Showing posts with label The Atlantic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Atlantic. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Bystander Effect


If they're like most people in Eureka -- NOTHING!

Assault on the Subway: What Can a Bystander Do?

There are ways to intervene that don't involve putting yourself in danger.

It was nearly dawn on October 20, 2012, when Elisa Lopez hopped on the 4 train downtown from the Bronx* to head to her boyfriend's apartment. Lulled by the subway's rock and rumble, she fell asleep, head cradled by the Plexiglas divider between her seat and the doorway.

That's when one of the other riders, Carlos Chuva, sidled up to Lopez. He started caressing her, and put his hand up her skirt. Lopez did not wake as Chuva molested her. And no one on the train did anything to intervene, except for Jasheem Smiley, who captured about 30 seconds of the incident on his cell phone. When Lopez finally stirred and found Chuva's hands on her body, she says she punched him in the face. As she ran off the train onto the platform, she quickly glanced around the car, realizing that other passengers had been standing by silently.

"I stood there for a minute, like, What just happened?"Lopez told Cosmopolitanlast December. "I see some guy staring at me and the doors closed and the train left. I started crying, because I realized no one helped when this guy did something to me."

It seemed like a textbook example of the bystander effect: The more witnesses there are to an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to step in. The phenomenon is not a reflection of human heartlessness; it's more that our sense of personal responsibility is inversely proportionate to the number of people around us. When we see nobody else intervening, it normalizes and enforces an idea that there isn't a way to help—or maybe that help just isn't needed.

Last week, after more than two years of Lopez crusading for justice and working through the psychological trauma of the incident, Chuva was charged with first-degree felony aggravated sexual assault. His arrest was greatly helped by the evidence in Smiley's video—which, after the assault, traveled from his phone to a free porn website, then to Gothamist before going viral. Smiley, who came under fire for not doing anything to physically stop Lopez's assault, has stated that, in fact, he went immediately to the authorities with the video. But it's not clear how it made it online—which, as Lopez has stated, was a whole separate trauma.

"You should have been in my shoes to know what I was thinking," Smiley has said. "You shouldn't judge. I did the best I can."

What should have Smiley, or any of the other passengers on Lopez's train, done as witnesses? Can we blame the bystanders that her assault went on as long as it did?

"It's easy for outsiders to look at this story and say, 'How could you not help?' and 'What kind of people were they?'" says Dorothy Edwards, the executive director of Green Dot, an organization that offers bystander-intervention training for different forms of violence worldwide. "But put in the same situation, every person would run up against their own barriers."

By barriers, Edwards means the very legitimate cultural, psychological, or physical hurdles an individual might be confronted with when witnessing a violent assault like Lopez's. You might reasonably fear for your own life by physically intervening: Who knows if the perpetrator is armed? You might not speak the right language or know what to say to get them to stop. Maybe you've had your own trauma, and seeing something similar is too much to bear.According to a 2007 survey, 63 percent of New York City subway riders reported that they'd been harassed on a train. Ten percent said they'd been assaulted.

Faced with any form of violence, what can a bystander do? There's no single prescription, says Edwards. The trick is to recognize your own personal barriers in responding to an emergency, and then the range of options you actually have to help the victim. Whether you're in a crowd or all alone, "you can be direct, you can distract, or you can delegate," says Edwards. "Those are the basics."

Taking a direct tack is the most obvious option: You insert yourself directly into the situation to attempt to stop it. "But that's stranger danger," says Edwards. "Probably 97 percent of us would be intimidated by that."

And if that includes you, distraction is a useful alternative. You can make a noise, throw something against the wall, swear, talk loudly on your cellphone—anything to create a scene, and in a case like Lopez's, wake the victim up. "There is a lot of power in letting to perpetrator know they're being seen, and that neither they or the victim are invisible in this," says Edwards. "Making noise can also be a catalyst for someone else to step in and help in some other way."

If that doesn't work, or if you're not comfortable creating a distraction, delegate. Find somebody else who's willing to step in to help. "You can create momentum," says Edwards, by simply asserting to other people that something needs to be done.

And what about cell phones? Edward strongly condemns the fact that Smiley's cell phone footage made it online: "It's outrageous. It's its own broken law and violation." But, she says, capturing video is a legitimate and powerful mode of intervention. It lets the perpetrator know they're being watched, and can obviously be later used to prosecute, as with Chuvas. "Or you could just throw your phone at the guy's head," says Edwards, only mildly kidding.

Finally, maybe obviously, you can go the authorities. On New York City's subway, some cars are equipped with intercoms that you can use to alert the conductor. MTA has also been rolling out platform "help points" since 2011, which contact emergency personnel in a jiffy. A spokesperson from the NYPD, which patrols the subways, also pointed out that some stations get cell service, and you can call 911 that way.

Could cities do more to prevent public transit assaults? Studies have found that more law enforcement dedicated to patrolling transit could deter sexual harassment and assault. Surveillance cameras might help emergencies, too. As CityLab wrote in 2012, research shows that by making us all a little more self-aware, cameras can actually reverse the bystander effect. An MTA spokesperson stated that while most NYC buses are equipped with surveillance cameras, subway cars aren't—but a roll-out is in the works.

For Edwards, reducing violence is about creating an aggregate social effect, intervention by intervention—small, uncomfortable, and imperfect as our interventions may be.

"When we as a society watch something like that on the train happen over and over, it communicates two things: One, it says to both victim and perpetrator that what's happening is socially acceptable enough that none of us will act. And two, that to the other bystanders that this isn't worth reacting to in any way," Edwards says. "We can reset these norms by taking small steps to diffuse these situations. It's the sum total that counts."

As for Lopez's assault, "Watching that video made me want to vomit," Edwards says. "Of course I wish someone had intervened. But I also have empathy about how hard it is to act."

*CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Lopez was traveling on the 4 train from Queens." Lopez was traveling from the Bronx.

--Joe

Saturday, November 23, 2013

What Does it Mean to Be Machiavellian?

If any of the readers happened to be following some of the thread conversations conducted in these past weeks with a couple of characters, democratic Jon and bolithio to be specific, on Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II, they run across several threads, you can well understand why this article in The Atlantic caught my attention:

 Machiavelli Was Right - The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care.

Once you read this article, you can fairly well see why their wanton bankrupt moral, ethical and spiritual assaults, they dissimulate so well, are justified in their minds and belief structures. Unfortunately, their way of thinking and believing are so well ensconced into the fabric of American society it leaves little hope for the people to right themselves. What's more, this all happens on a practicing lawyer's website without a word from him.

Here are two excerpts, one from the beginning and one from the end - hopefully enough to get you to read the whole article.
Machiavelli Was Right
The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care. 
MICHAEL IGNATIEFFNOV 20 2013,

You remember the photograph: President Obama hunched in a corner of the Situation Room with his national-security staff, including Hillary Clinton with a hand over her mouth, watching the live feed from the compound in Pakistan where the killing of Osama bin Laden is under way. This is a Machiavellian moment: a political leader taking the ultimate risks that go with the exercise of power, now awaiting the judgment of fate. He knows that if the mission fails, his presidency is over, while if it succeeds, no one should ever again question his willingness to risk all.

It’s a Machiavellian moment in a second sense: an instance when public necessity requires actions that private ethics and religious values might condemn as unjust and immoral. We call these moments Machiavellian because it was Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513, that first laid bare the moral world of politics and the gulf between private conscience and the demands of public action.

The Prince’s blunt candor has been a scandal for 500 years. The book was placed on the Papal Index of banned books in 1559, and its author was denounced on the Elizabethan stages of London as the “Evil Machiavel.” The outrage has not dimmed with time. The greatest modern conservative political theorist, Leo Strauss, taught his students at the University of Chicago in the 1950s to regard Machiavelli as “a teacher of evil.” Machiavelli’s enduring provocation is to baldly maintain that in politics, evil deeds cease to be evil if urgent public interest makes them necessary.

************

He insisted that when tough or risky political decisions have to be made, Christian charity or private empathy simply will not serve. In politics, the polestar must be the health of the republic alone. Following the querulous inner voice or tacking to and fro when moralizers on the sidelines object is just weakness, and if your hesitations put the republic at risk, it is contemptible weakness. Machiavelli’s ethics valued judicious decisiveness in politics over the anguished search for rectitude.

So if we return to the Situation Room and to the decisions presidents make there, Machiavelli’s The Prince tells us the question is not whether one human being should have the right to make such terrifying determinations. The essence of power, even in a democracy, is to use violence to protect the republic. It matters to the very soul of a republic, however, that the violence used in its defense never be gratuitous. His is not an ethic that values action for its own sake. Machiavelli praises restraint when it serves the republic. It may even be advisable, for example, for the president to stay the order to dispatch cruise missiles to Syria if he cannot discern a clear target or a defensible strategic objective.

What he refuses to praise is people who value their conscience and their soul more than the interests of the state. What he will not pardon is public displays of indecision. We should not choose leaders who agonize, worrying about the moral hazards of the power they exercise in the people’s name. We should choose leaders who sleep soundly after taking ultimate risks with their own virtue. They are doing what must be done. The Prince’s question about the current president would be: Is he Machiavellian enough?

"Is he Machiavellian enough?" We know democratic Jon, Eric and bolithio are.
 --Joe

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Glorious Benefits of Marijuana

Something to think about the next time you try to defend a pot grower:




Since the local culture loves research studies to justify their habits this one should stir the pot:
IMPLICATIONS: TGCT is largely treatable, but treatment usually involves have the afflicted testis removed.
If it's all the same, I'll stick to beer – too.
--Joe

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obamacare's Flim Flam Rolls On

The continued looting of the American people as long orchestrated, but now presided over by President Barack Obama was justified today by the majority of justices in the U. S. Supreme Court splitting hairs. In other words, they finessed their definition to accommodate their purpose, rather than apply Constitutional Law. Here is how the Atlantic reports it:

The Health Care Decision, Explained in 1 Paragraph on SCOTUSblog
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. [Emphasis added]
MacLeod's cartoon, as usual, nails it:

Chief Justice Roberts split hairs in his effort to try to save whatever credibility the Supreme Court has with his decision. Based upon the Court's five-four rulings it whole reason for existence is to protect the looting. To do that, this decision gives it some sort of equanimity; an appearance of deciding issues only on the law. However, if you would like to read how Fox News spins constitutionality, read: Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare. 

By the way, the so-called Affordable Care Act - Health care costs to date, cost Americans 2.3 trillion dollars annually. Most of that money goes to the 1%.
 --Joe

Friday, June 24, 2011

Think It Will Pass?

[Update Below]
Ron Paul Bill Would End Federal War on Marijuana
Rep. Barney Frank is co-sponsoring the first-of-its-kind legislation, which would permit states to legalize the drug


This bill is a real test of state's rights advocates, conservatives and Republicans, in particular to practice what they preach. That is the real question laid out in this article by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic.
[I]ts states' rights approach is significant, and forces defenders of federal drug policy into their weakest position. It's one thing to argue that marijuana should be illegal. It's another thing to insist that the federal government enforce a nationwide ban even as duly elected state legislatures signal that the people disagree. That is the essence of the matter. Under this bill, marijuana would be legalized only in states where the people and their representatives desire it.
Today's Times-Standard runs the front page article by Josh Richman of the Oakland Tribune: New bill would end federal marijuana prohibition. He makes note:
In November, 53.5 percent of California voters rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana use ...
The great hue and cry at the time was what would happen to the price of pot and how would that be detrimental to all the local businesses that benefit if totally legalized. Even in Humboldt County pragmatism prevailed. Better the degenerating consequences deleterious to the community than legal.

Will it pass? Considering the fact that the best thing that could happen to American Society is for it to pass, I doubt many legislators have the guts to put the people's interests first over corporate hegemony.

[Source - Image credit: Baz Ratner/Reuters]

[Update :: Friday, June 24, 2011]

What price decades of moral equivocation and lawless degradation? Charles Davis puts it very succinctly in his short post on his False Dichotomy. This is what the money-grubbing local businesses, be they legit or illegitimate, settle for when they shamelessly put money over lives and a safe and wholesome community. After a couple of generations of self-justifying a lawless and corrupt lifestyle, these people are incapable of distinguishing the difference between the corrupt and incorrupt.
In the land of the free
One man gets 6 1/2 to 13 years in prison for growing and selling a plant, another shoots an unarmed father in the back -- murders him -- and serves less than a year. 
What, one wonders, could explain the vexing disparity in sentencing? Why would the state, bound by the social contract to uphold liberty and justice for all, treat horticulture as a greater crime than homicide? Because the murderer was one of their own, the gardener one of us. 
What happens when you break your end of a contract?
The corrupt look after, support and protect their own, that's what.
--Joe

Thursday, September 9, 2010

How To Justify Legal Murder


[UPDATE to "Resisting Arrest - Sitting Down" :: Thursday, September 9, 2010 - Actually, they do have the right.]

The Courts have now affirmed it:
"Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to protect Bush crimes." Glenn Greenwald's reveals how Bush and Obama have taken the U.S. government obove and beyond the law.

What does it take to write and establish criminal laws? Not much, it seems. Here's a good example by Robert Knight of the kind of logic needed:

Washington Times:
KNIGHT: ACLU says 'Right to life . . . most fundamental of all rights'
"But only if you're a terrorist, not a baby"

Local police do have the defacto right:
"U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government," Mr. Spitzer (ACLU lawyer Arthur Spitzer) wrote. "Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state. ... Both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats."
Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement, "The U.S. is careful to ensure that all its operations used to prosecute the armed conflict against those forces, including lethal operations, comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war." [Emphasis added]
The Law is there to protect and defend against the corrupt and perverse. Their depths of deprivation know no bounds: Report: Abu Ghraib photos Obama is censoring "show rape" and sexual torture of men, women, and children.

Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted the Abu Ghraib inquiry, confirms ...
And the last straw comes from The Atlantic: The Untamed Prince - "What Tyranny is This"?
And, most tragic of all, those who say they care about liberty above all - the tea-partiers who invoke the founders - seem only too willing to surrender every liberty for the prize of a security against a threat we cannot even measure, and to bow down before a new king (and probably warrior-queen) rather than elect a new president. ***  [T]his is so plainly not a nation under the rule of law anymore. And there are very few political issues more important than that.
When "concrete, specific, and imminent threats" are lies inspired by fear and conjured up in the paranoid minds of liars, they, the paranoid liars, become the Law - The Absolute Ruler.
[Source]
--Joe