Reaganomics

An unmitigated disaster.

The Boston Lock-Down

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, law enforcement officials appealed to the public for possible leads on the perpetrators. The information produced through this cooperation led to the identification of two suspects (a pair of brothers). For unknown reasons, the suspects, instead of attempting to elude the police, chose to undertake a brazen crime spree involving a car-jacking, the fatal shooting of a campus police officer, and the robbery of a Seven-Eleven store. The suspects' whereabouts now exposed, the police pursued them; a gun battle ensued that resulted in the death of one suspect. As of this writing, another suspect remains at large. He is believed to be 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and is presumed armed and dangerous.

According to the web-site Neighborhood Scout (a source of information for buyers and sellers of real estate), the city of Boston, Mass., has a population of 625,087. Annually, that population experiences 5,528 violent crimes (8.84 violent crimes per 1000 residents; the national median is 3.9)--making the city safer than only 15% of all American cities. In other words, Bostonians are no strangers to violent criminal activity. Each year, the residents of Boston have a 1 in 113 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. On average, 15 violent crimes are committed in Boston on each day of each year. Despite the danger, Boston law enforcement authorities do not lock-down the city.

When Boston's women were terrorized over a two year period (from 1962-1964) by the so-called "Boston Strangler," Boston law enforcement authorities did not lock-down the city.

In August 2007, Michelle Obama spoke to supporters in rural Iowa about her husband's decision to run for President. Among the reasons that she gave for why she approved that decision was "...I am tired of being afraid. I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we have made over the last ten years wasn't for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us, fear one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear, and I don't want my girls to live in a country, in a world, based on fear" (quoted in Barry Glassner, The Culture of Fear, 2nd edition (2009), 244).

The Obamas have been in the White House for the past six years and Americans are as frightened as ever--not of the every day violence that makes Boston more dangerous than 85% of all U.S. cities, but of the rare and extraordinary violence that can be perpetrated by individuals who are "different from us."

Lock-downs in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"--something about that just doesn't seem right. Where is Barack Obama's leadership on this vital issue of fear? Where is Michelle Obama's leadership on this vital issue of fear?

Am I suggesting that Mr. Tsarnaev should be allowed to roam free? Of course not. None of the perpetrators of Boston's 5,528 annual crimes of violence should be permitted to roam free. The Boston Strangler should not have been permitted to roam free. Crimes should be reported and investigated; criminals should be apprehended and made to stand trial.

What troubles me about the Boston lock-down is the message that it sends to the world: the citizens of that great American city--a founding city of the American revolution--have, out of fear of the rare and extraordinary, permitted their government to close the city while a search goes on for a 19 year-old fugitive from justice.

We like to say that we (Americans) won't give in to terror. In light of the Boston lock-down, why should anyone believe what we say?

Who's Ready For Democracy?

Perhaps the bearer of this sign (in the Iraqi town of Falluja) is giving the press in the U.S. a generous benefit of the doubt: he appears to be suggesting that those in the media who persist in reporting that the violence which continues to plague that country are mistaken in their assertion that religious sectarianism divides the Iraqi people--mistaken, instead of willfully distorting the facts to serve the political ends of the military-industrial complex in our country.

I tend to think that the persistent distortions of our mainstream news media are intentional. Once again, we blame the victims--especially those who would free themselves from our imperialist yoke. Our talking heads opine: "The Iraqis just aren't ready for democracy" (blah, blah, blah).

The Iraqis are more than ready for democracy and they are tired of our refusal to grant it to them--a refusal enforced by the puppet government the U.S. military installed in Baghdad and armed to the teeth to defend itself.

The Iraqis are more than ready for democracy. The real question that the American public needs to ask is: are we?