How media unfairly report police killings, race, and crime

This was a good "On the Media" program about police killings and implicit bias in the media.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2015-06-05/

• It's a sad reality that the Guardian and Washington Post have decided to compile a public database of police killings, as no one in our gov't is willing to do the same.
• 
  
• Why do the media and law enforcement describe incidents as "officer involved shootings?" It sounds like the cop just innocently happened to be there when there was a shooting, when in actuality they pulled the trigger and deliberately killed someone. Fortunately the term is falling out of favor after the recent high-profile killings. A large # of killings by officers occurred as an unarmed victim was fleeing, yet ROE states that cops can only use deadly force when their lives are threatened. So what gives? With no video or unreliable witnesses, all a cop has to say is that the fleeing suspect reached for something or made an aggressive gesture. Then in the investigation, it's a peace officer's testimony vs. a dead man (who maybe had a rap sheet). No wonder there are few indictments.
• 
  
• In Harvard's implicit association test, even black subjects associated black faces with negative words. Maybe it's an effect of biased media crime coverage influencing America to think black = threat. Like compare the coverage of the Baltimore protests (mostly black folks) and the Texas biker gang fight (mostly whites/Latinos). The MSM would suggest that all hell broke loose in BAL, but it was a minor skirmish in TX. For sure BAL got out of hand at times, but there were no deaths. Whereas there were many shots fired and 9 deaths in TX. But America was more outraged over BAL. Why does this happen? Maybe it's for ratings (stoking fear), acting on their own prejudices, or to "give the people what they want". The vast majority of violent crime is black-on-black and white-on-white, and usually male victims. But the media oversample and preferentially report on black-on-white crimes, especially if the victim is a woman. This leads white people to assume an "under siege" victim mentality, and favor harsher punishments on criminals and more heavy-handed police tactics.

The foolish drumbeat for war against ISIS

ISIS is a problem for the US and many of our partners, that is obvious. But it is not an acute problem, nor the only problem facing our civilization (you wouldn't know it after listening to many in DC though). And let's be clear; Obama and company didn't decide to intervene militarily to save some poor religious minority stuck on a mountain (that very few of us even knew existed before the summer). ISIS was getting the upper hand against the best Kurdish troops, and the Kurds are the only reasonably trustworthy/capable/secular petro-ally we have left in Mesopotamia. So something had to be done.   

Just because we've pretty much marginalized groups like Al Qaeda (and its affiliates such as AQAP) through cyber warfare and drones, and we're washing our hands of the Taliban (pretty much raised the white flag there), we need a new Islamist bogeyman to fixate on. ISIS has shown some impressive strategy and execution (and atrocious behavior/beliefs) in seizing/holding Arab lands, but of course they exploited a lot of favorable conditions in the region to do so. It is a whole different matter to mount a major attack on a Western power. But that is exactly what everyone is predicting they are up to (and capable of). Heck, they could be already here!

This is what the former director of the Nat'l Counterterrorism Center (Matt Olson) said about ISIS' capability to attack the US: “There is no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the United States”. He added there was “no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop”. [Olson] said said it was “spot on” to conclude that Isis is significantly more limited than al-Qaida was, for example, in the run-up to 9/11, when it had underground cells across Europe and the US. “We certainly aren’t there,” Olsen said. “[Isis] is not al-Qaida pre-9/11”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/isis-militants-al-qaida-911-intelligence-officials

Yet this is what Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte., said about ISIS: "They are coming here. It is about our homeland."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266144/speedreads-watch-sen-lindsey-graham-blast-obamas-response-to-isis

I can't begin to comment how grossly irresponsible and misleading this is from someone who has access to actual intel and expert opinion (and helps craft defense policy as well). And Boehner wants to try to impeach Obama for misconduct? Shitheads like Graham are just repeating the same garbage that led the public to believe Saddam had WMDs. Because when your family and your home are in perceived jeopardy, your better judgment weakens and you may become more susceptible to suggestion.

So why did Obama and company go from a "wait and see" approach with Syria to forming a "coalition" to "destroy" ISIS (without risking any US troops of course)? Cynics would say because public opinion rapidly shifted from 70% against intervention to 60% pro, but they have a point. Why did opinion shift so much? Because of 2 videos of journalists being executed. That shows you how stupid this country is (incl. Obama on down). While those deaths were barbaric and tragic, I'm sorry to say that worse shit is occurring every damn day in many places across the globe (ISIS is doing much worse stuff to non-Americans too - where are those videos?). But those are places that we don't care about (Central Africa, Latin America) or don't have the stomach/chutzpah to really intervene (China, Palestine). More Americans died in Benghazi, and while the GOP had a shitfit about it, no one was calling for war against the parties responsible. Islamic Jihad bombed and killed over 200 servicemen in 1983, and Reagan not only failed to respond, but pulled us out of Lebanon! Very rarely (if ever) do sound decisions result from vengeful, fearful sentiment.

Air power alone will not stop an insurgency - we've seen that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other places. Maybe it will slow ISIS down and take out some leaders (but of course it may also motivate them to try harder to attack our homeland - ironically the very threat that we're working to avoid). So what do we do about the inevitable escalation decision? Remember that Islamists have "home field advantage" and want to provoke the infidel powers into a protracted quagmire. Maybe that's why they released the videos? Will we take the bait again?

Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

It's also an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that the neocon-leaning pundits and politicians, who are vociferously calling for military action, are also funded by America's major defense companies. As overall defense budgets are getting scrutinized and spending in Iraq/Afghanistan is winding down, the death dealers need a new conflict theater to peddle and exploit.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/17/whos-paying-the-pro-war-pundits/

PS - did you wonder why Obama and others in DC refer to ISIS as ISIL, and don't use the official name of Islamic State either? Obviously they don't want to use the word "Islamic" if they can avoid it, which suggests that this is another Crusade or anti-Islam conquest. But the ISIL acronym avoids the hot-button word of Syria. The US is more comfortable with bombing Iraq - we've been doing it for decades and we have relations with the various groups. But with Syria (the conflict that Obama has avoided for 3+ years), it's a total cluster F and we obviously can't tell a moderate rebel from a crazy one. So ISIL allows Obama and company the official excuse/cover to avoid the Syrian portion of the war. This is just a hypothesis of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

"The politics of fear" (not what you think)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2

Researchers at the Univ. Nebraska did a study of 46 local middle-aged white people surveyed to have strong political beliefs. They subjected them to sudden, startling visual and auditory stimuli (such as loud static noise or violence-themed images), then measured skin conductivity due to finger perspiration and eye blinking amplitude, as estimates of fright/alarm.

They found that the more "skittish" people were also more likely to be politically conservative ("protective"). Those who had a stronger physiological reaction to the disturbing stimuli were more likely to favor typical GOP political views, such as anti-abortion/immigration and aggressive law enforcement/national security. I guess anthropologically speaking, it seems logical that individuals who are predisposed to panic from sudden threatening stimuli also favor policies that are ostensibly designed to neutralize threats to their perceived security, whether personal, social, or national. So there may be a biological element to political support for policies aimed to "protect" family/ideology/nation such as strict immigration control, strict interpretations of marriage, aggressive counterterrorism, and such. A person with a strong fear response might be inclined to favor a swift bombing of Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and its associated emotional trauma, while a less fearful person might prefer to deliberate and analyze instead.

Of course this is not to say that people vote Republican because they're scaredy-cats. Maybe it applies to some, but on the flipside, you could also insinuate that Democrats are more naive or blase to the dangers of the world. Obviously, the middle ground is preferrable to an over-reaction or indifference to the many threats out there. Respond strongly to serious threats, but tolerate smaller or false threats. Nature and evolution function to improve survival fitness over time. It's not biologically advantageous for super-jittery organisms to freak out every time they feel the least bit alarmed (like a lapdog), nor to be indifferent to real threats (like a Dodo bird). And we see this in the social experiment of human civilization too. Warmongering, paranoid, fanatical nations destroy each other (Nazi Germany vs. USSR, The Crusades, Arab-Israeli Wars). And passive, complacent peoples get easily conquered (Native Americans, Chinese during the Colonial Era).

Maybe all of this seems brutally obvious, but it's interesting to see a controlled scientific study on the subject. Of course there are many limitations/flaws in their work, and correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Their sample size was very small and homogeneous. There are plenty of fearful liberals and relaxed conservatives. Hearing a sudden uncomfortable noise or seeing a picture of a bloodied man may elicit different levels of fear/discomfort in different people, depending on their personality and background. And probably political beliefs are more heavily molded by social influences than biological ones. But scientists have identified genes that predispose people to certain behaviors (violence, infidelity, obsessive traits, etc.), so it seems reasonable that our genes may affect some of our politics too. The amygdala region of the brain is active in both threat responses and political decisions via the epinephrine pathway. Maybe this study is an early step in explaining why political beliefs aren't very malleable and why political conflict seems so universal. My genes may not allow me to see the world as you do, and therefore I can't understand or agree with your views. But then again, I'd hope that our education, reason, communication, and tolerance can overcome humanity's genetic limitations.