2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man, possibly for revenge

This is terrible news: 2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man (motive possibly revenge for Brown, Garner, etc.).

http://news.yahoo.com/two-nypd-officers-shot-in-patrol-car-in-brooklyn-212637751.html

It won't help the "Black lives matter" movement (may turn off the centrist public to their plight), and will probably make the cops even more angry, fearful, and aggressive. The alleged killer (a younger black man) seemed to be a desperate, distressed person who was wanted in connection with another shooting. What he did was abominable. For all we know, those 2 officers were excellent public servants, and totally nonviolent and nonracist (one Asian, one Latino, both with wives and one with kids).

Sadly, it reminds me of the even more terrible recent Pakistan school massacre. Let me repeat - both attacks were totally unjustifiable and barbaric. But for background, the Pakistani Army had been heavy-handedly raiding and bombing Taliban-held villages as part of a crack-down. Women and children were killed without hesitation. The Taliban fighters were obviously upset and wanted to strike back at a soft target, to make the Army "hurt like they were hurt". When a powerful force shows contempt for you and treats you like a subhuman, and you have no channels for peaceful redress and no one seems to care about your pain, there's only so much a human can take. Eventually some unstable members of that community (with training and weapons) will lash out and strike back to try to get even, because they have nothing to lose. Would they rather just die a slow death and fade away in silence? Or would they rather get some satisfaction that they struck fear and suffering in the hearts of their enemy? Oppression breeds desperation, which could be a catalyst for atrocity.

So for urban black America, day in and day out many deal with prejudice, mistreatment, and in some cases violence (murder rate for US blacks is over 4X that of whites). Obama even said that every successful black professional like him has been mistaken for the help at a fancy event. I can't imagine what it feels like to be constantly surrounded by that negativity, disrespect, and hostility - even though you just want to live and let live, and didn't cross anyone. It's just because you exist. Maybe the media inflamed the racially-sensitive situation, but with unpunished killing and beating after unpunished killing and beating, everyone has a breaking point. To be honest, I'm in awe of the restraint that black America has shown this year. But there are just so many guns in America, and so many temporarily or clinically unstable people going through hard times, and so many soft targets, that an incident was bound to happen unless the gov't and law enforcement made a serious effort to empathize, be contrite, communicate honestly, and reform (which they didn't).

This is the first time a NYPD cop has been killed on duty since 2011, which is pretty amazing considering they have a staff of 49K (not sure how many of those are beat cops). I think the # of civilian killings the NYPD has committed over that time span is far greater (at least 19). There will be national coverage, life insurance payouts, and full dress funerals for the slain officers. Far less respect was given to the victims of NYPD violence. It's obviously wrong to kill cops, but America mourns deaths differently and values life differently, which is also wrong. It's wrong to keep your boot on the throats of people and expect them to just take it forever, like dogs. It's a tragedy for all sides. Look, being a cop can be a damn hard job. Being black in America can be a damn hard life too. I wish both sides could understand that and show compassion, to make things easier on each other instead of more and more negativity. Otherwise the cycle of revenge and distrust will just go on forever, with more innocents suffering along the way. Sadly, it's the same for most protracted conflicts like Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. But if the Northern Ireland factions could forgive and achieve peace, it's possible elsewhere. But it has to start with the two sides giving a shit about each other's plight. 

---

This is a pretty sobering and effective analysis by The Economist on America's violent law enforcement practices. Actually the NYPD, LAPD, and police from larger cities are not the biggest problem (misconduct per capita is lower). They have made huge reforms since Rodney King, although they still have a way to go (Stop and Frisk, though it was recently suspended). It's the small police forces like Ferguson and Albuquerque that are the problem, where the officers are often far less diverse, less competent, having worse leadership, and under far less public/media scrutiny.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/ed/pe/DontShoot

# of killings by cops last year in Japan, Germany, and the UK combined (pop. ~270MM): 8

# in the US (pop. ~316MM): 458

---

I am not totally surprised, but pretty dismayed by some reactions to the NYPD slayings:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220614-wake-two-slain-nypd-officers-people-take-twitter-show-disdain-al-sharpton/
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220680-tweet-proves-divide-nypd-mayor-reached-crisis-level-two-cops-die/

Some major sources, like police unions and former NY governor Pataki, are literally blaming Mayor DeBlasio and Al Sharpton for Brinsley's attack on the 2 officers ("Blood is on your hands" - pretty disrespectful stuff). Probably the NYPD have marked DeBlasio as an enemy, and will do what they can to unseat him. While I haven't been following every single statement DeBlasio and Sharpton have made on police violence, I am fairly sure that they did not say anything remotely resembling race-baiting and a call for revenge. And in all of Brinsley's social media posts, I don't believe he mentioned that his actions were motivated by a public figure. But I suppose if you don't declare that you support everything the cops do 100%, and they are always in the right, then you are "anti-cop". That is how Tel Aviv and AIPAC respond to any sort of criticism of Israeli actions and policies (no matter how reasonable and fact-driven). If you're not fully supportive, then you're a vile anti-Semite. There's no place for that rubbish in intelligent conversation.

I suppose that some people want a simple, clear explanation for traumatic events that disturb them. Muslims hate us for our freedom, Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, etc. But that approach is often too reductive, inaccurate, and unhelpful. People are understandably upset and what to focus their anger on someone. But to irresponsibly blame public figures, whose only sins were to show some compassion for the families of police violence and dare to suggest a review of police policies, is not that different from Brinsley lashing out at 2 random beat cops over the Garner and Brown cases. And heaven forbid, but what if an angry, disturbed ex-cop decides to take a shot at DeBlasio or Sharpton over this uproar? Would we be justified to blame the people who called out DeBlasio and Sharpton for inciting violence against them?

More consequences of climate change

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00029&segmentID=3

We know about rising sea levels, drought, and heat waves (going on as we speak). Ocean acidification and species extinction are also big problems too. But how about global warming's effects on human conflicts?

One example is opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. We keep trying to persuade Afghans to stop growing the smack that helps fund Taliban activities and sickens Westerners. We even offer them cash incentives to switch to less lucrative but legal crops like grains. But Afghanistan is currently experiencing its worst prolonged drought in recorded history. Poppies are way more drought resistant than the crops we and the Karzai regime are pushing for. Poor farmers just want to survive. The US is saying no to their livelihood, and the Taliban are saying yes. Even if they don't believe in Sharia and don't wish for America's destruction, what side do you think they're going to support? So climate change is directly impeding our national security strategy. Some may think that buying foreign oil funds terrorism. They may be right, but burning oil of any origin is also making it harder for us to fight terrorism.

Another example closer to home is Mexican immigration. Rising sea temp and El Nino in the 1990s created a massive, toxic algae bloom that wiped out highly productive fisheries in Michoacan and elsewhere. This put a lot of poor, young people out of work and hungry, so of course many migrated north for survival, despite the dangers of crossing into America and the hard life that awaited. Some were probably desperate and more amenable to participate in drug trafficking and violence. So climate change also exacerbated an economic and security crisis for us and the Mexicans.

Unfortunately climate change will hit the people living near the equator the hardest, who also generally happen to be the poorest humans on Earth, partly due to the repercussions of colonialism and Western exploitation. But you don't see a big effort in rich nations to help them cope, especially during the global recession. This is doubly insulting because our pollution and our direct or indirect destruction of their precious forests are the major contributions to the human side of climate change. Instead, rich nations seem to be taking the approach depicted in the disaster film "2012". High walls and lifeboats for those who can afford it, and the rest are left to face nature's fury on their own. Immigration policies and border security are getting tougher in most G8 nations (that happen to be in more northern, temperate zones). Of course there are other reasons for this besides climate change effects, but clearly no one is getting more welcoming. Plenty will die from climate change in the G8 as well (some as we speak), but proportionally much less. If we made certain political decisions, the suffering and death could be greatly reduced, but Washington can't even agree to extend its own credit line, so the prospects of worldwide cooperation don't look great.

More on living with more extreme weather due to climate change: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/25/138601271/weather-warnings-for-a-climate-changed-planet

The American work-family conflict

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/three_faces_report.html

A recent study from the Center for Am. Progress and UC Hastings College of Law recently published a study demonstrating that the US is the most difficult nation for working families in all of the industrialized world. Comparing US families from today and 30 years ago, it shows that we now work 11 more hours per week vs. 1979, which is now longer hours than any other nation, even Japan and South Korea. The modern workplace is still designed for the 1960 worker (males who can work longer hours freely, since his stay-home spouse attends to nearly all the child and home care), even though the US workforce is demographically much different today. 70% of moms work today vs. 20% in 1960.

The US is the only OECD nation without mandatory paid sick and maternity leave laws. I believe CA has progressive paid maternity laws, and federal employees are also covered, so why wouldn't Congress pass a law for all workers? Corporate resistance? In addition, the US has much less part-time "good employment" opportunities (white-collar work, not just Taco Bell), overtime compensation for salaried workers, and flex-time schedules available for parents. Here, we spend much more time working than we do with our spouses and kids. Think about how obscene that is. Why must we have our Blackberries on at 11PM to put out some fire at the Singapore office (thankless too, since such "dedication" is expected in some jobs), but we get a dirty look from the boss if our kid gets sick and needs to be picked up from day care? These pressures on working families are compounded even further by elderly care, as the grandparents are living longer.

Dual-income working professionals who "take shifts" to cover morning and evening childcare are 3-6X more likely to divorce. I guess they are too exhausted to work out problems, and have less couple time. For lower income parents (who are more often single parents), child care and health care costs are consuming most of their pay. "Unofficial" discrimination against mothers is higher than with most other minority groups. If your employer's HR is good, they will caution you to never ask about kids or pregnancy if you are interviewing a female. But statistics show that employer disapproval of a working mother's time commitments for her kids is manifested in poorer performance reviews for her and even firings. The US is the most gender-friendly workplace for a woman to reach the top, but very hard if that female professional wants to have a happy family too. It's even harder for single professional-managerial women too. Since staying home is not possible and their kids depend on their salary, they may feel more pressure to advance. They tend to work over 50 hours/week at a rate of 32%, vs. 14% for married women. That is insane for single moms to have more parenting responsibilities and also work longer (voluntarily or not).

These conditions also impair US workforce productivity, because good workers are "forced" to quit and stay home if they feel they are neglecting their kids, absenteeism/attrition rates are terrible, and most working parents are not operating at peak performance due to distractions and stress from the unsustainable juggling act. But like PTSD in the military, no one wants to acknowledge this for fear of appearing weak to coworkers.

The last pro-working-family legislation passed was in 1993. Currently there is a bill to provide paid paternity leave for federal workers (benefiting Congress of course), but it hasn't passed the Senate. Childcare tax credits and subsidies are meager help. There is also class hypocrisy. Professional mothers are praised for leaving the workplace to put their kids first, yet lower income moms are labeled as deadbeats if they do the same. It is true that a higher percentage of lower income parents don't work, but this is not due to laziness. Their take-home pay is often less than child care costs, so it doesn't make financial sense for them to work. And since more middle and upper class mothers are working vs. last generation, the household incomes of those classes are rising (and contributing to the widening wealth gap) and making lower class single-income households appear even poorer. Poor mothers have a harder time finding and keeping jobs, especially good stable jobs in this recession, due to their reduced skill sets and social factors. So there is a paradox that richer moms want to work less but can't (unless they quit completely), yet poorer moms want to work more but can't.

If the family unit is the building block of society, and labor is the force sustaining the economy, then how can we and our leaders tolerate this unacceptable situation that compromises both?

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201001260900