HOW TO RE-IMAGINE POLICING

WITH ALL the hyperbole surrounding defunding or even disbanding police, whether you are for or against the idea, here is an article that proves that policing CAN BE DONE differently:

This town of 170,000 replaced some cops with medics and mental health workers. It's worked for over 30 years

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/cahoots-replace-police-mental-health-trnd/index.html?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

A WORTHWHILE - BUT LONG - READ

HERE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

Around 30 years ago, a town in Oregon retrofitted an old van, staffed it with young medics and mental health counselors and sent them out to respond to the kinds of 911 calls that wouldn't necessarily require police intervention.

In the town of 172,000, they were the first responders for mental health crises, homelessness, substance abuse, threats of suicide -- the problems for which there are no easy fixes. The problems that, in the hands of police, have often turned violent.

Today, the program, called CAHOOTS, has three vans, more than double the number of staffers and the attention of a country in crisis.

It's centered around a holistic approach

It always paired one medic, usually a nurse or EMT, with a crisis responder trained in behavioral health. That holistic approach is core to its model.

Around 25% of people killed by police show signs of mental illness, according to one study

"I believe it's time for law enforcement to quit being a catch-base for everything our community and society needs. We need to get law enforcement professionals back to doing the core mission of protecting communities and enforcing the law, and then match resources with other services like behavioral health -- all those things we tend to lump on the plate of law enforcement."

Its staffers are unarmed

Staffers respond to substance addiction crises, psychotic episodes, homeless residents and threats of suicide. They make house calls to counsel depressed children at their parents' request, and they're contacted by public onlookers when someone isn't in a position to call CAHOOTS themselves.

Unlike police, CAHOOTS responders can't force anyone to accept their aid, and they can't arrest anyone. They're not armed, and their uniform usually consists of a White Bird T-shirt and jeans -- the goal is that the more "civilian-like" they look, the less threatened their clients will feel.

The demand for its services continues to grow

With more funding, reallocated from the police budget or another source, the program could respond to even more crises.

Other cities are trying to develop a similar model

The idea of a separate entity in charge of alternative care is more enticing than ever as cities mull over the efficacy of their police departments.

Another city's CAHOOTS may not be called CAHOOTS at all, though it'll probably use another cutesy acronym. It's not likely to satisfy advocates who want to defund the police entirely. But, if done right, it could change the lives of some of a city's most vulnerable people.

Coronavirus Update 11

Since my last update some weeks ago, a couple of things have popped up recently that merit a few comments.

It’s airborne! Maybe.

Several sources are reporting on a new study with evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can remain airborne indoors for a significant period of time and still infect a person. The WHO is resisting accepting the evidence as sufficiently conclusive because it operates by a rigid evidence standard that may be hard to meet. A growing number of experts are arguing that the WHO should be more pragmatic by accepting the increasing evidence as probably valid and requiring changes in its recommendations to deal with the SARS-CoV-2 indoors.

The New York Times writes:

“The coronavirus is finding new victims worldwide, in bars and restaurants, offices, markets and casinos, giving rise to frightening clusters of infection that increasingly confirm what many scientists have been saying for months: The virus lingers in the air indoors, infecting those nearby. 

If airborne transmission is a significant factor in the pandemic, especially in crowded spaces with poor ventilation, the consequences for containment will be significant. Masks may be needed indoors, even in socially-
distant settings.  

The World Health Organization has long held that the coronavirus is spread primarily by large respiratory droplets that, once expelled by infected people in coughs and sneezes, fall quickly to the floor.[1] 

But in an open letter to the W.H.O., 239 scientists in 32 countries have outlined the evidence showing that smaller particles can infect people, and are calling for the agency to revise its recommendations.”

Based on the new information about possible aerosol infections, the scientists suggest keeping a mask on indoors in public, even with social distancing. They also believe that places with better ventilation are safer than poorly ventilated places because ventilation tends to dilute aerosols out, making them less likely to cause an infection.

As usual, the situation is complicated and unfortunately, politics is relevant. The NYT reports that the WHO is constrained by a rigid view of scientific evidence, making it slow and risk-averse in changing its guidance in view of new evidence. Also, its operating procedures allow a few conservative voices to shout down dissent. One WHO consultant commented on the WHO’s rigidity: “They’ll die defending their view.”

Yeah, and some of us might also die from them defending their view.

This is a link to the 9 page accepted manuscript, which is scheduled to be published next week.

The US response failure

Although most people already know this, it is worth repeating in view of accumulating evidence. The US response to the pandemic has been a failure. Evidence is mounting that shows (1) how bad the US failure has been, (2) how badly needed competent, coordinated federal guidance was, and (3) how badly needed competent, coordinated federal guidance still is. In all of this, our president is simply clueless and completely out of his depth. His sociopathy makes him is incapable of even seeing the problem and its human, social and economic magnitude, much less having (i) any empathy about the suffering, or (ii) any recognition of his own responsibility and failures.

Evidence of the failure includes daily new infections in the US (population ~330 million) compared to the European Union (population ~446 million). In recent days, the number of new infections in one day in some states such as Arizona (population ~7.3 million) has been higher than the number of new infections in one day in the entire EU. Daily US vs EU infections differ by tens of thousands per day, with the US now hovering around 43,000 new infections/day.

Any politician who is saying that the US response has been anything other than a failure of government and political leadership is lying, ignorant or both. Any false statements about competence in the US response are likely to involve the psychological element of virtue signalling of the speaker’s misplaced loyalty to Trump and the Trump tribe. What this says, if anything, about the morality people who assert such falsehoods is open to debate.


Footnote:
1. Regarding aerosols vs droplets: Aerosols and droplets are the same thing except that they differ in size. Droplets that are smaller than five microns in diameter are called aerosols. For context, a red blood cell is about five microns in diameter and a human hair is about 50 microns wide. A micron is one millionth of a meter in length.

Trump’s 2020 Election Strategy: Intensify the Culture War

A component of the president’s 2020 re-election strategy that appears to be rising in prominence is intensifying the partisan polarization and distrust that has been tearing American society apart. The rhetoric he unleashed in last several days has been positively ferocious. The president truly is making a run dragging America into some form of an anti-democratic authoritarian plutocracy.

While speaking at Mount Rushmore on July 4, the president made these comments about his political opposition:

“One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America. This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life.  

In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished. It’s not going to happen to us.  

Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. 

To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.”

As usual, when the president accuses his opposition of various bad intentions and actions, he is talking about himself. The president’s trait of projecting is now quite consistent. The lies and exaggerations aside, what he has done or wants to do is what he falsely accuses the left of. The deadly dangerous thing here is that most of his supporters (~96% ?) believe essentially all of his false allegations.

He unleashed similar attacks from the White House on July 5:

“This great heritage belongs to citizens of every background and of every walk of life. No matter our race, color, religion, or creed, we are one America, and we put America first. We will not allow anyone to divide our citizens by race or background. We will not allow them to foment hate, discord, and distrust. We will hold fast and true to the sacred loyalties that link us all as neighbors, as Americans, and as patriots. 

In every age, there have always been those who seek to lie about the past in order to gain power in the present. Those that are lying about our history, those who want us to be ashamed of who we are, are not interested in justice or in healing. Their goal is demolition. Our goal is not to destroy the greatest structure on Earth, what we have built: The United States of America. To build a future where every family is safe, where every child is surrounded by love, where every community has equal opportunity, and every citizen enjoys great and everlasting dignity.

Let me also say a word to those in the media who falsely and consistently label their opponents as racists, who condemn patriotic citizens who offer a clear and truthful defense of American unity. That’s what our people are doing. We want a clear and faithful defense of American history and we want unity.

When you level these false charges, you not only slander me, you not only slander the American people, but you slander generations of heroes who gave their lives for America. You slander people much braver and much more principled than you. You are slandering the young men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, and those who perished fighting for freedom in the Civil War. You slander them. You are dishonoring their great legacy and their memory by insisting that they fought for racism and they fought for oppression. They didn’t fight for those things; they fought for the exact opposite. We will not let the legacy of these heroes be tarnished by you. 

The more you lie, the more you slander, the more you try to demean and divide, the more we will work hard to tell the truth. And we will win. The more you lie and demean and collude, the more credibility you lose. We want to bring the country together, and a free and open media will make this task a very easy one. Our country will be united. After all, what do we want? We want a strong military, great education, housing, low taxes, law and order. We want safety, we want equal justice, we want religious liberty, we want faith and family, and living in a great communities and happy communities and safe communities. And we want great jobs and we want to be respected by the rest of the world; not taken advantage of by the rest of the world, which has gone on for decade after decade. We should all want the same thing. How can it be any different than those things?”

Taken together, the attack portions of those two speeches seem to lay out a strategy of vilifying political opposition and the mainstream media to the point of being evil, while reinforcing the false reality and divisive lies the president will rely on going forward. What is amazing in both speeches is (1) the almost complete lack of fact-based reality they convey, and (2) the belief in that false reality that millions of adult Americans see. The president rails against “a new far-left fascism,” while promoting what is in fact an intolerant far-right fascism.

The danger to democracy and the rule of law are quite clear. If the president is re-elected, this country could become an autocratic kleptocracy led by a chronic liar who is a mentally deranged demagogue and tyrant wannabe.

“Forgiveness”… what a concept

I guess if it weren’t for forgiveness, we’d all have killed off each other by now.  You piss me off, I piss you off.  Neighbor pisses off neighbor, wives piss off husbands, husbands piss off wives, kids piss off parents, employees piss off bosses, etc.  Yes, it could be a bloody slaughterhouse out there, if it weren’t for the human emotion of forgiveness.  So what is this thing called forgiveness anyway?  How does it work?

*

Definitions-wise, I think most everyone would agree that forgiveness is an emotional tool we humans use in an attempt to repair believed damages between two or more individuals.  Kinda like a craving for Mounds vs. Almond Joy, sometimes that tool works/satisfies, and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on the “level of damage” (or the mood) experienced by the aggrieved (i.e., the so-called victim).

As flawed humans, it is true that we are likely to have found ourselves on both sides of the issue, whether being the requestor of forgiveness, or the grantor of forgiveness.  If one perceives s/he has wronged another and is regretful about it, he may request the other’s forgiveness.  If granted, a feeling of vindication is usually realized by the transgressor, and a feeling of justice is usually realized by the transgressed.  Likewise, if one perceives himself as having been wronged by another, he may desire that the other request his forgiveness so that he may consider granting it.  Granting forgiveness is usually considered a generous gesture, both by the wrong-er and wrong-ee.  However, damages in the form of emotional scars may have been suffered and they may take a long long time, if ever, to disappear from one or more of the parties.  If you followed my breadcrumbs, all this mumbo-jumbo is just a contorted way of saying… forgiveness is a means of making amends for wrongdoings.

Okay, I think we have a handle on the concept of forgiveness.  So let’s look at some examples of forgiveness in action.  Let me tell you some stories.

*

(Story 1)

Stan performs an act of transgression against neighbor Ali; he steals something out of Ali’s garage.  Lately, Ali has noticed several things going missing.  When Stan’s momentary “psychological high” (regarding his evil stealing) subsides, he eventually feels bad about his actions, confesses it to Ali, and requests Ali’s forgiveness.  Ali considers the situation and decides that many understandable factors could have led Stan to stealing from him.  Ali decides to be generous and grants forgiveness to Stan.  Both sides feel pretty good about the understanding that has been reached.  Ali trusts that Stan won’t do it again, especially as remorseful as Stan seemed to feel about his wrongdoing.

Now things are quiet for awhile, but soon Stan steals again from Ali’s garage.  It’s déjà vu all over again, and Ali reluctantly considers forgiving Stan a second time.  The scar runs a little deeper now and Ali is getting a little leery of Stan.  Ali knows that people can make mistakes and really wants to give Stan the benefit of the doubt, so he again grants forgiveness to Stan.  Both sides again feel satisfied about the forgiveness outcome.

Lo and behold, if Stan’s stealing happens yet again!  Ali really starts to wonder about Stan.  He wonders if Stan may have some kind of kleptomania-type sickness.   Stan seems normal, but continues to make a mockery of Ali’s generosity of forgiveness.  Ali begins to wonder if Stan really understands the concept of forgiveness.  Can someone really be sincere, who continues to do the same wrong over and over, and then ask for forgiveness for such?  It really makes no logical sense.

(Story 2)

Now let’s change the scenario.  We will use Stan and Ali in this one too.  Poor Ali is still experiencing items going missing from his garage.  Every time he’s seen confronting Stan about the missing items, their neighbor man, Jessi, comes running over from across the street and takes the blame in Stan’s place.  Jessi is just this real nice guy and knows how Stan has an affinity for trouble.  Even though innocent himself, Jessi confesses that it is his fault that things are missing from the garage and profusely apologizes to Ali, while Stan just stands back and lets Jessi take the rap.  While Stan privately does feel bad that Jessi would do this for him, Stan doesn’t have the integrity to step in and tell Ali the real truth; that he has actually stolen the missing items.  Stan knows that if he had an ounce of moral fiber, he would not let Jessi take the blame for his wrongdoings.  Still, Stan continues to let Jessi take the blame for his mistakes, over and over and over again.  Worse yet, Ali seems content to accept Jessi’s apologies in place of Stan’s.  Stan and Ali, and even Jessi all actually know, deep down inside, how futile the situation is because, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, Stan will again be foraging around in Ali’s garage tonight, looking for things he desires.  He can’t seem to help himself; it’s like he’s destined to do it.

And what kind of person is Stan, who lets Jessi take the blame for his mistakes?  And not just once, but over and over again.  We all know the answer to this one.  Stan is a loser, ranking maybe just one level above the amoeba, on the personal integrity chart.  And what about Jessi?  Is he some kind of sick masochist?  Will justice ever be served if Jessi continues to take the blame for Stan’s mistakes?  Is Jessi really doing a service, or disservice, to Stan?

Stan has enough sense to know that he can’t seem to help himself, when he does something morally wrong.  He knows that he could ask Ali for forgiveness, and Ali will probably continue to grant it.  But they both know that Stan is very likely to do it again.  It’s like they’re both trapped in some kind of bad dream loop and can’t find a way to fix it.  From Stan’s perspective, he may as well ask Ali to forgive him for breathing, eating or thinking.  Stan hates that it must seem like he is making a mockery of Ali’s forgiveness, but he can’t help it.  He wishes he could find a way out of the nightmare.  It isn’t fair to Ali, to Jessi, or to himself.

(Story 3)

Now let’s change the scenario yet again.  This time, when something is missing from Ali’s garage, it is because two other neighbors, Adam and Evelyn, have actually stolen it.  But old habits die hard, so as usual, Ali runs over to Stan’s house and accuses him of again stealing the missing item and demands an apology, so that he may, for the umpteenth time, grant his unending forgiveness.

Stan has been getting psychiatric help and is pretty damned sure that he hasn’t stolen anything of late.  In fact, while going to the fridge for some late night cookies and milk, Stan sees A&E in the act of stealing from Ali’s dark garage.  And this is not the first time.  What’s even more bizarre to Stan is that he knows that Ali knows that A&E are the guilty parties.  He knows this because, during A&E’s antics, Stan has also seen Ali’s face staring out his own window at those two culprits.  Yes, this is all getting quite crazy.  When accused again by Ali, Stan insists that A&E have stolen the missing property and wonders why Ali would have the audacity to ask him to beg for forgiveness for A&E’s immoral actions.  It makes no sense.  Even though Stan remembers that he himself was once not very trustworthy, he thinks it is unjust to have to be expected to repent and beg forgiveness for what A&E did.  If he did it, fine.  But why does he have to be responsible for something someone else did?  Where is the fairness, justice, there?  In fact, it’s almost “sick.” 

*

By now, all these scenarios should sound pretty familiar.  They represent exactly the kind of “forgiveness gyrations” Christianity practices, at least from my understanding of the religion.

So today, I’m going against the grain by infiltrating the highly respected DisPol (political) Channel with something a little different; the concept of “religious forgiveness.” I promise I won’t make it a habit but I think it’s worth an errant OP, for what it’s worth.  I want to explore the concept of forgiveness as understood and promoted by Christianity, vis-à-vis how we ordinary mortals think of forgiveness in everyday life.  In my stories, as you probably guessed, Stan represented mean old Satan; Ali represented God; Jessi represented Jesus; and Adam and Evelyn represented the apparently not-so-innocent bystanders.

The first story represented the ritual of asking for forgiveness over and over for transgressions (“sins”) we know we are destined to commit.  The second story involved Jesus’ taking the rap for our so-called day-to-day transgressions.  The third story represented the original transgression of A&E, to be paid for by all of humanity, for the rest of eternity.

My point in all of this is, while I try to cut them some “belief” slack out of common courtesy, I do not understand the reasoning used by Christians when it comes to their concept of “Godly forgiveness.” In our everyday world, we would frown on these warped scenarios.  Yet, as Christians, entire lives come and go, based on such logic.  They paint a picture of a God (i.e. Ali) who is a lot like us.  A God who, when it comes to forgiveness, has this need, like we humans do, to hear forgiveness requested over and over, and then a need to generously, indeed unendingly grant it.

According to Christianity:

KJV Matthew 7:7-8 … 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Well, we saw plenty of that “asking and granting” of forgiveness in the stories.  In Christianity, their “forgiveness need” can be all-consuming and never-ending.

Case in point… my indoctrinated soon-to-be 20-year-old step-granddaughter wrote to me this weekend, for our weekly song exchanges, to remind me that I, too, need to continuously request forgiveness from her God (and I quote):

 

Well this one [In Christ Alone - Taryn Harbridge] you will enjoy the sound of it, but hopefully the lyrics make you just a little uncomfortable (though I will be letting you decide for yourself if you want lyrics; the song is only music). Not that I want you to just be uncomfortable or that I like making people feel that way, but I do want people to be uncomfortable with their shortcomings and what those shortcomings mean when held up to the perfection of God. And then to understand what he did for your shortcomings! It's all in the song too :P 

My favorite verse of this song is 4. It's more than just a song that brings me comfort or hope, though it does do that too. I know these words are true. As the song says "this is the power of Christ in me." Mostly the lyrics to this song make people tune out and glaze over, but I hope the words roll around in your head a little longer than most.

My reply to her was: I’m pretty, actually very comfortable with my sense of spirituality already.  Like yours, it was years in the making and it satisfies me more than I think you realize.  (And that's okay.  I understand.)  So, what more could each of us ask for?  We are both exactly where we want to be.  Nope... no complaints here. :)

*

Human forgiveness I can get.  I’ve lived it, used it, and understand it.  But I have to wonder, is biblical forgiveness merely an extension of human forgiveness, and some sort of religious psychological game Christians play to stay (I’ll call it) “comfortable”?  If it’s not a psychological game, I really don’t get how it works, since (like the Borg) it’s a rather futile endeavor, hopeless in its success.  Their understanding of sin seems to be a never-ending dilemma/challenge for them.

And is it really all that shocking that most non-Christians, like myself, reject the insanity of this forgiveness story, and wonder how Christians can repeat it with a straight face?  What is it exactly that makes the “Godly forgiveness” story fly… century after century?  Is it fear, reverence, desire, comfort, other?

So, finally… if you made it this far, here’s the challenge I present you with:

Give your analysis of MY analysis of what I see as the (I’ll call it) “Christian forgiveness nightmare conundrum.”  What am I missing?

Then give your own analysis of it.  In other words, how do you see the idea of “Godly forgiveness,” as understood by virtually every Christian?  Does it make logical sense to you?  I no, why not?  If yes, why?

And thanks for reading, posting, and recommending.

Regarding the Common Sense Party

“One cannot fully grasp the political world unless one understands it as a confidence game, or the stratification system unless one sees it as a costume party. . . . . Finally, there is a peculiar human value in the sociologist’s responsibility for evaluating his findings, as far as he is psychologically able, without regard to his own prejudices likes or dislikes, hopes or fears. . . . . To be motivated by human needs rather than by grandiose political programs, to commit oneself selectively and economically rather than to consecrate oneself to a totalitarian faith, to be skeptical and compassionate at the same time, to seek to understand without bias, all these are existential possibilities of the sociological enterprise that can hardly be overrated in many situations in the contemporary world. In this way, sociology can attain to the dignity of political relevance, not because it has a particular political ideology to offer, but just because it has not.” (emphasis added) -- Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology, 1963

Some of you may know that I am informally working with the Common Sense Party in California. The group formed in August of last year. I hooked up with that outfit the day I became aware of them last September. The party needs to get 68,000 voters in California to register with the party to get official party status in the state. The voter registration drive hit about 20,000 before the effort had to be shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The group had planned to hit the needed 68,000 by July 3, but that date has come and gone. The plan now is to keep trying to get enough people to register by July 3, 2022. The 20,000 already registered will remain registered and still count to the new 2022 deadline, assuming they choose to stay registered with the CSP.

For those who are interested, an email that the group sent out to explain the situation is shown below in its entirety. What the group is dealing with is hostile and bizarre, among other things. It includes a lawsuit the group lost, but with nutty advice from the judge to go out and break a California state law. Apparently, the two-party system in California is just about as broken as it is in Washington.

The anti-biasing, anti-ideology mindset

Ideologically speaking, the CSP mindset, ideology and moral framework is closer to my pragmatic rationalism mindset, ideology and moral framework than anything else I am aware of. In a nutshell, the CSP believes in evidence-based politics and not fidelity to any particular ideology. In my opinion, that is about as good as a political mindset can ever get.

To try to help the CSP, I'll occasionally post some OPs here that are California focused. The point is to show some real world examples of how the CSP approaches political issues and how evidence is more influential than ideology. Who knows, maybe I can inspire some folks to register as CSP voters.

I hope.