TRUTH VS. FICTION

by Michael Gaddy, ©2015

(Oct. 29, 2015) — “The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” ~ Gustave Le Bon

Yes, I know—two days in a row in a vain but determined attempt to destroy the illusions of the masses.

Yesterday, in my musings, I mentioned the 24-hour spin cycle we refer to as the news has taken the form of a continuously-running soap opera designed to play on the emotions of those who watch and listen and to subvert any attempt at intellectual examination of the machinations of government and its employees. Yesterday and today are no exceptions. I wish to address three of those renderings.

Last evening on CBS News, the pasty-white, self-deprecating, appropriately contrite Scott Pelley was interviewing a black historian from the Smithsonian Institute about some recently-discovered artifacts relating to the slave trade in Mozambique. During this interview, Pelley asked the black historian the following question: “What does a black man see here that I don’t?” The historian, one Lonnie Bunch, responded with this statement:

“A combination of unbelievable pain, a sense of anger, but also an amazing sense of optimism—that people who shuffled down this ramp, those that were able to survive, built the Americas.”

Please note that Mr. Bunch did not use the phrase “help built(d) the Americas,” but his choice of words insinuated the black race alone was responsible for building both North and South America. Of course this statement went unchallenged by Pelley. I understand the entire interview will be aired this Sunday night on “60 Minutes.” I’m afraid that I won’t be watching, for I have allocated that time to check the air pressure in my wheelbarrow tire. But, you can tune in and enjoy learning how blacks built the Americas—with Mr. Pelley’s help, of course.

A 60 Minutes show I would watch is: if the ever-contrite in the presence of his betters, Mr. Pelley, would take Mr. Bunch to the inner city areas of East St. Louis, Ferguson, Chicago, Baltimore, Gary, Saginaw, Washington D.C., and Camden, New Jersey and ask the same question, “What does a black man see here that I don’t?” perhaps we could be informed as to how the descendants of slaves built those cities? Please don’t hold your breath waiting for the show to air!

The next incident that caught my attention on the news was the classroom situation in Columbia, S.C. where a deputy sheriff forcibly dragged a female (black) student from her chair and placed her on the floor. Purposely missing from the video, I believe, was what occurred in the run-up to this action by the deputy? I ask this question because in the news conference yesterday in which the sheriff of the county announced the firing of the deputy, it was revealed that the teacher and the administration in the high school approved of the deputy’s actions.

This fiasco will probably result in at least two lawsuits in which the taxpayers will be forced to ante up large sums of money. The student and her family will undoubtedly sue the county and all involved and the deputy will sue for wrongful termination, citing the school administration’s approval of the act. When the sheriff was asked, “How should the situation have been handled?” he had no answer except to say the way it was handled “troubled him.” If he had no answer and he is the man in charge, how was the deputy trained to handle such a situation by his department? If the administration asked this “school resource officer” to remove this student from the classroom and she refused, what next; a note to the parents?

Could this event have any correlation with the fact discipline was removed from the education environment several decades back and the curriculum was changed and designed to bolster the student’s self-esteem and make someone else responsible for their actions? Nah, couldn’t be; my bad.

Lastly, was a situation that happened a week or so ago in the Albuquerque, N.M. detention center. There on film, for all to see, was a group of “corrections” officers spraying mace, tasering, kicking and punching a female prisoner who was restrained both hand and foot. Some of the kicking was most violent in nature and appeared aimed at the prisoner’s head.

I believe seven of the “corrections” officers were suspended (with pay?) pending an investigation. Several of those suspended were “supervisors.” Before the investigation could be completed, the Chief of the corrections facility resigned, citing low pay and understaffing as problems in the facility.

Not knowing what the investigation will reveal, I have one obvious question: If there were 8-10 correction officers available to beat, kick, mace and taser a shackled inmate, including supervisors, how could the facility be “understaffed?”

Just the view from my saddle.

Comments are invited!

In Rightful Liberty