Life Isn't Fair

 

Life Isn't Fair

Bad Things Happen Sometimes

But So Do Good Things

A Lot Is Beyond Our Control

Things Don't Happen "For A Reason"

Or According To A Deity's "Plan"

(Unless That Deity Is A Sadistic Jackass)

Do Your Best

With The Cards You Are Dealt

Bluff If You Have To

Straw Men and Intentional Misunderstanding: Blue Lives

In a perfect world everyone would speak and write using perfect grammar, all their statements will be perfectly consistent, and words would be used according to the accepted Merriam-Webster definitions. In that perfect world no one would ever have to ask "What did you mean by that?".

But we don't live in that best of all possible worlds.

People make imprecise statements. I noted recently how a friend, when coming across incendiary posts in social media, gives the other person a chance to explain himself. If the offending person takes the opportunity to clarify, it may be that the statement wasn't intended to be offensive, or the offended person didn't understand the context or nuance. Of course it could be that no clarification can explain it away and the initial statement really was offensive.

What seems to happen a lot is that people intentionally misunderstand, deploying the straw man fallacy to attack a position that the other person really doesn't hold, not allowing for lack of precision in the choice of words.

The recent protests against police abuses that arose following the murder by police of George Floyd in Minneapolis engendered a lot of slogans, some of which were misunderstood by those who disagreed with the manner of protesting. One of these is related to the slogan "Blue Lives Matter" and a meme that went around that had a picture of some blue cartoon characters (Blue, from Blues Clues was one) and the caption "These Are the Only Blue Lives That Matter To Me". Cops, as well as friends and family of police officers naturally were upset, but let's look at the phrase itself and where it came from.

In 2013, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin, the hashtag #blacklivesmatter began trending on Twitter. It soon became a rallying cry for many people who were fed up with young Black men continually being killed by white people, usually at the hands of the police. An organization with that name also started in 2013. Note that no one was saying that only Black lives matter, or that non-Black lives don't matter, but that in the eyes of the police, as well as many White people, it didn't seem like Black lives did matter. Those using that hashtag, or the phrase in general, were trying to point out that despite the lack of seeming value of Black lives in this country, Black lives mattered.

There was an almost immediate backlash. The phrase "All Lives Matter" started to be heard and seen. It seemed innocuous. Of course all lives mattered. How could anyone argue with that? But the problem with snapping back an answer to "Black Lives Matter" was that it didn't require an answer. Attempting to answer it was a rebuttal. If all lives really did matter, then we wouldn't need to say "Black Lives Matter", would we?

Another common rejoinder was "Blue Lives Matter", obviously a response intended to defend the police, who were a frequent target of Black Lives Matter activists. Similar to "All Lives Matter", not only was this supposed to be a counterpoint to "Black Lives Matters", but was meant to point out the opinion of many police and law enforcement supporters that they were in opposition to "Black Lives Matter" protesters. Again, it's obvious that the lives of police officers matter, but the term "Blue Lives Matter" is a not-so-veiled attempt at a rebuttal of "Black Lives Matter".

Of course, there are no "blue lives".

What?

As I have recently seen pointed out, "blue" is a profession; a cop can take his uniform off at the end of the day, a Black person can't take off his skin. A police officer can retire or leave the force and take up another profession and any animosity toward the police goes away. A Black person is always Black.

When I first lived in Nebraska I experienced a lot of persecution due to my religion. I remember thinking at the time that I could move to the next town, keep my religion quiet, no one would ever know, and the discrimination would end (as it did), but that a Black person did not have that option. It was a turning point for me.

So if you are offended by memes or posts or comments speaking against the slogan "Blue Lives Matter", it doesn't mean that they think the lives of individual police offers don't matter, or that they wish harm on police officers, but that the phrase is meaningless, since there are no "blue lives". In addition, the phrase is nothing more than an attempt to minimize "Black Lives Matter".

Take the time to find out what people really mean when they say what they say. If you disagree with their actual position, then go ahead and argue, but don't rail against a position that you only think they are holding, or have assumed that they hold because that's easier than taking the time to find out.

Black Lives Matter: Disrupting the Nuclear Family?

While I do get into arguments and discussion on social media, mostly I blog in order to organize my own thoughts and to try to convince myself that my own opinions make sense. I'll often see people write things that I don't think are correct, but rather than automatically disagreeing, I'll do a little checking to see if the facts at least are correct. The opinion that people have of those facts is another matter, but you have to, at least in a sane world, start with the basic facts before you can form an opinion.

Something that I have seen a lot in the last week is an accusation that Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-religion organization that is, in reality against Black people and seeks to disrupt the nuclear family. I first became aware of this position through the Facebook posts of someone I know through a mutual taste in music. I've traced her views back through several Black Christian preachers. I believe that they have arrived at their opinions by selective quoting, often out of context.

Many years ago I was part of a group that liked to think of themselves as a Biblical Research ministry. In retrospect they were nothing of the sort, but they did outline several things that one must understand when reading the Bible. One was that words must be understood in light of their meaning when they were written. This group used the King James Version of the Bible, which was originally published in 1611, with revisions made over the next hundred years. Many words no longer had the same meaning as they did 400 years ago. Other keys were to read things in their context, and of course, almost so obvious that it didn't need to be said" read what was written (not what you want to be written). All of this should be common sense when it comes to evaluating anything that we hear or read.

One of the "quotes" that has been repeated is the Black Lives Matter organization (BLM) is out to disrupt the nuclear family. What does that mean? Well, first of all, the complete quote, from the BLM website is:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

So what does that mean? Some Christians would have you believe that it means to "drastically alter or destroy" the nuclear family. Indeed, if you look up the definition of "disrupt" the first definition that pops up will say just that. But does the statement on their website say that they want to "disrupt the nuclear family"? No, it says that they "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement...". Although it's not entirely clear just from looking at that phrase in isolation what precisely a Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement is, we can look at the context and get a clearer idea. We can determine what they mean by noting the word "by" - this clues us in on the "how" of the disruption: "by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another...". This doesn't sound like a negative interpretation of disruption (more on the modern positive definition of disruption in a moment), but harking back to a time when extended families and community were more the norm, even in American society, rather than what is the norm today, nuclear families that have isolated themselves from the greater community. Isn't that what churches espouse? The final clause "...especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." This hardly sounds like what some people are claiming that they're saying.

So what about an alternative meaning of "disrupt", one that frames disruptions as a good thing? Here's a link to an article on the Merriam-Webster website that discusses the changing meaning of "disrupt" and "disruption":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-new-meaning-of-disrupt?fbclid=IwAR3zVqLmCFr_93Fx4EhPL0rpj2Ra8nZs88ImB56fOPCgIFDdnSBqSWa6R4Q

With this relevant quote:
"...his theory of 'disruptive innovation' were using disrupt and its variant parts of speech in a fairly narrow sense, describing a process in which new business entities successfully challenge established ones by initially focusing attention on those areas of service which the older companies had overlooked, and leveraging this to a long term advantage."

I suggest that, based on the context, the BLM website is using "disrupt" in this way, or at least defining the word in a non-standard way, not, as some would suggest, to destroy the nuclear family.

The other issue that has been used as a pretext to disavow Black Lives Matter is the recent unearthing of a video where one of the organization's founders says "We are trained Marxists". Christian preachers and their followers, claiming that Marxism is an "anti-Christian religion", have declared that it would be un-Christian to support Black Loves Matter, sometimes conflating the organization of that name with the wider movement. There are several things wrong with that conclusion. Yes, it is true that Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, has said, in response to a suggestion that the organization had no ideology, ""We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories."

Again we have to go back to context. The sentence right before the "trained Marxists" statement is "...we're trained organizers". So what, precisely is Marxist about the organization? You'd be hard put to find anything unambiguously Marxist about their public statements. If the BLM organization is attempting to do anything beyond keeping young Black men from being indiscriminately shot and killed by the police and affecting systemic change to advance the equality of Blacks and other minorities, (one preacher referred to BLM's advocacy for LBGTQ people as a reason to shun them) they are doing a poor job of articulating it. So a couple of the people who were active early on in this movement and copyrighted a name and started a non-profit and put up a website claim expertise in organizing that they learned as Marxists. At least one socialist organization looks at them as sell-outs who aren't championing any socialist ideals.

https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/

It's pretty evident that whatever Marxism was part of their ideology has faded away as the organization has become a movement, a movement composed of thousands of people who have no connection to an organization, but strong fealty to an idea, the idea, that despite all evidence to the contrary, Black lives matter.

Black Lives Matter is not a threat to Christians. Black Live Matter is not a threat to White people. Black Lives Matter is not a threat to the nuclear family. Black Lives Matter is a threat to racism, misogyny, bigotry, and anything that devalues one group of people.

Any organization, any movement, is going to have people with whom you disagree, who say unfortunate things, who make decisions at variance to their public stance. Should we anathematize the whole movement because we have found a few clay feet? Should we demonize all Christians because some Christian organizations have done evil?

If your only public statements regarding the Black Lives Matter movement are to conflate the organization with the movement and to find ways to tar both, I'd take a few moments to examine your motives.

Your First Post Regarding Black Lives Matter Protests

There have been a few things that have been bothering me lately relating to the protests against police killings. If you utilize social media you can't avoid seeing a lot of opinions (or at least memes and shares disguised as opinions) about what's going on. Not everyone has chosen to comment one way or the other about what is arguably the biggest issue of the day. That I understand. Some choose to use Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms exclusively for fun stuff - pictures of their kids and pets and info about their favorite sports team (well not lately when it comes to sports teams!). I won't assume that you don't have an opinion, or that you're not active in some fashion if you don't use the platform in that way. Maybe you don't know the best way to articulate your opinion clearly, or maybe you just have sharp boundaries for what you discuss with others. But here's what does bother me, and where I do assume some things.

If you haven't used your social media access to speak out against police killings of unarmed black men who were not involved in any violent offense, or against the over-the-top response of some police departments to peaceful protests, but have decided to make your first comment in support of police, or mocking "liberal" responses to the violence, or even condemning the looting, then I will assume that unjustified police killings are not something that bothers you.

Let me be clear that I don't agree with some of my friends that all cops are bastards, that all cops are bad apples, or that we shouldn't have police departments. My late father was a NYPD officer for 21 years and my brother was a NYPD sergeant and homicide detective who retired after 27 years on the job. While I never observed either of them on duty, in their civilian roles as fathers and husbands, they were and are both good men. I'm sure that anyone who has a friend or family member who is a police officer would say the same thing.

The problem isn't that police officers aren't good parents or spouses, or contributing members of their communities and churches, it's that the system  encourages and excuses bad behavior in many cases. It's not even open to discussion that every day in America police cross the line and physically abuse and often kill people who are pulled over at traffic stops, who are running away, who are handcuffed and restrained face-down, often for minor offenses when neither the officer nor the public are in any danger.

Posting photos of cops changing tires, dancing at barbecues, taking knees, getting involved in community events and otherwise smiling and being good guys doesn't negate the reality that when push comes to shove, many law enforcement officers feel justified in employing maximum force for minor offenses. It's pretty easy to smile and be Officer Friendly when you're interacting with a friendly member of the public, but the problem arises when there is the least bit of resentment for being pulled over for "fitting the description" when that description is simply "black male". How do most cops react when someone "gives them attitude"? Do they just deal with it as every retail worker has to do every day of the year, or do they escalate the situation and retaliate?

Posting videos of your favorite conservative black person agreeing with you doesn't negate the issue either. Just as white people are not monolithic and have a wide and varied range of opinions, so do black people. A black conservative making the case against Black Lives Matter or any other issue doesn't "destroy" the BLM position, it's just another opinion.

I'm going to be charitable and not assume that by ignoring police killing in your social media life while at the same time decrying opposition to police tactics and posting red herrings and straw men about "liberal" opinions you're a racist (although you might be). What I am going to assume is that you haven't taken the time to set aside your preconceived notions long enough to seriously consider that there is a problem with policing in this country that needs to be corrected.

So, do that.

Bad Apples

Frankly, I'm tired of the "one bad apple" rationalizations that people come up with regarding cops that kill unarmed, and sometimes already restrained, people. In the most recent murder of a man who was falsely accused of forgery, it's not just the cop who had his knee on George Floyd's neck. He was also being restrained by two other officers while a fourth stood by. If it's "one bad apple", didn't any of the supposed "good apples" think to say "Hey bro, back off, he's cuffed and face down on the ground, he's not going anywhere, ease off"? Apparently not.

And let's take a minute to look at this whole "face down, handcuffed behind the back" default arrest position. It's probably been going on forever, but I first noticed it during the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. Once the police decided to break up the protesters' encampments and arrest the participants, peaceful, nonresistant protesters were uniformly forced face down on the ground with their hands zip-tied behind their backs. Another issue is the eagerness with which police officers draw their weapons in situations that are not violent.  How many times have we seen militarized police departments pointing their rifles at protesters who are doing nothing more violent than yelling? I remember working for the New York City Police Department pistol license division one summer and being told that you never point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to kill them.

It seems like the entire rationale behind an officer's actions is "the safety of the officer". I'm all for "the safety of the officer". My younger brother and father were both career police officers, and thankful that they always made it home in one piece. But in so many cases a cop who shot someone merely feared that he was in danger, reacting in a way, that resulted in an innocent person being killed. The mission of individual police officers isn't "To Protect and Serve"...not to protect and serve the public anyway, but to protect themselves at the expense of anyone who they fear is dangerous. The hell with any protection for people who get between them and their fear.

And let's further dispense with the "one bad apple" viewpoint. Not only do cops cover for one another, but the whole system allows these abuses. The killer cop in Minneapolis had 17 complaints against him for excessive force, including at least one for shooting an unarmed civilian. Police unions aggressively defend their members despite egregiously violent actions. Dismissed officers are hired by other police departments.

And lest we think that this isn't racism, Tamir Rice, at 12 years old, was shot and killed without warning while playing with a toy gun, Philanro Castile was shot in front of his girlfriend, even after informing the officer that killed him that he had a permit to carry a weapon and where that weapon was. Yet hundreds of gun carrying protesters rampage through state capitols and on streets without a peep from the police.

The axiom about bad apples, is not "There's only a few bad apples, so everything is fine since most of the apples are good" - the saying is that "One bad apple  spoils the whole bunch" (similar to the biblical saying that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"). By tolerating the presence of these so-called bad apples, the good apples, if they were ever there, turn bad.

Essential Employees - Your Boss Doesn't REALLY Give a Shit if You Get Sick (as long as you show up for work)

Let's take a little break from the rioting and looting and police brutality and take a look at the other crisis that some people think is over: Covid-19. In particular, the issue of "essential" employees and the question of whether their employees give a shit about them.

Retail establishments that have been deemed essential and therefore remained open, have taken a variety of approaches to safety and hygiene. Some have required masks, and sometime also gloves, for customers to enter, others have only required employees to wear masks, others just some employees.  In some instances though, the measures are merely PR, and do nothing to actually protect employees or customers.

Yesterday I made a comment about a local store that supposedly requires its employees to wear masks (but not third party vendors or customers), but whose employees do not wear the masks properly (noses exposed, taking them off to have conversations etc) thus negating any real safety or public health benefit. I was vociferously taken to task for this comment (not the first time I have publicized this) which was interpreted as criticizing and judging the employees of this store. However, my criticism was and is targeted at the ownership and management of this company.

Most of my criticism is merely an offshoot of my observation over the years that this company, despite any protestations to the contrary, really doesn't care about their employees, other than as a means to generate profits. I can go on and on with examples, but in this specific instance, their actions indicate that the company doesn't really care about the health and safety of their employees.

Starting with employees' mask wearing, this requirement sounds like a good idea, but for the wearing of a mask to be effective to any degree, it needs to be done properly. Taking it off regularly, or wearing it without covering both the nose and mouth is about as effective as a bow tie. I very much understand that wearing a mask for a full shift is uncomfortable, but if it's important enough to require, then it's important enough for management to ensure that the employees are complying. Since management isn't following up, it's obvious that they don't think it's important and the mask requirement is nothing more than a public relations stunt that is burdening the employees without actually accomplishing anything. Ergo, they don't really care.

This company has been notorious for failing to address people's behavior when that behavior poses no legal liability. Vendors and consultants make remarks that would get an employee fired for sexual harassment or racism are tolerated because there is no legal liability for their actions. Despite all employees being requited to wear masks, third party vendors are not. This makes no sense. Some of these merchandisers and salesmen are in the store as much as some employees, but somehow they pose no public safety risk. Does that make sense?

Let's not neglect customers. Like most retail establishments, this company reliably sides with customers in any dispute with employees. Customers who complain about mask wearing, who complain about no mask wearing, who rant about shortages and purchase limits. This would be the time for ownership (they say that they are employee owned, but that is an illusion) to step up and defend their employees against aggressively complaining customers. But they won't. They won't require customers to mask up because they don't want to offend anyone, and they take no action to protect their employees from customers who think that being a customer requires employees to be subservient.

These employees are working under extreme stress, risking their health, and laboring day after day, week after week like it was the day before a major holiday; except those busy times slow down, there is no seeming end to this.

But B&R Stores (yeah, that's who I'm specifically talking about) gets to act like they care about the well-being of their employees, but they seemingly don't care enough to make sure that they are protected.


[Full disclosure - I was fired from B&R Stores around 5 years ago]

A Little Nuance When It Comes to God Sparing You From Covid-19

Yesterday I posted a remark on Facebook about how someone claiming that "God got this" in regard to the virus might find 60,000 people who disagreed but couldn't because they were dead.

That was a little harsh, and definitely without nuance.

A local legislator who is an atheist (although he dislikes the term itself) made this statement a few years ago:

"If someone's religion helps them get through the night, who am I, who am I to judge them?" This same man is very impatient when it comes to his fellow lawmakers attempting to insert their religious views into our state's laws.

In general, I agree.

Even though I don't subscribe to any particular religion, or subject myself to the whims of any particular god, I have no issue with people who do adhere to a religion and/or a god. I have no problem with others praying, whether it be the thanks/praise variety or intercession/supplication. Although with the latter, I suspect that a person who honestly logged all of their prayer requests and compared them to the specific, concrete results, they would find that the results were no greater than what one would expect from applying oneself to a problem, or even by random chance. However, I don't know this...but neither do the believers really know that divine intervention is happening. This is my opinion and I don't worry too much about how other people view it.

What I do object to, other than government trying to impose one set of religious beliefs on us all, is public proclamations of how, as a result of prayer, or some other adherence to a religious act, is going to cause God to protect someone (or has protected someone) from some catastrophe, most recently, Covid-19.  Now this might not seem too controversial, or rise to the level of irritation or annoyance, but the implication in assuming that you have some special protection is that all those who didn't make it, specifically these days to those who died from Covid-19, somehow didn't rate God's intervention, or didn't pray, or weren't true Christians [or you can substitute any other religion in here - it's just that the Christians seem like the most vocal.

Of course I understand that everyone dies, and that there are many, many people who have their lives cut short by war, disease, famine or accidents even. Why God allows this is one of the ongoing  problems that theologians have wrestled with for centuries, perhaps millennia. I'll let the theologians continue to grapple with it. Since I don't believe that there is a deity who intervenes in such a way to protect people who pray or obey his rules from harm, it's not a philosophical problem for me.

But to claim that you can ignore health safety guidelines and directives because "God got this" or "God is in control" either ignores the fact that despite God "having it" and being in control, around 60,000 in the United States alone have died from this disease just since the beginning of this year, or that you, by dint of your special relationship with the almighty, are somehow better than all those who God evidently didn't "have it" for. Do you really think that none of those 60,000 prayed? Or there families? Pretty arrogant, I'd say.

In my back and forth with a couple of ignore-the-guidelines people, one claimed that "God must have wanted to call them Home" and another questioned whether many of the 60,000 dead really believed that "God got it".

So, pray if you want to, convince yourself it will be effective in protecting you if you want to, quote Bible verses about how God takes care of you if you want to, but consider how you come across when 60,000 Americans, most of whom did pray, died, or when you assume that all those deaths are somehow part of your god's plan, but you're special enough to be spared.