Ferguson

Something about Ferguson is long overdue, and yet I find myself wondering what to say.  My facebook feed has died down of late, but most of the posts seemed to fit with the world view of whoever posted it.  That, as one example, the officer who shot Michael Brown was severely injured, or wasn't. 

I didn't immediately write anything, because after Iraq I distrust the news.  The first, second, and even third story is probably not accurate.  And I dislike claiming to know what is going on when I don't really know any better than anyone else that wasn't there.

But I don't like how divisive the responses are.  In particular, I know the statistics.  I know how many black men wind up incarcerated.  How the police, in some neighborhoods, act more like an occupying army then the servants of society that we normally see them as.  I know the problems with "driving while black", and that the world I live in and the experiences I have with the police are not the same sorts of experiences that black people do.

So I've been quiet, for a while, and notice a few things that disturb me.  First - that after being in the news cycle for as long as this has, we still seem to be short of real facts.  The dispute over whether the officer was injured or not being the primary example.  Even the autopsy report is used to bolster whatever side the reader wants.  (Exit wounds, or the lack thereof, were mentioned in at least one post...but since I'm not a forensic expert I don't claim to know what the autopsy means.  For all I know, the bullet was lodged in his bone and that's why there's no exit wound.  Apparently, it may take a while for a credible analysis to be done.) 

It also seems strange that the news can dig up that Michael Brown robbed a store, but can't say whether or not the officer who shot him was seriously injured?!? 

This is a high profile, highly emotional situation and the official response is either pathetically unconcerned with clearing up matters, or is more concerned with trying to cover their butts and justify what happened.  Either way, it's not good.  No- I'm not saying they should rush to conclusions.  But there are definitely facts that we are not being given, like how severely injured the officer was.

And so I conclude by saying - I want justice.  I want an honest, fair and impartial investigation.  I don't want black people to feel like white people are more concerned with the ALS ice bucket challenge than with their very real anger and fear at how little society seems to care about their lives.

And I wonder, as with other topics, what we can do to actually make a difference.  For me, rioting and looting isn't the answer.  I know people who point at the riots and shake their heads in disgust, and almost appear to use that to justify the way things are.  Perhaps not that specific shooting, but to justify the poor community relationship with the police.  Okay, Ferguson may be a dangerous area with a lot of crime and a large number of gangs. That may or may not be true, but that doesn't mean that the police are automatically right.  (Or wrong, for that matter). 

What matters, in this particular case, is whether or not the police officer responded in a reasonable manner to the situation as it developed, with the knowledge he had at the time of the incident.

What also matters is communicating that clearly, if only to head off rumours and conspiracy theories.  And...to admit that this situation got out of hand because there is a serious divide between the police force and the local community.  (If this were Iraq, and the police were the US Army, we'd be trying to find an influential shiekh and local leaders to take the lead in policing themselves.)

I can't really point fingers and judge Ferguson for rioting, but at the end of the day it's not something I'm going to go out and do myself.


I don't like what's going on, but I also don't really know what I can do about it either.

Horror, Zombies, and Decision Making

I just finished re-reading World War Z.  I had seen the movie, and when a friend (sockschan) realized that I hadn't read the book she insisted I should.  Said it was right up my alley.

She was right.

See, I'm not actually into zombies.  Or horror, for that matter.  But I do enjoy some of the movies/books/stories when friends recommend I see them.  World War Z is kind of a geopolitical zombie book, so it fit well with my interests.

While reading it again, I realized that the true horror in the story wasn't the zombies.  It was the poor decision-making that let the zombie threat practically destroy humanity.  The zombies, once  they were understood, were something people could fight.  And win.  But the resistance to acknowledging the threat allowed the 'virus' to spread too far, too fast.  Initial attempts to maintain control and fight the zombies conventionally failed.  (The book did an excellent job of pointing out why trying to attack zombies with bombs and kill zones of massed fire didn't work, not when you had to take out the brain of every zombie.  Not when any casualty could become a zombie, too.)

That is, in a nutshell, why I care about decision making.  Good decision making matters.  Poor decision making gets people killed.  Or, at a minimum, makes life more miserable and difficult than it has to be.

In a way, it also points out how little we trust the Powers That Be.  We don't trust them to make the best decisions, or even keep us informed enough that we can tell if they are or aren't making sound decisions.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't say much about how we can make things better.  Different.

Does it really require a major disaster to get people to consider alternatives?

How sad is that?