Blame It All on the Baby Boomers

I fully agree with Tom Brokaw that my parents' generation, the so-called G.I. Generation, was "The Greatest Generation." They endured the Great Depression, fought for our freedom in World War II, and rebuilt America into a superpower. The Greatest generation were tough, never-say-die individuals who defined American courage, selflessness, and determination. They were "special" and "one of a kind."

Contrary to the thoughts of young readers, I am not old enough to be a member of "The Greatest Generation." Instead, being born in 1951, I am a Baby Boomer. The G.I. Generation are our mothers and fathers, and, believe it or not, they taught us to be "different" from them in some very important respects.

Why are we known as Boomers? For a little background, let me explain.

Almost exactly nine months after World War II ended, “the cry of the baby was heard across the land,” as historian Landon Jones later described the trend. More babies were born in 1946 than ever before: 3.4 million, 20 percent more than in 1945. This was the beginning of the so-called “baby boom.” In 1947, another 3.8 million babies were born; 3.9 million were born in 1952; and more than 4 million were born every year from 1954 until 1964, when the boom finally tapered off. By then, there were 76.4 million “baby boomers” in the United States. They made up almost 40 percent of the nation’s population.

My generation, the Baby Boomers, is most often cast as a counterculture of spoiled children who are totally selfish, self absorbed, and self-indulgent. We are blamed for introducing mainstream America to the drug culture, rampant criminal violence, political instability, ungodliness, and the proliferation of unchecked materialistic greed. So, with great regrets, we Boomers must accept much of the criticism, unable to deny the reality of the majority of some unfortunate history.

Yet, with all the faults attributed to Baby Boomers, my generation still deserves much credit. We, the most influential group in the social history of the United States have often been perceived by unkind critics as "problem children." Yet, undoubtedly, my generation produced some earth-shaking accomplishments. Our parents taught us the need for freedom and the power of expression. With their help, we instituted large-scale change and gave the nation a much-needed conscience and a broader mind.

Much of this progress is due to the fact that more of us young adult Boomers pursued higher education in our youth. In the shadow of the Cold War, we realized the need for strong minds and stronger wills. The space race with the USSR fueled the dawn of space exploration, accessible long-distance travel, and the birth of the computer age. We were taught to compete or die at the hands of our enemy -- the Communists. At that time, many of our brave young men took up arms to defend our nation, and almost of us developed useful strategies to overcome oppression.

No generation before or after the Boomers has been more youth-oriented. Revolution was in the air, and we Boomers knew a new America began with cultivating better philosophies. Many Baby Boomers fought and died in Vietnam in the cause of freedom. Although they were political pawns in an unpopular war, many of the veterans returned to attend institutes of higher education. Of course, universities were also home to protesters. The cradle of maturation in a new world was the college campus. Most of us, soldiers and civilians, became activists united in the quest for peace.

The universities led an era of greater mind expansion and self-exploration -- we students, although considered by many to be rowdy upstarts, began to think for ourselves and support causes and important social issues. The events of the times -- such as racial tensions, the emergence of the Vietnam War, and inequity suffered by women -- spurred my generation to seek dramatic shifts in educational, economic and social opportunities. We learned there was strength in numbers, and we began the effective use of the 20th century tool of mass media to educate the public and to encourage change.

Our Baby Boomer Generation witnessed and participated in some of the greatest social changes in the country’s history during the 1960s and 1970s. Our protests and other means of social and political pressure brought dramatic, needed change in Civil Rights, in unpopular war, in Gender Rights, in sexual freedom, and in cronie-controlled American politics.

We Boomers grew up in an era of reform with the dream and the belief that we could change the world. Yes, many of us were idealistic with pipe dreams of rainbow solutions in a world largely playing by black-and-white rules; however, never has creativity spurred the imaginations of so many. And, never has the young American vision for peace, love, and happiness been greater.

Realizing the problems with pursuing a hippie lifestyle in an extreme counterculture, we Baby Boomers soon began to equate work and position with self-worth, and, in doing so, we found that our resourcefulness led to great success. Adaptability became key. Thanks to pressure, the actual face of the workplace began evolving from a fairly racially homogenous, paternalistic environment to one of increased racial and gender diversity.

Our generation brought great prosperity to many college-educated Americans and instilled a determined sense of competition. In want of a better future, we eventually became career-oriented and achievement-oriented individuals. Boomers had always questioned established authority systems and challenged the status quo. Therefore, in the legal workplace, we were not afraid of confrontation, and we did not hesitate to challenge established practices we deemed detrimental to our survival.

The workplace of the Boomer slowly began to reflect the rapid political and social changes of the nation. My generation coined terms such as the “glass ceiling” and the “equal opportunity workplace” and began using personality profiles to build awareness of how to get along with all co-workers.

 
So, despite all the charges of being shortsighted and unconcerned about the consequences, we Baby Boomers have accomplished many good things that will continue to have a lasting, positive impact on America. Before you all "kick us to the curb" just remember Grandpa and Grandma may not be the easily categorized "hawks" and "doves" of older days. I believe Boomers had proven their propensity to use equal parts "brawn" and "brain" to free a lot of people and to free a lot of minds.

What do you think? Here is a simple exercise to put yourself in the Baby Boomer mindset. How many songs today reflect social issues and call for change? Think about that as you read some lyrics the Boomers "know by heart."

Groovy, baby. Let's look at some popular tunes from Boomer days and see what was going through young ears those days:


The Animals "We Gotta Get Out of This Place"

In this dirty old part of the city,
Where the sun refuse to shine,
People tell me there ain't no use in tryin'.
Now my girl, you're so young and pretty,
And one thing I know is true,
You'll be dead before your time is due.
I know.

Watch my daddy in bed and tired,
Watch his hair been turnin' gray.
He's been workin' and slavin' his life away.
Oh yes, I know,
(Work) He's been workin' so hard.
(Work) I've been workin' too, baby.
(Work) Every night and day.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We gotta get out of this place,
If it's the last thing we ever do.
We gotta get out of this place,
'Cause girl, there's a better life for me and you.

Sam Cooke "A Change Is Gonna Come"

I go to the movie
And I go down town
Somebody keeps telling me don't hang around
Its been along time coming
But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will

Then I go to my brother
And I say brother help me please
But he winds up knocking me
Back down on my knees

Ohhhhhhhhh.....

There been times that I thought I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able to carry on
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will 

Barry McGuire "Eve of Destruction"

The eastern world it is explodin', violence flarin', bullets loadin'  
You're old enough to kill but not for votin'  
You don't believe in war, what's that gun you're totin'  
And even the Jordan river has bodies floatin'
 
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend 
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction

Helen Reddy "I Am Woman"

You can bend but never break me
'Cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'Cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

Alice Cooper "Eighteen" >

I got a baby's brain and an old man's heart
Took eighteen years to get this far
Don't always know what I'm talkin' about
Feels like I'm livin in the middle of doubt

Cause I'm
Eighteen
I get confused every day
Eighteen
I just don't know what to say
Eighteen
I gotta get away

Country Joe and the Fish "Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag"

Come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, and don't hesitate
To send your sons off before it's too late.
And you can be the first ones on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die. 

Byrds "I Want to Grow Up to be a Politician"

I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land
I want to grow up to be a politician
And be the old U.S. of A.'s number one man
 
I'll always be tough but I'll never be scary
I want to shoot guns or butter my bread
I'll work in the towns or conservate the prairies 
And you can believe the future's ahead

I'll give the young the right to vote as soon as they mature
But spare the rod and spoil the child to help them feel secure
And if I win election day I might give you a job
I'll sign a bill to help the poor to show I'm not a snob

I'll open my door I'm charging no admission
And you can be sure I'll give you my hand
I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land


Led Zeppelin "Black Dog"

 Hey, hey, mama, said the way you move,
Gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove.
 
Ah, ah, child, way you shake that thing,
Gonna make you burn, gonna make you sting.
 
Hey, hey, baby, when you walk that way,
Watch your honey drip, can't keep away.

All I ask for, all I pray
Steady rolling woman gonna come my way.
Need a woman gonna hold my hand
Won't tell me no lies
Make me a happy man.

Ah-ah
Ah-ahh ah-ah
Ah-ah ah-ah
Ah-ah ahhhhh

Temptations "Ball of Confusion"

Well, the only person talking about love thy brother is the preacher 
And it seems nobody's interested in learning but the teacher  
Segregation, determination, demonstration, integration  
Aggravation, humiliation, obligation to my nation
 
Ball of confusion  
Oh yeah, that's what the world is today  
Woo, hey, hey

Eve of destruction, tax deduction, city inspectors, bill collectors  
Mod clothes in demand, population out of hand, suicide, too many bills  
Hippies moving to the hills, people all over the world are shouting 'End the war' and the band played on
 
Great Googamooga!  
Can't you hear me talking to you?

It's a ball of confusion  
That's what the world is today, hey, hey

Rascals "People Got To Be Free"

If there's a man who is down and needs a helping hand 
 All it takes is you to understand and to put him through 
Seems to me, we got to solve it individually 
And I'll do unto you what you do to me

There'll be shoutin' from the mountains on out to sea 
No two ways about it, people have to be free 
Ask me my opinion, my opinion will be 
It's a natural situation for a man to be free

Oh, what a feelin's just come over me 
Enough to move a mountain, make a blind man see 
Everybody's dancin', come on, let's go see 
Peace in the valley, now they all can be free

The Beatles "The End"

Oh yeah, all right  

Are you gonna be in my dreams tonight?
Love you, love you Love you, love you  

Love you, love you

 
And in the end, the love you take 

Is equal to the love you make

Weiner Seared by Leathers

Now, let me get this right. Twenty-three year-old Sydney Elaine LEATHERS, who is PASSIONATE about politics, absolutely idealized Anthony WEINER, who is now running for New York mayor. And, just lately, WEINER admitted to engaging in lewd chats with Miss LEATHERS

Evidently the online RELATIONSHIP began "post-SCANDAL -- after WEINER resigned from Congress in June 2011 -- and went on for at least eight months and maybe as long as a year.

WEINER admitted to engaging in the LEWD chats written under his alias, CARLOS DANGER, and apologized, though calls are now pouring in for him to withdraw from the race.

An editorial posted online in the New York Times urged WEINER to WITHDRAW from the race, saying Weiner "should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City."

LEATHERS claims that she first started talking online with Weiner in July 2012 and it became INTENSE by August 2012, when he offered to find a Chicago condo where they could "MEET UP."

"We talked ALL the time," according to LEATHERS. "He even called in August, knowing I was on a train to Chicago, just to tell me about a SEX DREAM he had about me. He DID THAT KIND OF THING A LOT. He was also OBSESSED with me wearing heels lol."

LEATHERS said she and WEINER  not only had LEWD Facebook conversations but also had PHONE SEX, and they e-mailed each other NUDE PICTURES of themselves.

Reportedly, LEATHERS loved him but then she fell out of love with him because the IDEALIZED VISION which she had of him was not true. She became disgusted with him after finding out that the person who she thought she was IN LOVE with was not indeed that person.

Publicists have told LEATHERS she COULD USE all of her WEINER association as a "springboard for national attention TO RIDE ON to fame and fortune."

According to Lou Colagiovanni, a political blogger and writer who moderates a political Facebook page where LEATHERS frequently posted messages, Miss LEATHERS wrote,"I hope we make some $ out of it."

 Huma

And who is defending WEINER'S SEXTING the most in his second SEX SCANDAL? None other than his wife Huma Abedin (Yes, Abedin, evidently doesn't like WEINER?).  She has made a public transformation from being the victim of Anthony Weiner’s transgressions to a FULL PARTNER in his ambition. Abedin reaffirmed her support for her husband and said the sexting matter is "between us."

Congressman Charles RANGEL, who has been the Democratic representative for Harlem for over 40 years, followed in Trump's path in praising Abedin.

"NOBODY that I know UNDERSTANDS at all WHAT Anthony WEINER WAS THINKING ABOUT. And right now, I think you would agree that we all are concerned about his wife. She's a brave lady,' Congressman RANGEL told MSNBC.

 Leathers

Some of the SEXTING Revealed

A screenshot of LEATHER's lengthy conversations with WEINER showed more than 35 exchanges that were extremely SEXUAL in nature, and there are only a handful that are appropriate for publication.

Many of the messages are descriptions of WEINER'S SEXUAL FANTASIES, such as:

"SO I WALK INTO A HOTEL ROOM AND YOU ARE AT THE END OF THE BED. NAKED EXCEPT FOR SOME F****** SHOES. YOUR LEGS ARE ******. YOUR FEET ARE FLAT ON THE GROUND. YOU ARE LEANING FORWARD LOOKING COMPLETELY IN CHARGE"

"I LIKE TO WHISPER IN YOUR EAR WHILE I MAKE LOVE TO YOU. THAT OK?

"TAKING A SHOWER. WANNA JOIN ME?"

"STARING AT PICS OF U. PATHETIC?"

"IF I MET YOU IN A BAR AND TRIED TO TALK TO YOU, WOULD I HAVE A CHANCE?"

"YOU ARE A WALKING FANTASY"

"I AM DEEPLY FLAWED"


What a Romance, Huh?

This is the scoop as I know it. Notice that I have capitalized all the racy stuff to make it easier to consider the popular sexual references.

Let me recap:

It appears that weiner loved leather, and these fantasies, though 'deeply' flawed, included some high-heeled foot fetish strapping. Leather admits intense love for weiner at first, then flound weiner flimsy and insufficient.

All of the racy photos of weiner, phone sex with weiner, and live condo sex with weiner only convinced leather that weiner could not stand up to the intense love lashings. But leather did like the new skin game enough to make some money after doing some springboarding on the shower-loving, politically minded weiner.

And, poor wife Huma, who during all this fetishing and sexting had no idea weiner was hot for leather, later confessed she wanted to be a full partner in the escapades. She even confessed to wanting to keep leather "between us." So, I guess there's must be a few shades of grey in Abedin.

Now, after all of the weiner-leather affair, good weiner-buddy Rangel (That pronunciation rhymes with "dangle."), wants everyone to know that nobody could possibly have known what weiner was thinking (or with what brain weiner was thinking) although according to the electronic messages it appears to have a lot to do with legs, beds, high heels, bending over beds, loving leather, and chances of brushes with fantasy.

Appearing undaunted by the leather allegations, weiner appears firm. Weiner says "straight up, he still wants to run for mayor." The outcome of the rigid stance of weiner now rests in the hands of New York voters. Will it be Carlos Danger in charge or will weiner shrink from this unfortunate exposure? One thing is certain: if weiner withdraws prematurely, the bid to inseminate his fancy will fall on infertile grounds.

The Need for an American Royal Highness

 

The American hysteria over the royal family of England is fueled by never-ending media hype, and it seems people in the United States are once again gaga over all things related to the monarchy. The latest? The big news is the birth of George Alexander Louis, His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, the newborn son of Prince William and Catherine.

George is third in line, behind Charles and William, to the British throne. This means that as well as ruling the United Kingdom, George Alexander Louis could one day be king of 15 other commonwealth countries that have the British monarch as head of state if none change their constitution in the meantime. They include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belize and Jamaica.

Social media and network news are abuzz with His Royal Highness news. On one day alone -- Monday, July 22 -- there were more than 19 million Facebook interactions related to the royal baby, according to the site.

Since the American public is so hot for the royals, businesses are cashing in on the frenzy. They are offering expensive, trendsetter products to the public such as "the royal car seat," "the prince's blanket," and Catherine's "royal shawl."

Why are so many Americans obsessed with the royal family? Perhaps, they long for all the trappings of a Camelot kingdom where rich kings and queens reign as princes and princesses practice social graces and courtly romance. But, according to a report in The Independent ("The Regal Republic: Why are Americans obsessed with the Royal family?" April 25 2011), the answer is more related to Hollywood than to London...

"The obvious answer is our age's obsession with celebrity. The royals are the ultimate celebrities. They did nothing to earn it, they were born with it – which of course only makes celebrity even more potent. They are the supreme curiosity, famous because they are famous. In the giant Disneyland that Britain is for many Americans, the Royal Family is exhibit A."

And, when Americans think royalty, they still think Diana. Her own marriage in 1981, its tumultuous aftermath and then her death, transfixed them. Now the first-born son who looks so like his mother is married and having a child. Diana was never to be Queen; but in William and his son, the future kings, her destiny is to be fulfilled. This could well be the real story line.

Why Not an American Royal Family?

Why look to Britain for royalty? I propose that America should establish its own line of royalty to satisfy its aristocratic obsession. How? Although President George Washington was never actually offered the crown of America, no doubt he could have had almost anything he wanted: control of the government after the war, the right to spell out a new form of government as the commander of the army, and probably the right to lifetime leadership in some fashion in one fashion or another.

I think America should establish the Washingtons as the royal line. Imagine the pomp and circumstance of a coronation in the District of Columbia. The fanfare would be spectacular, and the event would herald a new era of tradition and jubilation. It would not only satisfy the need for royal attachment but also feed the coffers of capitalists quick to endorse the American kingly bloodline.

Here is Washington's genealogy:

How about George Washington's descendants?  Well, there is group titled the National Society of the Washington Family Descendants complete with the following membership information:

"Eligibility for membership in the Society is open to persons who can prove their lawful lineal descent from one of the following ancestors of General George Washington who lived in Colonial America between 1607 and 1732:

"Colonel John Washington, Nathaniel Pope, Nicholas Martiau, George Reade, Augustine Warner, Sr., Colonel William Ball, and Mary Johnson Ball Hewes.

"The aforesaid membership shall also be open to the lawful lineal descendants of Lawrence Washington, the brother of Colonel John Washington the immigrant."


Who Would Be King of America?

A genealogy site says it has found the descendant of George Washington's family who would have most likely held the title of "king" if the residents of the Thirteen Colonies had made George Washington king following the end of the American Revolution,

It is quite possible that Paul Emory Washington would today occupy the throne of the American empire. Paul, 87 (assuming he is still alive), of San Antonio, is the one among 8,000 possible Washington descendants that the chief family historian at Ancestry.com believes would currently hold the crown — had there been one.

"He kind of won the sweepstakes," said Megan Smolenyak, with the genealogical research group.
"George Washington had no children. He had an older half brother, Augustine, and a younger brother, Samuel. Many descendants died young or as lifelong bachelors. Other Washington descendants had only daughters," Smolenyak said.

Smolenyak ran four family lines to account for the two brothers and lines of succession with and without women inheriting the crown. She found that against improbable odds, two of the four lines led to Paul Washington.

Paul's family, which includes three sons and one daughter, are fifth-generation descendants of George's oldest brother, Samuel. But Paul would've been the ninth or tenth king of America depending on which of the lines you follow. "A guy would get the crown and then live forever, or have no children, or just have a girl and that would send the crown careening across the family tree," Smolenyak says.

What has the king been doing all his long life? Well, for 40 years, Paul Emory Washington worked for the Certain-Teed Corp., a manufacturer and distributor of wholesale building materials headquartered, appropriately enough, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where General Washington and his rag-tag army bivouacked in the difficult winter of 1778-79.

Paul's son, Bill, said his father now spends his days caring for his wife, who has Alzheimer's disease. He said his father is honored but completely unpretentious about his would-be crown.

Paul says he would just as soon not think about being king. "I doubt if I'd be a very good king," he says. "We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision."

(Kurt Soller, "The Man Who Would Be King," Newsweek, October 7 2008) 

King Paul in chair.

Let's Crown King Paul

It's never too late for a good, profitable idea. I say we honor this San Antonio family as the true American Royalty. Let's give Mr. Washington the title of His Royal Highness King Paul of Texas. And let's get on with the gala First Coronation. The move to become the Royal United States of America is potentially good for us all. It's noble; it's visionary; it's fantasy and history at its best.

Surely the country would be fixed to their televisions for the festivities and later addicted to following all the exploits of King Paul and his family. The royal Americans would also serve as stable figureheads for a government that elects a new, largely inefficient and strictly partisan president every four years. An acknowledged royal family is sure to bring stability and stature into these bleak times, not to mention being the subject of countless human interest reports.

And, just imagine the construction of a royal palace and grounds in the District of Columbia, an area already aptly named after Father George. What a beautiful tourist attraction! Every starry-eyed little princess and prince in the nation would be clamoring to take a trip to D.C. to admire the grandeur. I love Elvis, but this attraction would make Graceland, the home of the King of Rock and Roll, look like small potatoes.

I can even envision a large theme park there -- King Georgeland -- with rides, a water park, live music, and historical presentations. That facility would be sure to draw other profitable royal-themed projects, too. Pardon the pun, but there is "a king's ransom" to be had. All of this fortune is dependent on the placement of one red-white-and blue crown.

And, the sweetest part of the whole idea is that the Washington royals will not really "rule"; instead, they will just "play" their parts. Their magical, stately majesty can be orchestrated and produced by the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton, and Disney. This added rainbow of imagination is sure to charge the lately limp American imagination.

So, good readers, why not push your congress person to legislate the needed changes? It's time Americans stop their silly adoration of English royals and begin a new imperial fixation sure to preoccupy their sovereign minds. The King is dead. Long live King Paul and his kin!

Greasing the "Squeaky Wheels" of Whiners

"The squeaky wheel gets the oil." You have probably heard this popular American idiom. It is used to convey the idea that the most noticeable (or loudest) people with problems are the ones most likely to get attention. Do you believe the cliche is true? "Squeaky wheels" may, indeed, get their "oil" but not all people who speak out do so with good reasoning and good nature.

Masters of statistics N.S. Sreenivasan and V. Narayana, (Continual Improvement Process, 2008) think the idiom is a fallacy. They contend problems will not necessarily "out" themselves when people constantly complain. Furthermore, they believe a "squeaky wheel" can be detrimental to work during problem formation analysis, interpretation and action in a continual improvement process. Their research is based the following:

"This fallacy operates on the principle that (the) squeaky wheel gets the grease. If something is wrong with a conclusion it will 'squeak.' If we do not hear any complaints from the shop, one can assure that the change adopted is OK. In experimental work, this fallacy arises when decisions are based on the absence of contrary evidence rather than on the presence of supporting evidence...The cure for this fallacy lies in reaching conclusions based on the presence of positive supporting evidence rather than lack of contrary evidence."

In other words, silencing a "squeak" does not always equate to solving a problem because the "oil" may mask the real deficiency. Unless evidence proves the "oil" will effectively fix the machine, the potential for more dangerous problems persists.   

So, according to this view, the importance of "oiling" a person's demands requires positive proof that his loud vocalizations support a logical conclusion. Without good evidence to support his resonant, wagging tongue, his pleas are hollow and aimless. When others involved in the decision-making process sit quietly or offer subdued resistance and just "go along" with the breeze, they enable a "squeaky wheel" to acquire his precious "oil." The oil, at best, may offer a temporary solution.

People Should "Squeak" When "Squeaking" Helps Solve Real Problems

Psychologists agree that complaining is necessary when people find a need to express fair and legitimate dissatisfaction. Wise people use well-supported complaints with the goal of attaining a meaningful resolution or remedy.

On the other hand, people whine their dissatisfaction over trivial matters, not worthy of special attention. This whining is primarily venting, and venting stems from the wrong motivation for speaking out. As for the value of venting, Brad Bushman, Ph.D. and Iowa State University psychologist, says...

"'Expressing anger actually increases aggression,' says Bushman. He and his colleagues asked subjects to pen an essay, then inspired their ire by handing it back with a brutal critique. Next, the essay writers were asked to deliver noise bursts to either the person who'd insulted their paper or an innocent bystander. Subjects could decide how long and loud the annoying sounds would be.

"Miffed participants who hit a punching bag before administering the sounds were twice as cruel in their choice of noise length and volume as those who just sat quietly before performing the task. Furthermore, 'they were aggressive toward both types of people,' said Bushman, .and that's scary.'"

Instead of trying to simmer down, says Bushman, angry people should just turn off the heat altogether. For example, they should count to 10--or 100, if need be--and the anger will pass.

(Holly Parker, "Nonviolent Venting," Psychology Today, July 01 1999)

Besides, no one wants to be known as a chronic whiner -- a person who continually complains about every little discomfort. Yet, it may surprise to know that an average person is said to complain nearly 15-30 times a day! This leads to the belief that we are born with a large capacity to groan, growl, and grumble.

Michael Cunningham, Ph.D., a psychologist at the University of Louisville, believes that humans' taste for complaining probably evolved from our ancestors' way of crying out a warning when something threatened the tribe. "We mammals are a squealing species. We talk about things that bother us as a way of getting help or seeking a posse to mount a counterattack," says Cunningham.

(Hagar Scher, "Do You Complain Too Much? Or Not Enough? WebMD Feature 

from Good Housekeeping" Magazine)

Yes, we are all guilty of complaining and much of it is probably whining. It is possible that some of us never become aware of how abrasive whining can be. And, oh yes, it also makes bitchy people feel good to complain.

Maybe if more humans knew why they feel the need to "squeak," these folks would think before venting. Will Bowen, author of A Complaint Free World, lists five main reasons why people complain:

- To start a conversation or establish camaraderie: People use complaining as a way to inspire rapport. There is a basic desire in human beings to connect with one another.

- To avoid taking action by shirking responsibility: How often have we come across the person who comes to you and complains about a problem; and no sooner you suggest a solution to their problem, they find fault with your suggestion and complain about that too! Their grumble then is “There are too many problems and no solutions!” Which translates as “Whatever I do is not going to make a difference, so I won’t try.”

- To brag about their superiority: Examples: “I hate it when people don’t use their signal blinkers when driving!”  “People don’t drive the way I think they should.” Complaints here are cries of superiority, implying that the complainer knows better than others do. In a way, the braggers here are saying that they have high standards that are not being met by other people.

- To control others: Complaining is also used as a way to incite others to switch loyalties. Example: "Don’t listen to him. His ideas are lame." You find it in corporate life. You find it in politics. The idea is to get your listener to switch his point of view, control him and build clout by focusing on the ‘assumed’ wrongdoings of an opponent.

- To pre-excuse poor performance, behavior or inaction: Robin Kowalski of the Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University, says that many complaints are uttered for self-presentational motives. For example, complaining about the traffic as you enter the office is a way to justify your tardiness.

(Maya Vokes-Didier, "Why Do Some People Complain About Everything," http://www.helium.com/items/1726820-psychology-of-complaining-reasons-why-people-complain, January 30 2010)

Do Be a "Wheel" With a Legitimate "Squeak" But Don't Be a Painful "Squeal"

Barbara Held, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Bowdoin College, confirms that constructive complaining is an essential life skill. Her guidelines: Be up-front about your need to complain (rather than try to pretend you're just having a regular conversation), limit your "gripe" time, and don't act as though your complaints trump everyone else's. Above all, select an appropriate listener.

Above all, have good reason to believe your "squeaky wheel" is warranted and logically addresses a solution to what you perceive is wrong. Egotistical moaners and naggers care little about anything other than self pity. Complaining for the sake of complaining is the sure sign of a whiner. "Howling at the moon" or what I affectionately call "Barking up a dead dog's ass" is silly, futile behavior that befits irritating Drama Queens and Drama Kings.

Unhealthy complainers bellyache to anyone who crosses their path and seem oblivious to picking up on people's cues that they've had their fill of negativity. "Chronic complainers get stuck in victim mode, and that irritates the people around them," says Michael Cunningham, Ph.D., a psychologist at the University of Louisville.

And, these whiner types love to talk but rarely listen. "They'll take hours of your time telling you their problems-then they reject your help and don't take one piece of advice you give them," says Kowalski.

Venters are annoying at best, depressing at worst. They spread negativity and give "speaking out" a bad name. You can see them on Facebook attempting to drum up sympathy for every little personal discomfort. They are the "help me, help me, help me" people and the "look at my pitiful situation" people and the "constant squeaky wheel" people. If you choose to keep "oiling" them with the lubricant of pity, you can be assured they will drain your reserves.

Speaking of Facebook, here are some examples of what I consider comments that are major indicators of whiners:

"I am sick of all the haters. They are destroying my life."

"After you hurt me, I am completely done. I don't need aggravation in my life."

"It's already been a stressful day and it's only 9:00 A.M."

"I can't sleep. Tomorrow is going to be such a bitch."

"God help me. I just feel something is going to go wrong."

"Home alone and bored."

"Wake up in the morning only to be in a bad mood...I hate annoying people. Get it together and quit trying to be all up in 'mines.'"

"My day off and I have to do some running -- this sucks."

"I'm over my past I'm over these fake ass people. I'm over all the bullshit I've been through. Nobody ever should be trusted."

"People can deal with me. This bitch is the shit. Know it and shut up."


Youtube "Whiners" from Saturday Night Live

http://youtu.be/NiquICTxSlc

Loving the Disgusting Without Regrets

It seems to me that more and more people these days are filled with disgust when others confront them with a different point of view. For some reason so many people equate tolerance of politics, ethics, or religion with agreement. If another person does not agree with their position in its entirety, these folks care little about searching for any validity in an opposing view; instead, they find themselves thoroughly disgusted.

Why do people hold disgust for those who merely state opposition and differing opinion? I believe it is much easier for someone to denounce people and verbally attack them than to consider accepting their alternative thoughts or to tolerate their "different" ideas. By lashing out with their disgust, these one-way thinkers believe they retain superiority through belittling others and rejecting them as subhumans.

Disgust is most often used as a convenient "stand-in" for reasoning. And, unfortunately, many love to display their disgust in graphic terms with no feelings about the potentially harmful consequences.

Disgust: A Necessary Emotion But Also a Dangerous Acquisition

Disgust is the most virulent of human emotions. Born out an adaptive response to potential disease vectors such as vomit, blood, or feces, disgust is created by something totally offensive. Without it, people would subject themselves to potentially dangerous situations.

Disgust, in particular reference to insuring survival, is the result of the bodily need to avoid any toxic substances, especially rotten and poisonous foods. Thus, the emotion is most closely associated with bodily functions having to do with digestion. For this reason, something that disgusts is defined as that which excites nausea or loathing. Very simply, disgust sickens.

The brain even has sensors to recognize when the body has been contaminated, and it uses specific chemical markers to remember events that may have lead to the unpleasantness that followed. So, humans develop this primal response to harmful, disgusting things that is so strong, and so automatic, that even the most weak-minded are intelligent enough to walk the other way in avoidance.

Yet, on closer examination, disgust also appears to be a cultural acquisition: people are taught what is disgusting, when to be disgusted, and, if all goes right, how to avoid being disgusting themselves. University of Michigan law professor William Ian Miller noted in his recent book, The Anatomy of Disgust that "disgust marks the boundaries of culture and boundaries of the self."

Therein rests the danger of disgust. Often those in our various cultures dictate to us what is to be commonly disgusted. Throughout the history of warfare, every warring group has tagged their enemy with disgusting qualities that are reminiscent of disease, filth, and parasites. The imagery is overwhelming and craftily designed to trigger a rallying cry.

Those who claim to know the truth about politics, ethics, or religion can be arrogant and intolerant. These people often use disgust as an offensive "weapon" to fight battles of opinion. They view their own acquired "self" judgment, strongly reinforced by their limited experience, so superior to opposing views that they lose all respect for broad mindedness.

These self-righteous individuals view differing opinions and nonconformist speech as dangerous bullets threatening their very existence. And, then most transfer their disgust for a people's ideas or words to fear and loathing of the opposition.

Joe Brewer, founder and director of Cognitive Policy Works, an educational and research center devoted to the application of cognitive and behavioral sciences to politics, believes that to understand judgmental behaviors like these, people need to become familiar with the psychology of disgust. According to him, researchers have learned a lot about it in recent years, such as:

• Disgust – like all emotions – is biological and can be explained through the workings of the brain;
• Disgust is the physiological foundation for moral notions of purity and sacrilege;
• Disgust, once felt, creates a persistent association that is very difficult to get rid of.

(Joe Brewer, "Why You Should Care About the Psychology of Disgust," truthout, May 9 2010)

There are now a wide variety of scientific research programs dedicated to understanding the physical, biological, and evolutionary foundations of morality. Research centers include the International Institute on Cognition and Culture at the London School of Economics, the Greater Good Science Center in Berkeley, the Institute on Cognition and Culture in Belfast, just to name a few.

Distinct moral sensitivities have been found across different political groups that correspond with key social emotions. Brewer says the understandings coming out of this research are absolutely critical for cultivating a culture that is conducive to participatory democracy. This is especially true for the emotion of disgust.

 

One of the major discoveries so far is that morality is grounded in bodily experience. People literally "feel" right and wrong in their bodies. This view suggests that the emotion of disgust is strongly connected to a sense of morality. 

For example, disgust and morality work together as people perceive how to handle horrible situations like incest, cannibalism, and rape. For each of these emotionally potent topics, the strength of a person's feelings corresponds directly with our sentiments about how they should be handled in society.

As people deal with emotionally filled topics, they often feel disgust, and they believe they should also express their feelings of moral outrage. And to counteract any negative, disgusting emotions they display during their outrage, they feel they must increase their concern with a singular notion of purity -- for example, they profess "the one God-given solution" or "the one true understanding of American constitutionality."

Many who vent their disgust willingly put on the white robes of their perceived immaculate understandings, and they preach purity as accepting a singular mind. Studies suggest that there is a tight relationship between a sense of moral purity and the emotion of disgust. Violations of a sense of this moral purity lead people to feel intense emotions of disgust. And, when they experience the emotion of disgust, they also change their judgments of the moral purity of others.

Research tailored to the study of moral purity and the emotion of disgust shows that the physical experience of disgust provides the bodily foundation for the moral concept of purity. Put succinctly, when someone experiences the feeling of moral disgust – via the tainting of something they hold sacred and pure – it is produced by the same neural and chemical process that arise after biting into a moldy piece of bread or some rotten fruit. 

(E.J. Horberg, Christopher Oveis, Dacher Keltner, and Adam Cohen.   

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. December 2009)

Escalating Disgust in Nazism

For example, when Hitler and the Nazis viewed the Jews not as a religious group, but as a poisonous "race," which "lived off" the other races and weakened them. For years before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, he was obsessed with ideas about race. In his speeches and writings, Hitler spread his beliefs in racial "purity" and in the superiority of the "Germanic race"—what he called an Aryan "master race." He pronounced that his race must remain pure in order to one day take over the world. For Hitler, the ideal "Aryan" was blond, blue-eyed, and tall.

When Hitler came to power, these "principles" of racial science became the government ideology and were spread in publicly displayed posters, on the radio, in movies, in classrooms, and in newspapers. The Nazis began to put their ideology into practice with the support of German scientists who believed that the human race could be improved by limiting the reproduction of people considered "inferior."

Beginning in 1933, German physicians were allowed to perform forced sterilizations, operations making it impossible for the victims to have children. Among the targets of this public program were Roma (Gypsies), an ethnic minority numbering about 30,000 in Germany, and handicapped individuals, including the mentally ill and people born deaf and blind. Also victimized were about 500 African-German children, the offspring of German mothers and African colonial soldiers in the Allied armies that occupied the German Rhineland region after World War I.

The result of the racial disgust was the Holocaust, the genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II. This program of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany took place throughout German-occupied territory.


Disgust Is Alive and Well

The Holocaust has not extinguished mass disgust for innocent human beings. Disgust is still tied to moral judgments in society. Those judged as disgusting are often...

(1) Classified -- put into categories to distinguish people into “us and them,”
(2) Symbolized -- distinguished by names, colors, dress, and symbols such as "Niggers," "rednecks," or "rag heads," then 
(3) Dehumanized -- denied the humanity of other groups and equated with animals, vermin, insects, and diseases like "rats," "snakes," "roaches," or "cancers.
 

Dehumanization ignores the target's individuality, and it can occur in various ways:

 

* Discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), 

 

* Symbolically (e.g., imagery), or 

 

* Physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). 

Of course, since dehumanization prevents one from showing compassion towards stigmatized groups, it can even overcome the normal human revulsion against murder. Those considered "un-human" are vilified by leaders and governments. Isolated cases of extermination begin. And, with enough organization, polarization, and preparation, the disgusted individuals achieve their ultimate goal. That horrible, wicked reality, like the Holocaust, is known as genocide.

The "Gentler and Kinder" Genocide -- Killing Off Unwanted Ideas

Oh, I know what readers are saying: "For Christ's sake, I feel disgust sometimes, but I am not going to kill someone with whom I am disgusted. And, I'm certainly not going to choke the opposition with classification, symbolism, and dehumanization, you dumb ass, moronic old, spineless bastard!"

Yet, once people associate negative feelings with an idea (like "wimpy liberalism" or "Obama the Muslim" or "gun-toting conservative" or "Romney the Mormon") it is very hard to shake off their disgust. Thought and behavior based on evolutionary origins linked and adapted to survival are usually strong and long lived. Joe Brewer contends...

"Applied to politics, this phenomenon implies that once a political idea becomes a rotten apple it will remain a rotten apple. Disgust tends to stick around. This is why so much time, effort, and money is dedicated to painting the opposition with negative feelings. If a disgust response can be evoked, it will tend to stay around....

"There are two lessons to learn from this. 

"First, if you want someone to support your idea (like the notion that addressing global warming might be a sensible thing to do), don't let it get associated with disgust (such as how people feel about the elitism of scientists - be it real or imagined). 

"Second, if you want someone to oppose an idea, just riddle it with associations to the profane and impure. Do so with references to basic bodily functions and you'll be particularly effective. 

"These tactics have long been used in politics to the detriment of civil society."

Is this so? People commonly employ disgust as a social glue that binds like-thinking others together against a common threat. Once opposed to a person, policy or idea at this basic level, it becomes easier to mobilize large groups around any effort to remove the threat. In this manner, disgust is very efficient at compelling others to action. Consider how disgust is used in these situations:

* By Right to Life advocates who display bloody medical photos of aborted fetuses 

* By the promoters of Feed the Children groups who feature young people with emaciated frames whose faces are covered with flies

* By Animal Rescue groups showing films of pitifully neglected pets accompanied by heart-wrenching soundtracks

Despite the fact that disgust may lead to some good, imagine what manipulation of the emotion does for the unscrupulous. Don't political strategists and biased "news" commentators employ disgust as a primary tool to influence mass behavior? In truth, these "reporters" have become masters of manipulating the citizenry. Their skilled interpretation of "facts" is politically motivated. Where is ethics, even in the news?

I am of the opinion that too many Americans run on disgust these days. They are happy to be thoroughly disgusted with those who oppose their views. They enjoy their feelings of moral superiority. And, they revel in finding others "of the same feather" who will join them, no matter the lack of logical support for their beliefs.

I believe in argument, and I am strongly in favor of airing opposing ideas and different opinions: this is the manner in which people seek truth and understanding in a complicated society. Discussing our many viewpoints is the catalyst to making positive changes. In America, a nation of immigrants from every land, we must guard the right to speak our minds and address our grievances -- that right extends to all.

Yet, in my expression, I try to guard against being goaded into barrages of name calling and ad hominem attacks. I find tactics of disgust to be very offensive. Belittling a person by attempting to turn them into toxic refuse is unacceptable. Disagreement is fine. Dehumanization is deplorable.

To me, the answer is not to abandon the notion of truth and belief. Rather, the answer is to develop the virtues of humility and tolerance. Tolerant civil discourse, rather than shouting and insubstantial sound bites, can help us get to the truth in difficult but crucial realms of human existence.

In my mind, it is folly to expect to change an opponent's strong view. It only serves to frustrate and annoy me. I do like to offer alternative thoughts for contemplation, and I love to "plant a seed" of doubt in a person who displays a one-track mind about a subject.

But, sooner or later, I must be willing to accept the futility of further argument. In doing this, I become willing to deny my own frustration or annoyance about a belief. I put a period at the end of the matter that signals finality of development and acceptance of simple tolerance.

And, to me, in actuality, the frustrating actions or annoying ideas expressed by others may have no  end dates at all. Often, I must simply decide to accept the contrary views of friends, partners, or employers as terms of association -- things I must endure as I step onto their turf. I am expected to respect their views so as to remain cordial and social. So, even tolerance can exact a cost upon an honest individual.

My problem occurs when tolerance is not extended as genuine, mutual acceptance. Too many are willing to tolerate only when they feel superior after their browbeating of others. Their "gift" of an olive branch to the beings they have judged as inferior is then accompanied by a low murmur of "that's what I expected out of such a disgusting, nauseating creature."

Now, to me, that's disgusting.

A Voice of Experience: Patrick Crabtree on the Zimmerman Case

I believe my Facebook friend, Patrick Crabtree offers an interesting, pertinent perspective on the George Zimmerman case. In his recent Facebook post, Crabtree gives his view based on personal experience and straight talk. I sincerely believe Patrick's understanding of the complications of the death of Treyvon Martin will spark concern for bettering the role of law enforcement.

In the aftermath of the not guilty verdict, unrest and distrust in the justice system is peaking. This post is not meant to feed the flames of protesters upset with the outcome of the trial or to justify the outrage of those who are upset and calling for the “head” of George Zimmerman. The post is meant to expose flaws in the system – possibly fatal loopholes in the popular para-police philosophy.

I want to thank Patrick Crabtree for sharing his views. I believe he does so to prevent future tragedies.


The Words of Patrick Crabtree: 
THE ZIMMERMAN CASE... a New Perspective

"My take on the George Zimmerman-Treyvon Martin case is completely different than anything I’ve heard so far and I haven’t heard the media breath a word about this. Which begs the question, 'Who "murdered" Treyvon Martin?' To that, I have no answer. As to who 'killed' Treyvon Martin, my answer is *The Government*. Now how can that be? I will tell you.

"Back in the mid-1970s, I was about four years into my career as a professional law enforcement officer. By 1976, I had already worked as a state park ranger and had moved on to employment as a state game protector and I had also been commissioned by the Tuscarawas County [Ohio] Sheriff as one of his auxiliary deputies. I had achieved my college degree earlier and had already subsequently graduated from two residential police academies by that time, the latter being the Ohio Highway Patrol Academy. I point all this out to illustrate that things were changing in law enforcement. Individual officers had to be more responsible for their own actions. To prepare us for that, The Ohio Attorney General’s Office set up certain mandatory guidelines for training. In other words, the days of appointing just anyone to wear a badge were over.

"At the same time, in that era, cities and counties were beginning to feel the crunch of infrastructure maintenance costs. Also, labor unions (including the Fraternal Order of Police) were demanding higher pay for their clients: the city, county, and state employees. With budgets becoming ever tighter, some genius came up with this idea of what I have termed 'volunteer vigilantes.' In other words, 'Let’s get civilians to do cop work, the little stuff, and our paid personnel can do the important work.' The problem is, there is no such thing as 'little cop work.' These government agencies all saw such programs as great public relations boons, listing all the free man-hours that they were logging, ostensibly making the city a better place. These programs became manifest under various names: 'neighborhood watch,' 'para-police,' and so on.

"Do you think that the cops worked with these people? Hell no they didn’t, and in fact, it would have been irresponsible to do so. The law is a very complicated thing. Privacy laws are immutable, as are sunshine laws, missing children laws, domestic violence laws, and so on. You can’t drop this stuff into the hands of an untrained person and not expect disaster; however, city, county, and state bureaucrats did it anyway, pooh-poohing the consequences. I will spare you much more of this tiresome lecture by saying that it wasn’t long before the local program backfired. A 'para-policeman' in Urichsville (a very young man) killed somebody. My peers and I were not surprised in the least. At the time, he was carrying a police walkie-talkie, was wearing his uniform, and was acting upon information that he heard over the radio that was none of his official business, but it affected him personally. I have witnessed this same sort of fiasco play out elsewhere over and over as the years have gone by. George Zimmerman is a poster example.

"Jump to the next point: Who do you get when you send out a call for volunteer semi-police? 1. People who have personality disorders who want to tell other people what to do, and, 2. Those who are ineligible to become police (perhaps they have a DUI, domestic violence, or a drug abuse record) but still “wanna-be” a cop. There are some exceptions but this is mostly what you get. Most police agencies have rules telling them what NOT to do, but all these volunteers routinely go well beyond their official mandates and are rarely reprimanded for doing so… until tragedy strikes. That’s when the government drags out the old rule book and attempts to deny (usually successfully) their own responsibility in supervising such programs and shady participants.

"The government should go back to square one: staff police departments adequately and perhaps stop spending time on some of the things that eat up cop hours, such as investigating fender-benders. Who are the beneficiaries of that? Insurance companies! In any case, no one should be involved in any official street patrol at all unless they are a cop, properly trained, background investigation passed, and so on. If this were so in the instance of the Treyvon Martin death, Treyvon Martin would not *be* dead because George Zimmerman would not have been there!"

(Patrick Crabtree, "The Zimmerman Case: A New Perspective," 

July 15 2013)

 

Neighborhood Watch As It Applies To Zimmerman

The neighborhood watch system gained intense media attention after the February, 2012, fatal shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida by George Zimmerman, a self-described "neighborhood watch captain." Zimmerman claimed self defense and was charged with second-degree murder in the case.

His actions on the night of the shooting generated controversy as he left his vehicle to pursue Martin and was carrying a gun, both of which go against neighborhood watch recommendations. He was also accused by prosecutors of profiling Martin. Martin was black and Zimmerman is a mixed-race Hispanic.

In response to the Trayvon Martin case, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) began drafting a bill that would require neighborhood watch groups to be certified and limit their duties. Currently, with local police agencies setting guidelines for their neighborhood watches, groups across the U.S. vary greatly in their scope, function, the level of activity by their members, and training.

Robert McCrie, professor of security management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, disagrees with Lee's initiative. He believes that standards for neighborhood watches “are best left to the state or local community,” although he would support background checks for volunteers.


Here Is a “Background Check” of George Zimmerman

In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office. Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman's business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.

According to police records obtained by the Orlando Sentinel and other media, Zimmerman had been twice accused of either criminal misconduct or violence.

(1) July 2005, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

(2) Zimmerman had also been involved in a domestic dispute with his ex-fiancee, hair salon employee Veronica Zauzo.

Zauzo claimed Zimmerman was trolling her neighborhood to check on her. At her apartment, they spoke for about an hour when she asked him to leave. He asked for some photos and paperwork and she refused. A pushing match ensued and her dog jumped up and bit him on the cheek, Zauzo claimed. Zimmerman, in a petition filed the next day, painted her as the aggressor, wanting him to stay the night.

"She accused me of going to another woman's house or going to party," wrote Zimmerman, who said Zauzo slapped, clawed and choked him.

In their petitions, both included previous allegations of violence. In the end, an Orange County circuit judge ordered them to stay away from each other for more than a year, according to court records. No charges were filed.

His domestic troubles continued in October 2007, when Zimmerman called police to report that the tires of his Dodge Durango were slashed and he suspected his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend. The man denied the claim and told officers he was so annoyed by text-message exchanges with Zimmerman that he was mulling a restraining order. None was filed, according to Seminole County records.


 Zimmerman and a "Dream"

In Sanford, Zimmerman also began entertaining hopes of becoming a law enforcement officer. Whether Zimmerman ever actually applied to a police agency is unclear. But according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, he never applied to take the Basic Abilities Test needed to enter recruit training.

However, in December 2008, he applied for a citizens' police academy with the Seminole Sheriff's Office. In his application, Zimmerman stressed his background with the law: He wrote that his father was a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate judge and his mother worked as a deputy clerk of courts.

NPR reported he was accepted and completed the one-night-a-week, 14-hour program.
Sheriff's spokeswoman Heather Smith stressed that the program is simply an educational tool designed to engage citizens and teach them about policing.

"It's not a training academy. Participants are not issued any type of sheriff's equipment or deputization," Smith said.

(David Ovalle, “Zimmerman a 'Caring Person' Who Had Run-ins With the Law,”  

Miami Herald, March 25 2012)

In time, Zimmerman became the self-appointed protector of the streets around his home. He patrolled the Retreat at Twin Lakes development in his own car although his neighborhood watch organization was not officially registered. He had a concealed-weapon permit and had a black Kel-Tec semi-automatic handgun and a holster the night Martin died.

("In Trayvon Martin Shooting, Background of George Zimmerman Can Confound, Confuse,” Washington Post, March 23 2012)

(“Background Check! New Info Emerges On George Zimmerman, The Decider, April 26 2012)

George Zimmerman had actually been accused of aggressive in earlier complaints to the local police and the homeowner's association, according to a homeowner who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 

At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, 2012, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” the resident wrote in an email to the Huffington Post. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch captain role.

The meeting was attended by Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, the detective assigned to the investigation and an unnamed member of the city council, according to the homeowner’s association newsletter. A member of the homeowner’s association board, who asked not to be quoted by name, said she “hadn’t heard about any complaints” about Zimmerman.

In eight years, Zimmerman had called the Police Department at least 46 times with reports of various sightings on 911 and non-emergency calls to the police department in Sanford, culminating in the two fateful calls he made February 26, shortly before he confronted and then fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Over the years, Zimmerman's scores of calls to police showed he had pursued shoplifters and errant drivers with zeal, reporting pit bulls, potholes, children playing in the street, open garage doors and "suspicious" youths loitering in the street.

He had peppered his calls with jargon familiar to police. In one case, he chased a reckless driver while calling 911 -- the driver later told police he was terrified that Zimmerman was going to attack him. In another case, Zimmerman tailed a supermarket shoplifter until a police officer successfully arrested the thief.

Zimmerman Increases His Activity

Starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males. For example, on April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

On August 3, 2011, Zimmerman reported a black male who he believed was “involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood. And, on October 1, he reported two black male suspects “20-30” years old, in a white Chevrolet Impala. He told police he did “not recognize” the men or their vehicle and that he was concerned because of the recent burglaries.

("Who Is George Zimmerman and What About the Police?"

 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread822939/pg1)

The Encounter With Treyvon Martin

In court testimony, a medical examiner said Zimmerman suffered “insignificant” injuries in the fight in which he shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman, 29, has said Martin, 17, punched him in the face and repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete walkway. Despite those claims, a DNA expert with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement testified that none of Zimmerman’s DNA was found in scrapings of Martin’s fingernails or on the cuffs or other parts of the hooded sweatshirt he wore on the night he died.

There was also no trace of Martin’s DNA on Zimmerman’s gun, the expert, Anthony Gorgone, told the court. Zimmerman had said Martin tried to grab the 9mm Kel-Tec semi-automatic before he shot him at point-blank range.

Dr. Laurence Miller, a Palm Beach County clinical psychologist who works with local police agencies, said he believes Zimmerman likely was acting out the "whole TV cop role in his head" when he confronted Trayvon.

"A lot of people like the power and control that law enforcement officers have but with that comes a tremendous amount of responsibility," Miller said, pointing out that a police officer is the only profession that can use "coercive physical force" or lethal force to subdue a suspected criminal.
"People act like cowboys and like the power, but not the responsibility."


My Take

I believe law enforcement agencies minimally support or encourage neighborhood watch efforts because they fear wanna-be cops, vigilantes, and possible bigots and racists. This, to me, is justifiable considering the Wild West self-defense mentality of so many Americans. Couple this deadly force belief with “stand your ground” laws and untrained, so-called protectors with guns and the potential for danger dramatically increases.

What happens in a worst case scenario? As Patrick Crabtree says, “when tragedy strikes the government drags out the old rule book and attempts to deny (usually successfully) their own responsibility in supervising such programs and shady participants.” I agree.

Perhaps, enforcement is in somewhat of a “lose-lose” situation in promoting neighborhood watch as an important part of fighting crime. We know the importance of citizen vigilance, responsibility, and limited action. But, we also know some do fall on the “trigger happy” side of justice, take this idea too far and become over-offensive in their behaviors.

Who can really deny the logic in Crabtree's view? From his experience, he cautions: “In any case, no one should be involved in any official street patrol at all unless they are a cop, properly trained, background investigation passed, and so on.” If we do not follow this timely advice, we will surely witness many more senseless tragedies.

Untrained guardians patrolling neighborhoods backed by guns and laws that OK their right to wave these weapons and pursue minimally invasive suspects = trouble for the public and trouble for the police who are meticulously trained to handle criminal activity.