According to Parker, the other three officers "were without qualms, hesitations, empathy or remorse." She says that those monsters weren't like us.

We're not sure we agree with that. Consider a few of the things you weren't told in Parker's column. These are things you haven't been told pretty much anywhere else:

Chauvin, an 18-year veteran, was the senior officer in the group. His partner, Tou Thau, was also an experienced officer.

The other two officers—Richard Lane and J. Alexander Keung—were rookies. They were new to the force.

As we noted yesterday, one of the rookies, Thomas Lane, suggested to Chauvin on several occasions that he ought to stop. According to Parker, good people "like us" would have gone even further. We would have shoved our superior officer off the neck of Floyd.

Really? How often does anyone actually do something like that? We will guess that the examples are few and far between.

Are Minneapolis police cadets trained to do that when confronted with such crazy behavior? We've seen no such discussion.

Back in the days of the war against Gore, Parker certainly didn't do something like that. She didn't oppose what her higher-ranking colleagues were doing when they conducted their long, ugly war. But dearest darlings, use your heads! That might have harmed her career!

Is former officer Lane a monster? Parker tells us that he is. As she does, she withholds elementary facts about his rookie status and about his statements to Chauvin, the superior officer.

In doing so, she is creating the kind of fairy tale which has often been built around cases of this type in the past eight years. She is creating the fairy tale in which the wolf drops down on the little girls's back, or the one in which an innocent party is shot dead as he tries to surrender, hands over head, for the crime of walking down the street.

In withholding complexity from her readers, is Parker herself a monster? Should she be locked up in jail? Should she be hauled off next?

That way lies perdition, but such is the way of our modern-day upper-end "press."

Every such situation must be dumbed down. All complexity must disappear. We must give consumers heroes and demons. We must feed them childish fairy tales in a version of adulthood's end.

Should former officer Lane have been charged with a crime? We have no idea.

We have no legal expertise around here. Instead, we write about the press corps, and concerning the press, we'll say this:

Concerning the press corps, there Parker goes again. Our journalists have created monsters in many of these high-profile, high-emotion cases over the past eight years. They've done so by inventing false facts; by disappearing actual facts; and by stressing completely irrelevant facts.

This is the life style they have chosen. According to major anthropologists, it's also the way we're all wired.

People are dead all over the world because they've done these things. Because we've been trained to respect these people, it may not occur to us that we're being misled as they do this.

When in her life did Kathleen Parker ever do the right thing? When did she ever behave in the way she says those rookie officers—even those civilian bystanders!—should have behaved that day?

We assume we all know the answer to that. But our pundits and our anchors keep feeding us monsters. This lets us pretend that we're better than them, better than them by far.

Sad! In our view, the monsters of Parker's imagination may be a great deal like the people who steal our discernment from us.

Tomorrow: Snapshots of modern-day Minnesota. "Who killed Davey Moore?"

65 comments:

  1. This is a thoroughly muddled essay (to borrow Somerby's term). First he says that Parker has never done the right thing herself. Then he complains because she calls out the officers who stood by and did nothing. In the midst of saying she has never done anything right in her career, he praises her for not sliming Wolf and for treating Gore fairly.

    Presumably, when he says "do the right thing" he is referring to treating Floyd properly, as the bystanding cops should have insisted that Chauvin do, intervening with him more forcefully to save Floyd's life. Although it is unclear what Somerby is saying, he seems to be suggesting that it is unreasonable for those bystanding officers to curtail Chauvin, because civilian bystanders didn't intervene either. He neglects that interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties is illegal, that the officers were armed and that it was the JOB of the officers to protect and serve, not to kill unarmed citizens, even ones guilty of crimes. It was not the job of the crowd to do that.

    Chauvin was a monster in the sense that he could listen to a man pleading for his life and still kill him. It takes a monster to do that. Parker is no such monster and neither were the crowd calling on Chauvin to let Floyd go. Parker understands what happened -- Somerby clearly does not. But more than that, there is video and people have watched it themselves across the nation, and that is why they are protesting. No one needs to put a label on Chauvin, as Parker did, because we can all see him for ourselves and we know what he did.

    Somerby says: "They didn't compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop, the way we would have done."

    I doubt Somerby would have done a thing. No one is going to attack an armed cop to save Floyd. But now people are marching to change police behavior. The police did this, not the crowd and not Parker. Calling for vigilantes to oppose police on the scene is not a solution and it is unclear exactly what Somerby means by this statement when no one believes he would intervene. Is he saying it was similarly impossible for the bystanding officers to stop Chauvin -- that is not true. They had the authority.

    Somerby is blaming the wrong target today -- Parker isn't the problem. But Somerby certainly is, with his attempts to justify police wrongdoing and blame the press. Somerby says that Parker has never had to engage in an act of moral courage. He cannot know that -- he doesn't know her life. But we do see hundreds of thousands of other normal people engaging in acts of courage by protesting this needless death. They are risking their lives during a pandemic, risking physical injury and infection, in order to tell our authorities that enough is enough, that this must stop.

    Trump's response is to double down. Somerby's is to ignore the citizens doing "the right thing" in order to slime a reporter who didn't even malign Al Gore. What an asshole Somerby is today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen the video of the camera man being punched by a cop. Reporters have been arrested in several cities. They are working under dangerous circumstances, to tell the general public what is happening. How is that not moral courage?

      If you look worldwide, being a reporter has become increasingly more dangerous. Trump's incitement to violence against reporters is consistent with that increase in murder and attack on the press. It is wrong for Somerby to say that they are not doing something important (passive bystanders) when their protection of our first amendment rights, their efforts to provide transparency, permit our democracy to function, especially when people such as Trump hide serious wrongdoing that demands exposure.

      There was a film back in the 60s called Medium Cool that explored reporters who film a car accident instead of helping the victims, film the 1968 riot instead of participating in it, watch instead of doing anything. This idea was typical of the 60s, where if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, but it was simplistic in not understanding that reporting is participating in our democracy in a profound way. Shining a light on the 1968 riot, as photographers and reporters did, even while the convention was going on, has been said to have changed the course of the election (for better or worse). The press is a check on abuse of power by making it visible to everyone. That's why it is dangerous to be part of the press these days. Lots of abuses to document, so that others can protest.

      Parker is showing more courage than Somerby gives her credit for, since her political orientation is not typical of those in the streets. Being politically conservative, when she calls Chauvin a monster, she may be challenging friends and family and her party as she expresses an unpopular opinion for the right. That is an example of moral courage.

      Delete
    2. I hear you, Bob.
      What's the point of tolerating the wholesale slaughter of a room full of First Graders, if the good guys with their guns aren't going to use their 2nd Amendment rights to fight the tyranny of the government?

      Delete
    3. This is a thoroughly muddled essay (to borrow Somerby's term).

      Only from those suffering from Corby Syndrome, the inability to read for comprehension and the incapacity to think critically.

      Is this you, professor? Or is your disability spreading to others like a virus?

      First he says that Parker has never done the right thing herself. Then he complains because she calls out the officers who stood by and did nothing.

      But, of course, TDH does no such thing. He calls out Parker for 1) labeling all involved officers as monsters and 2) indicting the by-standers taking video for not “compelling” the cops to stop.

      In the midst of saying she has never done anything right in her career, he praises her for not sliming Wolf and for treating Gore fairly.

      Presumably, when he says "do the right thing" he is referring to treating Floyd properly, as the bystanding cops should have insisted that Chauvin do, intervening with him more forcefully to save Floyd's life.


      The “bystanding cops” and the “bystanding” videoographers. So if you understand what TDH is referring to, why do you mention an irrelevant topic, TDH’s praise of Parker’s treatment of Wolf?

      Although it is unclear what Somerby is saying, he seems to be suggesting that it is unreasonable for those bystanding officers to curtail Chauvin, because civilian bystanders didn't intervene either.

      The only thing unclear here is your muddled thinking. TDH isn’t “suggesting” anything. He’s outright saying, that it’s a questionable judgment to call the other three cops “monsters,” who aren’t like us, the good human beings.

      He neglects that interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties is illegal,

      But, in fact, TDH explicitly says that “anyone interfering with an officer” would likely be in jail. What’s wrong with you that you get this point diametrically wrong?

      Chauvin was a monster in the sense that he could listen to a man pleading for his life and still kill him. It takes a monster to do that.

      Are you even aware that the blogger is inclined to agree with you, saying “Chauvin's videotaped behavior last week does indeed seem monstrous”?

      Parker is no such monster and neither were the crowd calling on Chauvin to let Floyd go.

      But who claims otherwise? Not TDH.

      Parker understands what happened -- Somerby clearly does not.

      Does she? Remember, she thinks the videographers should have intervened.

      Somerby says: "They didn't compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop, the way we would have done."

      I doubt Somerby would have done a thing.


      Of course he wouldn’t. He’s paraphrasing Parker and taking her argument to its logical conclusion. What’s wrong with you?

      No one is going to attack an armed cop to save Floyd.

      Precisely TDH’s point. So why does Parker ask why bystanders didn’t intervene?

      The police did this, not the crowd and not Parker. Calling for vigilantes to oppose police on the scene is not a solution and it is unclear exactly what Somerby means by this statement when no one believes he would intervene. Is he saying it was similarly impossible for the bystanding officers to stop Chauvin -- that is not true. They had the authority.

      Of course the police are responsible? Who says otherwise?

      Who’s calling for “vigilantes”? Nobody, not even Parker.

      Are you really undecided as to whether TDH thinks the other cops should have intervened? Because what he talks about is whether they should be called monsters.

      (con't->)

      Delete
    4. (<-con't)

      Somerby is blaming the wrong target today -- Parker isn't the problem. But Somerby certainly is, with his attempts to justify police wrongdoing and blame the press.

      Nowhere does TDH justify “police wrongdoing,” not in general and not in Floyd’s case, and you can’t point to a single word TDH writes here or elsewhere that’s evidence for your wrongheaded claim.

      Somerby says that Parker has never had to engage in an act of moral courage.

      The words “moral courage” are your, not TDH’s. TDH indicts Parker for the following:

      - Suggesting that bystanders should have intervened with the police.

      - Not mentioning complicating factors with regard to Lane and Keung, instead calling them monsters.

      - Being a bystander herself while her colleagues piled on Naomi Wolf back in the day.

      But you missed all that. Why?

      Delete
    5. ***please do not respond to deadrat. It only encourages him. ***

      Delete
    6. Parker does not suggest bystanders should have intervened. That is a total misreading of her piece. And, not defending Naomi Wolf is supposed to be equivalent to watching George Floyd die? That is...insane. And disgusting.

      Delete
    7. Parker does not suggest bystanders should have intervened.

      I’m not sure what she’s “suggesting.” She does write, “Why didn’t the people taking video compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop?” directly after asking why the other three cops didn’t either.

      That is a total misreading of her piece.

      I’m open to another interpretation. But she does ask whether it’s fear or evil that stayed the hands of Chauvin’s colleagues. Then she asks what stopped the videographers.

      And, not defending Naomi Wolf is supposed to be equivalent to watching George Floyd die? That is...insane. And disgusting.

      TDH notes approvingly that Parker didn’t attack Wolf the way her colleagues did, but then says that if she’s so big on interventions to prevent unwarranted attacks, why didn’t she speak up against her own cohort?

      The Washington Post has recorded over 5000 fatal police shootings in the US since 2015. Pick your number of unjustified killings from among those. How many of them died because too few of us objected at the outset.

      Now ask how many people died in Iraq.

      The deaths aren’t equivalent; they’re additive.

      Delete
    8. ***please do not respond to deadrat. It only encourages him. ***

      I’m sympathetic, since sometimes I even annoy myself.

      Alas, your suggestion won’t work. It might work for Mao, our Village Troll, because all he wants is a reaction. I comment because I love the sound of my own voice, and I’m indifferent to the responses of Anonymous Ignoramuses like you, 5:04P.

      I’m sorry that you can’t seem to respond to substantive comments.
      I’m sorry that you can’t seem to ignore commenters you dislike.
      I’m sorry, but it seems that it just sucks to be you.

      Delete
    9. *** please do not respond to deadrat. It only encourages him ***

      This is what a bully sounds like:

      "I’m sorry that you can’t seem to respond to substantive comments.
      I’m sorry that you can’t seem to ignore commenters you dislike.
      I’m sorry, but it seems that it just sucks to be you."

      Delete
    10. OK, I lied.

      I’m not sorry you can’t respond to substantive comments. But you can’t, or at least you don’t.

      I’m not sorry that you just can’t ignore comments you don’t like. But you don’t seem to be able to do that either.

      And I’m not sorry that these inadequacies seem to make you so miserable.

      You don’t know me; you presumably don’t care about anything I write; I can have absolutely no effect on your life.

      Bullies use physical threats and emotional manipulation to harm their victims, who cannot escape their abuse and have no means to defend themselves.

      When I point out that you can’t read for comprehension and that your arguments don’t make sense, not only is that true, but that’s pretty much the end of it. Stop playing the victim. It belittles the experience of real victims.

      I use an identifiable nym. All you have to do is not read what I post. That’s what I do with our Village Troll, Mao. Which is only one reason why you don’t see me posting complaints between asterisks that Mao is bully because he called me a dembot.

      Delete
    11. I want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help.
      Website: http://emutemple.website2.me/

      Delete
    12. I want to share a testimony of how Dr OSAGIE herbal mixture cream saved me from shame and disgrace, my penis was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing ,and i was also having weak erection problem i had so many relationship called off because of my situation,m i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for Which was very painful and then i saw some few testimonies about this herbal specialist called Dr OSAGIE and decided to email him on so I gave his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me and we discussed, he gave me some comforting words and encouraged me also ans then gave me his herbal pills and cream for Penis Enlargement Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, " and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9.7 inches longer and am so happy contact Dr OSAGIE via drosagiesolutionhome5 @ gmail. com Via whatapp +2348034778129.

      Delete
  2. "They've done so by inventing false facts; by disappearing actual facts; and by stressing completely irrelevant facts."

    Well, what would you expect, dear Bob? They are your goebbelsian liberal-zombie media.

    They don't report, they push narratives. Narratives for you, rank-and-file zombies, to internalize and accept as the unquestionable truth, liberal dogma. And it works, dear Bob.

    That's all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here are some facts that Somerby has ignored:

      1. At this point, no drugs or alcohol have been found in Floyd's tox screen (deadrat was suggesting that the cops suspected PCP or some drug-induced delirium).

      2. It is not usual or common to arrest someone for passing a fake $20 bill. The police don't enforce or investigate counterfeiting, the store owner should turn the bill over to their bank or a more appropriate agency. The store owner said he didn't call the police normally but asked the customer to provide a different bill, so he wouldn't lose money. A 17-year-old called 911 against store policy, because he was new and didn't know what to do.

      3. Counterfeit bills are so frequent that many of us have probably passed one at some point without realizing it. Banks often identify them and collect them from businesses.

      4. Floyd in no way resisted arrest.

      5. Floyd was obviously terrified, perhaps having a panic attack, which does involve a sensation of being unable to breathe. It is why they give people having such an attack a paper bag to breathe into and reduce hyperventilation.

      6. Floyd was unarmed.

      7. Floyd was not a criminal.

      8. Chauvin had as many as 12 prior incidents of excessive force before encountering Floyd. His fellow officers would be aware of his "style" of enforcement.

      Delete
    2. @11:45 - Things I've read would contradict a couple of your points:

      -- Floyd was a criminal. "Floyd had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs"
      https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/george-floyd-had-violent-criminal-history-minneapolis-union-chief/

      -- According to the police report, Floyd did resist arrest by flopping on the ground and refusing to get into the police car.

      Of course, neither of these things (if true) would justify the police misbehavior. I'm mentioning them only for the sake of accuracy.

      Delete
    3. He was already in the police car and Chauvin pulled him out and put him on the ground.

      "A childhood friend, Christopher Harris, convinced Floyd to move to Minneapolis around 2014 and start a new life. They had mutual friends there and Floyd quickly found a job working as a security guard at a downtown Salvation Army store.

      Later, Floyd juggled two jobs, as a truck driver and a bouncer at the Conga Latin Bistro.

      "He's more than an employee, he's a close friend,” bistro co-owner Jovanni Thunstrom said. “He's like a brother to me.”

      Because of the pandemic and the economic shutdown, Floyd was out of work the day he died."

      Delete
    4. Also, Floyd had tested positive for Coronavirus:

      https://apnews.com/82b8119dd8e753494f755a186f5720b9

      Delete
    5. Testing positive for virus might have produced additional respiratory difficulties on top of whatever the autopsy found, and certainly stress.

      Delete
    6. deadrat was suggesting that the cops suspected PCP or some drug-induced delirium

      I’m “suggesting” no such thing. I’m stating that “excited delirium” is a suspect, possibly-faux “diagnosis” not adopted by all of the medical experts, but of use to over-reacting cops after the fact.

      Delete
    7. Yesterday you posted about excited delirium and by discrediting the existence of that diagnosis strongly suggested that the cops suspected Floyd of being on drugs, hence the need to restrain him tightly because he might have super-human strength due to PCP. They may have reasoned that way, but there were no such drugs found in his system.

      Delete
    8. Again, what I posted yesterday suggests that this dubious diagnosis is an excuse cops use to claim that the people they mistreated were so dangerous that extra force was required to subdue them.

      There's no evidence that Floyd was a danger to anyone, so it's no surprise that he wasn't on drugs. The cops' mention of "excited delirium" is likely a bit of pro-active, prospective ass covering.

      Get yourself checked for Corby Syndrome.

      Delete
    9. *** please do not respond to deadrat. It only encourages him. ***

      Delete
  3. Even a beginning shrink would understand that Somerby is not talking about society's end but about his own, when he titles this series "Adulthood's End". His despairing tone perhaps reflects his disappointment that he was not able to do more (or do what he hoped) with his years. He seems to be struggling for a sense of integrity about his life choices, but like Trump, blaming others. It might be a good idea to hash this out with a therapist instead of working it through in such a public place.

    In nearly all cases, it helps people with existential problems to engage in acts of charity that help others. If he were marching instead of carping, he might be more at peace. If he were working in a food bank or teaching adult literacy or working at habitat for humanity, he wouldn't be struggling to find value in his life (and ours).

    Trump too has found the press to be a handy scapegoat, but that's all it is. Not worth the time Somerby invests, except for the psychological payoff of blaming others for our own mistakes. In today's essay, Parker is a surrogate for Somerby's own insufficiencies. It is not too late to do the right thing yourself, Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ‘none of those people are going to be "held accountable" for failing to intervene, and no one has ever suggested that they should be.’

    Somerby’s misdirection is those people. He is referring to the bystanders filming the Floyd incident. Of course they aren’t going to be charged. The police were the ones doing the killing.

    But Keilar’s hypothetical was “if these were three people who were not police officers and they witnessed someone, they just stood by, feet away, doing nothing for minutes and minutes, and they witnessed third-degree murder, they would be held accountable.”

    Somerby claims her comment makes no sense.

    But if the three people, along with the fourth who was committing the actual offense, were members of a gang, each possessing deadly weapons, and the three stood by as the fourth commited the crime, a charge of aiding and abetting would seem at least plausible for the other three.

    As for random bystanders, there’s also this:

    2019 Minnesota Statutes

    604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW.
    Subdivision 1.Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/604A.01

    But of course the calculus completely changes when police officers are already on the scene, not to mention that they are the ones endangering the life of someone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The man who shot the video of jogger Arbery being murdered was himself charged with murder:

      https://www.france24.com/en/20200521-usa-georgia-ahmaud-arbery-jogger-shooting-unarmed-racism-william-bryan

      Delete
    2. The man who shot the video of Arbery participated in the "hunt", so he was part of the gang, per mh's example.

      Somerby is right in the sense that if you're talking about unrelated bystanders, then it makes no sense. However, the other cops were not unrelated bystanders.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I was supporting mh.

      Delete
    4. In the case of unrelated bystanders, Minnesota has a “duty to assist” law, which would at least obligate the bystander(s) to call the cops, or 911. Failing to do so is a petty misdemeanor, so not a big crime, but it does acknowledge that bystanders are obligated to do something, if at all possible.

      Delete
    5. I knew the NRA was in financial straits, but when were guns banned?

      Delete
    6. Failing to do so is a petty misdemeanor, so not a big crime,

      In fact, under Minnesota law, not a crime at all. Akin to speeding ticket. $300 fine, max.

      bystanders are obligated to do something, if at all possible.

      No, you don’t have to do anything unless you know the situation is a life-threatening emergency and that intervention will bring you no harm.

      Minnesota prosecutors don’t use this law. A brief use of the google finds that in its first 15 years on the books (1983-1998), nobody was cited for failure to assist. I didn’t find anything more current.

      Delete
    7. "...not a crime at all. Akin to speeding ticket. $300 fine, max."

      So, white people can't be killed for it. Good to know.

      Delete
  5. Off topic, but related to media behavior

    Many media are conflating protesters with rioters and looters. This may be related to the media tending to understate the amount of rioting and looting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can media be both conflating protesters with looters while simultaneously understating the amount of looting?

      Delete
    2. David doesn't know. It's probably something he read on 8chan.

      Delete
    3. @1:06 One article referred to all the protesters in jail. That was a way of conflating protesters with looters while understating the looting and rioting.

      Delete
    4. They aren't arresting looters, only protesters.

      Delete
    5. That's because the protesters want to hold them accountable.

      #youarethepolicestate

      Delete
  6. “Parker almost seems to include those civilian bystanders among her list of monsters. They didn't compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop, the way we would have done.”

    This is a misreading of Parker. The weasel word “almost” is of course a tip-off to another misdirection.

    She says:
    “Why didn’t the people taking video compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop? That’s impunity, incarnate.”

    They didn’t intervene because...well let’s let Somerby say it:

    “If one of them had done such a thing—if one of them had pushed Chauvin off his handcuffed victim—then George Floyd might be alive today, but the person who behaved that way would likely be in jail.”

    That is precisely what Parker means by “impunity”: citizens are not allowed to intervene in a police action, and the cops know that. Thus, the cops, at least during the course of the police action, which in this case involved the killing of George Floyd, possess impunity.

    “Impunity” is the monster, not the bystanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parker says:
      “Why didn’t the people taking video compel Chauvin or his brethren to stop? That’s impunity, incarnate.”

      They didn’t intervene because… “
      [they] would likely be in jail.”

      That is precisely what Parker means by “impunity”: citizens are not allowed to intervene in a police action, and the cops know that. Thus, the cops, at least during the course of the police action, which in this case involved the killing of George Floyd, possess impunity.


      I’m not sure what Parker is trying to say. She says something is of the starkest form (“incarnate”) of impunity right after she mentions bystanders failing to intervene with the cops. But impunity is the exemption from the punishment of actions, not generally from refraining from action, especially when action is barred or when no duty to act exists.

      The cops, during the course of lawful police action have more than impunity; they have immunity, an exemption from adverse legal proceedings. Is that what you meant?

      Clearly, the four cops in question have lost their presumption of immunity.

      Delete
  7. “When in her life did Kathleen Parker ever do the right thing?”

    Well, one might say, in this very opinion piece, which is titled

    “Four years ago, I said we’d survive no matter who won. How wrong I was.”

    In it, she says,
    “Four years ago, I wrote on the eve of the election that we’d survive no matter who won. It wasn’t an endorsement of either candidate but was an exercise in optimism based on my faith in our institutions and our system of checks and balances. Trump, whom I’d previously described as a hot-air buffoon, surely wouldn’t keep his tyrannical campaign promises, I declaimed.

    How wrong I was.”

    That admission, shouted out in the major forum of the Washington Post, could count as doing the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That admission, shouted out in the major forum of the Washington Post, could count as doing the right thing.

      Well, I’m in no forgiving mood, so for me, her “shouted admission” counts for little against her over three decades of spewed right-wing bilge. Still, so much better than our Cecelia.

      TDH would likely be more forgiving of someone he calls a “good, decent person,” particularly someone who didn’t commit that ultimate crime against Gore. Which is why I think doing the right thing here refers to intervening against one’s colleagues rather than issuing an apology pro vita sua.

      Delete
    2. That’s precious. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Somerby calls everyone a "good, decent person". It means nothing, apparently.

      Delete
    4. He doesn't call Trump that. Which puts him ahead of every evangelical "Christian" out there.

      And of course our Cecelia.

      Delete
    5. Must be all that right wing bilge that gets Parker included in posts about “liberal sachems.”

      Delete
    6. In evangelical Christians defense, their "religion" IS bigotry.

      Delete
    7. Well, hallelujah, brothers!. I’ve seen the light!

      I’m recanting all my evil ideals and opinions!

      I’m embracing everything you saints believe! I see now that the Trump devil is even more egregious than the Bush devil, and that makes it especially sinful when heathen, such as I was, don’t come to light. Much worse than the last time.

      I’m renouncing the whole two party system that has kept people from finding the one true way! There is only ONE way to think.

      If you hadn’t shown me this one true way (no dissent) to goodness, tolerance, liberality, intellectualism... in the classical sense, I might have stayed a nonhuman.

      Hallelujah, brothers! I’m bending the knee!.

      Delete
    8. "There is only ONE way to think."

      Meh. Zombies don't think.

      It's much easier. All you need to do is to conform to the latest set of talking points, developed by cult's high priests and distributed through zombie media.

      That's the true way. Thinking is dangerous; you could accidentally commit a thoughtcrime.

      Delete
    9. You're going to have to rip the economic idiocy, lack of understanding of basic math, the bigotry, and the reverence for the richest and whitest in society, from Cecelia's cold dead hands.

      Delete
    10. "All you need to do is to conform to the latest set of talking points, developed by cult's high priests and distributed through zombie media."

      To much work. Just call them dembot zombies , instead.

      Delete
    11. Cecelia,
      I hear you. I joined Al Quaeda, because i was so sick of being told the only way to think of 911 was the USA as the victim.
      I sensed you felt the same way about the holier than thou Left prancing about smugly telling everyone not to be a Nazi.

      Delete
    12. The idea that Trump is worse, and not equally abhorrent, than any other Republican, is idiocy. Trump didn't invent his failed economic ideology, his use of racism to rile up the base , and his lack of empathy for the suffering of others. Those are the three-legs of the stool of Conservative ideology, going back to Reagan.

      Delete
    13. You're going to have to do a lot better than that, Dixie. Start with an abject apology on your knees for inflicting that repugnant offensive manifestly unfit excuse for a human being on my country. And add in an apology to Secretary Clinton while you're at it.

      Delete
    14. mm,
      Bravo!
      It's like the "Never-Trumpers" on the Right. Until they apologize, and admit the Left was correct about the Right all along, they're just like the Nazis at the end of WWII, shucking their uniforms off, pretending they are one of the good people. Similar to the Tea Party running from the failures of the GOP, and pretending they knew nothing about these Bush/ Cheney guys in 2008.

      Delete
    15. Republicans from 2001-2007, accused the Left of having BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
      In 2008, they suddenly were suffering from BDS themselves.

      Today, the Left is accused of having TDS. On November 4th, the Republican cases of TDS will be an epidemic.

      Delete
    16. You all could take some lessons from Mao.

      When he says such things he does it without an ounce of your rage and with infinitely more charm.

      Delete
  8. “According to a pair of high-profile studies, 3-5 percent of adult males could be diagnosed as sociopaths—and it's commonly said that sociopaths have no ability to care. If we substitute that slightly more grown-up term, it may be that Chauvin doesn't care—though we'd rather see a medical specialist discuss this matter as opposed to ourselves or to Parker.”

    This doesn’t support Somerby’s disagreement with the idea ‘Monsters "aren't like us,".’

    If only 3-5 percent of adult males are sociopaths, and Chauvin, whose actions were monstrous, might be one, then 95-97% of males would not be able to read the minds of a sociopath or monster, which is Parker’s contention.

    Another question that this raises: what percentage of sociopaths become police officers?

    One could make the point that society asks cops to interact with sociopaths, psychopaths, and violent offenders, and that this might inevitably lead to cops becoming callous or brutalized by their job.

    But the appropriate response to that is not to defend or exonerate brutality. Cops have way too much power to overlook their abuses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. احدث اساليب الصيانة فى الاسكندرية لان الصيانة السليمة يجب ان تتم على أيدي متخصصين لدينا فريق عمل متميز من المهندسين والفنيين والمتخصصين .متخصصون فى صيانة واصلاح الأجهزة المنزلية , نحن الأسرع فى الوصول اليك ، فريق الصيانة فى خدمتكم على مدار اليوم , اتصل نصلك أينما كنت
    نتميز عن غيرنا بالإلتزام مع العملاء ، العمل الجاد ، الاحترافية في الصيانة , توفير خدمات راقية المستوى , فريق عمل مدرب بإحترافية

    توكيل صيانة وايت وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    صيانة وايت وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ثلاجات وايت وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة ثلاجات وايت وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    صيانة وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    توكيل صيانة ثلاجات وستنجهاوس بالاسكندرية
    صيانة ثلاجات وستنجهاوس بالأسكندرية

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like how this article is written. Your points are sound, original, fresh and interesting. This information has been made so clear there's no way to misunderstand it. Thank you.


    SEO services in kolkata
    Best SEO services in kolkata
    SEO company in kolkata
    Best SEO company in kolkata
    Top SEO company in kolkata
    Top SEO services in kolkata
    SEO services in India
    SEO copmany in India

    ReplyDelete
  11. I want to use this great opportunity to thank Dr love for helping me to get my girlfriend back after 7 months of breakup. My girlfriend breakup with me because he see another boy at his working place and told me he is no longer interested in me and live me in pain and heart break. I seek for help on the internet and i saw so many good talk about this great spell caster Dr love and I contacted him also and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me which i use to get back my girlfriend within the period of 48 hours and i am so grateful to him for the good work he did for me,that is why i also want to let everyone who is in need of help out there to also seek help from him so he can help.His email;(drloveteple@gmail.com ) or whatsapp: +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete
  12. I want to use this great opportunity to thank Dr love for helping me to get my girlfriend back after 7 months of breakup. My girlfriend breakup with me because he see another boy at his working place and told me he is no longer interested in me and live me in pain and heart break. I seek for help on the internet and i saw so many good talk about this great spell caster Dr love and I contacted him also and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me which i use to get back my girlfriend within the period of 48 hours and i am so grateful to him for the good work he did for me,that is why i also want to let everyone who is in need of help out there to also seek help from him so he can help.His email;(drloveteple@gmail.com ) or whatsapp: +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete
  13. I want to use this great opportunity to thank Dr love for helping me to get my girlfriend back after 7 months of breakup. My girlfriend breakup with me because he see another boy at his working place and told me he is no longer interested in me and live me in pain and heart break. I seek for help on the internet and i saw so many good talk about this great spell caster Dr love and I contacted him also and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me which i use to get back my girlfriend within the period of 48 hours and i am so grateful to him for the good work he did for me,that is why i also want to let everyone who is in need of help out there to also seek help from him so he can help.His email;(drloveteple@gmail.com ) or whatsapp: +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete