Archive of articles classified as' "Observations"

Back home



“A majority of nearly every group — non-whites, women, young adults, the elderly, Midwesterners, suburbanites, Catholics, moderates, the wealthy — said that torture of suspected terrorists can be often or sometimes justified.

“A majority of only one other group beyond liberals and Democrats disagreed: people with no religion.” — Emily Badger, Washington Post article “From moderate Democrats to white Evangelicals, nearly every demographic group believes torture can be justified”

Christian Please Jesus-Facepalm

No Comments

A Message From On High…


guardian angel no kamikaze cap

No Comments

Mythologizing Jesus


ron cobb jesus

art by Ron Cobb

In recent days a lot of people on all sides of the equation have been getting their tunics in a twist over what the popular press reports as a “controversy” over “mythological Jesus.”

What the evangelical atheists and the common sense denying fundamentalists all fail to acknowledge is that nobody with two brain cells rubbing together thinks the Jesus depicted in the Bible is a complete and accurate picture of the man in the sense that modern histories and biographies offer a well documented portrayal of their subject.[1]

Lemme explain it as clearly as possible:  Acknowledging that the person we know of today as Jesus of Nazareth has been subjected to hagiographic reporting and analysis that have created a popular conception of who he was, is not / never has been / never will be the same thing as saying that person did not exist, or that teachings and sayings attributed to him are the product of a committee of literary / theological hoaxers.

Let’s walk through the time line, shall we?

Sometimes circa 33C.E. an eccentric rabbi preached a message considered heretical[2] by the religious leaders of his day.  He was executed under trumped up charges, just like several hundred / perhaps thousands of other Judeans of his day.

Between his death and 72C.E., a new religious movement arose among and from his followers.  Internal and external evidence indicates this new religion spread far outside of Judea and the Jewish culture it sprang from.  During this period of time his disciples wrote a series of letters to various local groups of followers, discussing finer points of their theology, debating what certain teachings meant, and establishing protocols for worship.  While lacking any solid biographical data on the eccentric preacher, these letters do indicate a formal and well articulated religious belief based on his teachings existed at that time.

They also indicate they are not the product of a literary hoax.  In 72C.E. the Roman empire eradicated Judea from existence, all the way down to their maps by renaming the land Palestine in the process.  There is no mention of this, no hint of it in the various letters left behind by the disciples; had they been hoaxers attempting to “salt the mine” they would have been sorely remise not to include prophesies about the single most traumatic event in Judea’s history up to that point.

Lemme ask you this question point blank:  If you are a 21st  century faker trying to fabricate a prophetic Jewish religious leader who lived in 1920, would you fail to have him “predict” the Holocaust in your forgeries?

I thought not…

So before the fall of Jerusalem in 72C.E. and the scattering of the Judean people, the beginnings of a new religion were clearly underway.

As mentioned, there was internal debate among the disciples over exactly what the various teachings of their eccentric rabbi really meant.  We have no direct evidence that copies of his teachings and sayings had been collected by 72C.E.[3]

We do have evidence sometime between 72C.E. and 100C.E. that the teachings and sayings were collected into the form we recognize as the Four Gospels:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.[4]

Why these four gospels were written then can be deduced by the disciples letters and by known historical events:  The earliest followers not only believed their rabbi had been resurrected after his death but also felt he was going to return in their lifetimes to establish a heavenly kingdom on earth.  When that didn’t occur and as eye witnesses to the events circa 33C.E. began dying off, people saw the wisdom in writing down everything they could remember their rabbi teaching and saying and doing.

Had they been hoaxers, they were putting the cart before the proverbial horse:  Logic would say you establish the bonafides of your bogus religious leader with an official hagiography, sell the rubes on that first, and only then do you begin hashing out purely academic debates about your wholly imaginary religion.

What the early church did was to see the commentaries written first, and only after they were already well established did anyone think to get all the important stuff written down for future generations.

A lot of evangelical atheists will want to dismiss this all right now, but they can’t do that.  This may not be the best evidence we might desire from a historical perspective, but it is the only evidence we have, and the evidence points away from a deliberate hoax and fabrication and more towards a theology that grew organically from a single point.[5]

And this is important because while it agrees that the sparse historical image we have of Jesus of Nazareth has doubtlessly undergone a certain degree of hagiography or “mythicalization”, it is absolutely not the same thing as saying it is entirely false, a myth made up by hoaxers for no discernable reason and with no discernable reward for the perpetrators.

The number of first, second, and third century Christian writings, not to mention their widely spread origins, indicates that if the religion was based on a hoax, it was a hoax with an enormous number of co-conspirators who had nothing to gain through their hoax nor any means of seeing if their hoax was successful or not.

You get the occasional doctored fossil or forged historical document in the real world that manages to pass immediate scrutiny, but they only succeed when they are isolated incidents not open to wide public examination.  When there are thousands of faked fossils, or dozens of bogus documents and they are all open to view, the forgeries become transparently obvious.

Further, when we compare the letters written by the various disciples with the gospels themselves, it’s pretty clear the former represents a wide variety of insights / opinions / writing styles while the four gospels offer a remarkably consistent moral philosophy expressed in a unique and inimitable personal style.

This is not the product of a committee of forgers, but rather the expression of one single, remarkable mind.

There are those who claim the glove maker turned theatrical impresario is not the true author of Shakespeare’s plays but rather some other person wrote them instead.[6]

Fine, let’s play that game:  Whoever that person was who wrote Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

And whatever we may think about Shakespeare the glove maker turned theatrical impresario, it doesn’t alter the fact that some literary genius whom all the existing evidence points to as being a glove maker turned theatrical impresario wrote the impressive body of works we refer to as Shakespeare today.

Whoever the real Jesus was, whatever his real biographical data, that person was the author of some of the most profound moral / ethical / spiritual teachings in human history.

Which pretty much makes him…Jesus.




[1]  And even with scrupulous documentation, copious eyewitness accounts, audio and visual records, even the subjects speaking in their own voice, there’s still huge debates over exactly who these people really were or what the events really mean.  Look at how many differing interpretations exist of Harry S Truman the man and the presidency; or the brief presidency of John F. Kennedy; or the enormous complexities of Johnson and Nixon.  If we can’t agree on the particulars of people and events that occurred under intense scrutiny in our own lifetimes, why is anyone surprised that much of the ancient world is even less clear today?

[2]  i.e., threatened to cost them money.

[3]  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the old saw goes, but we can only play the cards we are dealt, and those cards offer no documentation of the teachings and sayings being recorded at length prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

[4]  There are fascinating articles on how these gospels may have been compiled and in which order, as well as a possible source document for three of them, fragments of other gospels, “sayings” gospels that included various teachings but no linking narrative, and other accounts of the rabbi’s life and teachings that were considered either redundant or at odds with the four main gospels.  That’s what Google is for, folks…

[5]  Skeptics are more than welcome to point out logical holes in the evidence; they won’t find anything believers didn’t discover millennia ago and have been debating ever since.  What the skeptics can’t do is dismiss the only records that exists without offering equal or better proof that those records are fake.  Without contrary evidence, the existing records are the only evidence we have.  Wishing them away will not make them go…

[6]  This is based on the premise that plebians are just too fnckin’ plebian to write Shakespeare.

No Comments

Here’s What I Think re The CIA Torture Report


least of my brothers cap

No Comments

Christmas Re-Posts 2014


Christmas kitty reflection

oldies but goodies from previous years

On The Reason For The Season:

Unwrapping Christmas Present

The Science Of The Virgin Birth
Part 1 (2011) and Part 2 (2012)

A Poem For Christmas 2012

I’m Dreaming Of A Pop Culture Christmas:

Movies You Don’t Think Of When You Think Christmas Movies

And Now, A Perennial Old Favorite Christmas Song

One Of My Very Favorite Christmas Songs
(“Merry Christmas From The Family”)

If I Have Any Say, This Will Be The New Holiday Standard

Put!  The!  Krampus!  Back!  In!  Christmas!

A Special Holiday Message From St. Nicholas

Once Again, As The Holiday Approaches…

Stop The War On Christmas!!!

ChuckBB Keeps A Holiday Tradition Going

Isaac Lenkiewicz Puts The Krampus Back In Christmas!

Jim Wheelock Puts The Krampus Back In Christmas!

Benito Cereno Explains The Krampus

No Comments

Governor: “Slain Black Male ‘A Common Thug’”


Governor Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts has described the black man killed Monday by soldiers in Boston as “a common thug” and “a fugitive from the law” who brought about his death by attacking lawful authorities, refusing to disperse, and resisting arrest.

Attorney John Adams, representing the soldiers and officers who have been accused of manslaughter, said the slain man had precipitated the conflict by his “mad behavior” at the head of a crowd of “motley rabble.”

William O’Reilly, a well known town crier, observed that the soldiers were assaulted by “saucy boys, negros and molattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs” and thus forced to defend themselves.

Sean Hannity, another well known town crier who works the same side of the street as Mr. O’Reilly but at a different hour, claimed the dead man had “undertaken to be the hero of the night” and had paid the price for his arrogance while Ann Coulter, a notorious scold, said the soldiers were the true victims in this case as they were accosted in performance of their legal duties.  Spinster Coulter also noted that the man was a fugitive with a price on his head having fled his lawful owner.

(William Cosby, the noted educator, was also scheduled to speak at the press conference on the matter of how the victim’s fashion choices had led to the behavior that resulted in his death, but the appearance of a large crowd of angry women carrying pruning shears prompted Mr. Cosby to hastily leave the stage.)

Governor Hutchinson promised Bostonian citizens that the government and military would maintain order in the face of such lawlessness as exhibited Monday, and prevent any further rioting or looting.  He also decried members of the so-called “patriot” movement for attempting to capitalize on Crispus Attucks’ death, saying by definition anyone who refuses to pay his royal taxes unless he is allowed representation in Parliament is no patriot but merely a rebel.

crispus attucks lawt_what_ill_tell_my_kids_about_america_on_independence_day_580x290

No Comments

What Kind Of Sci-Fi Punk Are You?


A recent discussion sparked by Flint Dille (who excels at getting the creative juices flowing with brain teasers like this) brought up the question as to certain visual styles in sci-fi.

Now, there are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, but I think there are five classic style schools for sci-fi.[1]

Steampunk is the most famous/easily identifiable of the four:  Classic late Victorian stylings & sensibility.[2] Velvet and goggles, brass pipes and rivets, dials and gauges.   Steam inspired even if steam is not the actual power source.  Covers a period from the Great Exhibition of 1851 to end of WW1; significant literary influences include all of Verne, early Wells, Frank Reade Jr and Tom Swift.  Divine right.  Manifest destiny.

Quintessential example:

punk sf Nautilus

Walt Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea

“That Crazy Buck Rogers Stuff”[3] occupies the space between the end of WW1 and somewhere between the 1933 Chicago and 1939 New York World’s Fairs.  Big bright gaudy impractical machines and buildings.  Chief artists:  Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank R. Paul.  Buck Rogers.  Hugo Gernsbach.   Unbounded optimism.

Quintessential example: 

punk sf Modern-Mechanix-airship

Modern Mechanix

Dieselpunk is the world Raymond Loewy midwifed.  Officially starts with 1939 New York World’s Fair, continues thru WW2 and well into the 1950s, ending with 1962 Seattle World’s Fair.  Relentlessly uniform and utilitarian.  Gray steel and burnished aluminum.  Streamlined with rounded edges.  Chief literary influence:  John W. Campbell’s Astounding Stories & his astounding stable of writers including Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Clifford Simak & Frank Herbert among others.

Quintessential example: 

punk sf Forbidden Planet

Forbidden Planet

Transistorpunk has space age lounge music playing in the background, instrumentals with exotic sounds and arrangements.  While the roots are found in the 1950s, it only really flourished after the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair with stops along the way in New York 1964-65 and Montreal for Expo ’67.  Bright!  Open!  Airy!  For those who think young.  James Bond.  Star Trek.  Space Angel.  Spaaaaaaace Ghost.  “Thunderbirds are GO!”

Quintessential example: 

punk sf syd-mead

Syd Mead

Cyberpunk is the granddaddy of the other “-punk” genres, but like a time paradox comes in last on our time line.  Derived from the musical use of the term “punk,” which was a repudiation of and rebellion against the phony soulless glitter of disco.[4]  dark dank decrepit despair  Trash filled, ruined, and retrofitted.  No center, no soul.  A world inhabited by Mad Max and Tron.

Quintessential example: 

punk sf Blade_Runner_6

Blade Runner




[1]  With whatever we’re using currently that isn’t one of the following being considered post-modern science fiction or po-mo sci-fi.

[2]  Though the stories and characters need not reflect actual Victorian values and attitudes.

[3]  We need a “-punk” name for this but so far no one has suggested a good one.  Buckpunk?  Paulpunk?  Decopunk?

[4]  In 1975, Time magazine reported on a contest to predict T-shirt slogans of the year 2000.  The winner was “Disco Still Sucks”.



No Comments

As We Enter The “War On Christmas” Season, Remember…


bullet proof armor in church

There are a lot of folks out there flying false flags, claiming to be Christian but actually espousing violence and hatred.  Whenever you hear somebody scream / bitch / moan about the lack of respect they are being shown as a self-identified Christian, remember this:

By this everyone will know
that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.

John 13:35 (NIV)


No Comments

Fictoid: the fire this time


Irwin Smith - in the ruins

“Okay, sir, we managed to put it out.”

“Oh, thank you! Thank you, so much!
I don’t know what we would do without
our gallant firefighters — “

“Yeah. Right. Look, sir, let me be frank:
This is the third time in as many weeks
that we’ve had to come out here to put out a fire.”

“Yes, and I appreciate that — “

“We came out five times in the previous month.
Six in the month before that. In fact, sir, we’ve
lost count of the number of times we’ve had to
come out here to put out a fire.”

“I’m sorry, gentlemen, but if
there was anything I could do — “

“But there is, sir. We’ve traced every single fire to
the same cause: Old, poorly installed, deteriorating
power lines that are not up to contemporary building codes.”

“I don’t see what that has to do with anything.”

“Sir, you are running higher currents through
them than they were designed to take. They were
not well thought out or properly installed in the
first place. The insulation, which was inadequate
to begin with, is fraying and falling off.”

“You can’t expect me to go without power!”

“That’s not what we’re saying at all. Yes, have
power in your house, but recognize the old system
needs to be replaced and upgrade.”

“There’s nothing wrong with the old system.
Why, it’s original to this house.”

“Precisely my point, sir. Times have changed.
Load demands have changed. You need to replace
it and upgrade it.”

“But my grandfather built this house by hand!
I would be insulting his memory if I yanked the old wires
out and replaced them with new wiring! And besides that,
look at the cost, look at the inconvenience!”

“Less costly and inconvenient than having fires break
out periodically when they could easily be prevented.”

“I understand what you’re saying, and I see the logic
behind it, but really, it’s not at all a practical solution
for me. Other home owners, yes, but not me.

“However, I am listening to what you’re saying, and I do
think I have a solution, one that will satisfy your concerns
while at the same time be easy and convenient for me.”

“And that would be…?”

“I’m going to punish the wood
in my house for catching fire.”



art by Irwin Smith
text © Buzz Dixon


No Comments

Officer Friendly & Upright Citizen Johnson


Let us stipulate that based on known evidence, Michael Brown was a petty thief who had engaged in shoplifting and had a physical altercation that involved pushing and shoving with a store clerk.

Let us further stipulate that based on known evidence, Darren Wilson is a racist who had belonged to a police department so corrupted by white supremacy that it had to be disbanded entirely and replaced with a brand new department with brand new officers.

Let us stipulate further still that the two most complete testimonies of what happened, Wilson and Dorian Johnson, Brown’s companion in the store and on the street, are both self-serving to the point of being comical had they not involved the needless death of a human being.

Wilson presents himself as meek, mild Officer Friendly, single handedly standing up to the existentialist threat of demonic[1] black males; Johnson presents himself as an upright law abiding citizen who was shocked — shocked, I say! — when Brown shoplifted and was nothing but polite when told to get off the street.

Wilson and Johnson’s narratives twist around each other, entwining like a DNA double helix, touching here, diverging there. Either by itself makes precious little sense, but together they enable us to see a far more plausible narrative.

Officer Friendly tells us he saw Brown and Johnson walking down the middle of a street and told them to get onto the sidewalk; Upright Citizen Johnson confirms this and says they responded in a way that indicates compliance.

Officer Friendly then says he received a radio call involving an altercation at a convenience store (an altercation where neither the clerk nor the owner wanted to press charges) and having seen cigarillos (the reported stolen items) in Brown’s right hand then backed up to question Brown and Johnson; Upright Citizen Johnson says Wilson took umbrage at something Brown said or maybe something he thought Brown said as well as the fact they were not moving fast enough to suit him and threw his vehicle into reverse with a screech of tires and nearly clipped both Brown and Johnson.

Officer Friendly says as he attempted to leave his vehicle, Brown shoved the door shut, assaulted Wilson through the window, and then leaned in to grab Wilson with his left hand while passing his cigarillos to Johnson before assaulting Wilson with both hands and attempting to grab his gun because, hey, if your intent is to assault an armed man and steal his weapon who wouldn’t do it using only one hand while holding a fist full of fragile tobacco products in the other? Upright Citizen John’s version is that after nearly clipping Brown and himself, Wilson flung open his door and nearly struck Johnson at which point Brown slammed the door closed in anger.

Officer Friendly then indicated that as he was debating with himself whether to use his baton or his flashlight to fend off Brown, Brown attempted to lean into his vehicle and steal his gun, daring Wilson to shoot him.

Hold on / pause / full stop.

Really, Officer Friendly? You want to go with that story? Here’s an illustration by the Independent News of UK showing the confrontation. You were in an SUV, not a low-riding Adam-12 style squad car. In order to lean into your vehicle Brown would have had to lift the bulk of his body up and over the window frame.

Brown ferguson5

White supremacist, please…

Now, I suppose a person with a cooler head in a situation like this would have just shifted into gear, accelerated forward about 20 feet, slammed on the brakes, and then let Mother Nature and Father Physics take their course, sending the person clinging to the side of the car hurling forward into the street. But let us not judge; there is ample evidence in Officer Friendly’s testimony to indicate he does not have the psychological fortitude to be an effective police officer, and in his apparently hysterical panic this quick and efficient non-lethal means of solving the problem did not present itself to him even after — by his own testimony — he had done an inventory check of the weapons he had at his disposal.

Upright Citizen Johnson saw it this way:
Wilson grabbed Brown’s shirt through the window and was attempting to hold onto him, Brown never tried to lean into the vehicle, Brown handed his cigarillos to Johnson, then Brown tried to break free from Wilson’s grasp.

Okay, so far in Johnson’s testimony we have resisting arrest and simple assault, both legitimate offenses. No matter how unjustified Wilson’s behavior, Brown should have complied with his instructions. You fight the police in a courtroom, not on the street.

Officer Friendly then claims Brown leaned into his vehicle and attempted to take Wilson’s gun.

If we are to believe Wilson’s version, Brown would have had to raise his center of gravity over chest level in the process, if Wilson is a right hand draw or else stay outside the vehicle and stick his arm down between the door and Wilson’s body if Wilson was a left hand drawer. I’ve looked for photos of Wilson in uniform which show his holster clearly but have found none that indicate if he is left handed or right handed.

Upright Citizen Johnson does not confirm Brown leaning into the vehicle but rather staying outside the entire time.

Let’s pause again:  
If Wilson’s version of events are true, Johnson has every motive in the world to support them. It would gain him immediate favor with the local authorities, it would defuse a tense situation. If Johnson says he was shocked at Brown’s shoplifting, then it would not be implausible or at odds with previous testimony for him to say that for some reason Brown was just out of control that day.

At some point in the proceedings the gun is drawn and the two men grapple for it.

Officer Friendly indicates he drew the weapon to keep Brown from taking it and (presumably) shooting him with it, that Brown had his hands on the weapon, and that the weapon fired twice.

Okay, full stop again:
Let’s follow the logic of Wilson’s story. Brown initiates the struggle for the gun by reaching in to steal the weapon, Wilson maintains enough control of the weapon to fire once, and Brown does not break off the attack and immediately attempt to flee but rather continues to struggle for the weapon to presumably turn it on Wilson.

We have gone from jaywalking shoplifter
to unprovoked cop killer in about 60 seconds.

Upright Citizen Johnson saw a struggle for the gun but doesn’t know who touched the weapon first.

Full stop again.

Ask yourself this question:
Let’s say you were a white person stopped by an African-American who grabs you through the window of their car then draws a gun and threatens to shoot you with it and you grapple with them to prevent from being shot; would you stop resisting after the first shot was fired if you thought you life was in still danger or would you continue to try to force the barrel of the gun away from you?

Two shots are fired from inside the car, both Officer Friendly and Upright Citizen Johnson confirm this. One shot hits the interior of the SUV. After the second shot Brown attempts to flee the scene, again both Officer Friendly and Upright Citizen Johnson confirm this.

Officer Friendly and Upright Citizen Johnson agree Wilson exits his vehicle and shoots at Brown, who is running away from his as fast as he can.

Full stop yet again.

There are rules of engagement for police officers, and they take into account public safety. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that police may not simply shoot a fleeing suspect with impunity; they must believe that the suspect is a continuing immediate threat to the safety of others and/or to the officer himself, or else that the suspect is fleeing the scene of a serious crime such as murder, rape, arson, or armed robbery.

In plain English, this means there is no legal justification for shooting at an unarmed person attempting to flee the scene of a minor crime such as resisting arrest and simple assault.

Officer Friendly and Upright Citizen Johnson both agree that at this point Brown stops and turns to face Wilson. In Wilson’s version of events Brown then turns into a demon (again, his words), grunts like an animal, and charges like a bull towards him.

Full stop:
If your intent is to kill an armed police officer with your bare hands, why would you break off your attack, run away, then turn and charge the officer when he is pointing a loaded weapon at you?

Johnson reports that Brown spreads his arms out, possibly in a gesture of surrender, possibly as if to ask “why did you do that?”

Wilson then fires several rounds at Brown, hitting him, pauses to judge the efficacy of his first volley, then empties the rest of his clip into Brown.[2]  Brown sustains at least two fatal wounds, the second of which strikes the crown of his head and travels down into his brain.

Full stop:
The head shot is the last shot because it is instantly fatal and Brown pitches face first to the street. According to Wilson, Brown was charging him with his head bent down like a bull. Wilson claims Brown was about 36 feet away when he started his charge. Having played football and having tackled numerous people, I assure you bending your head down and running straight at someone is a short yardage tactic; try that from ten yards away and you’ll wonder where your intended target went because they will have seen you coming and easily stepped away.

Brown w-AUTOPSY606

However, with the exception of a hand wound during the struggle at the SUV, the other wounds indicate Brown was upright and facing Wilson when first hit, not bent over at an angle. Had he been bent over and running, there would have been no straight forward wounds to the arm. Only if he had been standing upright, then began to flinch at the pain of the second wound and bent forward to protect himself from further shots can we account for the pattern of entry wounds: First a pair of shots straight in to the arm; then at a flurry of shots at a slight angle on the chest, neck, jaw, and eye (the angle on the jaw and eye wounds, which were not fatal in and of themselves, indicate Brown was flinching away from the direction of the gunshots); and finally a fatal shot straight down to the crown of his head.   The crown shot could only have occurred if Brown was bent over in pain or already toppling forward from his previous fatal injury.

So there we have it. If you believe Officer Friendly’s story, Brown was a dangerous crazed killer who had to be brought down and his death was nothing more than “suicide by cop.” If you believe Upright Citizen Johnson’s story, Brown foolishly resisted arrest and was killed for it.

With what is known about the two men,
let’s meld the narratives and see what we get.

A young man engages in foolish petty criminal behavior the way young men far too often do.[3]

A racist police officer sees two young black men acting like scofflaws by jay walking and orders them to get off the road.

The two young black men do not obey quickly enough to satisfy the officer. Perhaps one of them says something in defiance, perhaps the racist police officer just thinks he said something. In either case, he sees them as defying his “authoritay” as Cartman would say and returns to confront them on this.

One of the young black men foolishly resists the racist officer.[4]

The racist police officer draws his gun to intimidate the defiant young black man. The young black man panics and reaches for the gun, trying to keep from being shot. The gun goes off.

The racist police officer panics, perhaps from anger, perhaps from fear — not of the young black man but fear of being punished by his department. Any discharge of a weapon is going to involve a lot of reports, and damaging your own vehicle with your own gun isn’t going to look good unless you can justify it with an arrest.

The struggle continues; a second shot is fired. The young black man realizes how precarious his position is (he has sustained a minor gunshot injury to his hand at this point) and tries to flee.

A third shot is fired. The young black man stops and turns, ready to give up.

Now, I’m not saying it was the racist police officer’s intent to kill the young black man — perhaps he was just psychologically unfit to be a police officer and/or his training was inadequate — but it was certainly to the racist police officer’s personal benefit to justify the self-inflicted damage to his own vehicle with a narrative that involved a demonic (again, his words) young black man charging him like a bull from a distance several yards away.

All of this is tragic and unjustifiable but understandable in the realm of simple stupid human behavior.

Where we cross over into the realm of perverse evil
is when we look at the establishment’s behavior after the fact.




[1]  Wilson’s own words.

[2]  There was one bullet still in the chamber of his pistol after the shooting stopped.

[3]  If you think rich white kids don’t shoplift or smoke marijuana, you are sadly misinformed.

[4]  If you think rich white kids don’t defy / taunt / resist / assault the police, you need to go to Ft. Lauderdale on spring break.

No Comments