Pay no attention to those men behind the curtain!

For a society that proclaims itself so advanced and forward-thinking, Americans believe an awful lot of mythology.  I write frequently about the myth of “Equal Opportunity.”  Today, I am going to talk about the myth of the “American Free Market Economy.”  Before I explain why it doesn't really exist, let’s back up and define the different possible economic systems:

• Traditional:  Reward for work and the exchange of property and services is completely shaped by the traditions of a society.  Most of the world operates under this system.  The down side to a traditional economy is that accumulation of surplus (wealth) is difficult, if not impossible. 
• Command (Communism):  The government exerts control over wages and the exchange of goods and services.  There are few countries with pure command economies (I think Cuba might be the only one) which is probably evidence that it doesn’t work well.  The obvious disadvantages to this system are greed, nepotism, and corruption.  People in power may benefit unfairly by controlling the economy.
• Market (Capitalism):  Control of industry is, at least theoretically, in the hands of the individual. It is influenced exclusively (again, theoretically) by the available supply of goods and services and the demand for those goods and services.  Government’s limited role in a market economy is to provide national infrastructure, national defense, and protection against monopolies.  There are no countries in the world with pure market economies, which could be an indication that they don’t really work that well in practice.  Despite our American love affair with the idea of a pure market economy, it is plagued with many pitfalls and disadvantages, principally greed, nepotism, and corruption.  People in power may benefit unfairly by controlling the economy.
• Mixed (Socialism):  Individuals control the economy within a framework of governmental intervention which may range from outright control of certain industries to selective control of only certain industries, or indirect control through regulation. Almost all industrialized nations fall somewhere in the spectrum of a socialized economy.  Perhaps that is an indication that it often works better than other economic systems? 

So, let’s really think about which of these economic structures we can buy into.  I’m sure we don’t have to waste much time considering Traditional or Command economies for the United States.  None of us want those. So, what about a Market economy?  Well, in order for a free Market economy to work, we have to agree on some things.  We have to decide that we are willing to give up safety nets.  What does that mean? 

Do you want to be assured that the new heart medication your doctor just prescribed for you is safe, effective and appropriate for you?  Sorry.  In a pure market there are no such assurances, because there are no regulations to protect you.  There is no FDA, and there is no licensing process to make sure physicians are properly trained.  And while we are thinking about health care, I hope we are all prepared to pay for everything out of pocket.  We would have to agree that health insurance is completely privatized and free of any regulations to protect us from getting ripped off, or else we have to pay it all ourselves.  Do you want to go out to eat at that fancy new restaurant?  What about if there is no health Department to ensure that an establishment is clean and food is prepared and stored properly?  The market will eventually decide, right?  If enough people die of improper medical treatment or food poisoning, no one will pay good money for that medicine, that doctor, or that meal. 

We have to agree that we trust human nature enough to believe that every business owner will offer a fair living wage to American adults rather than exploiting children or importing foreign workers who will work much cheaper.  After all, why would we have child labor laws or immigration laws if the government is only going to provide roads and an army?  We have to agree that we trust every employer to provide a safe working environment with no regulations or agencies for oversight.  I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to go back to the good ole’ days of the early 1900s.  No thank you; I think it is pretty well established that’s not a good idea 

We have to agree that we are all ok with the “work or don’t eat” philosophy.  There would be no social programs to rely on when you lose a limb in the unregulated factory you used to work at, or when your company eventually goes under because the heart medicine it made killed too many people and no one will buy it anymore.  So…  What happens?  Do we have people starving in the street and urchins running around barefoot selling newspapers and matchbooks?  Either that, or we have to agree that we trust human nature enough to believe that our employers and neighbors will cheerfully and selflessly provide for us and our children , indefinitely, if tragedy strikes. 

We have to decide that we don’t believe in corruption.  We have to trust that the owner of the heart medicine factory won’t take all that money he made killing people and buy congressmen to look the other way as he creates a monopoly.  We have to expect he won't take the opportunity to build a new medicine factory empire that drives all the local apothecaries out of business, leaving him free to control supply and inflate demand.  

We would have to be OK with either homeschooling all our children or paying ourselves for private schools or tutors.  A Market system makes no allowance for educating its citizens.  We have to agree that we trust every person’s ability and budget to educate the next generation.  We have to decide we trust people never to have children they can’t really care for.  We have to believe that property owners would never discriminate in renting or selling housing, and that all our homes would be safely built and maintained with no agency to inspect or regulate building standards.

We have to think that it would never happen that an oil baron could use his money and power to engage in price gouging at the gas pump. We would have to be willing to bay $25 a gallon for gas.  Have I made my point?  Personally, I am not willing to say I trust in any of those things.  And neither are you.  We have already decided it doesn’t work to trust human nature to such a degree.  That is why we have labor laws and building codes. That is why we have public health codes and licensure of certain professions.  That is why we are already practicing Socialism.  You might as well stop panicking at the idea because we all became Socialists the minute we realized we needed legal protection from fraud, malfeasance, and good old-fashioned greed. I would submit that the most pertinent economics question is not whether some degree of Socialism may be better than pure Capitalism, but rather, why does Socialism work well in some instances and not others? 

Perhaps the deciding factor in whether Socialism is going to work well is whether the working relationship between the citizenry and the government is functional.  When Socialism is instituted through the use of force, clearly the outcome is probably not going to be good. However, when the will of the people requires common sense economic and social policies, and their political leaders listen and respond, a stronger nation results.  In other words, Socialism plus dictatorship equals failure.  Socialism plus democracy equals, if not complete success, at least a system better than corrupted Capitalism, such as we have now in the US.  

That's where we are, friends.  We are not choosing between true, glorious, everybody-has-a-chance-to-succeed Capitalism and evil Communism, despite what people may be trying to convince you. We are choosing between Democratic Socialism and a corrupted, fake Capitalism--a version which will not engender a healthy nation and economy because it is not under-girded with equality of opportunity.  American-style Capitalism is rigged to benefit the rich, the powerful and the white.  Come on; be honest.  You know it's true.   

Today, our elected officials have grown almost entirely out of touch with the people.  That is our problem.  Not food stamps or the prospects of universal health care and free college—corrupt government officials and leaders.  There is much that needs fixing in the US, but no repair is happening until we fix our political system.  As long as we, the people, continue to elect the same old politicians we are stuck with a bunch of broken, outright crappy systems. As long as we allow people who are supposed to be working for us to continue spending all of their time wheeling and dealing off-camera with big money, we are stuck.  Until we address campaign finance reform, we are stuck.  Until we institute some reasonable term limits, we are stuck. 

As long as we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by the bald men behind the curtain, distracting us with smoke and lights, we are going to be controlled by the Wizard--stuck and powerless.  We are so riled up by sensationalism we are just accepting what everyone is telling us, rather than using our own eyes to see for ourselves that the wizard is just an illusion created by political con artists.  We are so hypnotized by Fox News, Youtube, and the latest Kardashian scandal that we’ve given up our power at the ballot box. We need to wake up!

How do we fix it?  I have a few ideas. Shocker, I know.  

1. Quit watching the side show.  Left wing and right wing both belong to the same bird.  Stop supporting your political Party, and start supporting your neighbor and your community.   Stop thinking in terms of Republican and Democrat, and start using your own brain
2. Expect better.  Do you find it acceptable for you employee to refuse to do their job?  Then stop allowing Congress to shirk their duties because they don’t want to cooperate with the President.  Would you hire someone with questionable ethics at your law firm?  Then don’t send her to the White House.  Would you spend $27 million to teach people in Morocco to design pottery?  Then call out Congress for doing just that in the 2012 US budget.  Would you invite Trump to teach ethics to your kids?  Then don’t inflict his bigotry on the nation. Would you keep hiring the same plumber if he kept messing up your pipes?  Then why keep hiring the same politicians that have messed up our nation?  As far as I am concerned, if we re-elect a single Republican in Congress we deserve what we get.  And the Democrats are just as bad.  We need a brand new Congress.  These people are not looking out for you and me.  They just aren’t.
3. Educate yourself.  It’s not going to happen on Facebook; you’re going to have to read a real book. And then another one and another one after that.  Make it a point to learn about things you don’t agree with.  At the very least you’ll be able to present an informed argument.  Who knows, you may find out you are more willing to compromise than you realize.   
4. Talk to people.   Stop forming your opinions based on a sound bites via social media.  Engage in real life interactions with people who are different than you. On purpose.  Are you against raising the minimum wage?  Make it a point to talk to people who are living on minimum wage.  Do you think that there’s too much violence in law enforcement?  Engage with your local police department.  Do you think the opposite?  Talk to people who have experienced excessive police force.  How can we change anything if we don’t talk to each other and learn from one another?
5. Think globally.  I’m not against being patriotic, by any means, but in today’s world we all impact each other in ways never before seen.  We must begin to consider what’s good for all, not just what’s good for people like me, or my city, or my state.  We need to think bigger.   
6. Quit electing white men all the time!  Especially rich ones.  Is that harsh?  Absolutely.  But if we want to get something different, we have to elect someone different.  80% of both the House and Senate are male. 80% of the House and about 90% of the Senate are white.  Well, gaaawllee!  I wonder why we are still struggling with institutional racism and male dominance? Lets do better, shall we?  
7. Be willing to get uncomfortable in order to learn.  Challenging yourself is even harder than challenging “the system.”  Allowing others the same freedoms and privileges you want to enjoy may make you uncomfortable.  That’s to be expected.  Look at it this way.  At my church, we make a deliberate effort to be inclusive of many ethnicities, economic backgrounds, and faith traditions.  One of the things I’ve learned is that if I expect to be comfortable 100% of the time, I am expecting someone else to be UNcomfortable 100% of the time.  What gives me that right?  Nothing.  Not a damn thing.

Photo:  http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/Wizard_Of_Oz,_The/gallery/WIZARDOZ024/

A Voter Perspective

An Open Letter To Mr. Amash

President Barack Obama and Supreme Court nominee the Honorable Merrick Garland 

 

Good Morning.

I am one of your constituents.  I would like to take this opportunity to explain a situation I recently encountered in my job at a local hospital which I feel you may relate to.  As a clinical pharmacist, one of my many important responsibilities is to evaluate and implement medication therapies as ordered by physicians.  Recently, I received medication orders for a patient by a physician I was not in favor of hiring.  On many occasions we have had differing opinions as to how a patient should be treated, and I have had enough.  I made the calculated decision not to act on his orders.  Since a new physician would take over the case at shift change in 5 hours, I decided to wait until then.  Maybe after shift change it would be a doctor I like better, so until then I was simply not going to cooperate. 

Absurd, right?  No professional with any integrity at all would freeze patient care in such a negligent manner.  Obviously this is NOT a real scenario.  (In case my boss is reading:  Really!  I would never do such a thing!!!!)  This is simply an apt illustration to highlight for you that, in the real world, people are required to act like the adults they are and DO THEIR JOBS. I cannot emphasize it strongly enough.  I urge you and your Republican colleagues in Congress in the strongest possible terms to stop behaving like petulant children and perform your constitutional duty.  As a voter, I demand that you uphold all the responsibilities you were elected to fulfill.  Please begin confirmation proceedings for the current nominee for Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Merrick Garland. 

Your party’s refusal to honor President Obama’s right and responsibility to nominate a candidate for a vacancy on the Supreme is a great affront to the American people—the American people who entrusted our current president with all of the duties of the office in the two fair and legal elections which put President Obama in office.  We have already spoken.  The president has been faithful to his responsibilities; now you and your fellow Republicans in Congress must be faithful to yours.  Do.  Your.  Job.    

Sincerely,

Dr. Rebecca Boyd

P.S.  I have a really big mouth and am not shy about broadcasting my views.  One of the ways I do this is with my blog, which may be found at:  http://justbeckyunfiltered.blogspot.com.  A copy of this letter will be publicly featured there later today.  Enjoy!

RWB

Photo:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Would you like fries with that?

 This guy right here... SMH  Whenever I envision people who are guilty of "Americanizing" the Gospel, I see Franklin Graham in my head. In the first place, I find it very hypocritical for Graham to hold up Bill Clinton as any kind of positive object lesson, when I have absolutely no doubt that he viewed Clinton with the highest DISrespect possible while he was actually in office. The Christian Right hated Clinton.   I guess when it comes to racism, the good ole' boys can set aside party politics. I'm sure this is rude to say, but come on. You would have to be either a complete idiot or a confirmed racist not to see that we have some serious inequities in our criminal justice system.  And I don't think Mr Graham is an idiot. 

Secondly, Christianity is not white, and it is not Republican (or Democrat, for that matter.). I'm sorry to have to point this out, but the Bible simply does not support most of the economic and social priorities currently espoused by the people who have hijacked the Republican Party. Read Micah 6:8, and tell me we are not supposed to be taking care of our fellow man. It says we are required of God to act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. "Required."  It's not a suggestion. It's a requirement. 

If you think an Old Testament verse doesn't apply anymore, Christ confirmed it in John 21. If we love Him, we will take care of his sheep. He said it right out. THREE TIMES, for crying out loud.  Honestly, do you really think Christ's biggest social concern in 2016 would have been whether a Christian is supposed to make a cake for a gay wedding?  I do not. I just don't.

I love that Mr Graham shares the Gospel so clearly. I just wish he would realize the message would go a lot further toward feeding God's sheep if it were not served up with a huge side order of American-style apostasy.  So, if you find yourself in agreement with the Republican party, great.  Really.  I have no problem with you having opinions that differ from  mine.  This is America.  You have every right to think what you want, to not want to pay higher taxes, to think every hint of socialism is evil,  to think an unmediated free market economy is the solution to everything...  Whatever.  Just own it, then, because what you do not have the right to do is to claim that God is your justification for those opinions.  Keep your politics out of my Savior's Gospel.    

This Is The House That Redlining Built

A Modern Nursery Rhyme by Mother Becky














This is the house that redlining built.

This is the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

These are the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

These are the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water

That came to the house that redlining built.

This is the racism,

That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

This is the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism

That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

This is the power, ugly and strong

That spread the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism
That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

These are the men, corrupt and wrong

That held all the power, ugly and strong
That spread the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism
That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

This is the money

That moved the men, corrupt and wrong
That held all the power, ugly and strong
That spread the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism
That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

These are the lies

That made all the money
That moved the men, corrupt and wrong
That held all the power
That spread the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism
That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.

This is the country reaping discord

That sowed the lies
That made all the money
That moved the men, corrupt and wrong
That held all the power
That spread the fear with the media horn
That fed the racism
That made the laws
That hated the people
That drank the water
That came to the house that redlining built.



Photo:  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27260073

What's A Mom To Do?

This morning I was running late.  (What’s new, right?)  I probably could have made it in time, if I bypassed the school parking lot morning mayhem and dropped him off at a more convenient spot four blocks away.  I briefly wished I could do it.  You may ask, why couldn’t I?  He’s 13 and a really responsible kid, so he is certainly capable of walking a few blocks unsupervised.  You know the one; he’s the athlete and honor student we all congratulated last week for winning a bunch of academic awards.  So why didn’t I even consider doing it? Well, I can’t bring myself to do that because to some people, my kid isn’t an honor student with a bright future.  To them, he’s just SCARY BLACK MAN.  I know this to be true because of experiences we have already had, where he has been targeted merely because of the color of his skin.  He has already, at thirteen years old, been harassed by police for walking down the street and “matching a description.”  For his own safety, he doesn’t have the freedom to do what I would have allowed my white sons to do without even thinking about it.

Did I tell him any of that? No, but should I have?  I really don’t know.  I want to teach him to expect approriate behavior from the people around him, but is that the right thing?  On one hand, if I explain to him why I don’t want him walking around amongst the general public wearing a hoodie, I’ll be accused of “teaching him to be racist.”  On the other hand, he could very predictably have bad things happen to him if I don’t teach him to be aware of how whites may perceive him.  What’s a mom to do?  It’s very easy to be opinionated about it all until you actually have a loved one facing the crap we don’t want to admit still happens. 

So, while you’re out there deciding who to vote for and (hopefully) deciding whether equal opportunity really exists in the USA, I hope you’ll think about kids like mine—the ones who can’t even walk down a street and be assured of safety.  I hope you’ll consider that a racist candidate endorsed by known KKK members is probably not going to be great at pursuing equity and justice for ALL of us, not just the rich, white ones of us.  I hope you’ll remember that the candidate who had a hand in making the imprisonment of black men a profit-generating enterprise may not be interested in the well-being of ALL Americans.  Myself, I voted for the candidate who has been fighting for peace and racial equity for 50 years.  Do I agree with everything he believes?  No.  Is he perfect? Of course not.  No candidate is perfect, but I think he has something to offer that may be more important than our fear of what’s going to happen with our money or our guns.

Photo:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6103250/Britain-needs-a-middle-class-baby-boom.html

All Y'All Made Me Unleash The Flying Monkeys

This essay has been marinating for a very long time.  I have started it on numerous occasions, then put it aside because it just wasn’t the right time.  Now, in this election season, I find myself on the cusp of a decision that causes a deep quandary for me.  This is the time.  Now is the time that people on both sides of the issue need to stop screaming at each other and listen to each other instead. In my typical fashion, I suspect I’m going to piss off people on BOTH sides.  That’s OK with me.  I doubt I will change anyone’s mind; I just hope to help start a dialogue, to increase understanding and cooperation for the good of everyone. 

I am pro-life—have been since before I even understood that people could intentionally end the life of a child before he or she can be born.  I love people.  I adore babies.  I think human lives are sacred because we are made in the image of God.  Humans have souls.  Does that mean I don’t care about other species?  No.  Does that mean I think women don’t have a right to control their own bodies? No.  It simply means I can’t think of a single reason good enough to kill any child.  It just means that while a baby is dependent upon the mother's body, the baby is a separate individual with inherent rights.  It simply means that a person’s God-given right to life starts in the womb.  It means that there are moral consequences to abortion, consequences that are damaging to women victimized by the abortion industry and to the society that allows it.  It simply means that a person is always a person regardless of his or her address. Even if a person lives inside the mother or on the wrong side of the tracks, he or she is still a miracle of God and deserving of our protection.  Obviously, I hold these beliefs because of my faith.  I don’t expect everyone to embrace them.  I do expect that every mature human being can carry on a conversation about them without being accusatory and judgmental.   

To my fellow Pro-Lifers:  Please stop judging everybody and calling them murderers.  Seriously.  Do you really think that helps?  It does not.  A Pro-Life stance must begin to mean you value all lives, respect all lives.  We seem to have a little trouble with this.  Do you value the child but hate the mother who wants the abortion?  Or the Pro-Choicer next door?  Your rhetoric might imply just that.  If you’re going to claim that you find life sacred, how about the lives of the impoverished kids that your politicians poisoned in the city of Flint?  How about the life of the most recent “thug” that just got killed in the streets without a trial by judge and jury?  How about the Muslim refugee child drowning in a boat?  Or the one we just bombed in Iraq?  What about the street kid on the other side of the wall some of us want to build?  What about the drug addict living on the streets without access to desperately-needed health care?  Do those lives matter less than the one tucked inside a mother’s body?  I don’t think so, but our social policies are telling us loud and clear that IS EXACTLY what we believe.  Those policies would not exist without the say-so of us Pro-Lifers right along with everyone else.  I can already hear the objection that we can't be Socialists who just give everything to people.  Well, I say that helping the impoverished and the refugee, providing necessities like health care and education, and feeding the hungry are not Socialist acts. They are loving my neighbor as much as I love myself. 

If I haven't already highly offended you, here’s where I’m really going to blow your mind.  I believe abortion is an important political issue.  BUT… it is not the only important issue.  Our respect for life compels us to be just as diligent in protecting quality of life.  What does that mean?  It means if we are not voting for improved access to education for all of our citizens, we are not really Pro-Life, we are Pro-Baby.  It means if we think people are deserving of only the health care they can pay for, we are Pro-Baby, not Pro-Life.  If we don’t stand up and do something when the black kid is killed in the park for having a toy gun—sorry, not Pro-Life.  If we find it acceptable to spend half of our pie on the war machine but scream about the minute sliver we spend on welfare—sorry, not Pro-Life. When we allow our congressman to earn in excess of $400,000 a year for life, but won’t pay for elderly Medicare patients’ medications while they are in the hospital—not Pro-Life. Yup, we are allowing all of that.  Look it up.  The information is there if you choose to see it.  Look, if you want credibility as an advocate for Life, you need to earn it, and it’s going to take more than that “All Lives Matter” banner on your Facebook wall. 

My Pro-Choice friends, I haven’t forgotten about you.  First of all, quit calling Pro-Lifers “Anti-Choice.”  It’s rude. You certainly don’t want Pro-Lifers running around calling you “Pro-Death.”  It’s also an inaccurate characterization.  There are almost always other “choices” besides abortion.  Abstinence, for one.  I know it’s an old-fashioned notion, but it is an option.  If a woman consents to have sex, she’s already made a choice to be responsible for her actions.  We live in a culture that wants rights without responsibility.  We want to do whatever the hell we want, whenever we want to, and then take a pill to fix it when there are problems. We want to live on Big Macs even though we know better, then sue the McDonald's when we end up fat.  It's all the same cultural problem of refusing to take responsibility for our actions.  If a woman didn’t choose to have sex… that’s a different story.  While I still don’t believe an abortion after rape or incest is really going to fix anything for the mother, I’m certainly not going to condemn her.  I’m talking about the other 98% of abortion cases.  The choice was made before the conception.  You know it; I know it. 

And speaking of conception, can we be truthful about what is being aborted?  Using the clinical term “fetus” doesn’t make it any less a child.  Before modern medicine, maybe we could have gotten away with debating about when life begins.  But now, we know better. An unborn child has a functioning brain and heartbeat before most women even realize they are pregnant.  If you are of the belief that it is OK to end the life of a human being with a heartbeat, then say so.  Do not hide behind euphemisms like “tissue” and “fetus” in a disingenuous effort to make it seem less barbaric.

Now that I have pissed you off thoroughly, I am going to ask you tough questions, but first, I am going to make a couple of disclaimers.  I already know that women of all races get abortions.  I already know that Planned Parenthood provides other needed health care services to women.  Secondly, I am going to present you with the truth that present day abortion laws and the organization Planned Parenthood find their roots in the US eugenics movement prior to WWII.  Eugenics is the selective breeding of human beings for the sole purpose of eliminating genetic “imperfections” such as poverty, mental illness, and “undesirable” racial identity.  Hitler was highly influenced by these practices and viewed his Final Solution as a natural extension of them.  You don’t have to take my word on any of this.  It is easy to find the information.  Now, here are my questions.  Is it at all possible that modern day abortion practices are fulfilling the racist, classist mission of the eugenicists, just as they were intended to do?  Is it possible that by defending a woman's right to choose, we are undermining our own intent to dismantle a corrupt system which targets the poor and the minority?

I find it entirely possible, even likely.  Especially when I consider that we are willing to restrict access to health care on the basis of who can pay for it, yet we will find a Planned Parenthood providing reproductive services and health care for women in most “urban” areas of the US.  We can’t afford health care for everyone.  Yet we can afford to plop abortion facilities in the middle of communities with the least number of white citizens and give an affordable abortion to whoever wants one.  I find it to be a really unbelievable coincidence.  Instead, why can’t we just make it possible for every woman to go to a doctor in an actual health care facility for screenings, contraception, and prenatal care?  The answer is, we could... if we wanted to do so.  If you’re reading my blog, you’re obviously a smart person.  Do the math, so to speak. 

Why is now the right time to talk about this?  Because we have an election coming up. Because the decision of who to vote for is harder than ever.  Because people seem to have left reason completely behind.  Because if we are all, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice alike, voting solely based on a candidate's supposed abortion stance, we are making some scary decisions.  Just think about it.  That's all I ask.

What If?

http://theabundantwife.com/toddler-tuesday-hammer-time/

I’ve been thinking  about what our country would look like if we all did our jobs the way our police officers have been trained to do theirs.  I’m imagining my amazing friend, Erin, who runs a day care.  I’m sure many times every day, she has to respond to one of her citizens who won’t put the toy hammer down to sit quietly and listen to story time.  Would the appropriate response be for her to gather all of her staff so that they could arm themselves and surround the little citizen?  Would that conflict best be managed by barking orders, and then beating him up if he did not obey?”

I’m remembering how it is sometimes difficult to get the busy surgeons to respond to my phone calls when I need to clarify an order.  It is frustrating to bear the responsibility of simultaneously protecting the patient’s safety and efficiently treating them without the information I need from the prescribing physician.  In fact, sometimes I even feel disrespected.  I could solve my problem by enlisting some of my colleagues to go with me and barge into the OR.  We could then pin the doctor in a choke hold on the floor until he either died of a crushed windpipe or managed to squeak out an answer to my question.

I am wondering what would happen if you went to the hair salon and ignored the polite sign to refrain from using a cell phone.  (Because that never happens, right?)  What if, after repeated requests to either put away the phone or leave, you still refused?  Would the hair stylist then be justified in full-body tackling you, flipping your chair over, and throwing you across the floor?

How about if I’m walking down the hall of the hospital and happen upon one of the staff from Employee Health, who realizes I am non-compliant with TB testing? Maybe I turn around to run the other direction after she confronts me, making her give chase.  Is she then OK to pull out her duly registered concealed weapon, shoot me in the back, and kill me?  I mean, an employee running around the hospital with potential TB is a danger to patients, right?

Obviously, all of these scenarios are completely absurd.  (At least I hope it is obvious to you. If not, we have bigger problem than even I realized.)  It would simply be unacceptable to escalate every problematic situation we encounter because we are allowing ourselves to overreact to our own bias.  Why then, are any of us willing to accept the same conflict management strategies from our police?  Especially when those strategies make an already dangerous line of work more dangerous?  Why is escalation the default response to so many situations involving a non-white citizen?  It does not make any damn sense.  

The killing of Tamir Rice affords us another sick and tragic example.  It was the police department, itself which escalated a non-violent situation into a murder. First, all the pertinent facts reported to dispatch, such as that it was a kid with probably a toy gun, were not passed along to the responding officers.  Not Tamir's fault.  Secondly, the responding officers created the perception of danger to themselves, all by themselves.  It was an escalation to pull the squad car so close to the scene that the cops felt endangered.  Why on earth did they not remain at a more reasonable distance in order to assess the situation for, oh I don't know, any amount of time longer than two seconds?  It was not Tamir's fault that the cops swooped in already planning to kill.  Those cops left room for absolutely no other outcome than  a death. And when I learned they did not even try to administer aid to a dying twelve year old child...

Predictably, the police in Cleveland are closing ranks to allow these incidents to continue. After the decision was announced not to indict Tamir's killers, Anthony Hawkins of the Cleveland Browns peacefully protested by wearing a shirt printed with "Justice for Tamir Rice and John Crawford III.”  According to several news sources, Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association responded by saying,

“It’s pretty pathetic when athletes think they know the law. They should stick to what they know best on the field.” 

What appalling arrogance.  Appalling, yet not surprising.  This is exactly the kind of blatant disregard for citizens that we in the United States find unacceptable from “officers of the law.” What a ridiculous notion that that regular citizens are not capable of understanding the law. Does Follmer think all athletes are stupid, or just the black ones? Why would he think we citizens have no right to express opinion or belief about the laws that govern our lives?  It also apparently escaped his notice that Mr. Hawkins was not even commenting on the law; he was calling for justice. The two concepts are very widely separated in this country, especially for minorities. Justice was in no way served for Tamir Rice or his grieving family.

Mr. Follmer, I am neither a legal scholar nor an athlete, but let me assure you I recognize a corrupt system and a miscarriage of justice when I see them. I stand with Andrew Hawkins when he said, 

"I was taught that justice is a right that every American should have. Also justice should be the goal of every American. I think that’s what makes this country. To me, justice means the innocent should be found innocent. It means that those who do wrong should get their due punishment. Ultimately, it means fair treatment. So a call for justice shouldn’t offend or disrespect anybody. A call for justice shouldn’t warrant an apology."

A call for justice does NOT offend or disrespect. A call for justice does NOT warrant an apology. The very fact that Follmer would dare to disagree confirms he either has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept or that he believes police are not bound by it.  Excessive violence does not make the police officers safer.  It doesn’t make anyone safer.  It’s time to try something smarter.  It’s time for all of us to stand up and demand better.