I just read this editorial by Charles Lane in the Washington Post which I do not even want to link to because I'm so angry. What I can't believe (although I shouldn't say this because it betrays my willful naivete) is that the Post would publish this kind of nonsense. Again, this is evidence of right wing thinking that contradicts their own set of beliefs. The argument that is being made is that because doctors will be paid for discussing end of life issues with their patients (through the proposed health care bill) that this is tantamount to the government controlling end of life issues. Isn't it the republicans who whine about wanting freedom of choice about everything (except of course abortion decisions which they are more than happy to control) from school choice, choice of you doctor, choice of how you spend "your money", etc... But when it comes to a doctor having an open conversation with you that starts with something like "Do you have a living will? Do you know what that is? Are you interested in talking about this issue with me? Do you know what power of attorney is?" etc... The patient then has the choice to say "yes I want to talk about it" or "No thank you." Then the doctor proceeds accordingly. Where is the coercion in that? The simple minded think that just because the government allows for a doctor to be paid for his work in this area that somehow the doctor will behave unethically and coerce his/her patient into the discussion - or worse forcing the patient to sign some kind of end of life decision document (again this goes to my overall premise that right wing though that process is essential a paranoid one).
There is no allowance of nuance in the minds of extremists and radicals. If Obama says the police officer acted stupidly that equals Obama calling the police officer stupid and by extension all police are stupid. So the same thinking leads the like minded to think that if a statute allows for doctors to have the conversation that they will somehow manipulate their patients.
This is why there is now a conversation about Americans being stupid (which I personally don't think is particularly helpful and will just incite people into being more defensive and angry). But the fact is that a large percentage (as I've stated before in this blog (see older posts) - around 40% of Americans consider themselves fundamentalist or born again Christians. Not that these people are stupid people, but their thinking is simplistic (again a nuance that most of them will not be able to make). By not being able to accept nuanced statements or subtle communications these people can not understand the world around them. Part of this is certainly educational deficiencies and lack of real education. But another part may just be genetics - a genetically determined propensity toward fear that leads to paranoid thinking. Paranoids can not experience subtlety though that is all they think they perceive. The hypervigilance of their perceptions leads to very specific kinds of focus on very subtle changes in the interpersonal space/non-verbal communications. But it is in the way these perceptions are then processed (an interaction between fear and cognitive processing) that the contexts of the experience is lost. The context is then interpreted within the paranoid's world view that there is danger everywhere that he/she must protect him/herself against. This framework is built upon the basic underlying emotion of fear.
Thus we have people like this Mr. Lane who will consistently misinterpret the reality of the public debate/policy through the lens of fear leading to a need to protect yourself leading to hypervigilance leading to misinterpretation of reality resulting in behaviors (writing distorted columns like this one) that are an indication of a paranoid process (the world is out to get me) circling back to "I must protect myself. An endless feedback loop of reality disorientation.
For some reason, Americans are particularly susceptible to this kind of thinking, but it is of course not an exclusively American problem. When there are so many humans susceptible to this cycle, it is no wonder we can not make any real progress toward a more civilized social realities.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Racial Profiling and Gates
Here is the police report on the Henry Louis Gates case:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
I have read 10,000s of police reports as a forensic expert. This police report is clearly a self-justification report (as I call them). That is, the report is written in order to justify the officer’s behavior by exaggerating Gate’s behavior and minimizing their own. I have seen police reports about robberies that were shorter than this one. The depth of this report indicated to me that the officer was covering his behind.
This is not a case of racial profiling by the police. The police were called by a citizen who was the actual “profiler.” Though she can’t be blamed for calling the police when she sees to men trying to break into a house.
The real issue here is that the officer made a big deal out of nothing. In his own report he acknowledged that he realized that he was probably talking to the resident of the house. At that point he should have backed off, apologized for he inconvenience and left it at that. But instead the incident became a macho stand off. Once the officer felt disrespected, it was all over. The police officer, given the usual psychology of police officers (I have interviewed and psychologically tested 1000s of them), was incapable of standing down and walking away.
Police reports like this never contain the facts of the police officer’s conduct and non-verbal positioning. There is not doubt in my mind that this officer acted out with Gates as well. It is in the middle of the first paragraph on the second page that the officer stated that he knew that he was dealing with the resident of the home but that he was being “very uncooperative.” This is the key sentence in the entire report. The officer could not tolerate that the person he was confronting was being uncooperative despite the fact that he was standing in the person’s own home.
There was absolutely no need for this situation to escalate the way it did and quite frankly I believe it was the officer’s responsibility to stand down and walk away. I believe that is where the racial issue entered into the situation. I read this police report and I thought “this is stupid.” Remarkably similar to Obama’s reaction actually.
So in the end the situation was about nothing real, nothing criminal, nothing at all – but about a socially constructed acting out scenario based on racial history and politics in the end.
This reminds me of the many situations in which much is made about nothing forcing people to act out upon assumptions that then create consequences. The first example that came to my mind was Bill Clinton being forced to justify his personal behavior in a public setting and then being prosecuted for lying. He would not have been in the position to lie if the issues were not raised in the first place. This same scenario happens over and over.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
I have read 10,000s of police reports as a forensic expert. This police report is clearly a self-justification report (as I call them). That is, the report is written in order to justify the officer’s behavior by exaggerating Gate’s behavior and minimizing their own. I have seen police reports about robberies that were shorter than this one. The depth of this report indicated to me that the officer was covering his behind.
This is not a case of racial profiling by the police. The police were called by a citizen who was the actual “profiler.” Though she can’t be blamed for calling the police when she sees to men trying to break into a house.
The real issue here is that the officer made a big deal out of nothing. In his own report he acknowledged that he realized that he was probably talking to the resident of the house. At that point he should have backed off, apologized for he inconvenience and left it at that. But instead the incident became a macho stand off. Once the officer felt disrespected, it was all over. The police officer, given the usual psychology of police officers (I have interviewed and psychologically tested 1000s of them), was incapable of standing down and walking away.
Police reports like this never contain the facts of the police officer’s conduct and non-verbal positioning. There is not doubt in my mind that this officer acted out with Gates as well. It is in the middle of the first paragraph on the second page that the officer stated that he knew that he was dealing with the resident of the home but that he was being “very uncooperative.” This is the key sentence in the entire report. The officer could not tolerate that the person he was confronting was being uncooperative despite the fact that he was standing in the person’s own home.
There was absolutely no need for this situation to escalate the way it did and quite frankly I believe it was the officer’s responsibility to stand down and walk away. I believe that is where the racial issue entered into the situation. I read this police report and I thought “this is stupid.” Remarkably similar to Obama’s reaction actually.
So in the end the situation was about nothing real, nothing criminal, nothing at all – but about a socially constructed acting out scenario based on racial history and politics in the end.
This reminds me of the many situations in which much is made about nothing forcing people to act out upon assumptions that then create consequences. The first example that came to my mind was Bill Clinton being forced to justify his personal behavior in a public setting and then being prosecuted for lying. He would not have been in the position to lie if the issues were not raised in the first place. This same scenario happens over and over.
cash for clunkers
Just a quick note regarding the cash for clunkers program. Does everyone remember how republicans continually tell us that American's won't buy smaller more efficient cars and that the car companies make cars that American's want - that is the bigger more gas guzzling cars? Well this program completely undermines this argument. Give American's a small incentive to do the right thing and they will. Everyone wins through this program except right wing ideology!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)