Boston Police Sergeant Sean Murphy Should Be Reprimanded – It’s Not OK To Level The Playing Field

Oh my God. Most Americans. So extreme. So short-sighted. So stupid.

Alright, that’s not fair. I’m basing my stereotype on the shit people write in the comments section of an article. But for real, what’s wrong with people?

They don’t want a police officer reprimanded for breaking one of their internal policies? Do they understand what policies are for? Do they want policies broken “because it was OK this time” when their family member is in jail? Do they want policies disregarded when it’s their child’s case? Do they want little policies thrown out now, and then in five years, those policies forgotten, it’s not such a big deal to break bigger policies?

Plus, in my opinion I think proved nothing.

Continue reading

In A World Of Extremes – Are People All Good Or All Bad?

In an upper-level psychology class I took AFTER getting both my undergrad and graduate degree in business, I learned when a person sees other people as all good or all bad, it’s a type of psychological disorder. Seeing any situation as black or white, and ignoring the gray, isn’t healthy. For the record, and to go off on a tangent before even starting this post, I think everyone should take far more psychology classes. Endlessly interesting and educational, assuming you want to learn and grow from it. As a person who tried to get into management, then decided I wasn’t ready, my biggest weakness was understanding others’ motivations (or lack thereof). So my intention wasn’t to understand myself so much as to understand others.

Anyway, in that class, there was a discussion of people seeing others as all good or all bad, and failing to see the gray area. This is an issue because it’s rarely ever true. There aren’t generally people who always do the right thing, or never slip up morally or emotionally or physically or whatever. For example, I think my parents are genuinely good people. They set a standard for doing the right thing because it’s the right thing. That said, they’ve both said mean things to me. My mom especially. Things that seem mean spirited and don’t have any purpose. Things that probably hurt a lot because it’s so rare. And I think my brain has a hard time wrapping around that they aren’t all good. But I remind myself of that, and feel like that helps me be less critical or harsh.

The same thing can be said for people who do bad things. Really bad things. For example, serial killers. BTK specifically. He was obviously a bad person. He killed people across decades, and was able to cover it up. He had a psyche he hid from his family and friends. So, was he a bad person? Yes. Was he all bad? I’m not sure. I’m not sure how you know. It sounds like he was a good father and husband, even being a stickler for details. I know lots of fathers and husbands who are very anal. And I think they’re good people. So was he motivated to be that person on the exterior to cover up the evil? Or was there actually good and evil in him? Was at one point he an all good person, and he devolved into these evil characteristics? Were there layers? How do you know? When someone like this is arrested, they’re vilified, and it seems we never get a real understanding of the person. He volunteered at his church. Was that all a cover-up? Or was he trying to make up for the bad things he had done by going above the standards for a general parishioner? I don’t know that we’ll ever know. But it’s popular to turn these people in to all bad. To take away any redeeming qualities. And maybe they have none. I’m not sure. I’m just trying to explore that from the perspective this teacher gave.

And specifically when talking about Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. We want to believe they’re all evil. We don’t want to see any human or sensitive qualities. We don’t want to make excuses for them because we fear those excuses will be used for future bombers and terrorists. But should we understand? Or try to understand? Why are we so scared? Are we scared of passing off blame? Because despite understanding, I feel these two are 100% accountable for their actions. They’re adults. And while Dzhokhar probably doesn’t have a fully developed brain, he didn’t act in a moment of impulse. He acted in a methodical, thought-out, slowly progressing manner. He’s responsible for his actions, and no precursor makes it OK to kill strangers.

But I do want to explore and understand. I do want to have some perspective of how this all started. I do want to consider not only what led up to, but what warning signs there were, if any. What could be done, if anything. Maybe nothing. There will never be a way to rid the world totally of evil. I realize and respect that. But you take someone like the Tsarnaev brothers and wonder if it could have gone another way.

This is why I was interested in the Rolling Stone article.

I don’t think Dzhokhar is glamorized. I don’t think he’s raised to rock star status, whatever that means. Hell, I don’t even know why there is such a thing as “rock star status.” Maybe Americans should consider why it’s OK to idolize rock stars or movie stars or sports stars at all. No, seriously. These are just regular people. Also shades of gray as far as good and bad goes. Many are indulge in lives of drugs and alcohol, or cheating, or deception or scandal. They’re no better than the guy in the cubicle next to you, aside from an artistic or performance talent. Maybe the guy next to you has a different talent. One that popular culture doesn’t garner the same media attention, or the same over-inflated paycheck. But I bet he’s a good dude. Smart, motivated, interesting. Or maybe he’s as boring as he seems. I don’t know who you sit next to. But I sit among some smart people with a variety of talents. Some smarter than I could be, even if I stopped writing drivel and started trying to be smarter. And I don’t idolize them. But I also don’t idolize fame. Or even money. I’d like to have money so I can get out of the corporate world hamster wheel, but that’s all. And what would I do then? Who knows. But working is a part of life, so I do it. What did I take away from the Rolling Stone article?

  1. First and foremost, it saddens me that Tamerlan came to his mother, the person who should always protect him, with fears of a second person inside him. Instead of seeking medical help, she pushed him toward religion. And when that became obsessive, she didn’t step in. She encouraged it. At fault here, if blame falls anyone aside from the brothers, is the mother. It’s harsh, but as a parent you take on certain responsibilities. She failed. And I hate to think how this would have turned out with proper concern and care.
  2. Second, the article lays out a life where the brother was worshiped. A life where the family was disconnected in seeking happiness or fulfillment for any of the children. A life where daughters were sold off in arranged marriages when they started doing things that weren’t acceptable. As a woman, I am sickened that this happened (luckily both daughters got out of those marriages, unfortunately, it resulted in severing ties with the family). So the structure of the family wasn’t traditional. A lot of pressure was put on Tamerlan, as well as a lot of probably unsought pressure through hero-worship. Do people like to be looked up to? Sure, but I know I’d prefer to be me. Not me as a role model. Again, this fault falls on the parents.
  3. Third, Dzhokhar was left seemingly alone to figure out some of the most complicated parts of life. When he should have been developing friendships and had the guidance of his family, he was at a college he didn’t love and wasn’t challenged by. When you’re the smartest guy in the room, it’s tough. I’m not saying he was smarter than everyone, but he definitely wasn’t challenged. And he was looking for somewhere to fit in in the world. Cue his brother, who is obviously suffering from a mental disorder.

The article didn’t state specifically when Tamerlan’s worry about another person inside him started. So it’s hard to tie how that might relate to Dzhokhar. Many mental diseases are genetic, and often time these things show up in young men in their late teens and early twenties. Maybe Dzhokhar had some of the same issues, and he went to his brother, who helped him the same way he was helped.

Maybe not.

Maybe Dzhokhar simply was involved in the same her0-worship discussed above, and put his brother’s opinions above logic.

Maybe not.

Maybe Dzhokhar was just a bored, entitled kid who was looking for something selfish to do.

Maybe not.

I don’t get religious extremism. And I’m talking any religion. I don’t understand throwing logic and empathy out the window with the purpose of seeing only one way. And often that way is jaded and foggy and, well, wrong. But even through the murk, that’s all these people see. And it comes from worship. Many people believe religious worship is the only kind of worship that’s OK. And in America, where worship of all kinds of shades of gray people are worshiped, I suppose it should be OK. But much like how we need to see that sports stars aren’t infallible, we need to see religion isn’t always perfectly right. And extreme religion is a way of helping people belong, giving them a purpose and allowing them not to think. In a time when Dzhokhar was claiming to want to think, he was allowing someone else to think for him. In a time he felt alone, he was making companionship out of manipulators. This isn’t unlike any other religion or group of extremists. But it’s still sad.

Was there good inside Dzhokhar or Tamerlan? I bet there was. Was there any left in their darkest moments, it’s hard to see it. But after all of the darkness is washed away, is there any good left? I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to understand. For someone who was good at one point, is it all lost and gone forever? Is it all drown out by anger and hate? Or does that good still dwell inside? And does it ever swell up again? I have to hope so. Because Dzhokhar is young. And even though his life will probably be spent in prison, I hope he finds peace. And I hope the prison system has some way to help him deal with any mental disease he has, assuming he has one.

And we keep getting richer but we can’t get our picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!

I think, as usual, Americans are over-sensitive, and over-reacting to the media. I’ve been watching a lot of West Wing lately, and have determined that media, no matter how profit-driven or egotistical, is one of the greatest things about America. The media is allowed, and encouraged, to uncover, expose, tear apart and report on anything they’d like. If the media gets a hold of a scandal, they’ll do the right thing – write about it. This is the reason I wanted to go into journalism in high school. (Ultimately, I was talked out of it by a guidance counselor who said there’s not much money, a lot of hours, and a lot of grinding to maybe never get where you want to be.)

That said, I have absolutely no problem with Rolling Stone putting Dzhokar Tsarnaev on their cover. And writing about him. Who he was, what parts he hid, when he started to change (if he did), and what family and friends knew and/or ignored. Ultimately, I find this stuff fascinating. As much as I get angry with people in general (mostly for being lazy, stupid and incapable), I have never desired to blow anyone up. So it intrigues me what pushes someone to do such a thing. And during the stages of planning and carrying out, how do they act? Are there signs? Are there things we can learn? And above all, I find it fascinating that it’s generally young men. Are there take aways for parents of young boys? Are there things to be aware of? The hard part is, these changes seem to happen just as these boys are moving into college, and away from home. For awhile I thought maybe it was the freedom that allowed them to do these things. But the more I read, it sounds like it’s not necessarily the freedom. But maybe an age range where mental disorders are triggered, despite the social circumstance. For example, what about the person who never left home? I believe the kid who shot that congresswoman, didn’t he live at home? And in this case, Tsarnev had been on his own far longer than most young people, so why did he suddenly turn a corner during his college years?

There is so much to learn about the human brain. Rather than being scared of it, embrace it, approach it, understand it, be sensitive to it, be aware of it. Mental diseases aren’t going anywhere. And, much like body shaming, the more you shame mental diseases, the more people are ashamed of them and try to hide them or hide from them.

I feel like the public has earned the right to understand. I feel like once a person commits one of these acts, they owe the state their mind. And the results that come from discussions with doctors should be public knowledge. Scientists should be able to do brain scans, pull microbiome from the gut, and observe those who commit these acts. If, ultimately, they’re found not guilty by reason of insanity, part of that discernment should be more public awareness and data on these diseases.

Does this mean it excuses Tsarnev or Loughner or Holmes. But I can’t help trying to read everything I can to understand more. It is so strange to me that others are so blind with outrage that they don’t want to understand. Anger isn’t going to stop this from happening. Only knowledge, understanding and prevention will. And even in that case, there will never be a world free of seemingly meaningless violence.

Beyond that, I think it’s important for people in general to realize the way someone looks doesn’t depict who they are. I follow local murder, rape, domestic violence court cases when I can. And I’m always appalled that people look at someone and say, “No way he did that. He looks so nice. He’s so good looking!” We need to help each other see that a person isn’t defined by what they look like. This reaches far beyond violence (into things like choosing a partner, hiring people, determining ability, etc.). But for the moment, focusing just on violent crimes, I think it’s important to address. You look at Tsarnev, and he’s good looking up until he becomes violent. Hell, even now people probably think he is. Same thing for Scott Peterson, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson. Sometimes putting a face with a crime is important. People need to find a way to close the disconnect with stereotypes (which are simply shortcuts the brain takes). Our stereotype says good looking people are nice, more capable, more motivated, more trustworthy. This isn’t the case. And for that reason, I don’t have a problem with Rolling Stone, or any other media outlet, putting a face with these offenders. Especially when society in general looks at them and says, “Look at him. No way he did that. The government must be behind this.”

tumblr_lfwuuxZP6E1qgb85ao1_400Charles Manson Rolling Stone Cover – 1970

164224_10151725869739539_1435805511_nDzhokar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover – 2013

Edited 7/19: I didn’t realize the whole article was posted online. I assumed RS would keep the article to only those who bought the magazine. Hell yes! Anyway, read the article here, then form an opinion. Don’t base your reaction on a picture alone. Use your brain to decide whether you think the magazine is glamorizing mass-murder or terrorism.

Paula Deen Controversy – Who Cares?

Not that anyone cares, but here’s my simple take on Paula Deen. The Food Network thought she was played out. Partially, probably, because the diabetes scandal had exposed her and drawn ridicule. And partially because, well, that’s what happens in Hollywood and, I guess, America. Stars have a run, but eventually it gets old. Food Network took the opportunity when it arose, and used it as an excuse to dump Paula. I don’t necessarily disagree with this. It’s business. Paula should have said, “I respect that my time at Food Network has lapsed. I apologize for my misconstrued and disrespectful views in the past, and assure you those are not my views now.” And moved on. She has a bajillion dollars. Why does she care what the American public thinks?

But, alas, her reaction and the public’s over-reaction, making it political, as usual, has turned bad into worse. Corporations with Paula Deen lines of products are dumping her publicly. Whereas if she’d kept her composure, sure those endorsements would have dropped, eventually, assuming the demand for her products naturally dropped. But this is a mess.

I grew up in the Midwest with inarguably racist people. But as a child, I have had my share of racial slurs (for many races). Much like it used to be cool to say, “That’s so gay.” You don’t realize it’s hurtful, or if you do, it’s “cool.” As sad as that is. I realized the error of my ways for racism stuff in middle school (decidedly too late), but honestly didn’t stop saying some of the homophobic stuff until later in high school. In that case, I was saying, “That’s so gay” and probably not realizing what I was saying.

Deen is in her 60s or 70s, though. So to imagine her using these racial slurs in her 30s or 40s is a little out of character. Especially since 30 years ago was the 80s. It’s not like it was the 40s or 50s. I realize the south is a different world, but I think that’s why it’s shocking. Deen was well into adulthood, and past the equal rights movements and into the 80s. She should have been doing coke like everyone else.

So, long story short, I think Food Network used this old story to do what they already planned to do. It was convenient. Deen handled it badly (30 years ago and now). And, honestly, what’s the big deal? Deen should take her deep pockets and slink off into the thick air that is the south in the summertime. It’s not like we don’t know what butter is without her. Or don’t know how to google the types of foods she cooks. We can go on without her show, without her pots and pans, and without her drawl. No one was persecuted. And it’s a lot bigger deal than it ever should have been.

Am I right, y’all? 

Texas Wing: The Davis Filibuster

Without taking a side on the issue, I wanted to react to the Texas filibuster last night. First, let me give credit to West Wing for even having a hint of interest in a filibuster. I’d heard the word before, but never knew what it was until I watched the “The Stackhouse Filibuster” episode on season two of West Wing. The show explained what a filibuster was, and played out the story leading to the senator’s decision. In the case on West Wing, the senator didn’t have to stay on topic. And his goal was to delay voting on a bill so he could get an appropriation added (or however you say that). So his goal was to delay long enough that they’d miss the news cycle. Josh said they wanted to hurry up and pass the bill without delay or making it more complex. So, his goal was to delay so they’d consider adding funds to research autism. His goal wasn’t to get the whole thing ignored.

Last night, the democrats (in general) were trying to delay until the end of the session at midnight. The filibuster started around 11AM. I believe one senator, Wendy Davis, talked for the majority of the time (11 hours). Unlike the filibuster on West Wing, where he talked about nothing (for example, he read recipes and parts of books), it appeared Davis had to stay on topic. I tried to read some and it sounds like national versus state filibuster rules are different. It’s also possible filibuster rules have changed since the West Wing episode. Or the West Wing episode wasn’t accurate. My guess it’s the state versus national thing. Anyway, Davis was stopped after eleven hours for not staying on topic.

This is where I learned the word germaneness. Yes, that’s a word. And apparently it’s written in the rules somewhere. I missed the original dropping of this word, so I’m not sure if it was defined to the senators, but I’ve never heard such harsh abuse of a word outside of the word “literally.” I’m not even sure some of the senators were using the word in context. Because, you see, the thing about a filibuster is, it’s just a stall tactic. And it’s boring and annoying. You can feel your life ticking away. You see people in the background holding their heads in annoyance and frustration. You see the “president” fake banging his gavel. You see all kinds of nonsense adults probably shouldn’t be involved in. And you have to wonder, is this what the government intended with a filibuster? Because, it’s dumb.

Listening to grown adults talk very slowly, in circles. I suppose end-of-semester presentations prepared these senators well because that’s the last time I’ve seen such obvious stall tactics for time. Sentences that ramble on, and as the person goes off topic saying, “Stay with me.” It’s hard to stay with anyone who’s speaking in one slow, run-on sentence.

On the other hand, as the clock ticked to midnight and it was apparent the president wanted to push the vote through (but the woman in white who knew all of the rules seemed to be on the other side), it really was exciting. What was going to happen? Could the democrats come up with more crap to talk about?

In the end, a woman senator, whose name I don’t know, said something to the effect of what does a woman senator have to do to get the attention of a male president. On my clock, this was around 11:48PM. This elicited a small amount of clapping that ruptured into applause. I am a little unclear on who was in the room, if it was just senators or if it was citizens. I saw pictures of people standing in line to get in the room, so I have to suspect there were more than senators in the room, based on the applause. The “president” first seemed to bang the gavel in a fake way. Then he actually banged it. Then he got annoyed and at times could be heard saying something to the effect of he was trying to bring the room to order. The secretary was asked to take roll, but that was impossible over the cheers. This went on for a few minutes before it was apparent the democrats weren’t going to yield until after midnight. At one point, the “president” throws his arms up in exasperation and leaves the stage. As midnight draws near (and according to my clock passes), the secretary starts to call roll again. I’m unsure how she could even hear votes. Ultimately, time had elapsed, and the vote was too late.

So, here’s what I don’t get: what’s to stop senators from merely screaming when they don’t want to vote on a bill that won’t go their way? I can understand that you can’t limit the time a person talks about stuff relevant to a bill, because that could, long-term, cause a bill to not be discussed as it should be. But, the screaming? I saw a tweet saying those who scream or otherwise cause the session to be out of order can be jailed for up to forty-eight hours. It was clear there was no way to arrest all of those causing this ruckus in time to meet the midnight deadline. So, ultimately, the filibuster, which had been broken, was carried out by a mob of non-rule-abiding citizens.

I don’t necessarily have a stake in anything that happens in Texas, so I’m not speaking to this bill specifically, but I’m speaking to filibusters in general. Is what happened OK? It seems like something that would happen on Mean Girls (in a high school) and not with elected officials. I cannot believe it’s this hard to make laws. And in a state controlled by republicans, you have to expect the republicans are going to make the rules. Just like states controlled by democrats will be, well, controlled by democrats. If the citizens of Texas don’t like it, don’t elect republican officials. But, the state of Texas elected these officials, so shouldn’t they be allowed to vote on the bill? It’s so weird to me.

Look, I used to flip game boards over when it was clear I was going to lose. But I was like 10 years old. As I’ve grown up, I realize you can’t win everything. For democrats, does it suck to take a step back in time? Sure. For other bills that are going to pass, do those suck for those senators? Yes. But the thing is, this is how a democracy works, right? If you’re going to filibuster a bill, then do it the right way. If this becomes the way things are done, I feel like the government is only going to get more chaotic and even less able to come to amicable agreements. You can’t get everything you want all the time. And in a government where you buy or bribe votes, everything’s already screwed up, anyway. But if the elected officials are going to vote for or against a bill that the minority is pissed about, find a way to talk sense. Or find a way to elect the right officials into office.

You can’t just scream and flip the game board over. That’s not progress. That’s regression. 

Who Needs The Right Fiance When You Have The Right Ring?

I don’t know why I preface my blogs with caveats, because I can never hit all of the, “but what if…” scenarios. In this case, I’m speaking specifically of one event, with one person, and the situation she’s in, and the irony.

I say this because while I’m speaking of one person, I know this CAN BE a phenomenon. And it’s maddening.

That said, let’s do this!

I have a friend who somewhat recently found out her boyfriend was cheating on her. With multiple girls, across multiple occurrences. His excuse? She was being a bitch during that time and he needed someone who wasn’t. So he stuck his dobber in a bunch of randos.

Can we pause to say how disgusting this is, people? I mean, really. One in three people has some type of STD/STI. And many cheaters (and closeted gay men) don’t use condoms because having/using a condom is often a sign of premeditation. If it’s all “in the moment” then it’s not as guilt-causing. And if it’s all in the moment, then who has a condom? This is spontaneity, people! But, I digress.

Continue reading

You’re The Victim You’ve Set Yourself Up To Be – Take Control Of Your LIfe And Stop Whining!

As much as I wish we could all live in the moment spontaneously and not worry about the future, that’s not really the best way to live life unless you’re a hot hippie in the 60s, willing to have lots of unprotected sex with strangers for drugs. Because in your spontaneous moment, that’s all that matters: free love and getting high.

I’d like to clarify a lot of things because my honest posts sometimes get met with defensiveness. This article doesn’t mean I think you can’t:

  1. Live in the moment for a night, or a weekend, or vacation. You don’t need to be constantly worrying about the future. Just glance that way occasionally.
  2. People who truly aren’t concerned about the future. These people exist. As long as you aren’t simultaneously a victim, go for it, dude. You’ll likely live a lot longer than me (but you’ll probably be working the whole time, and you don’t seem to care – I think you’re crazy).

The people I’m talking to are the self-made victims. The crybabies. Those who want something for nothing. Those who think only of themselves. Those who want everything but don’t want to work hard to get it. Those who don’t understand why they’re never prepared for anything, and think those who are are just lucky or were also given everything they have.

Here’s the thing: Americans want everything, but most don’t want to work for it. Everyone thinks they’re owed something. And those who do the least amount of work want the most. Very few people plan ahead, and most think when they realize something’s there they need, even if they haven’t prepared for it, everyone else that HAS prepared should get out of their way because, “I want it now!”

Continue reading