Showing posts with label Alexander Cockburn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alexander Cockburn. Show all posts

Friday, December 13, 2013

Killers On The Road

Reprinted from CounterPunch

Killers on the Road

The Whack ‘Em and Stack ‘Em Mentality of American Cops

by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR and ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Police work continues to be a relatively safe occupation. In the 1970s, an average of 220 officers died each year. In the 1980s, 185 officers were killed on average, with the average number dropping to 155 in the 1990s. The number of police deaths continues to decline, year by year. According to the publication Officer Down, there were only 95 “duty related” officer deaths in 2013. Forty-two of these fatalities were vehicle related. Another 14 deaths resulted from heart attacks while on the clock. Only 27 cops died from gunfire last year and several of those were shot by other cops.
Craig Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, contends that “law enforcement remains the most dangerous occupation in America today, and those who serve and make the ultimate sacrifice are true portraits in courage.”
This is nonsense. Compared to the daily perils of being a retail clerk in a 7-Eleven or toiling on a construction site, let alone working on a trawler in the Gulf of Alaska, logging in the Pacific Northwest or working in a deep mine, policing is a fairly invulnerable trade.
But as vividly recounted by James Bovard in a piece for CounterPunch this week, it has probably never been riskier to be pulled over by a cop on one of America’s roads. Bovard writes:
“Killings by police are not a negligible proportion of the nation’s firearms death toll. Shootings by police accounted for almost 10 percent of the homicides in Los Angeles County in 2010, according to the Los Angeles Times.
“Jim Fisher, a former FBI agent and criminal law professor, compiled a database of police shootings and estimated that in the United States in 2011 police shot more than 1,100 people, killing 607.”
The public apprehension that cops are often borderline psychotic, hair-trigger-ready to open fire on the slightest pretext, virtually immune from serious sanction, is growing apace, fueled by such incidents as the dog slaughter on an interstate in Tennessee. CNN featured grainy film of the episode taken from one of the police cruisers.
James Smoak plus wife Pamela and son Brandon were traveling from Nashville along Interstate 40 to their Saluda, NC, home on New Year’s Day when they noticed a trooper following them. In Cookeville, about 90 miles east of Nashville, the Smoaks were pulled over by the trooper and three local police cars. The cops ordered them out of the car, made them kneel and then handcuffed them.
At this point the Smoaks family implored the police to shut the doors of their car so the two family dogs couldn’t jump out. The cops did nothing. Out hopped Patton the bulldog. A cop promptly raised his shotgun and blew its head off, amid the horrified screams of the Smoaks family.
Of course, the cops later said Patton was acting in a threatening manner and that the uniformed shot-gunner “took the only action he could to protect himself and gain control of the situation,” but the film seems to show Patton wagging his tail the moment before he was blown away.
Why were the Smoaks stopped by the four-car posse? Mr. Smoaks had left his wallet on the roof of his car at the filling station, and someone phoned in a report that he’d seen the wallet fly off of a car and fall onto the highway with money spilling out. Well, Mr. Smoaks won’t make that silly mistake again.
Scroll through some Middle America websites and you’ll find much fury about what happened to Patton, as an episode ripely indicative of how cops carry on these days. Here’s “Police State in Progress,” by Dorothy Anne Seese writing in the sparky Sierra Times. The Times bills itself as “An Internet Publication for Real Americans.”
After relating the death of Patton, Seese brought up other recent police rampages:
“A couple of months ago, a woman was shot to death in her car at a drive-through Walgreens pharmacy for trying to get Soma by a forged prescription. The officer who shot the woman—who had a 14-month old baby with her in the car—claimed self-defense because the woman was trying to run over him. However, the medical examiner found she had been shot from an angle to the left and rear of her position in the driver’s seat. Self defense? The officer is under investigation for second-degree murder and has been fired from the Chandler police department. However, a child is motherless, a man has been deprived of his wife and companion, the mother of his child, because his wife tried to get a drug with a phony prescription. Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s daughter did the same thing and got a slap on the wrist. It seems the law now considers everyone guilty until proven innocent, with people in high places excepted. The number of horror stories increases daily in Amerika.”
There was a time when “Amerika” was a word solely in left currency. Not anymore, if the conservative, populist Sierra Times is any guide. Check out its Whack’em & Stack’em feature about killings by cops and you’ll sense the temperature of outrage.
This is a revised version of a story that originally ran in the January 2003 print edition of CounterPunch.

--Joe

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Opinionator

If the Report only makes observations, why does it write about (so-called) opinions?

The fundamental purpose of this Report is to produce objective, non-personal observations. When it comes to “opinions” that's rather hard to do in a society of Opinionators that are unable to distinguish between unsubstantiated conjecture and who they are as a person. By the way, the definition of an Opinionator is: “n. An opinionated person; one given to conjecture.” The definition of “conjecture” is: “n. The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; guess; speculation.”

We can easily define an Opinionator as someone that is without any substantive legitimacy. They are essentially psychotic; devoid of reality. As such they are deluded and prone to hallucinations. Put another way they are or become their own dreams; unable to distinguish between the dark from the light. Unfortunately, Opinionators are one of the main tools or means used for dispensing propaganda in the main stream media today. While these 'opinion's may contain some facts or be loosely based upon a fact, these Opinionator's unsubstantiated conjecture is all about disrespecting the reader. The Opinionator's main goal is to get the reader to agree that he or she speaks truth, not guess-work crap, thus becoming legitimate individuals. Respect for the reader requires substantiated facts in sufficient proportion pro and con that allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and what is not.

That is why the Report looks at 'opinion' pieces and sometimes makes observations, to expose the fraud, misinformation, conjecture and mostly outright lies. Opinionators are revealed for what they are, illegitimate and mostly purveyors of knee-jerk stupidity. Consequently, they are essentially irrelevant to this Report. Whatever good service they provide is questionable and probably should be considered as such. Locally, when it comes to serious blogs of substance, there are a few. There are even some serious commentators.

What prompted this article was listening to the interview of Johan Galtung on the War in Afghanistan and How to Get Out with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He said: “I Love the US Republic, and I Hate the US Empire – drawing a clear distinction between the two that's well worth considering. In fact his whole interview is a thinking person's gift. Drawing the distinction between the Republic and Empire, he says America will only become whole when it gets rid of its “exceptionalism” and getting away from the belief that the US has a “separate mandate from God, even a mandate to kill.” This interview was based on his latest book called The Fall of the US Empire, "in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020."

To start he said:
Now let’s look at it from a Washington point of view: pursuing a victory which will never happen. I’ll say why: 1.56 billion Muslims are dedicated to the idea of defending Islam when trampled upon. Some of them are traveling to Afghanistan. Some of them are doing it somewhere else in other ways. Those ways can become quite disagreeable, as you know.

Point two, there is no capitulation in Islam to infidels. It doesn’t exist. To fight against Christians and Jews—you take the mini-empire of Israel, the regional empire—is not an invitation to a violent confrontation that will end with a capitulation. In other words, the time perspective of the Muslim community is unlimited. I don’t think the time perspective of Washington is unlimited. So you can say, of course, who has the longer time perspective will win. (Emphasis added)
Commenting on how Israel, the mini-empire fits into this is an interesting read from by Alexander Cockburn on Jun 11th, 2010, is the “Pariah Nation” in The AVA. He concludes with the following quote for an Israeli Journalist Gordon Levy that sounds like Levy is talking about America:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: “In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel.… It’s systematic — it’s not here and there. Things are becoming much harder.” And Levy also wrote in Ha’aretz, “When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views… the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.”
Then there is Glenn Greenwalds: “The media's understanding of its role” published Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in Salon.com. He concludes by saying:

“UPDATE II: One other point: what Axelrod tried to explain to Gregory about accountability -- "trust" and attempts to understand someone's character are irrelevant; what matters is evidence and "mak[ing] sure that they do what they're required to do" -- is also a good guide for how citizens should think of political leaders, even (especially) their favorite ones.”
Did you decide for yourself?                                                                                          -- [source]
--Joe