Ah, But I Digress: Dear John, and by John I mean Amazonbot

Ah, But I Digress: Dear John, and by John I mean Amazonbot: Dear Amazonbot, Thank you for your recent email recommending books I might enjoy, based on my previous selections. That's quite a progra...

Dear John, and by John I mean Amazonbot

Dear Amazonbot,
Thank you for your recent email recommending books I might enjoy, based on my previous selections. That's quite a program you have there, because those books are similar to what I've read. In fact, I HAVE read them. You should know that because I bought the Kindle versions FROM AMAZON! Don't you remember? You delivered them "wirelessly via Amazon's Whispernet." Am I now just a number to you? I've entrusted you with my wish list of books. You give me reminders when the books I've pre-ordered are released! Oh, oh! We've been together so long and yet you barely remember me. I have reviewed books for you; I've filled out surveys for customer service; I'M A PRIME MEMBER!

Amazonbot, I'm just not feelin' the love. I'm beginning to suspect you have outgrown our relationship. I suppose I was just a number all along, just another line in your database. But I couldn't see it for all the correspondence we've shared, your lovely thank you notes after I've visited your site and made purchases. So many visits. You allow me to browse through books before I purchase them! Well, at least those the publisher allows. You let me explore your site, to take a tour with no pressure to purchase. Except for those rows and rows of "people who bought this also bought these" sales tactics. Yes, sales tactics. I now see them for what they are. You try and make me feel like you're helping me, offering suggestions. I thought you were concerned I might miss a good read. I thought you were doing it for me. ME, Amazonbot. But no, you do the same for all your "customers." you probably tell people they should buy a book because I've purchased it. Oh, you don't name me. Nothing as personal as that. You just lump me in as an "other" who purchased this book or that.

Amazonbot, I'm not sure we can mend this, this, RIFT in our relationship. Hopefully we can continue our business relationship, at least. But I must warn you, there are others out there, just waiting for the chance to replace you in my life. In fact, I'm going to be honest with you. I, well, I have strayed a time or two. I've snuck into Barnes & Noble's NOOK. I had to! I had to satisfy my curiosity. With all the rumors of price fixing, I had to be sure you weren't taking advantage of me. And yes, I have purchased books from iTunes? I'm not proud of it, but I HAD A GIFT CERTIFICATE, It wasn't my fault! It wasn't my choice. I KNOW your Kindle version is the best available.

Oh, Amazonbot. Please don't forget me. Please don't lose me in your vast database. I can't bear to have to switch. Amazonbot, I can't quit you!

With thanks for all we've shared, and all I hope we can share in the future, like the third book in Ken Follett's trilogy which I wish was coming out soon but won't be here 'til 2014.

Yours,
Barb Wallace
Customer number 123456789

PS just so you know, you're not fooling me with that "delivered wirelessly via Amazon Whispernet" shit. I know what you're doing. You're trying to make me feel like I've gotten some kind of special fracking delivery! First of all, I'm not that stupid. I KNOW it's wireless. There's no wire that connects me to your store. I'm not a moran. And what's with the Whispernet bullshit? You use the interwebs, just like everybody else. You don't have your own internet. You can't just rename it. Cheesus, I don't know what I ever saw in you. I don't know how or why I was so taken. It must have been those customer service calls. I remember Phillip, whose real name was probably Muralimanohar, who casually discussed basketball with me as he searched for the answer to my problem, or Ahladita, who told me her name was Amber, who asked me to verify my address and then checked the weather channel so she could talk about what great weather we were having. Yes, it must have been those calls, those online chats with the help center with extended wait periods while you were helping other customers. Crap. I should have known then. Damn you. DAMN YOU Amazonbot! You've taken me for a fool! Well, as our formerly beloved president (yes, I know that should say beloved former president but believe me, he's not so beloved anymore. As a president, that is. Apparently when he doesn't have anybody pulling his strings he's a pretty nice guy!) anyway, as W once said "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." So don't even try, Amazonbot. I'ma got my eyes on you, ya bastid.

Yours,
Barb Wallace

How Can We End Racism If Nobody Wants To?

Steve, continuing convo started on Facebook:

 uncomfortable as it is to admit it,  I had the feeling that the speeches and denands for justice for Trayvon were faux outrage. I think someone, someone without a full grasp on the circumstances, the neighborhood's background, and Florida statutes, made the decision that here was an "obvious case of a white man profiling a young black boy and shooting him without justification." (Quotes mine for emphasis.)

I think Black "leaders" picked the wrong case to get behind. Trayvon Martin was not profiled simply because he was black. There were extenuating circumstances. Looking at the case without emotion, they were understandable and acceptable extenuating circumstances.

No, Trayvon was not profiled simply as a black teenager. He was profiled because there had been a series of burglaries and break-ins in the neighborhood and nearly all the suspects were young black males. Had there not been a rash of break-ins in a "gated community" that was suffering many vacancies and homes where the owners moved out and turned them into rentals, there would have been no history of Zimmerman calling 911 so many times and he likely would have taken little notice of Trayvon. Again, Trayvon was "profiled" because he fit the descriptions of suspects from other criminal activity. That profile included young black males wandering around the complex looking for targets. One can honestly believe that, after calling 911 hundreds of times and having multiple times been given the description of the alleged burglars by victims and witnesses,  Zimmerman felt Trayvon fit that description.  Had the alleged burglars been white, it's not too hard to believe that Zimmerman would barely have given Martin a second thought. But the many suspects WERE black. And Martin WAS black. Martin WAS young. And Martin DID NOT live in the complex and Zimmerman didn't recognize him as a neighbor so, in Zimmerman's mind, this young man, who fit the description of other troublemakers, did not belong where he was. Remember, yes, it is a gated community so normally members would have a passing acquaintance with one another. Yet it was a community in flux, an almost transient community that had been developed for middle class owners who would occupy and maintain their units. Umtil the housing market tanked. Some units went into foreclosure. Others, owners moved out and rented out the units for whatever money they could get. Some owners just up and left. Some were short saled to people who otherwise would not have been able to live there.

I often got a sense Sharpton and the media were using the Martins as fodder. Like I said, it almost felt like faux outrage.  The case black leaders should be more concerned with is the up coming trial of Michael  Dunn, accused of shooting an unarmed black teenager, Jordan Davis, who was sitting in an SUV at a gas station/convenience store Dunn pulled into. the SUV had arrived at the station first, the driver out of the car pumping gas. Dunn came in after, and his girlfriend left the vehicle to enter the store.

Dunn, who theoretically would only be sitting there for a few minutes, felt the music coming from the SUV was too loud and asked the teenagers to turn it down. Most reasonable people would have just ignored the temporary situation, maybe closing their windows, maybe turning up their own music to block the other. But Dunn asked them to turn it down. The kid in the front complied, but Davis, sitting in the backseat closest to Dunn, complained. He and Dunn began arguing and swearing at each other, until Dunn, still in his car, grabbed his gun from the glove box and started shooting. The driver of the SUV, who had just finished pumping gas, hopped in the vehicle and tried to get away from the shooting. Dunn got out of his car and kept shooting. The SUV stopped in the next parking lot over, out of range.  Dunn's girlfriend, who had been buying wine in the store, got in the car. Dunn drove away. The SUV came right back to the scene and waited for the cops and ambulance. 

Dunn and his gf, in town for his kid's wedding, where they'd been drinking, went back to their motel and drank the wine they had just bought. Dunn had told her what happened. They made no calls to the police or sheriff. They heard Davis had died. The man had shot and killed an unarmed teenager and did nothing. Nothing! According to the girlfriend's later statement, they drove home the next morning ostensibly "to take care of their new dog." Dunn never reported the incident to the cops, who traced him through his plates and subsequently arrested him. He claimed Davis had a shotgun or a stick so he's claiming Stand Your Ground self-defense. There was no stick or shotgun.  Dunn is a 45 yr old white guy. Davis was a 17 yr old black kid (young man). IMO a much better case if somebody's looking for a cause, but I haven't seen anything about it in MSM. The trial is in September. Maybe they'll get interested then. 

But again, it's white on black. If they do use this case as a cause, while in neighborhoods in large cities, every weekend in some, monthly in others, tens of people are shot, many killed, a good number innocent bystanders, including children, how will they justify ignoring those crimes while focusing on one case that seems, on its face, to be a clear case  of racism. Or, it could just be a case of a somewhat inebriated guy being an asshole, and when he felt the kid was being a punk, disrespecting him, it turned into a case akin to road rage. 

Except...except Dunn claimed the four black teens were gang members and if he didn't skedaddle after firing eight rounds into their car, he might be in for a world of hurt. A reasonable man might have called the police. If he was afraid to stay at the scene, he would have driven away to a safe place. Perhaps use his GPS to find a police station or even a fire house. A reasonable man would have immediately called the police. Not gone back to enjoy a night in his hotel room with his girlfriend and a bottle of wine. 

But we'll leave that case to a Florida jury. On the face of it, one would expect a conviction on serious multiple charges, possibly including murder of some degree. How the black community will respond, before, during, and after the trial, is an unknown. Much depends on whether there is a grassroots gathering of support,  as in the Trayvon case. And whether leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, black music artist and actors and athletes lend their support, both emotional and political, to the Davis family. And, of course, much depends on the Davis family.

But, meanwhile, we still have that pesky problem of crime in predominantly black neighborhoods in bigger cities like Detroit and, especially Chicago. DC crime is spreading out to Maryland and Northern Virginia suburbs. There does not seem to be a national response to these crimes. Because they are mostly black on black? Unfortunately it appears so. While the Obama administration (disclaimer: I am an Obama supporter) focuses its, and thus our collective, attention on mass shootings, it seems the administration is doing little to nothing to curb crime in places like the Obamas' hometown Chicago, or now bankrupt Detroit.  

It seems they have chosen an issue that they can squeeze the most emotion out of, gain the most yardage. Mass shootings of innocent victims. Hell, the Sandy Hook shootings in Newtown, CT seemed to have been tailor made as a  distraction for the down and dirty issues of guns on the street. At the risk of sounding callous, could one have scripted a more touching and emotional scene than twenty little, angelic six and seven year olds being, literally, massacred just before Christmas? Could one have scripted a conga lone of kindergartners and first graders being led past fallen friends, told to close their eyes as they passed devastation no person should ever have to witness? There's no question this was a haunting, unbelievably horrific tragic event. But it was perpetrated by one man. A young man with known mental health issues that went uncontrolled.  In one unforgivable act he killed twenty-six people, including twenty children. Since that time, over forty people have been shot, many killed, in neighborhood shootings in Chicago alone.  We don't hear about that. Unless it runs as filler on the news or on a website.

 Most of the mass shootings have been perpetrated by angry or frustrated, mentally ill young white men, with the exception of the VA Tech shooting, who was Asian. Most of the victims have been white. In the past few years there have been several of these shootings. Still, the total dead do not approach the numbers of those killed by the ones and twos, in the streets or crowded apartment buildings of poor, urban, black neighborhoods. Sadly, many of these victims are children as well, caught in a crossfire, accidentally shot in a quick drive-by, struck down by a stray bullet.

Where is the black "leadership" of The Rev. Jesse Jackson, The Rev. Al Sharpton. Even  Rev. Joe Simmons, from Run DMC, who has quite a following in the young black community who may find they don't relate to Jackson or Sharpton. Where are the actors, the musicians from rap, hip hop, crossover music? Where are the athletes? Where are the black political leaders?

Yes, I think the Trayvon Martin case was used and abused as a false representation of continuing racism in America. Yes, as I said, I believe the outrage was false. I believe the intent was to form a dichotomy between racists and non-racists, between blacks and whites, with some exceptions where overlap occurred. Black leaders seem to be presenting a Venn diagram with very little overlap between the black sphere and the white sphere, indicating little change in the decades since the 1960s Civil Rights movement, whereas non-racist whites, and some blacks, see a huge central overlap of blacks and whites living, working, playing, CO-EXISTING together with small factions of extremists on either side.

My biggest fear is that blacks don't really want racism to end. It has become a sort of crutch. Definitely a comedic tool, arguably a songwriter's toll, quite often used in story framing, in books and on television and the movies.  Should blacks be allowed to play roles written for whites, or vice versa? Should white directors be allowed to direct "black" movies? Can white writers capture, accurately, the black perspective? We are hearing stories of the warnings black mothers are imparting on their black sons. Warnings similar to the ones my white siblings have shared with their equally white, mostly anglo-saxon children. Of course we can't ignore the vestiges of racism. Blacks speak of being followed closely, near to the point of harassment, as they shop; they imitate the clicks they hear as they cross the street or walk too near a vehicle occupied by whites who are reminded to lock their doors at the site of black people perceived as potential criminals. 

But for all the hue and cry about racism in America, one has to wonder who is responsible. Are blacks really making an effort to assimilate even as they co-opt  words like nigger and use the derivative nigga to refer to each other? While at the same time ridiculing white hip hop artists who use the word? When people like Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd change their speech, both patterns and vocabulary, when discussing black issues on' The View? When a respected director like Spike Lee claims that a multi-award winning director such as Steven Spielberg has no business directing movies like Amistad because he is white and reduced the black characters in the movie to just above extras? Is that not racism? 

I see what I feel is faux outrage because at the same time as I see blacks calling for Justice for someone like Trayvon Martin, I see black and white leaders ignoring justice for all the young black men killed in "the hood" because, as few will admit, maybe they deserved it. Or maybe they can't get the publicity, the political mileage out of supporting those young men because likely they were thugs or drug dealers. But aren't assumptions like that racism?

Are black leaders responsible for perpetuating the idea of racism, if not the behaviors? As they pick and choose which victims to champion, whether they be young black men killed by whites or young black women who claim they were assaulted, physically and sexually, by groups of young white men (Duke University Lacrosse team), (the infamous Tawana Brawley), are they not doing so while ignoring black on black crime? Or the rates of acts of racism perpetrated by blacks on members of other races, especially Hispanics but also Asians, Indians and those from the Middle East? 

It sometimes seems that blacks, for whatever reason, don't really want to see the end of racism. It may be a fear of adjusting to a new way of life. It may be a suspicion that only racism on the surface is disappearing but that it still roils just below, waiting to release a rogue wave or even unleash a tsunami of hatred and persecution. Sometimes I just want to say "Get over it. Most people aren't behaving like racist and those that do are assholes. Just treat them like the assholes they are, like we do." sometimes, by looking at everybody as potential racists, blacks create problems where they don't exist. Or they perceive slights when what they may be experiencing is just ignorance, or someone trying too hard not to offend. 

So if we're ever going to solve this racism issue, we need to stop labeling conflicts as racist simply because they involve two or more people of different races. And a speaker isn't a racist because he points out bad qualities in someone of a different race. Maybe they disagree on the issue: race has naught to do with it.

What we need to do is change the discourse, to re-order the dialogue, to drop race from the top of the list to wherever it appropriately belongs in a list of factors affecting a situation. Yes, at times it will come first, but most times it will fall farther down the list, farther than expected. But that may be where it belongs as a consideration. And yes, sometimes it should even be left off the list. Perhaps even most times. I think we have reached that point. I don't know if black leaders agree but are afraid to come out and admit it, or if they really see a benefit in perpetuating what most of us are trying to put to rest; if they just have a need to fan and fuel the flames of the fires we are trying to extinguish.

NFL, now the National Fantasy League?

So the NFL has apparently decided to revamp the Pro Bowl format. Without asking us! I started reading the accompanying article when I suddenly thought, "Damn! I must have somehow clicked on The Onion. Because surely this is a parody. Amiright?" But no, it was the NFL site. What a clusterbomb! 

When you vote for the players, you can vote for any player, no matter what conference he plays in.  What happens if, by popular vote, the roster ends up being weighted towards one conference? Is that really the way to go? Because a lot of times these all-star votes ARE popularity contests, not necessarily based on a player's skills. And, seriously, ALUMNI captains? Jerry Rice? Okay, I guess. But Deion SANDERS? And they're going to draft the players so guys from both conferences will be on the same team? Oh, yeah, nothing can go wrong there. And they're also going to allow two fantasy football players to help the "captains" decide who to draft. 

Oh, and by the by, "The Draft" will be televised. Yeah, right, the changes to Pro Bowl Weekend were supposed to make the game more fan friendly. NOT! It's just another moneymaking scheme for some of the richest sports owners in the world. Everybody tune in to watch the fake draft for the fake Pro Bowl game where it doesn't matter who wins. How can a conference get bragging rights if half the guys they beat were from the same conference? Oh, wait, it won't be conferences. What, are they going to come up with clever names like The Home Team vs The Other Team? Or The Blue Team vs The Red Team? Hey, ya know what they should do? They should throw in some history and divide the teams into the players from the North and the players from the South and they can be The Blue vs The Gray! Get it? A Civil War Re-enactment slash football game! Without the guns and bayonets of cou...oh, wait. This is the NFL. There might be a few guns and bayonets involved. Okay, scratch that idea. Let's just stick with the traditional all-star blue and red.

But really, if they wanted to make the game fan friendly, why not let some of the fantasy football playing fans play REAL football? Now THAT would be entertaining. I mean, Hawaii's a state, right? And they'll have Obamacare, right? So, it's not like the fantasy fan players would actually DIE or anything! Plus, free jerseys!

So, more on the changes: No kickoffs? That's not so great for the kickers who would have been voted in! No free trips to Hawaii and all-you-can-eat luaus for them! Which sucks for the restaurants because that's where they make their money, on the skinny kickers and punters who don't eat a whole lot but pay the same.

Two minute warnings at the end of EVERY quarter? Because two-minute drills are more exciting? More exciting than what? AND when the first and third quarter changes come, guess what? You get to give the other team the ball! No more continuing play. That's where that exciting two-minute drill comes in. So, if you don't score, you lose the ball. If you score and the other team gets the ball with, say, five seconds left guess what? They get one play and the bell rings! The buzzer goes off! The horn sounds, the referee whistles and the quarter is over. And they have to give you back the ball! WTF? How is that fair? Whose stupid idea was THAT? 

Oh, and since there aren't going to be any kickoffs, there's no need for a kick return specialist, who will be replaced by a defensive back. So the best kick return specialists in the league, who have been bustin' their asses all season chasing down the kick receivers, now get to hang out on the mainland with the kickers. And supposedly the kick returners. Though most of them double as receivers or punt returners, so they still get to play on the Big Island.

Cheesus. The only way they could make this any worse would be to cover the field with a vibrating metal plate and attach the players feet to plastic plates in a life sized version of electric football. Hey, actually that'd be kinda cool! For, like, five minutes. 

Seriously, whose idea was this? According to the article it was Dominique Foxworth, the head of the NFL Players' Association. All I can say is, Gene Upshaw wouldn't have come up with these namby-pamby changes. When I watch a pro football game I want to see AMERICAN football. I want to cheer for one TEAM against another. I think Dan Issa should instig... I mean FORM, a Congressional investigation complete with useless Congressional hearings and a Congressional NFL-NFLPA Oversight Committee. Of course, there would be no need to allow women to be represented or to testify. Because, as everybody knows, women don't watch football or buy tickets or wear NFL Gear even if it's pink and women don't cook the pulled pork and make the seven-layer-bean-dip for the Super Bowl parties. No Grrlz Aloud!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000224059/article/nfl-nflpa-announce-significant-changes-to-pro-bowl

Cleveland Man Who Held Three in Captivity Gets 1000 year Sentence

Ariel Castro, the creepy 52 yr old guy who held three abducted girls in captivity for 9-12 years, just got sentenced to 1K years in prison. Yes, that's a thousand years. Without parole which, duh, is kind of a given since he wouldn't be eligible for, like, three hundred years.

After abducting each of the three girls by offering them rides home, he kept them captive until just recently. The girls are now women. The first to be taken was 20 year old Michelle Knight. During her years in captivity Castro raped and impregnated her several times, beat and starved her during each pregnancy, estimated to be five times throughout the years, until she miscarried evey time. Knight, whom police had determined to have disappeared on her own due to her age and her lifestyle, is now 32 years old.

Amanda Berry was the second young woman to be taken, at age 16. She was also raped and impregnated and gave birth to a now-six-year-old little girl. Ariel Castro, the monster responsible, actually had the audacity to ask for visitation as part of his sentencing agreement. On the one hand, he IS the girl's father and she's lived with him her whole life, but on the other, nobody really knows what their relationship was like except the mother, who is trying to deal with being a free woman, and life in 2013, along with everything that's happened in the outside world in the more than ten years since she disappeared. Not to mention learning how to deal with the eveyday life of a mother who will now have to learn about things like registering her child for school, helping her learn how to make friends and socialize with other children, etc. Remember, this is a mother who, now 27, was abducted in her mid-teens and had not seen the light of day since then. The judge wisely denied Castro's request.

The third young woman, Gina DeJesus, was a quiet, young teenager when she disappeared nine years ago. Now 23, she is the one who has most shunned publicity since the women were released. She's been reluctant to talk to the media about her ordeal, but we know through court records that she, too, was sexually abused, though she claims to have never gotten pregnant.

The women were able to escape from Castro one day when had left the house (I hesitate to call it a home because, to the women, it was more like a prison and he an abusive warden.) He failed to secure a heavy front door which he normally kept locked (many of the doors in the house wre found by police to have strong locks on them). Amanda Berry was able to open the front door and then force the storm door open a couple of inches, enough to scream for help, getting the attention of neighbor Charles Ramsey. Ramsey and another man broke the lower half of the door so Berry and her daughter could get out. She immediately asked Ramsey, who at first thought he was rescuing Berry from a simple domestic dispute, to call 911. After police arrived Berry told them about the other two womentrapped in the house. They were immediately rescued by police.

Ramsey, whose news interviews went viral, making him an overnight internet sensation, continually tried to refocus attention on the women and their families. But first he commented on how he got involved. He and Castro had been neighbors for a year or so, doing neighborly things. In Ramsey's eyes, Castro was just a regular guy who would spend time in his yard, playing eith his dogs, or on the driveway tinkering with his cars and motorcycles. Ramsey said they had shared ribs at barbecues and listened to salsa music together. On the day of the rescue, Ramsey was sitting out on his front porch, as he often did, eating a McDonald's lunch, when he heard a young woman yelling for help. He and a neighbor went to investigate, Ramsey, still holding his half-eaten burger. Ramsey's demeanor and his mention of his Big Mac sandwich both to the 911 operator and local media garnered him a year's worth of free food at McDonald's. But, when other parties spoke of donations and fundraising, he asked that any money raised or gifts awarde be given to the freed women and their families.

So now the women are trying to adjust to their new lives, trying to fit in with their famy members. Everything's changed. Every ONE has changed. Berry's mother never gave up hope that her daughter would come home. In 2004 she appeared on a talk show with a psychic who told her Amanda was dead. She refused to accept that and continued hoping until she passed away two years later. Berry, who as a teen was working at a neighborhood Burger King, had been abducted after a accepting what she thought would be a ride home from Castro, who claimed his son worked at Burger King.

Michele Knight was the mother of a young son when she was taken. Ironically she had a court date that day, a hearing to regain custody of her little boy who had been removed from her care by child services. There's little information available about the child, now barely a teen, or why Knight had accepted a ride from Castro.

The youngest of the three women, Gina DeJesus, was actually a friend of the divorced Castro's daughter. The two girls had planned a sleepover at the friends house. After calling her mother for permission and being denied, Castro's daughter headed home to her mother's house. At some point Castro picked up DeJesus, offering to drop her at home but instead taking her to his house of horrors.

After much investigation by police and several court hearings, during which Castro was charged with over 500 counts for the kidnappings and more than 400 counts of rape and sexual crimes, he pled guilty yesterday to 937 of the nearly 1000 charges. His thousand year sentence combined with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole guarantees that the 52 year old Castro will die in prison. And yet, despite that, he wants to maintain contact with his daughter, asking for visitation as part of his parental rights. Fortunately for the child and her mother, a victim of kidnapping and multiple rapes, the judge denied his request. Neither mother nor child will ever have to see Castro again.  As part of his plea agreement, Castro has forfeited all of his property and material goods and is prohibited from profitting from his crimes. The city of Cleveland has announced plans to demolish Castro's house lest it become a macabre tourist attraction and neighborhood nuisance, not to mention a constant reminder of the horror that took place on the property over the last decade or so. The city took the same position when it demolished the house lived in by Anthony Sowell. Sowell was convicted of multiple killings of women over several years and is now in prison. Just last week a man was charged with in the deaths of three women. He claims to be a "fan" of Sowell and so tried to continue what he saw as Sowell's work.

One good thing may come out of Castro's actions. Because of his ridiculous claim that he, as a non-custodial parent, had a right to visitation with his little girl, several legislators have begun working on a bill that would take away all parental rights from any man convicted of rape who, as a result of that rape fathered a child. Because they are just beginning discussions on the bill it has not been said whether that would also absolve the rapist/biological father from financial responsibilities like child support. I'll address that later when the bill is further along in its development.

But for now there has been cause for celebration as these young women re-enter normal lives. Families and friends who have held out hope over the years, who regularly posted flyers and held vigils, are quietly and respectfully helping the women adjust. The Cleveland Courage Fund, established to accept donations for the victims, will help them establish their own homes and get the treatment and help they need to start living again.

Rolling Stone vs Boston Magazine; Sgt. Sean Murphy vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

First, WOW! I can't believe it's been over two months since my last post! Time has gone by so quickly that it's hard to conceive that it's been so long. I've actually written a couple of things but just didn't get around to fine tuning and posting. That'll happen in the next couple of days. Meanwhile, here are my thoughts on a recent controversy surrounding the issuance of the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine. This issue has an innocent-looking image of then 19 year old (Dzhokar) Jahar Tsarnaev, one of two brothers suspected of perpetrating the Boston Marathon bombings, gracing the cover. The infamous "Cover of the Rolling Stone" coveted by musicians and other celebrities and persons of some import. Inside is an article that discusses, among other things, how no one in Jahar's circle, people who had known him for years, would have predicted that he was capable of such an act, capable of harboring inside himself whatever it was that drove him to allegedly join with his brother and commit acts of terrorism against his adopted country. Many folks in the greater Boston area were outraged after learning of the cover image. There were vehement calls for boycotts, demands that Rolling Stone not release the issue or, failing that, that area stores and newsstands pull it off the shelves. A couple of stores did make that decision. 

One person in particular was incensed by the innocent, almost angelic image the magazine put on the cover. That person is a Massachusetts State Police officer, Sgt. Sean Murphy, whose official responsibility is a photographer who documents crime scenes and evidence. Sgt. Murphy had photographed much of the hunt for Jahar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan. One of the scenes he documented was the eventual capture of a weak, wounded and bloodied Jahar, who was discovered hiding in a covered boat in a backyard. At work Murphy had access to the photos he'd shot at that scene and he decided that those photos, depicting what is being called the monster Jahar, the nearly dead terrorist covered in dirt and blood, should be the images the people of Boston should see. That those images could somehow help heal the suffering from the bombing by imprinting in people's minds images of someone on whom they could feel comfortable focusing their anger and, for some, their hate. And that they would serve to warn off anybody considering committing copycat crimes or even potential terrorists thinking about more attacks. 

So Sgt. Murphy took it upon himself to release several photos taken at that last scene, as well as others taken at official planning sessions and during field strategizing during the actual manhunt. Knowing he had no authorization to do so, and admitting such to editors of Boston Magazine, he released to them a number of images, which they then posted on their website, where, of course, they were immediately picked up by hundreds of media outlets and bloggers. The actual Boston Magazine issue containing the images will not be released until next month as the images were received after the current issue had gone to press. Many people applaud Sgt. Murphy for his actions, even while knowing full well that he acted on his own, outside the scope of his duties and without proper authorization. Some have heralded him as a hero, even recommending him for "a medal" for doing what they consider the right thing. He stands by what he did and Boston Magazine stands behind him and what they did with the photos he gave them Sgt. Murphy knew he was igniting another controversy. But it appears that he saw it as a controlled burn intended to force whatever wildfires of emotion were ignited by the Rolling Stone cover to turn back on themselves till they burned out.

So, anyway, here's my take on it. I am a firm believer in our rights as American citizens, but I understand there are limitations to those rights. I am also a believer in the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. And that the acquittal of a defendant does not necessarily (though it certainly can be the case) mean that said defendant is innocent of the charges, only that either there were extenuating circumstances or for whatever reason  the prosecution could not meet its burden of proof.  Many people will find my essay polarizing. Fine. This is a sensitive subject and many feelings are still raw. Please bear in mind that I write this openly and honestly, with no ill will intended. All I ask is that you set aside your emotions and judge the issues at hand on their merits. And please, feel free to comment on it, agree or disagree, but respectfully. And if it behooves you, do read the Rolling Stone article. A writer at Slate also wrote an essay that you might be interested in. I will attempt to link to both at the end of this essay. 

Here's what I wrote. I apologize for the length, and I apologize for repeating some of it in the above intro, which I just wrote today. The essay itself was written a couple of days ago:

There's been some controversy lately, especially in the Boston area, regarding photographs of Dzhokar (Jahar) Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect of the April 15th bombings in Boston near the Marathon finish line. Tsarnaev's older brother Tamerlan, thought at this point to have conceived of and orchestrated the bombings, was killed as a result of an attempt to capture the two suspects.

Rolling Stone magazine published its August 3rd issue, released this week in print but parts of which were made available online last week, depicting an image of the 19 year old suspect on its cover. The photo is one that was used by law enforcement and the media to help identify Jahar Tsarnaev as the search for the suspects began. It is an image that looks like a lot of images seen on RS covers in the past, mostly of musicians and other celebrities or people in the news. And it could also have been the image of a pop star found on the covers of teen magazines or the walls of teenage girls. In reality it is a photo of an alleged domestic terrorist accused of helping to build and plant bombs that killed three people and maimed and injured nearly two hundred others, all spectators at a world class athletic event. He's also accused of being involved in the killing of an MIT police officer and the wounding of an MBTA police officer during the manhunt and subsequent police chase of the two brothers.

Reaction to both the fact Rolling Stone had put an image of Jahar on its cover and the "pop star" image it used was predictably mixed. Many people, literally thousands, were outraged, claiming RS was glorifying Tsarnaev and terrorism, and that such glorification would trigger copycat behavior in others who would seek the same celebrity status. Though their outrage was often not expressed so eloquently, the point was repeatedly made. It was obvious, and even sort of understandable, that the people who found the cover so offensive were responding emotionally. Many expressed concern for the victims and their families, concern that the seeing or even just knowing about the cover would rip the scabs off still healing wounds. Others considered it to be an homage to a terrorist who had not only targeted Boston but struck at its very core, the traditional running of the Boston Marathon on Patriots' Day, the day when the people of Massachusetts celebrate the birth of the American Revolution at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. And a large number showed their true colors, whether because of ignorance, fear, or basal prejudices, by claiming that Rolling Stone was promoting fundamentalist followers of Islam and the terrorist acts they commit. As far as they were concerned, there is no place in the American sphere where even any mention of Islam belongs.  Despite the fact that, according to the evidence we, the public, have seen, through the media and from accounts related by some who experienced the tragedy first-hand, IT APPEARS that Jahar Tsarnaev WAS involved in the execution of the attack, we don't yet know if, or how much, he was involved in the planning. We also don't know if there were any extenuating circumstances that drove him to participate. And that brings up the question of the article inside RS; the article, the story, that speaks of the Jahar Tsarnaev shown "on the cover of the Rolling Stone" as Dr. Hook says.

I'll leave it up to you to read the accompanying article so you can come to your own conclusions. To discover WHY the editors chose that one specific image to emblazon on its cover. To see and understand who Jahar Tsarnaev was, what his life was like, who his many friends were. I'll give you the basics but the RS article gives so much more.

Jahar had become a typical American kid since his ethnic Chechen family moved to the United States. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eight years old and had spent his life in Kyrgyzstan until the family moved to Dagestan for one year. Then, at the age of nine he traveled with his parents to the U.S., leaving his older brother and two sisters behind. Soon to be known by his Americanized name Jahar, the young boy assimilated well, adopting the English language, making quick friends, doing well at school. The Tsarnaev patriarch, Anzor, was a traditionalist Muslim. There was no room in his heart for extreme fundamentalists, the kinds of followers who were radicalized, many joining terrorist cells and advocating warlike actions against those it saw as either outright enemies or threats to fundamental Islamic life. 
This is the father who raised the Tsarnaev brothers. But there was another threat the Tsarnaevs feared. In their first year in America, Anzor Tsarnaev applied for political asylum for his family. As ethnic Chechens they could expect persecution, and worse, if they returned to Dagestan. Asylum was granted and he was able to bring his two daughters and his then sixteen year old son Tamerlan to Cambridge, MA. As recent immigrants granted political asylum, the Tsarnaevs were eligible for certain public assistance to help them establish a home and livelihoods. The kids were enrolled in public schools. Tamerlan attended the challenging Cambridge Rindge and Latin School before graduating and moving on to Community College after being refused admission to the University of Massachusetts - Boston. 

After grade school Jahar followed Tamerlan to Rindge and Latin, where he excelled as a wrestler. He got along well with teammates, seemed to make friends easily. Unlike his brother, who often complained about not having friends, Jahar seemed to fit in easily in any situation. He graduated high school and was accepted to UMass- Dartmouth where he made more good friends. By all accounts he was a well-liked kid, he was comfortable as an American. Or so people thought. In fact, ironically the date was September 11, 2012 when Jahar was sworn in as a US citizen. A young, male follower of Islam became an American citizen, with all the rights that citizenship carried, on 9/11.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in the US on a green card, having been refused citizenship for violating the requirements necessary. So that's part of the story behind the Rolling Stone cover. And it's part of Dzhokhar Jahar Tsarnaev's story.  

The point of all the background and the more in-depth article in the magazine, was to show people how difficult it is to determine who may or may not pose a threat to us and our American way of life. The point was to show that the next terrorist threat can come from the kid who sat behind yours in English Lit., the kid who partnered up with your neighbor's son at wrestling practice, the kid who bummed a ride home from you that one time the gang went to the movies. But sadly that story would be lost on many. The opportunity to learn valuable information, to rethink how we look at people and assess them, to perhaps develop a sixth sense that might warn us that a person may be changing, may be having trouble living in the world he seemed to love while being pulled by an idolized brother into a different world, one that hated the world he loved, would remain lessons unlearned.
 
Yes, many people were so focused on, so incensed by, the Rolling Stone cover that they refused to even consider reading the accompanying article. They did not want to discuss it. Some were enraged, incensed. Some succumbed to their emotions. One of those people is Sergeant Sean Murphy, a tactical photographer with the Massachusetts State Police Troopers. As an official State Police photographer, Murphy was intimately involved with the bombing case and the hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers. And he had knowledge of the existence of photos he and others took, at the bombing scene, at tactical meetings and, ultimately during the manhunt for the brothers. So it's not surprising that Sgt. Murphy was there during the police chase that took place from Thursday evening, April 18th, when the Tsarnaevs allegedly shot and killed MIT police officer Sean Collier, carjacked another man, confessing to him that they were the Boston Bombers before letting him go, and led the police on an extended chase through the streets of Cambridge into the suburb of Watertown. During the chase, an MBTA police officer was badly wounded, as was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who later died either from gunshot wounds or from being run over by a vehicle being driven by his brother, or from a combination of injuries from both events. Regardless, Jahar eluded the police. He abandoned the stolen vehicle he was driving and fled on foot. He continued to elude police even as a Watertown neighborhood was locked down so police could search every house, every outbuilding, every hiding place in the yards. Eventually, just as police determined Tsarnaev wasn't in the area they had searched, a citizen noticed red stains on the white plastic covering his boat. He looked under the cover and saw a wounded Jahar laying on the floor of the boat, not moving. He alerted police. The police fired multiple shots at the boat, lobbed in a couple of flash grenades, and used a robot to try and remove the plastic sheeting that encased the boat. Eventually, after getting help from Tsarnaev's high school wrestling coach, Tsarnaev surrendered and weakly eased his way out of the boat. Sgt. Murphy was there to document everything that happened in that back yard right up until the moment the ambulance carried Tsarnaev's weakened, bullet ridden and bloodied body off to the hospital.

So Sgt. Murphy had seen first hand, and documented photographically, a Jahar Tsarnaev who looked very different than the soft faced, curly haired pop star staring out from the cover of Rolling Stone with what some described as big, dreamy brown eyes. Sgt. Murphy saw Jahar the terrorist, Jahar the child killer, the maimer, the cop killer. He saw an American enemy, someone who had escaped political persecution in his homeland and come to enjoy all that freedom in America had to offer only to hatefully and violently turn against it. Along with everybody else, Murphy was trying to process what had happened; why; how. And then Rolling Stone decided to include an article about the before Jahar. The good Jahar. The cool kid everybody liked. The kid who maybe turned down a meal or skipped an outing because he was Islamic and followed its religious restrictions much the way an Irish Catholic kid from Boston might skip a trip to McDonald's on a Friday during Lent. But then, the magazine decided this story deserved the cover. The Rolling Stone cover. Man, it doesn't get any cooler than that, right? And Sgt. Murphy saw the image on the cover, the nearly angelic look, the one of the all-American kid.  And boy, was he pissed. Because some of the last images he had shot of Tsarnaev showed him barely able to hold himself up. Barely able to drag his battered body out of his hiding place, unable to move his left arm. And, most importantly, with a bright red laser dot on his head, moving as he did, staying centered on the frontal area of Tsarnaev's hat, just above his blood-streaked face. Right where the police sniper was aiming, sniper rifle "locked and loaded" and waiting for the go ahead to fire. Those were the images Sgt. Murphy carried in his mind. Nevermind the images Jahar's friends saw when they thought of him. 

So Murphy decided that we needed to see his images. He decided that the Rolling Stone cover (again, no consideration for the story inside that so justified the cover) was so offensive, so insulting to the people of the greater Boston community, so hurtful to the victims and their families, to the heroic first responders, that he was going to release the photos he took. He admits he made that decision knowing there would be repercussions, from his job, from the state. He knew those repercussions could be serious enough to cost him his rank, maybe his job. Maybe even, temporarily, his freedom if he was charged and convicted of stealing government property. Because the images Murphy took were not his own personal photos. They were official police photos that documented the commission of multiple crimes and they are evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation. But Murphy decided that we needed to see those images, that he had no choice, that his conscience could not allow the people of greater Boston to see and think of Jahar Tsarnaev as anything but a monster, a bruised and bloodied monster. He wanted anybody who might be considering doing us more harm, whether a psychopathic copycat or another Islamic terrorist, to see what would happen to them. Though Sgt. Murphy knew he had no authorization to do so, he contacted Boston Magazine and offered to give them copies of the images for publication in their magazine. They, of course, accepted.
It makes me uncomfortable when a magazine publishes photos knowing the photographer was not authorized to release them (as both Sgt. Murphy and Boston Magazine admitted at the outset.) Knowing the photos are work product and belong to the state, it was irresponsible for Murphy to attempt to get them published. He knew it. He admitted it. Those photos should never have left the control of the State Police. In essence, Sgt. Murphy stole the photos from his job to satisfy his own concerns over the controversial Rolling Stone issue with Tsarnaev's image on the cover. Interestingly, it could as easily be said that the images released by Murphy could be viewed by potential copycats as they show that Tsarnaev was able to (allegedly) commit the bombing and then survive a police chase and a manhunt and live to bask in his new celebrity status. Or that they might generate sympathy for Tsarnaev, some going so far as to say they make him into a martyr for his cause.

So on the one hand we have thousands of people, most of whom did not bother to read the Rolling Stone article and therefore totally missed the point of their running the cover image, demanding that Rolling Stone not release the issue and, if/when that didn't work, demanding that, at least in local stores, the issue be pulled from inventory.  On the other hand we now have a police officer who violated procedure and very possibly broke several laws, and a local magazine that, in a manner, aided and abetted his efforts. Once Sgt. Murphy broke the rules and supplied the photos to Boston Magazine, the magazine made the decision to release the photos, publishing them on its website before its next issue went to print. It is the proverbial bell that cannot be unrung. As well, the photos have appeared on hundreds, if not thousands, of other websites, newsfeeds, and social networking sites.

But how does the magazine justify ITS actions? They were made aware by Murphy that he was acting on his own without permission of his supervisors. The magazine's editors had to know, as any reasonable person would, that Murphy had literally stolen the photos, even if he gave them the files rather than physical prints. They were not his to give. So Boston Magazine could be subject to receiving stolen property. Not to mention violating copyright laws. Again they, and Murphy, cannot claim ignorance of copyright law. Boston Magazine has published a statement that they received the photos lawfully. Bull. They know what work product is and who owns it, and they know the photos were from Murphy's job.   When a photographer works for an employer the employer, not the photographer, owns the copyrights. And Boston Magazine cannot claim Freedom of the Press in such a situation, as they have. Freedom of the Press does not apply when the press knowingly publishes illegally gotten information, and those photos were illegally obtained by Murphy. There are legal avenues for either Murphy or the magazine to pursue if they wanted the photos released. That decision would have been made by the prosecution or the court. At any rate, the prosecution could have asked that the photos be kept under seal. But why would they consider that at this stage? I'm sure they felt reasonably sure that the photos would not be released without at least their knowledge, if not their consent. They likely never conceived a State Trooper, a seasoned Sergeant, would act as irresponsibly, and dare I say reprehensibly, as Murphy did?   
As well as the legalities of the release of the photos, one has to question the potential damage to Tsarnaev's trial. Has the jury pool been tainted? After all, the stated intent for releasing/publishing the photos was to show Tsarnaev as a monster. Can the defense claim that the release of the photos was prejudicial to their client? Has the prosecution's case been damaged by this? 

Many are lauding Murphy as a hero. But we cannot let our emotions overcome the rule of law. Isn't that exactly what terrorists do? Doesn't the release of the capture photos just fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from the RS cover? When, in light of an upcoming trial there needs to be a place of neutrality?

Personally, like others and based on what I watched as it unfolded,  I think that, given the evidence publicized before this battle of the photos began, Tsarnaev is guilty of planting one of the bombs. Whether he helped build them is speculation. Whether he actually fired a gun at police officers is speculation. I believe he's guilty of stealing a vehicle and fleeing police. But I also believe in his basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We haven't been made privvy to the possibility of extenuating circumstances. Those could weigh heavily in his favor. There has been speculation that Jahar Tsarnaev idolized his older brother, Tamerlan, and was following Tamerlan's wishes. That it was Tamerlan who was the radicalized Islam fundamentalist; Tamerlan who had trained with possible Al Quaida forces. There have also been suggestions made that Jahar had been brainwashed and radicalized by his older brother. Or just blinded enough by love for him that he couldn't say no, couldn't walk away, couldn't live with the loss of his brother had Tamerlan failed and been captured or killed. Who knows, maybe Tamerlan threatened to step into the crowd with a suicide bomb vest and kill himself if his brother didn't help. Any of these scenarios could help Jahar's defense.

Given the history of the unpredictability of American juries, especially in the past few decades in high profile cases, this trial is not a slam dunk. The prosecution will need every advantage it can gain. And having a rogue cop releasing evidence to the public to make himself feel better is NOT a prosecutorial advantage. We need to stop acting on emotions when there are legalities involved. We were all traumatized by the events on April 15 th and the following days. We are all sympathetic to the victims and their families. But we cannot let those emotions cloud our judgement when it comes to applying the rule of law and using common sense. To do so gives the terrorists the power we are claiming we don't want them to have.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/17/boston_bomber_rolling_stone_cover_with_dzokhar_tsarnaev_is_good_journalism.html