>I do not think we are in disagreement about that.
>Beating up people into submission by the scare tactic
>of the 'war on terror' amounts in my mind to treason
>bordering on a coup d'etat, but it is a totally
>separate subject. What I am objecting to is the
>knee-jerk reaction against anything that the state
>and its functionaries do - which is one of th emost
>annoying features of the US political discourse, both
>on the left and on the right. In fact, I am amazed
>how much the lefties and the righties speak the same
>language in this regard.
I don't think I was engaging in that, and I'm not sure anyone else here was in this instance. What I was reacting to was the following;
1. the man killed was mentally ill and his spouse was trying to make that known. 2. security forces are generally poorly trained and equipped to deal with mentally ill people in any kind of context, let alone one like this. The usual result of these encounters is that person or more, wind up dead. 3. In my experience airport security, despite 9/11 being invoked to justify every kind of state sanctioned criminality, is being provided by poorly trained and equipped people, and in the mind of many people making air travel no safer than before 9/11. 4. it nows seems that the claim he said he had a bomb is, at least, subject to dispute, based on what eyewitnesses are now saying.
>One of the things that I really like about Hrvey's new
>book on history of neo-liberalism it that it connects
>the leberal/lefty anti-government individulaism to the
>success of the neo-liberal revolution. Harvey goes as
>far as saying that such attitudes was one of the key
>elements in selling and legitimizing the neoliberal
>ideology. I think the man is right on target.
>
>With that in mind, I hope you can see why I react the
>way I do to the anti-government rants posted to this
>forum.
I haven't read the book in question, and I do understand what you're saying, but I saw nothing reflexive in what I and others have been saying. It fits in a continuum of behaviors in a capitalist security state.
I'm sorry if you don't see the connection between a film made by cops that mocks marginalized people and a mentally ill man being shot in what now are questionable circumstances. I see a very clear fit. BTW, in this case and the London case I give the benefit of doubt to the security forces; I wouldn't do that job and I have known people who do. But time and again the behaviors and questions I commented on come out, hence my cynicism.
>As far as your story about your problems with the
>airport security - I know what you mean. I've lost a
>few totally harmless items, laser pointers,
>flashlights, nail clippers etc. and on one occassion
>I was made to miss my connnecting flight (albeit it
>was provoked by calling them nazis). But try to look
>at this from the other side - these people are not
>some kinds of monsters but they ar emerely trying to
>do their jobs in very difficult and potentially
>confrontational environment. And given that
>situation, my impression is that they handle it much
>better than other types workers, say bus drivers or
>supermarket cashiers.
I don't view them as monsters, as you say they are dong a difficult job in a potentially dangerous context; unfortunately they seem to be ill prepared, trained, and in many case unable to effectively communicate, leaving them even more vulnerable. I see them as people doing a job not a whole of people want to do with inadequate preparation and an understanding that when the shit comes down, it will land on them. Like most wage workers.
>So one way someone with pro-worker leaninng might
>approach the situation is to think achead and avoid
>potentially confrontatioal situations, thus making the
>job of these workers easier. Before I travel, I go
>through all items in my bags and look if they may
>potentially cause problems and if I really need them.
>If not, I simply leave them home, if I do need them
>(like laser pointers) I simply screw them apart and
>put them in my check in luggage. You can do the same
>thing with your manual cameras - take out all the
>film, lenses, filters etc. before you leave for the
>airport and open the damn thing and wind and release
>the shutter so they see it moving, if they ask you to
>"turn it on."
I actually do that, if feasible, but doing all that isn't possible all the time. I don't want to make their job any more difficult than it already is, but I also believe that I'm entitled to a modicum of understanding on their part on what they're doing; I'm not the only one travelling with such equipment, I've heard similar stories from others.
>BTW, if that guy was indeed diagnosed bipolar, I take
>exception to your charcacterisation
>
> > This man would likely have trouble telling you who
> > he was, let alone
> > understanding something like implicit consent. You
>
>
>People with bipolar are usually highly intelligent and
>motivated individuals, including some of the most
>famous like Lincoln, VanGogh, Virginia Woolf or Sylvia
>Plath. They usually know exactly what they are doing
>- it is just that their condition impairs their
>judgment. In the manic phase they may be working like
>mad (which is seen as a sign of creativity), or go on
>a shopping spree (which is seen as irresponsible) or
>engage in promiscuous sexual relations (which is seen
>as good by those relations, but bad by most others),
>or do some other creative, foolish or outrageous
>things. In the depressive phase, the crash landing is
>terrible to the point that people off themselves (cf.
>VanGogh, Wolf, and Plath). So if the guy killed at
>the Miami Airport was indeed bipolar, it would not at
>all suprise me if this was a form of suicide by air
>marshalls. This is, of course, but pure speculation -
>all I am arguing here is that bipolar people are not
>zombies not knowing what they are doing.
The disadvantages of writing late at night, what I meant was he probably was unable to communicate clearly, to the extent that identifying himself and what he thought he was doing and responding to the commands of the Marshalls to their satisfaction was probably impossible. I have no doubt he thought he knew exactly what he was doing, but how well he could communicate that, or how his behaviors meshed with the expectations of the Marshalls was the source of the problem. That's my concern with the Marshalls and other security personnel, their ability to deal with people who don't respond 'as expected' or are irrational because they can't process information properly, versus those who do that because they are truly threatening.
I'm familiar with bi-polar, I have a good friend who has been bi-polar since we were in high school, unfortunately he wasn't diagnosed until he was almost 40 at which point we all went 'Ah-ha!', much of his behaviors then made sense.
PC
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo