Just the facts, ma'm

Earlier this month, Anthony Abbate was convicted of aggravated battery by Judge John Fleming (pronounced Phlegm-ing) after a bench trial. More recently, that same judge handed down this sentence:

• no jail time
• two years probation
• mandatory attendance at anger management classes
• home curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.
• 130 hours of community service

Abbate (250 lbs.) was convicted of beating a female bartender (Karolina Obrycka at 125 lbs.) because he fell down. That's the reason - because he fell down. That's really what this assault boils down to. He was where he wasn't supposed to be - behind the bar - and embarrassed himself. Bartender had even told him not to go to this area.

But he did it anyway and this link shows what happened next:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk

Sure, she was "touching" him - though no one could say she was striking him, though she did make physical contact. More accurately, she was leaning on him or trying to maneuver him from behind the bar. But he fell - and then he reacted. Falling was probably a blow to his dignity, though he probably slipped due to being very drunk and/or because the floor might have been slippery.

If you watch this video, you'll see that Obrycka was not tossing Abbate around (in the words of his lawyer), "like a rag doll." If Abbate looked ragged at all, that's because he was a bit stumbly-bumbly on his feet - because he was drunk.

About that judge

Read this next sentence carefully:

"If I believed sentencing Anthony Abbate to prison would stop people from getting drunk and hitting people, I'd give him the maximum sentence," [Judge] Fleming said.

That remark is just plain stupid. This guy went to law school!? Judge Phlegm-ing could have sentenced Abbate to six months in jail or one month or some token time to be spent in the can, along with probation after his release. To this Judge, I would say:

"Sentencing Abbate to max prison time would not stop people from getting drunk and hitting people. But you are purposely ignoring the power of deterrence, which you admitted had to be considered before you passed sentence. If you had actually sentenced a Chicago cop to jail time, that would make other Chicago cops stop and think: ‘Oh, oh, the free pass is over - no more above-the-law treatment for us. I can't kick lady-bartender ass whenever I feel like it.'"

Judge Phlegm-ing was derelict in his duty by not ordering any jail time. Chicago area citizens (over 575 of them) expressed their outrage at his decision by logging on to a Chicago Tribune newspaper website*. Over 95% of these comments were in favor of jail time.

As for getting Abbate fired

None of the media sources I read explained how it is that a convicted felon can keep his job as a cop. I've read that the head cop wants Abbate out and that there's movement to get him fired. But why is there any question about this? How is dismissal not automatic? Unless ... maybe - just maybe - such a felon only loses his job if he serves time in jail. Is there some kind of escape clause if probation-only is the sentence? [Is that what you were thinking-but-not-saying, Judge Phlegm-ing?]

Also, media should have investigated how the curfew part of the sentence is going to be enforced. Is Abbate being ordered to wear an ankle bracelet so his whereabouts can be monitored, to ensure he's really home between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m? Or are a bunch of pissed-off members of NOW going to have to shadow Abbate with a videocamera? I'd say, "Forget that - videotaped evidence didn't seem to matter much during the trial, so it won't mean much in terms of claiming curfew violation."

So where do we stand?

I've been a lifelong Chicago resident and, like (too) many others, I have my own bad cop tale to tell. Back in the early ‘80s, I and my brother were jumped by some strong-arm robbers while we were bar hopping at 2 a.m. The odds were four against two but ... they didn't realize my bro was used to odds like that, so they got more than they bargained for. By the time the attack was over, though, I had been kicked in the face and was pretty bloody.

Nearby, I saw a squad car waiting for a traffic light to change, so I ran up and knocked on the driver's side window. One cop was in that car and - you guessed it - he was stuffing his face with a doughnut. He took one casual un-caring look at me (saw the blood...how could he not?), then noticed the light had changed. Then he drove off.

My brother saw that and was so pissed off, he threw a rock at the departing squad. Me? I just busted out laughing. Chicago's finest? Indeed. Reminded me of a line in an old Bob Dylan song:

"The cops don't need you and, man, they expect the same."

My fellow Chicagoans are pretty fed up with the one-party system in our town that actually encourages bad cop behavior as well as other rampant forms of corruption. Problem is, we're just like the citizens of Iran in that, all we can do is let the whole world know we're being abused. [Blog on, good people.] Mayor Daley will not lose his job over this. And Judge Phlegm-ing will be re-elected in another few years, if he wishes to remain on the bench.

So that means "they" get away with "it?" Not really, for karma has an interesting way of working - though not always immediately and not always in obvious ways. I mean, perhaps Judge Phlegm-ing might have a female family member who ends up getting assaulted in a bar by a rogue cop. The irony is, he wouldn't be able to "seek justice" by serving as a judge in that case. He would be disqualified due to conflict of interest.

All he could do would be to stew on the sidelines... like the rest of us...then he'd know how it feels.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"To Abbate's fellow officers who are trying to rally around his ‘cause,' I would ask: ‘Would you want a guy like that as a partner, watching your back?' Usually people who bellow in bars (‘Nobody tells me what to do!') are in definite need of someone to tell them what to do - a prison guard, for instance" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

*

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TK357SOOSQ9QK9ET8/p5

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Neda Soltani is dead. She was killed by a single bullet during a protest in Tehran. By now, untold millions of people have seen the video clip of her dying moments on the internet. And many of them, like me, have watched that clip over and over.

I also read comments on-line, most of which ranged from sadness to outrage. But at least one guy thought Neda was intentionally set up by her companions to be killed by an anti-government sniper in order to make the Iranian government look bad. That's possible, I suppose. And it must be asked of bloggers who claim that a Basij militiaman killed her - "And how do you know this?"

My best guess is her death was accidental. For example, police might have been firing shots in the air attempting to disperse demonstrators but weren't mindful of: Whatever goes up, must come down - including bullets.

Who really killed Neda Soltani isn't as important as how the government reacted to that killing:

QUOTE:

The authorities are acutely aware of the threat posed to them by her killing. They only agreed to release her body on ­condition that her family agreed to a quick burial on Sunday in the ­sprawling Behesht-e Zahra cemetery on the outskirts of Tehran.

A memorial service planned for the Nilufar mosque in the capital's ­Abbasabad neighbourhood was called off after officials expressly forbade it. All other mosques in the Tehran area have been warned against holding ­services in her memory.

:UNQUOTE [

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/neda-soltani-death-iran ]

After things settle down a bit

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in as president and things will settle down - at least in terms of outside appearances. Some of his supporters will try to persuade their countrymen that Neda Soltani never really existed; that the video clips we saw were manufactured in Britain or Israel. They will claim that Western agents had infiltrated the demonstrations and were responsible for any deaths that occurred. And even though there were beatings - that much is undeniable - they will remind us that the US itself has had its share of riots, both racially and politically inspired.

However, as time marches on, the common people of Iran will sift through the wreckage and form their own opinion of what happened and why. Personally, I wonder how many of them will ask their local clerics for guidance in identifying those at fault. As for what they can do, should a majority of them decide that regime change is in order, is a good question to which the answer might be: "There's nothing you can do but hope for divine intervention."

Faced with that as an answer, I can understand why some people in search of options give up and become renunciates. Some will even deny any importance at all to whatever transpires in our daily lives - calling it illusion or that which is to be ignored or transcended. I understand this quite well as a US citizen who advocates for spiritual and political changes in my own country, but find avenues for meaningful change choked off or compromised - as if anybody really cares.

Yet, I urge the Iranians to keep the faith. One of my favorite expressions is: There's always a Plan B. If you think long enough, pray hard enough, and stay alert to possibilities, that Plan B will present itself. And it will have macro and micro features - and you will figure out what those are and then you will act accordingly.

Meanwhile, talk to your fellow citizens, even those you don't agree with - even if it's only about soccer. My sense of Iran is that a siege mentality is responsible for the overreaction on the part of the authorities. Part of that stems from the minority status of the Iranian form of Islam within the larger, worldwide Islamic community. Another part, as a result of past foreign intrigues against their country. And yet another part, the result of continuing US-inspired sanctions against Iran.

What Obammer* could have done...but didn't and won't

There were charges of a stolen election in Iran, and then ensuing protests. Obammer* could have made one of his glorious speeches, including these lines:

"I won't throw in my two cents concerning what's going on in Iran right now. But I will offer this: With no strings attached, this country will lift all forms of embargo and sanctions against Iran. This is not done in order to support one faction or another nor to encourage certain behaviors. It is done simply to welcome Iran into the family of nations with no more talk of Axis-of-Evil rogue nations."

Had I been elected US president instead of Obammer*, that is exactly what I would have said...and done. We gain nothing by shunning a nation and trying to gang up the world against it. We only end up radicalizing that nation. As for the level of extremism that already exists, there's a great deal we can do to soften that. And that has everything to do with removing ourselves from this area of the world so as to allow for self-determination.

And that includes telling Israel: "You are no longer under our military protection and will no longer receive our foreign aid. Make peace with your neighbors. You can do this. You must do this. You will do this."

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Some of my countrymen worry about what a (so-called) crazed Islamo-Fascist state would to with a nuclear bomb. To them I say: "You should worry more about what we might do with one. After all, the United States was the first nuclear terrorist state" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

My question of the day:

Off and on over the decades, I've wondered what happens when photons collide - which of course they do all the time, but humor me on this one : -)

Some definitions (keep these in mind as I expound my whimsy):

According to Wikipedia*:

"...a photon is an elementary particle..the basic "unit" of light...[and] the photon has no rest mass"

[Comment: No "rest mass," eh? No problem: Since photons (that is, particles of light) don't even exist at rest, the whole concept of rest mass doesn't seem to apply to light, for light is never at rest.]

According to answerbag**:

"...a photon is at least a Billion-Trillion times lighter [than an electron]! (most likely its mass is exactly zero)"

[Comment: What you mean by "most likely," White Man?]

According to many sources: Light is a phenomenon that exhibits the properties of waves and particles - this is known as the wave-particle duality.

Increasing the mass of particles is the key

The machines crudely known as atom smashers (more to the point: particle accelerators) do just that. After streams of particles within an atom smasher (for instance, electrons) have been accelerated to near the speed of light, they've substantially increased in mass. These extra-massive electrons are then bombarded into target atoms, thereby disintegrating them into their component parts.

The extra mass which is gained by the process of acceleration is the key. In fact, acceleration is the key. The reason why nothing can travel faster than (or even as fast as) the speed of light has to do with the upper limit this increase-of-mass phenomenon imposes on physical reality.

When an object starts to accelerate - even slowly at first - it gains mass (by the way, never understood how that worked).  The faster an object can be made to move, the more massive it becomes. If you could accelerate an object so that it actually reached the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass (which is more mass than that of the entire universe).

Which of course means, no object could ever hit light speed due to this upper limit.

But...photons (which are particles, right?) are already moving at the speed of light, so if they have any mass at all, that mass must be infinite (unless it's special mass - I jest). [I know, I know...this sentence must stand as proof that photons have absolutely no mass when in motion, which adds to what we already know: photons have no rest mass.]

However, in order to assert that light is in some way a "particle," yet has no mass, invites us to the realm where it's possible for particles (other types, above and beyond photons) to "exist" without mass (or, to put it crudely, stuffness). If that can be possible, then one is forced to ask: "Just what exactly is something that has no mass? Can anything without mass be said to have any is-ness whatsoever?"

My crude experiment

I took two flashlights and aimed them at each other, turning them on. I thought about all those photons smacking into each other at the speed of light, each one having all the mass that speed implies. Since accelerated electrons moving near light speed can actually disintegrate atoms, shouldn't these photons disintegrate each other if they suffer head-on-collisions at this highest-possible-speed?

Guess not....turning my two flashlights on didn't smash photons and vaporize me. There was no sudden release of a tremendous amount of energy similar to the kind of energy rush you get when atoms are smashed (as in a nuclear weapon).

But I thought, "Wait a minute. What if we aimed two laser canons at each other and opened fire?" Of course, the timing would have to be exquisite. But what if?

Just thinking...

Light holds a very special place in my heart. In a literal sense, a photon of light "pops" into existence when an atom is excited to a higher energy level. First it doesn't exist, then it does exist. Also special because God said, "Let there be light." First there was no light, then there was. Interesting, in and of itself.

As for any wave-particle duality, maybe a photon "shuttles" back and forth between these two identities and does so so rapidly, even if two photons collided, there wouldn't be any tremendous release of energy due to photon-smashing unless both happened to be in particle mode. If you talk about the odds of that happening, I suppose far greater within a star than in the void of space or even here on earth.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"My real interest in light lies in how it enables us to know each other, not in trying to figure out how to use it to obtain more energy. We already have all the energy we need for what's really important to be done. It's just a matter of focusing it and using it wisely" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

   ** http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/97627

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

THESIS:

Today I zero in on what I call the Abner Mikva Function. This makes a distinction between the particular individual known as Abner Mikva and the archetype which that old lion of liberalism represents.

Background:

I saw a photo in the June 11, 2009 issue of the Chicago Tribune, bearing this caption:

"Abner Mikva's integrity is unquestioned."

Whenever I read descriptions like this, I feel like I'm being challenged. So today, I will question Mikva's integrity, though not just to set the record straight. I have a larger reason with which I'll conclude this blog.

I've heard the name Abner Mikva before, since he's a favorite son of my home state of Illinois. So out of curiosity, I read the editorial accompanying his photo. Title of editorial: "U. of I. won't come clean."

With these words, this editorial started me thinking about the larger concept of the Abner Mikva Function, which I'll define in a bit.

QUOTE:

Mikva will chair a blue-ribbon panel exploring the shadow admissions process at the [University of Illinois] revealed in the Tribune series "Clout Goes to College." The Tribune reported that hundreds of well-connected applicants got preferential treatment because of interference from university trustees, lawmakers and other state officials.

:UNQUOTE.

Why I question Mikva's integrity

I started feeling uneasy when I saw the caption under Mikva's photo repeated in the text of the editorial itself: "His integrity is unquestioned." [Side note: Maybe we should start by questioning the integrity/motives of those who claim that certain others have unquestioned integrity.]

Then it hit me. I remember having seen Mikva's name on a motion before the Illinois Supreme Court back in December. His name was among 8 or 9 others (including Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's), listed on a motion attempting to unseat then-Governor Rod Blagojevich. Apparently Madigan and Mikva didn't think the Illinois legislature was moving fast enough to impeach the governor. So they decided to initiate this frivolous lawsuit - one completely without merit - to move things along more quickly.

Mikva says so himself:

QUOTE [article by Mary Wisniewski in Chicago Sun Times, 12/13/08]:

Madigan is being advised by Abner Mikva, White House counsel under President Bill Clinton and a confidant of President-elect Barack Obama. Mikva said Friday he thinks the appeal to the [Illinois] Supreme Court is the "least invasive way" to solve the problem. "It does not try to take over the legislative function," Mikva said. "It invites the Legislature to proceed as rapidly as they can."

:UNQUOTE.

So there it is: Mikva thinks it's proper to file a frivolous lawsuit in order to "invite" the Legislature to move quickly against a sitting governor. And the reason is obvious: The longer the scandal-tainted governor remained in office, the greater the potential damage to President Obammer*. And this is something Mikva wished to avoid, especially after having said:

"If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president." [Note: For the record, Mikva is Jewish. But of course this is irrelevant.]

Mikva undoubtedly, in his heart of hearts (and considering the fact he was a federal judge for 15 years), knew that the Illinois Supreme Court would see through the flimsy arguments he himself had helped draft. In fact, the Illinois high court rejected this lawsuit without comment. That's code for, "this suit is so substantially without merit, it is beneath the dignity of the court to issue any kind of written opinion in response to any of the arguments in the suit itself."

So what exactly did Mikva do wrong?

What did he do wrong? He lent his name to a dishonest enterprise.

He should have responded: "It is a waste of the taxpayers' money for Madigan and her lawyers to be paid to research and prepare a brief for this lawsuit. Their time and talents should be spent pursuing actions which would benefit the state of Illinois's citizens, rather than further the political ambitions of Lisa Madigan. I, for one, refuse to participate in such an unscrupulous venture."

But Mikva didn't say any of that. Instead, he more than participated - he helped lead this doomed lawsuit against Blagojevich, which undoubtedly helped accelerate the governor's impeachment process. Mikva didn't care that he was abusing the court for political purposes. Oh well, stuff happens!

Attorney General Lisa Madigan wants to be the next governor of Illinois, so she had no problem filing a flimsy lawsuit. Even she must have known it would fail, but not before garnering the attention of the press. Press that's all too ready to popularize a grandstanding politician. [Lapdog press. Good press. Roll over and play dead, press.]

But why did Mikva imprint his name on such a shabby effort? Mikva may have been many things in his life, but one thing stands out in my mind: He was an Illinois politician, and they are famously used to dealing in favors and influence peddling. Even though seen as an anti-machine, anti Mayor Daley Democrat, I'm sure he's had his moments of (shall we say) compromise. As a lifelong resident of Illinois, I can make the following unequivocal claim:

"It is impossible to be a veteran Illinois politician without giving up one's integrity." [Too bad, Abner, but you invited this on yourself.]

In fact, if anyone dares to claim that any of our two-party system politicians has unquestionable integrity, I submit that person isn't looking very carefully.

What difference does it make?

Why should I care if an 83-year-old liberal lion sells out - even a little bit? I care because there's more than just one old man at stake. Every state - every political community - has its own version of Abner Mikva (which I collectively refer to as The Abner Mikva Function): An unimpeachable pillar of the community who is trotted out whenever a blue ribbon panel is created. People are reassured by such men, though I say, "Reject them all if they wear a party label."

When the time comes when the new politics starts to gain traction, I dare say we'll be seeing an occasional Abner Mikva come out of the woodwork. They will roll up their sleeves, extend their hands to shake yours, and say, "Let me help you." But I beg you to reject that self-serving, sabotaging hand.

The problem with the Abner Mikvas of the world: They are too much a part of the old politics, men who never objected to occasionally lowering their ethical standards when the greater good demanded it. [Read: the greater good of their party or of their political allies or of Israel or of ... I could go on and on.] These men were molded by the old politics and have it so ingrained in them, they cannot even see how deeply it possesses them.

It does not allow them to envision an alternate universe.

Of course, the alternate universe I'm talking about will be a direct result of the alternative politics I've been blogging about for the past (nearly) three years. Characterized by:

• Throwing all Dem/Pubs out of office and replacing them with Independents - preferably those with self-imposed term limits.

• Reigning in our politicians by means of voters demanding that any office-seeker run under the terms of a legally-enforceable contract. I did this when I ran against McCain and Obammer* in '08. Link to my contract: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

• Replacing the US Constitution, which is beyond mere amendability, with a new Law of the Land based on Cross-Sectional Representation. Link: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2006/11/replace_the_u_s_constitution

• A system of justice which is available to all, and not just to those who can afford it.

• Unprecedented transparency and a more level playing field. How can we have a genuine democracy with such a high level of governmental and corporate secrecy? How can we dare to pretend that we have "equal treatment under the law" when our government follows the marching orders of special interests?

The Abner Mikva Function vs. the Unknowns

The biggest problem in moving Non-Partisan Politics forward:

People crave familiarity, but the New Politics will have to be birthed by Davids who are completely unknown. These patient and persistent movers and shakers will not be leading scholars, lawyers (please), philanthropists, elected officials, or the other types of people who populate Blue Ribbon panels. Nor will they be famous. They will come from the ranks of ordinary Americans - the kind of people who read my blog and after a long internal struggle say:

"Why not? We've got to do something. How can I help?"

My answer to that question: Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Our task is difficult but not impossible. Look at it this way:

Blacque Obammer* and Abner Mikva both came from nowhere, but due to the magic that is the state of Illinois, "somehow" they managed to gain prominence. I'm from the state of Illinois, so I'd like to stand as living proof that more than Black Magic is possible here.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"The kind of supporters I'm looking for know what is meant by, Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. To the meek I say, When are you going to start to claim your inheritance?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Introduction:

President Blacque Obammer's* speech in Cairo has been highly praised, mostly by people who haven't actually read it.

Today, I will analyze some of Obammer's* text. For over three years, my contention has been: "All we have to do is ignore the hype of fawning media and simply read what Obammer* has to say. It doesn't take long to realize:  He's just spouting rhetoric."

Preliminary comments:

Location, location, location: These three hallowed words are taken to heart by businessmen the world over. In this case, Obammer* would have done his cause far greater good by giving his speech in Iran. And by apologizing to the Iranians. Just after he said "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," he should have said, "and for that I wish to extend my profound personal apologies."

But he didn't do that.

There are those who believe: "Being President of the United States means never having to say you're sorry." And others who believe: "Being the United States means never having to say you're sorry." These sentiments are based on arrogance and lead our presidents (Obammer* among them) to avoid atoning for past wrongs but (instead) urging that we move on.

They overlook: The power of a heart-felt apology, uttered at the right moment, can equal the power of (oh, I don't know, say) the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

The Egyptian man in the street: Let's say you're the Egyptian man in the street, listening to Obammer's purty words. What might you be thinking? Something along these lines?

"Yeah, right. The US President has a lot of nerve to speak in my country where the US government has - each year for decades - routinely provided billions of dollars of military aid. This money has been well-spent by President Mubarak to suppress his own people and maintain power for 30 years.  Mubarak may well be one of Obammer's* staunchest allies in the war against terror, but Mubarak is no enlightened Muslim leader.

"Just as the Saudi King, to whom Obammer* recently bowed, is not such a leader."

Point vs. Counterpoint: Obammer* vs. Searle

In my usual manner, I will quote from the text of Obammer's* speech (the following "Points"), then follow with my comments (the following "Counterpoints"):

Point:

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

Counterpoint:

Don't forget: I ran against this guy for the presidency and lost (obviously). Which is why this speech didn't contain these (my) words:

"The first issue that we have to confront is the lack of justice which in turn gives rise to violent extremism."

Quite a difference, eh? My view is: Ramp up the level of justice and then the level of violence by extremists will decrease. Obammer's* view is: The level of violence has to be tamped down, then we'll get around to dealing with just solutions (or at least talking about them).

Point:

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* is trying the old "divide and conquer" strategy. He's saying, "I'm trying to talk Muslim governments into siding with me against a ‘small but potent minority of Muslims' who have had their tensions exploited by violent extremists."

He tipped his hand when he said, "...we will do so [defend ourselves] in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened." Actually, Obammer* used the word "partner" or its variants ten times within his speech. And this was no accident. "Partner" is code for "the US seeks to infiltrate and then dominate Muslim institutions, so as to work with complicit Muslim governments against the best interests of their own people."

Obammer*, like most elitists, prefers to work with other elitists - that is, with those who are members of established power structures. I'm sure, though, that the Muslim elite realizes that it is simply not possible to enter into a partnership with the US government in which both sides have equal say. Funny, but things don't tend to work out that way.

I dare say, most Muslims are not interested in "partnering" with the United States at all. They'd rather have us get out of town. They want now what they've always wanted: Non-Muslims to leave Muslim lands.

Point (revisited):

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.

Counterpoint:

Did we respect the sovereignty of Iraq before invading that country under false pretenses?

Did we respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan by seizing on the events of 9/11 to justify destabilizing its government, while intending to do just that well before 9/11? It's been almost 8 years and we still haven't caught bin Laden. That was the reason we went there, right? To smoke out bin Laden?

As for being respectful of "the rule of law," I wish Obammer* had added "when it's convenient." For that is what he surely meant. This in particular sticks in my mind: Our president decided it wasn't very convenient to prosecute Bush Era torturers - not when he's trying to reach out to the other side of the aisle.

Point:

We were born out of revolution against an empire.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* proudly boasts, "[The US was] born out of revolution against an empire." And much later in his speech, he piously claims, "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Obviously, "violence and killing" do succeed, when you can't get what you want from the British Empire by asking nicely.

Then Obammer* had the audacity to claim, "But it was not violence that won full and equal rights [for American blacks]. It was a peaceful and determined insistence..." I assure you, Mr. President, if there had been no race riots, or violent demonstrations, or talk of Black Power revolution, White America would not have been so quick to move on Black grievances. And furthermore, sir, you are being disrespectful of the martyrs who'd died in that violence by pretending that only "peaceful and determined insistence" won the day.

Point:

We did not go by choice [to Afghanistan], we went because of necessity.

Counterpoint:

Bull shit, Mr. President! You slyly understated our history with your choice of verbs - when you said "we did not go by choice..." Go?! What the hell is go supposed to mean? For we did not (just) go to that country, we invaded and occupied for over 7 years.

So let's please not say go, shall we? Let's call it what it was - "invade and occupy" - for I believe in calling a spade a spade. It was not necessary in the first place to invade Afghanistan. We went for two reasons:

• We had preordained, before 9/11, that the Taliban government had to go (something to do with an oil pipeline).

• We invaded Afghanistan to satisfy the emotional needs of a weak, insecure President to appear as a strong man seeking his right of revenge; the same man who did everything he could to undermine the work of the 9/11 Commission.

Since when is it "necessary" to invade a country (not to mention occupying it for eight years) in order to protect our citizens, when they would have been quite adequately protected had our intelligence services been doing their jobs? And our Air Force not been ordered to "stand down" instead of following normal protocols regarding hijacked airliners?

Point:

I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody

Counterpoint:

I, for one, question the events of 9/11: Here's one question: Why isn't the Obammer* administration reopening the investigation into the causes behind the 9/11 attacks?

Let's be clear about this, Mr. President: Democrats and Republicans alike seemed awfully quick to downplay any possibility that actors within our own military/security forces and their leaders aided and abetted those attacks. I know that 3,000 people died on that day, but I'm not convinced that al Qaeda was the only party responsible.

And as for those 3,000 being "innocent," now comes the part that's hard for me to say (only because I know it's hard for non-Buddhists to hear, but hear it they must):

"There is no such thing as an innocent death. People die when they do and under particular circumstances for reasons; karmic reasons which can extend back myriad lifetimes."

The easiest way to look at this: Most, if not all, of the Trade Center employees who died that day paid taxes. Those taxes went to pay for wars and covert actions which are harmful to brown people the world over. Many of them were employed in the financial services industry and had routinely (all in a day's work) utilized their corporate leverage to expand our power at the expense of...it's always at the expense of someone else whom we never lay eyes on. So those people were not entirely "innocent," were they?

It could be argued that even those who had escaped from the WTC towers that day had also paid their taxes. And maybe they lived more sinful lives than those who'd perished. What of that? That's where due consideration has to be given to the kind of life lived in previous existences. But only a Buddha is capable of that kind of consideration.

It is improper for a Buddhist to speak of "innocent" lives being taken. There is no innocence. We all have a variety of merits and demerits accrued to us, even as we wait in the womb to be born. But ... Obammer* isn't a Buddhist; perhaps that will come to weigh against him very heavily. And against us.

Point:

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home [from Afghanistan] if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

Counterpoint:

Again, bull shit, Mr. President. Who are you kidding? [Well, not me, for one; for I had you figured out fairly early on.]

For one thing, I'm sure there are "violent extremists" in Iran who would dearly love to "kill as many Americans as they possibly can." But of course, they can't. Because they are over there and we are over here. And they can't get here from there. But maybe you'll want to invade and occupy Iran, Mr. President, just to (you know) be sure the bad guys can't ever find a way to get at us.

And it goes without saying, Mr. President, that you would not bring every single one of our troops home if doing so would mean the Taliban would seize power (again).

Point:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.

Counterpoint:

What?! Didn't you know? Iraq was a war of necessity, since "everybody" honestly, really, truly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to manifest mushroom clouds over our cities.

Point:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people ...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Counterpoint:

They have endured the pain of "dislocation?" Dislocation?! How about using these words instead: "...the pain of having their land and homes seized from them at the hands of a self-righteous and self-absorbed people?"

Palestinians endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation? How about telling it this way: "They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come at the hands of an Israeli aggressor that has no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state to come into existence." What part of "ever" don't you understand?

Point:

That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.

Counterpoint:

Ah, that magic word "patience." Yes, siree, Bob. We all know that progress in the Middle East - justice for the Palestinians - won't come overnight. Got to have patience - lots of it (which is code for "don't hold your breath"). Tell that to those who have lived their entire lives in a refugee camp. No wonder you gave that speech in a university with a carefully selected audience. Spewing that crap on the streets of Gaza City would have gotten you stoned.

Point:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Counterpoint:

Notice that Obammer* didn't say, "It is time for these settlements to stop and to be transferred to the sovereign control of the Palestinians who might or might not decide to allow Jews to continue living in their country."

Obammer* can say anything he wants about the settlements or about a Two State solution. But he won't do squat. In fact, if the Israeli leadership tells him to jump, he'll ask "How high?" as he continues writing annual, multi-billion dollar checks as our leaders have done for 30 years. [No, Jimmy Carter, all that Camp David money didn't buy us peace after all, now did it?]

Point:

To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Counterpoint:

All of this talk of recognizing Israel's right to exist is premature, isn't it? I mean, aren't we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? If so, then that's only a status that can be granted by one country to another. So if Palestine is not yet an independent nation, why are we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? Again, "all of this talk" is premature.

Point:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.

Counterpoint:

Very interesting. "Each nation" does this? Does that include North Korea? China? Myanmar? Any of the petty little dictatorships we've routinely propped up? Do they give "life to this principle?"

Point:

... all of us [in America] share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.

Counterpoint:

Hold on thar, pardner! What do you mean "and our God?" You're supposed to be the President of the United States, so why are you talking God talk while acting in your official capacity?

I, for one, am a Buddhist who does not believe in this "our God" (of the Abrahamic faiths) to whom you refer. As a matter of fact, I believe the Middle East will remain in a permanent state of siege precisely because of this devotion to the Abrahamic God. Unless this false faith is abandoned, and replaced by compassionate Buddhist practice, the Middle East will remain what it is now:

A desert realm so destitute of greenery and the milk of human kindness that calling it a Holy Land makes a mockery of that term.

Closing Comments

I don't know - maybe it's just me. But every time I hear Obammer* speak, I think of that old tune by the Chiffons called Sweet Talkin' Guy. The first two lines go like this:

Sweet talkin' guy, talking sweet kinda lies

Don't you believe in him, if you do he'll make you cry.

If you think that sounds like a warning...well, that's exactly what it is.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"My friends consider me to be a reasonably charitable guy. Believe me, I would love to be more charitable to our president. But reading his words rapidly drains me of that impulse" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Executive Order (had I been elected president):

Effective immediately, all prisoners in the custody of any agency of the US government, including CIA and military, shall be treated by their captors in accordance with the following rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...unless you happen to be a sadist, in which case: Do the opposite.

Refuting the culture of the legalizing enabler

When I wrote "Do the opposite" (above), I was being a bit whimsical. Unfortunately, there are people who believe such addenda are necessary. These same people read credit card agreements for enjoyment - the more fine print, the better. It won't be easy to turn back the influence of the overly-legalistic. But had I been elected president instead of Blacque Obammer*, I would have made a start by laying down this law in exactly these words:

The United States will never torture again.

All** whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

It's not good enough to (merely) say we will no longer torture or abuse prisoners of war. It's not good enough to declare what we won't do. We must assert what we will do - and then live by those words.

The Torture Mongers

Today, I mention only two of them by name: Senator (surprise!) John McCain and Charles Krauthammer, the latter of whom had written:

QUOTE:

This month, I wrote a column outlining two exceptions to the no-torture rule: the ticking time bomb scenario and its less extreme variant in which a high-value terrorist refuses to divulge crucial information that could save innocent lives....Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable.

:UNQUOTE [Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2009: "Few signs of torture debate losing steam"]

The no-torture principle is not inviolable - so these Mongers would have you believe. But what about the no-torture laws - do they define situations where torture is permissible? [Answer: No]  If the dynamic duo of McCain and Krauthamer don't like our no-torture laws, then I respectfully suggest they change them. Ignoring these laws (or "creatively" interpreting them), thereby allowing torture, is not an option.

John McCain, you of all people should know better.

All lawbreakers are equal in my eyes

Commander in Chief Steven Searle would have already ordered the arrest of all US agents who had engaged in torture during the Dubya Era and thrown the entire resources of the Justice Department at them in prosecution. I reject this defense: "But White House legal counsel said it was okay."

My response: "White House counsel was so obviously wrong, no reasonable man could possibly have expected to use their legal opinion as a shield.   Our anti-torture laws clearly prohibit torture. Sorry, guys...you chose to break the law, so you're going down."

Perhaps a court or a jury would "choose" not to convict Dubya Era torturers, but I would not let them go so easily. Though they might escape conviction, I wouldn't let that stop me from firing them. I can hear the hue and cry now: "What!? How could you prosecute these heroes? The information they got thwarted terrorist attacks and saved lives."

Okay, let's talk about heroes, shall we?

Let's get this out of the way first: Frankly, I don't think it takes much of a hero to torture a helpless prisoner.

However, many might think it heroic to torture a prisoner if the torturer knew he'd be prosecuted for his illegal activity. Or that he'd lose his job, even though not necessarily convicted in court. Or that this president would not grant him a pardon, even if his torturing led to information which saved lives.

I will state in no uncertain terms what I would think of such a torturer: A phony, self-glorifying, patriot-in-mind-only who decided to take the law into his own hands. Someone who decided not to follow orders, simply because his intentions were good and he thought he knew better. I am aware that there are so-called "independent" operators within our military and our CIA, who think they know better and therefore decide to operate outside the chain of command. They are far more dangerous to our democracy than any sleeper cells awaiting orders from Osama bin Laden.

My policy would be to forbid any of our forces to take any action based on intelligence obtained by torture. Translation? Here, I'll put it in plain English:

"Even if a tortured suspect revealed the exact location within Washington DC at which a terrorist organization's nuclear explosive was hidden, my inviolable order would be: Our forces would be forbidden from acting upon this information in any attempt to neutralize this weapon. And by ‘acting upon,' I mean: Tell no one, not even local law enforcement or the general public."

Also, in plain English: "If I happened to be in Washington DC at this time, I would not leave upon being informed of scheduled detonation - imminent or otherwise. I would stay put and make no effort to seek shelter."

Tell me, would that make me a hero? [This is not a rhetorical question, but it is one that only a Buddhist could answer correctly.]

What's the meaning of this outrageous policy?

Of course I have an underlying reason for tenaciously insisting: "The United States will never torture again." And backing that up by forbidding response to any information gained by means of torture. That's my way of saying: "I know you'll want to torture just this once, but forget it. Nothing you gain by such means will be used...period. So just put such thoughts out of your head."

When I say, "The United States will never torture again," I don't say so in the manner of Bush the Elder when he'd famously declared, "Read my lips: no new taxes." Make no mistake about this: In no way, shape, or form am I anything like Bush the Elder. My role model is Shakyamuni Buddha; if he were head of state, he would never say "Let's do torture!"

I say this to those who would consider doing us harm:

"I don't buy into the Axis of Evil thinking promoted by some of our pandering leaders. The suicide bomber is not the devil incarnate. Desperation pushes people into such a role. I am convinced that my other policies*** will reduce that level of desperation and will make the entire world, not just the United States, a safer place in which to live.

"When I say ‘The United States will never torture again,' I am hoping you will believe those words; that you will accept my olive branch; that you will accept my offer to work with you but not dictate terms to you. I hope my orders to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan persuade you of my intentions to honor the principle of self-determination. If not, then I hope my other policies*** will persuade you."

Beware of overrated threat scenarios:

Tell me, how many suicide bombings have taken place on American soil since 9/11? How many acts of sabotage have been committed by Muslims living in this country over these last eight years? And don't tell me, "None, because our police and intelligence communities have done such a great job."

Most people who live here like it here - and want to prosper and see their children benefit in this land of opportunity. That's the overwhelming reason for the non-existent level of terrorist activity in the United States.

As for any malevolents who would attack, for instance, the Sears Tower:

• If they were connected to Al Qaida et al, they would only end up severely damaging their cause, perhaps fatally, in the name of spiting my overtures;

• If they weren't connected to Al Qaida et al, they would probably be False Flag operators within our own military.

In closing

Concerning the "all" which I'd double-asterisked above (to repeat):

All** whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

I suppose "ah ha, gotcha" types will sniff: "You can't possibly mean all whom we'd encounter. What about armed soldiers our troops meet on the battlefield? Huh, huh, huh? Bet you didn't think about that."

Actually, I have thought about that. If one soldier kills another on the field of battle, I can view that as a form of treatment "with the utmost respect and dignity." But this would have to mean not killing him slowly just to "make a point" and not mutilating his corpse. It also means not killing a village of 100 civilians in order to get at 20 insurgents - and then piously calling that "collateral damage." Viewing in this manner is what leads civilized nations to develop Rules of Warfare and equitable treatment of prisoners.

Believe it or not: It is possible to be a soldier who goes about killing his counterparts - without actually hating them. Hate is a sign of weakness and - truth be told - makes for a bad soldier.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

Would I be impractical, as US president, in being so extreme in opposing torture? Quite the opposite, I dare say. The United States is being most impractical, working in opposition to its own best interests, by continuing its policy of waffling on torture. To President Obammer* I ask, Is any of this sinking in?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

*** The "policies" referred to are listed in my Electoral Contract:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Who is Kathleen Parker and why should we care?

I only know Ms. Parker by having on occasion read her widely-syndicated newspaper columns. Apparently she's quite famous and well-regarded - especially in more conservative circles - having won the H.L. Mencken Writing Award back in 1993.

Opinion-shapers like her, with an audience of millions of fans, are especially dangerous when they express ideas which ought to be (and can easily be) decisively refuted, but aren't. Hence my effort today: To repudiate one of her recent columns.

Introductory Comment

All quotes appearing below, minus those specifically attributed to someone else, are from Parker's column which appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 18, 2009:

Quotes and Comments

Quote:

Yet, there we were, an attorney and I, poring over memos about waterboarding as if they were weekend real estate ads.

Comment:

I'm going out on a limb here, since nowhere in her pitiful little essay does she identify this "attorney:" I believe this "attorney" is her husband. I also believe she kept this fact to herself for two good reasons:

• To lend gravitas to her words: It sounds better to say "an attorney," than to say "I ran this by my husband, who happens to be an attorney." Sounds to me like she was too lazy to be bothered with trying to obtain more than one opinion (kind of like Dubya himself).

• If I were this unnamed attorney, there's no way I'd want my good name and reputation attached to this column if, for no other reason, its brevity. Way too short, at less than 800 words, to allow for any in-depth analysis.

QUOTE:

It is easy now to declare that waterboarding is torture.

COMMENT:

And it was just as easy then, when Bybee et al [rubber-stampingly] approved waterboarding as a legal option.

Of course, Parker is trying to say that the emotional climate now makes it easier "to declare that waterboarding is torture," compared to the time when Bybee & Co. wrote their memo. Back then, of course, we "had" to give the CIA any and every imaginable tool to coerce their prisoners into revealing when and where the next hijacked airliner was going to crash into a famous American landmark.

But...there's a problem with this emotional climate argument. Bybee et al had been asked to render a legal opinion, not an emotional one. They were asked "to interpret whether 10 interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, would violate the 1994 statute prohibiting torture." All Team Bybee had to do was interpret the law; I don't recall that they had been subjected to torture or had been so emotionally traumatized as to pervert their judgment.

If so, whatever happened to the cool, aloof, "just-the-facts ma'am" legal professional?

QUOTE:

Keep in mind: Terrorist chatter at the time was comparable to pre-Sept. 11 levels. And the CIA had determined that Zubaida had crucial information about another attack.

COMMENT:

So, there it is - the underpinning of her entire essay: Ms. Parker is telling us to "Keep [certain factors] in mind." That's what makes the difference in certain actions being legal, when ordinarily not so. Again, what has the situation on the ground have to do with whether or not that 1994 statute was meant to forbid (among other techniques) waterboarding? The last time I checked, statutes don't include language like this:

"Certain practical matters must be kept in mind when determining whether or not an interrogation technique qualifies as torture."

That smacks too much of the moral relativism which conservatives are supposed to oppose. [Kathleen, is any of this getting through to you?]

QUOTE:

It [the 1994 statute prohibiting torture] defines torture as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

COMMENT:

Torture may be defined as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" [I'd say it's difficult to endure the sensation of drowning; the sensation you're about to lose your life] and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury..."

Ah, "serious physical injury," you say? Does that mean it's okay for our agents to shove bamboo splinters under a prisoner's fingernails? That surely must be okay, since there's no "serious physical injury," certainly not even remotely approaching actual organ failure or impairment of bodily function.

As for "impairment of bodily function": Wouldn't you agree that it's an "impairment of bodily function" to interfere with breathing? How about not allowing a prisoner to take a crap? No one's talked about that, but you may be very sure that our guards weren't always very quick to allow a shackled prisoner to defecate when needed. Of course such a guard could always claim: "Hey, I never touched him." [Yeah, right!]

I have to ask a crucial question here: Why should any agent of the US be permitted to inflict any kind or degree of pain on any prisoner under his control? Don't forget: A prisoner is a helpless human being totally at the mercy of his guards.

As soon as we allow for even the possibility of inflicting pain on the helpless, then we open ugly doors: How much pain and under what circumstances?

Why don't we extend this permission to inflict pain to those who are guarding felons in county jails all over the country? As long as it's not severe enough to be called torture, why not allow for the systematic infliction of pain? That would certainly deter any criminal from ever wanting to return to prison. Of course, such a criminal might kill someone to avoid returning to prison, knowing that a daily dose of [what, in someone else's opinion, is] reasonably tolerable pain awaits him.

Such a killing would be seen simply as one prisoner's over-reaction, now wouldn't it? But then, it's not unusual to overreact, is it? When are we going to start being better people by not overreacting and not condoning overreaction?

QUOTE:

The Japanese forced water into the prisoner's nose and mouth. In our own version, the prisoner's mouth and nose are covered with a cloth that is saturated with water for no more than 20-40 seconds in a controlled manner. No water enters the lungs.

COMMENT:

It seems Parker is now talking about degrees of abusing prisoners, which (in her view) fall short of torture.

"20-40 seconds," you say? But who's counting and how? Stopwatch, anyone? Naw, let's just count it out: one (pause), two (pause), three (yawn and yawn again), four (time to take a drag out of my cigarette), fiiiiivvvvveeeee...(well, you get the idea).

"In a controlled manner," you say? Are we talking about the rate of water flow? Or the angle at which the waterboard is tilted? Is it okay to punch the guy in the stomach first? Ooph..out goes all the air. Okay, start pouring the water.

How thick is the cloth being used? Or could that be so thin there might as well not even be a cloth?

"No water enters the lungs." Says who? Or maybe Parker meant to say, "No appreciable amount of water enters the lungs." [The Buddha warned about people who cheat others with measures and scales. Could those be the scales of perverted justice?]

QUOTE:

Moreover, the same technique [waterboarding] is used to train our own military personnel, who do not suffer severe physical pain or prolonged mental harm.

COMMENT:

And how, Kathleen Parker, do you know this? Of course, when you say "the same technique," you don't say anything about frequency. Ah, yes. Nothing in your sorry essay says anything about frequency, and I doubt Bybee addressed that in his memo either. How could he, for then he might have to conclude that "too often" constitutes torture? And he didn't want to go there.

I wonder how Bybee might answer this question: Would you consider Chinese Water Torture to be barred under the 1994 statute? [In that case, "too often" (drip, drip, drip) is exactly the point.]

As events have revealed, frequency was indeed an important consideration - at least in the field:

QUOTE [from: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects]:

The CIA officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum.

The 2005 memo also says that the CIA used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo released Thursday said waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted.

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times, 4/19/09, Scott Shane]

The hell, you say: "...used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted"...??? So much for the "controlled manner" praised by Ms. Parker. And since CIA rules were violated, I'm sure Kathleen Parker would be the first in line to insist that these violators be punished. [Yeah, right!]

QUOTE:

Even if Bybee and Yoo were wrong, their error doesn't rise to the level of an ethical offense, much less a war crime. Under the Justice Department's own standards, an ethical issue would arise only if their opinion was so obviously wrong that no reasonable lawyer could possibly reach the same conclusion.

COMMENT:

So that's the standard, eh? All Kathleen Parker has to do is find one single solitary "reasonable" lawyer to go along with Bybee's nonsense in order to exonerate his abuse of the public's trust? Maybe she's found one: her husband, attorney-at-law. I wonder how he stands versus the opinion of the following gentleman:

"Yale law school Dean...Harold Koh called [Bybee's memo] ‘perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read'"...[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo#Criticism ]

Bybee and Yoo were wrong and they surely knew this when setting pen to paper. They both worked for a White House which was quite intolerant of dissent, so they knew exactly what kind of opinion they were expected to render.

In Bybee's case, he was richly rewarded by President Bush with a lifetime appointment to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I call that "corruption" at best, fruits of a "war crime" at worst. [Yes, I'll call it a war crime.] The cynical, though, would wink and nod and say, "Not a bad day's pay indeed."

Yes, I think Bybee should be impeached and imprisoned, for he enabled torture. Guys out in the field could use his legal opinion as a shield against criminal prosecution, which was the whole idea in the first place. An idea which Blaque Obammer* is sustaining by disallowing prosecutions of those who thought they were "just following [lawful] orders." [Ignorance of the law is now a permissible excuse, especially when the torturer can say he had a lawyer's permission to proceed.]

QUOTE:

In testimony before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, law professor Michael Paulsen predicted that "presidents and administrations of both parties will not obtain candid, vigorous legal advice reflecting the full range of views, on sensitive matters of war, foreign affairs and national security."

COMMENT:

The only kind of legal advice that's important is accurate legal advice. Advice cannot be "candid," when it is requested by a President who expects certain answers. As for advice being "vigorous," what the hell could that possibly mean? I will accept accurate over vigorous any time.

QUOTE:

America's enemies could hope for no more.

COMMENT:

No, Kathleen Parker, I'll tell you what America's enemies could hope for more of:

• Presidents who intimidate their legal counselors into rendering indefensible, inaccurate, and politically expedient opinions.

• Syndicated columnists who don't rise up and say, "America must stop torturing."

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Frankly, it was a tortuous experience for me to ponder the import of Kathleen Parker's hideous, small-minded essay. Worst of all? Realizing there are untold thousands of yahoos out in Numb-Numb land who are applauding her, not realizing what it's doing to the country they pretend to love" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

INTRO

"US President Obama's negotiation skills surprised many leaders" - a caption appearing under Blacque Obammer's* photo, which appeared in an April 3, 2009 article from MercoPress: South Atlantic News Agency.

The "set up"

I wasn't surprised when hearing of Obammer's* previously unsuspected "negotiation skills." How could anybody be surprised, after taking a moment to think about the circumstances? The G-20 conference was about to end and Obammer* makes a dramatic overture which leads to an agreement between Hu of China and Sarkozy of France.

QUOTE:

Heading into the summit's final hours, however, it appeared that the group would fail to reach a consensus, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed to have the G-20 spotlight offending tax havens based on a list published Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and China objected, largely because it doesn't belong to the OECD.

That was when Obama, long a champion of ending or curbing tax havens, decided to float a compromise and pulled Sarkozy aside ....

Obama proposed that the G-20 merely "take note" of the OECD list, thus opening the door to implicit but not direct endorsement of that list...

Obama then met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Sarkozy in a corner of the summit meeting room, as the other world leaders waited.

Upon the trio's reaching agreement, the G-20 summit then agreed to note the list of tax havens.

Sarkozy, who'd threatened days earlier to walk out of the summit if he didn't get his way, said the final agreement represented "great progress."

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 1]

My contention

I contend Sarkozy never had any intention of walking out of the summit. He merely postured so as to provide Obammer* with a chance to look good. Even though we Americans are stuck with an inexperienced and naïve president, the summit realized:

"For better or worse, we're also stuck with this guy, so we'd better make him look as good as possible."

And why not? The richest economies in the world wanted to project an aura of unity with a suave, masterful, unifying force at the helm. The name of the game is con: As in building up the confidence of the major financial players and markets of the world.  But I mean con in another way: As in conning the common citizens of the G-20 into thinking, "These guys know what they're doing - you'll see, everything will be coming up roses. They look so confident!"

No doubt about it: The whole game plan was to make Obammer* look good and to fool the masses of simpletons who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.

The need for transparency - now more than ever

QUOTE:

The list on the OECD site is obviously the result of a lot of political horsetrading - would you believe for example, after all the recent hype, that the OECD does not list Luxembourg and Switzerland as tax havens? And how on earth did Chile get on the list - did you ever hear anything about offshore banking in Chile? While Hong Kong, a major offshore financial hub, escaped listing altogether, for fears of upsetting the Chinese.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2]

Ah, that last sentence: "...for fears of upsetting the Chinese." I wonder if Chinese President Hu Jintao has any of his personal fortune socked away in Hong Kong. Perhaps that's why he objected as he did during the summit.

The nations of the OECD and the G-20 don't care about the financial well being of the planet. Like all monopolistic trusts, they care only about strengthening their market position. Especially if their posturings and policies provide max benefit for their political elites. This agenda does not bode well for anyone who isn't a member of the club - which is most of us.

Insist on transparency

I envision a world in which there are no secret bank accounts (sorry Switzerland) - where all financial information is mandated to be open, transparent, and accessible to any member of the public, foreign or domestic. This even extends to making all personal and business tax returns public.

Some will claim, "How much I make, how I spend my money, and where I put it is none of your business."

As things stand right now, that's true - but only as far as the general public is concerned. You can't tell a bank "none of your business" if you want a loan and your creditworthiness must be verified. We should put all the cards on the table - face up. That is, I advocate total economic disclosure starting with anyone who aspires for (or currently holds) political office. But - I do mean "total" and that would eventually include everybody.

The easy way to defend this: Consider such disclosure to be the cost of doing business. That is, in order to benefit from the economic web, disclosure and transparency should be considered the price that must be paid. But this is a price which, if paid, benefits everybody. For only with all the cards on the table can we get a handle on the overall health of the economy so as to better regulate and stimulate it. [How many times have professional economists been surprised when their projections are undermined by the unknown and hidden?]

I'm a very private person. But by that I mean, "in regard to my thoughts and feelings." I don't care who knows the extent of my "vast" holdings. The government, for sure, knows and I don't even like them. So why should I care if my neighbor (who I do like) knows? To those who would object to this kind of openness, I can only suggest that they weigh the alternative: We're running out of time and don't have the luxury of waiting and hoping for miracles that will make the debt bomb(s) go away and keep hidden all of our (sometimes dirty) little secrets.

I know my proposal won't win me many friends. Quite frankly, though, I don't see any other way.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Not always, but quite often, it's been my experience: When someone asserts, "None of your business," he's hiding something; even if only insecurity and mistrust"   - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Footnote 1: "G-20 reaches accord after Obama steps in to broker a deal"  = title of article by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspaper, dated 4/2/09: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65353.html

Footnote 2: "The Complete OECD Tax Haven Blacklist," by Peter Macfarlane, Offshore Banking expert for The Q Wealth Report.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

QUESTION:  Are we not our brother's keeper?

ANSWER: If your name is Avigdor Lieberman, then you will answer "no" to this question - especially if the "brother" in question is an Arab Israeli citizen.

BACKGROUND (going way back):

The question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - goes way back to the time of Cain and Abel. Maybe Lieberman would consider answering that question in the affirmative - but only after duly noting that Arabs and Jews are not brothers, but are instead half-brothers. Same father (Abraham) but two different mothers. Hagar (a slave) was the mother of the first-born Ishmael, who became the founding patriarch of the Arab people. Sarah (Abraham's wife) was the mother of the second-born Isaac, who became the founding patriarch of the Jewish people.

By the way, it was Sarah's idea that Abraham (er) beget via Hagar.

Lieberman contemplates enacting sinful legislation

Right-wing Israeli Jews, loyal to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's "Israel is our Home" party, are contemplating a means of humiliating Israel's Arab citizens. The "means" is a proposed loyalty oath for all Israeli citizens to be taken upon reaching age 18. "Those who refuse to take this oath will become ‘residents' of Israel and lose their status as citizens," according to Abraham Foxman, National Director of the (U.S.) Anti-Defamation League.

QUOTE [referring to Lieberman]:

His loyalty oath would require all Israelis to vow allegiance to Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, to accept its symbols, flag and anthem, and to commit to military service or some alternative service. Those who declined to sign such a pledge would be permitted to live here as residents but not as voting citizens...

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times' article by Ethan Bronner, published 2/8/09: "A Hard-Liner Gains Ground in Israel"].

Why a Jew might not want to take such an oath

Lieberman is attempting to force the will of a majority on a minority. That should send shudders down the spines of Jews who remember what it was like to be in the minority while living in other countries. American Jews (and other Americans) who lived in the US during the McCarthy Era know full well that loyalty oaths are meant to be repressive.

At one extreme, mandating the swearing of such an oath is simply a matter of one group (the majority who passes such knee-jerk laws) telling another group (a minority) what it must swear or affirm. Basically, nobody likes to be told what to do or say, nor should they be as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

At the other extreme, we have badly-conceived loyalty oaths, which contain language like this:

"I am not now nor have I ever been a member of an organization which advocates the violent overthrow of the US government."

Although, on the surface, this seems reasonable, there is a powerful retort:

"But sir, my organization does advocate the violent overthrow of the US government in the event that government violently and unconstitutionally attempts to suppress the basic human rights of the American people. The Founding Fathers themselves could not honor the loyalty oath you're proposing."

Another consideration: Suppose I am an Israeli Jew who converts to Buddhism. Am I supposed to swear an oath which, at its core, insists that Israel forever remain a Jewish state? As a Jew, I wouldn't dare try to force such an oath on a fellow Jew. Actually, this ties in to one of my earlier themes: Peace will not be realized in the Middle East until its peoples - Muslims and Jews alike - convert to Buddhism. For it's painfully obvious that people of the Abrahamic faiths - even though they be brothers (alright, half-brothers, if you prefer) - can't get along and will always hate each other, especially if they happen to be neighbors.

What about the Constitution: Any Israeli citizen should be concerned about enacting any law that would strip any Israeli of his citizenship. Not sure such a law would even be constitutional.

Why an Arab Israeli citizen would not want to take such an oath

Let's look at the Israeli national anthem, which this oath would make incumbent on all Israeli citizens:

QUOTE [English translation of The Hope]:

As long as in the heart, within,

A Jewish soul still yearns,

And onward, towards the ends of the east,

An eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope of two thousand years,

To be a free people in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

:UNQUOTE.

This "national" anthem presupposes that Arab Israeli citizens have Jewish souls? No, not really: More likely, it's a crude attempt to rub their half-brother's noses in it. And of course there's that last line: "the land of Zion and [here it comes] Jerusalem." Last time I checked, Muslims didn't seem too keen on ceding all of Jerusalem to Israel.

Become a Light Unto all Nations

I've lived my entire life in the United States, hearing these claims oft repeated:

The Jews are a Chosen People, and Israel is supposed to be a light unto all nations.

Quotes and my Responses

QUOTE [see Footnote 1]:

The Torah teaches us that the opposite is true:

"Learn and observe [the Torah] for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear of all these laws and proclaim that this is truly a great, wise and understanding nation." (Deut. 4:6)

It is clear that the Torah attaches importance to the respect given us by the nations of the world.

RESPONSE:

The "eyes of the nations" of the world do not see Israel as having "wisdom and understanding." Many of the "nations of the world" (or at least their governments) respect Israel - at least begrudgingly. Most of the peoples of the world, however, do not respect Israeli "wisdom and understanding." A casual observer might reflect: "Just as a son abused by his father can grow up to be a father abusive of his own son, so it is that people who are oppressed can become oppressors."

My question is: When do the formerly abused rise above their memories of the past?

QUOTE [see Footnote 1 - again]:

We, the Nation of Priests, represent God to the world by our exemplary lifestyle, and imbue the world with knowledge of His existence:

"We are a light unto the nations." (Isaiah 42:6)

RESPONSE:

Where is your "exemplary lifestyle?" You have so much, yet your fellow citizen (not to mention your other half-brothers who are Palestinian) have so little. And you want even more? You are not a Nation of Priests but of fearful, greedy little men who (really) worship your nuclear weapons. God does not dwell among you - He could not stand the lack of brotherly love.

In all fairness, though, there are Muslims who have been and continue to be abusive to Jews. I won't quantify and compare here, though, since I think it's unbecoming for anyone to say: "My neighbor's bad conduct toward me justifies my bad conduct toward him." Personally, I try my damnedest to avoid allowing anything my neighbor does to poison my view of the world or to make me lash out. Doing so would simply give any such malevolent way too much power.

QUOTE [see footnote 2]:

In a novel interpretation of the name [Ishmael] - which literally means ‘God will [in the future] hear' - he explains that "God will hear the cries of the people arising from the oppression which the children of [Ishmael] will bring about in the land [of Israel] in the end of days."

RESPONSE:

Could my eyes be deceiving me? Is this quote asserting that Muslims will be oppressing Jews in Israel just before the end of the world? Will this be yet another case of an oppressed group becoming oppressors? I certainly hope this vicious cycle will end - way before the End of Days (which, by the way, I don't happen to believe in).

Far more interesting to me, though, is the name Ishmael and its meaning: "God will [in the future] hear." Pray tell, just what is it that God will be hearing?

Final Thought on Abraham Himself

I hate to say it, but somebody must, simply because it's too obvious:

Abraham seems to have been a real dick who didn't love his first born and didn't have balls enough to stand up to his wife and say: "I won't banish my son Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. You're going to have to simply learn to get along." [Personal feeling? I think that's what God was hoping Abraham would say.]

But because he didn't say that, we're all paying a heavy price to this very day - for a continuing failure to get along.

Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"It's a good thing Avigdor Lieberman isn't the Defense Minister. Then he might have to deal with certain Arab Israeli citizens who would be more than willing to take his oath for the sole purpose of insisting that they be allowed to "serve" in Israel's army. Avigdor, have you thought this thing out very carefully?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Footnote 1: http://www.aish.com/torahportion/outlooksandinsights/Light_Unto_the_Nations.asp ]

Footnote 2: God Regrets Four Things by Mois Navon, pg. 183

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Key question: "Why didn't you tell them you were cops?"

The "whoop ass" quote:

Purists would point out: The word is pronounced whup, not whoooop. This is from Judge Gainer's recent opinion, in which he ignored the blatantly illegal conduct of three Chicago police officers, setting them free:

QUOTE:

[The Prosecutor]: Judge, he [Officer Paul Powers] wants to open a can of whoop ass on our victims and their friends.

:UNQUOTE.

So that's what it's come to, eh?

In a court of law, a public prosecutor uses language like that and the judge says...nothing? Actually, a lot of people who should have said a lot more, didn't. Members of the press, that is.

The only reason I'm writing about this case is because no one else has...but should have.

Themes:

A local judge supports local law enforcement by means of a highly-suspect acquittal. I've lived in Chicago most of my life, so I am not surprised at this. I reserve my greater criticism for local media for failing miserably in their coverage of certain aspects of this trial. As far as the victims are concerned, all I can say is: I'm happy to learn they'd initiated a federal lawsuit against these officers.

One of the saddest truisms concerning our legal system: "It's far easier to get justice at the federal rather than at the local level."

The Acquittal

QUOTE:

A Chicago police sergeant and two officers were acquitted today in connection with the off-duty beating of several patrons at a West Loop bar in December 2006.

Following a bench trial several weeks ago, Circuit Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr. found Sgt. Jeffery Planey and Officers Gregory Barnes and Paul Powers not guilty of aggravated battery charges in the attack at the Jefferson Tap and Grille.

:UNQUOTE [ article by April 28, 2009, Matthew Walberg, Chicago Tribune ]

Background:

On Dec. 15, 2006, after 3:30 a.m., there was the beginning of a physical confrontation between two groups in a bar. The first group: four young businessmen playing pool. The second group: six off-duty police officers, not in uniform, in another area of this bar. There were 10 video cameras on premises (inside and outside the bar), tapes from which were brought into evidence during this trial.

[NOTE: These cameras did not record any audio.]

The cops say they were verbally taunted, claiming one of the pool players called officer Powers a "pussy." Powers had been crying over the death of his father three months earlier.  This name-calling did not, however, immediately lead to an exchange of blows. Pushing and shoving ensued when another officer (who, by the way, had a gun in his hand) took it upon himself to interfere with the on-going pool game. He took balls from the table and deposited them into the table's pockets.

[As any pool player will tell you, that alone can cause a brawl.]

The pushing and shoving escalated to the point where the officers were taking some of the pool players down to the floor. Interestingly enough, none of this rough stuff led to any charges. The escalated physical activity (assault, leading to a pool player's broken nose) occurred in the vestibule, where there were no cameras, and on the front sidewalk.

[Side note: Did the cops, who were regular patrons of this bar, know where the cameras were and where they could get away with an unmonitored assault?]

The four businessmen claimed they were assaulted by these officers without any provocation or hint of an impending eruption. Prosecutor claimed these officers were looking for trouble and, without warning and not based on any prior interaction with the victims, decided to [as quoted above] "open a can of whoop ass."

Glaring omission in Judge's 30-page opinion

I read all 30 pages of Judge Gainer's opinion in this case, and was struck by one glaring oversight:

At no time during this gradually escalating encounter did any of the assailants identify himself as a cop.

If, as one of these plain clothes officers claimed, he was trying to defuse the rising tension between the two groups, he could have immediately chilled the situation by declaring himself (and his colleagues) to be cops while openly displaying his badge.

I'm especially amazed that the judge didn't ask: "Why didn't you simply tell the pool players you were cops?" This was a bench trial, not a jury trial, and the judge had latitude to bring this up himself. In fact, not declaring themselves as officers strongly supports the victims' claims that the cops were looking for trouble.

NOTE: Most of the officers looked big and burly, compared to the rather slightly built pool players. As a general rule, little guys don't go around taunting big guys - especially in a bar and especially not calling one of them a pussy.

The prosecution didn't jump on this issue - for instance, "Why were you trying to hide the fact that you were cops?" Perhaps prosecution did so during the trial, but I don't have those transcripts. Since this was a high profile case with news media in attendance, I'm confused by their silence on two counts:

• If this issue had been raised by prosecution or by anyone else during the trial, why was this fact not published?

• If this issue hadn't been raised at all, why was that oversight not included in any of the news stories?

In either event, this oversight is just another example of media not thinking. I'm sure H.L. Mencken would be spinning in his grave at the general incompetence displayed by members of the Fourth Estate these days.
 

More from the judge's decision

Some quotes and my responses:

QUOTE: The actions of the off-duty officers were in response to the fighting words, defined above, uttered by, more probably than not, [pool player] Adam Mastrucci.

RESPONSE: Couple of problems here:

• Even if the officers' claim were true [that the pool players called one of them a "pussy," with a gradually-increasing tirade of taunts and foul language following], it was clear from the testimony and videotaped evidence that these "fighting words" only gradually led to a brawl. Maybe there are "fighting words" that have a delayed-reaction aspect to them; just wondering. [Hmm...new legal concept here: delayed-reaction fighting words.]

• I thought police officers (especially veteran cops like these) had received extensive training on how to control themselves in the face of verbal abuse. If these cops engaged in what the Judge called "mutual combat" as a result of verbal abuse, then I highly question their professionalism (and, come to think of it, that of the Judge himself).

• "...more probably than not"??? The Judge needed something to justify cops acting badly, so he read something into the videotaped evidence (remember: no audio) to conclude that Mastrucci had uttered fighting words. However, none of the witnesses in the bar heard any such language from the pool players.

• The Fighting Words Doctrine: The Judge invoked this doctrine to protect the defendants, though he should have known that cops are expected to have a higher tolerance of verbal abuse. Also consider: "Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the [US] Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky [v. New Hampshire (1942)." http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

QUOTE: [Sgt.] Planey was trying to calm the situation.

RESPONSE: Judge Gainer made much of Sgt. Planey's numerous efforts at being a peacemaker. However - a little reemphasis here - neither Planey nor any of the other cops had identified themselves as police officers at any time during this encounter. Also, the Judge totally ignored this bar's outside camera clearly showing Planey exiting the bar and storming up to one of the pool players (about 20 feet away), grabbing him, and then pushing him up against a wall. Maybe Planey didn't know about the street cam, therefore encouraging this extra bit of violence. I'm sure this particular footage will be played prominently at the upcoming federal trial.

QUOTE: He [Aaron Gilfand, having suffered a broken nose] is heard making a call about a lawyer the night of the incident. He contacted lawyers and refused to cooperate with OPS [Office of Professional Standards of the Chicago Police Department]. When he did cooperate, he only did so with his lawyers present. He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another.

RESPONSE: Gilfand had sued this bar and settled out of court. That apparently bothered Judge Gainer. Tell me, how is it that a judge allows himself to be influenced by the outcome of another lawsuit? Gainer is virtually accusatory in these remarks (for example): "He contacted lawyers" [How dare he!] "He refused to cooperate" [No crime in that, Judge.] "He only [cooperated] with his lawyers present." [Oh, that awful man!] "He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another." [If Gilfand wins his federal lawsuit, I hope that presiding judge will appropriately blast Judge Gainer for issuing such a flawed verdict.]

Aftermath of the trial

Judge Gainer should have found all three officers guilty of aggravated battery - and, in Sgt. Planey's case, of obstructing justice. However, conviction of this felony would have meant these three men would be ineligible to remain on the police force. Gainer, having been a prosecutor in the Cook County State's Attorneys office for 10 years, was undeniably sympathetic.

The Chicago Police Department wasted no time in reinstating these three officers. However, Top Cop Jody Weis had other options. He could have kept these men at a desk job for (say) a year, pending completion of anger management and sensitivity training. And as a form of cooling-off punishment. Weis should also have dressed them down for:

• carrying a gun (at least one officer in that bar had a gun in hand, as caught on tape) while drinking;

• failing to identify themselves as police officers, when the escalating situation clearly warranted such revelation;

• conduct unbecoming law enforcement officers

One consequence of this brawl will undoubtedly be an out-of-court settlement of the lawsuit pending in federal court. Chicago taxpayers will once again bear the cost of police brutality. [What? You don't think this case will actually go to trial, do you? Mayor Daley wants to avoid the additional publicity of a prolonged airing of these events before a far more neutral tribunal.]

This entire episode can and should become the subject of a made-for-TV dramatic reenactment. I'm especially interested in what the ten video cameras caught on tape. Sadly, only a few minutes of this footage is on line, though I'm sure more would help flesh out the scenario. This is about all I could find, though you should scroll down and watch both video clips: http://chicagocopwatch.org/tag/police-brutality/

Judge Gainer's 30-page written decision is at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-090428-tap-decision-pdf,0,3828680.htmlpage

Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"If you truly believe in the rule of law, then cops who break the law should be convicted as easily as any other criminal" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.