March of the Pigs

Today, three detectives were acquitted of manslaughter for shooting an unarmed African American 50, count that fifty, times on November 25, 2006.

First, a moment for the dead. During this moment, count to fifty and with each number, imagine a bullet hitting your body, ripping through the flesh, exploding bones and muscles.

Second, if you haven't heard about this please read this story.

I wasn't at the shooting so I don't know what happened. However, Officer Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Officer Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Officer Cooper shot four times because they thought Sean Bell was armed.

Thirty one shots from one officer. At some time police officers were called peace officers. This is obviously not the case. Aren't there procedures that are to be followed in instances like this. The officers were not fired upon, so why did they feel the need to keep shooting. Wouldn't one shot be enough to throw the attacker, which Sean Bell wasn't, off guard?

We all know "all men are created equal." Well at least we know those words are part of our historical documents. The acquittal of these officers does not show equality. No in fact, it harkens to a time not too long ago that skin color determined and locked you in to your place in society. There was a time that equality laws did not exist. Thankfully we're past that time, but you wouldn't know it from today's decision.

Stereotypes are so ingrained into our thoughts of each other that three black men coming out of a strip club at night must be armed and causing havoc, not celebrating a bachelor party as they were. Or an African immigrant must be reaching for a gun, not his wallet.

The other issue here, well I'll be honest there are many issues here, is the idea that police officers are above the law, that they're not held to the same set of rules we civilians are. Had a three white civilians shot three unarmed black civilians, this would be considered a hate crime. Why isn't this being broadcasted as a hate crime?

"The judge, Justice Arthur Cooperman, indicated when he delivered the verdict that the officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version."

Does being a police officer mean your more credible, simply by being a police officer? Simply by swearing an oath to protect the people from the very violence that they committed?

I don't disrespect police officers, I respect, and expect, peace and justice.

"Sugar and spice and all things nice ..."

*WARNING: The following message is brought to you by a jaded feminist.

I strongly detest shopping. Ok that's not true; if I'm at Amoeba or most used bookstores, or most adult stores, I'm having a great time. However, if I'm at the Adidas outlet looking for a pair of running shoes, as I was on Monday, I am not a happy camper.

Anyone who knows me on a personal level will be saying, "Well, I didn't think you were athletic; what were you doing in a sports shop anyway?"

And they'd be right. I am not athletic. I lack endurance of any kind, I don't get involved in sports by any means, nor do I plan to. My partner, though, is extremely athletic; he fences, telemarks, sails, and runs. He runs on a daily basis and was in the market for a new pair of running shoes. Hence, the trip to Adidas.

I don't own a pair of running shoes so I thought this could be a good oppurtunity to get a pair. And you see where this rant is going.

(This is where the rant really begins folks, so thank you for your patience in getting this far.)

We were at an Adidas outlet. Let me emphasize outlet. In my mind, as wierd and screwed up as it is, I imagine an outlet as the ultimate source for a variety in whatever it is that I want to purchase. Such an array did not exist. For women's running shoes.

The men's section of shoes offers up many choices: different colors, styles, textures, heel depths, a plethora, if you will.

These same options were available for women with one gaping difference: black or grey were not color choices available. Oh sure my running shoes could be white with pink stripes, baby blue stripes, silver stripes, or seafoam green stripes. Hell, I could even get light pink shoes with white stripes or black stripes. But a solid black shoe did not exist. We are living in the 21st century right? The color choices for my sex should not remain the same as they were 20, 30 years ago. Women shouldn't be relegated to pastels as our defining color scheme.

And you're saying,"Why didn't you get a pair of men's shoes in your size?"

They didn't have my size in men's shoes, except for a pair of all white shoes.

I live in the mountains. The dirty, muddy mountains. We don't even have sidewalks. I have no use for a white shoe.

I am not ranting just to bitch about my shopping experiences. I am ranting to convey the point that because men and women are equal, they should have the same options. This includes pastel colors for men. We need to rid our society, and the world, of color stereotypes (blue for boys, pink for girls; bold colors for men, pastels for women). Because our economy is so infused with our society, what we buy as a society dictates who we are as a society. (Not that I think that's how it should be.) Until everyone's choices are the same, we will still buy into psychological stereotypes.

Stepping off of my broken soapbox now.

Big Brother, Where Art Thou?

So today I was paid to do lighting and sound for The Drug Store project, an annual program put on by the Lake Tahoe School District that takes local 7th graders through mock situations "with the goal of educating youth about the dangers of substance use and abuse."

Remember D.A.R.E.? It's like that only more intensive. When I was growing up in Cheyenne, around Halloween there was this "haunted house" put on by a local church (see mind control environments). This "haunted house" did not include monsters created by Hollywood, nor did it include peeled grapes (eyeballs) or cold spaghetti (brains,mmmm). No, the big fear factors here were abortion, homosexuality, and other "evils." Through the use of overly dramatic lighting and sound efx, this was supposed to scare families, especially us youngsters on the brink of eternal damnation, to find Jesus and live only the way he would want.

Putting aside any of my ideas on religion (more specifically right wing christianity), the issue here is use of fear to control people.

Every year that the Drug Store Project happens, I am filled with broken memories of a teenage girl regretting her decision to abort the baby because she was sent to a fiery pit in Hell.

Thankfully the only part I played in this practice of control through fear was lighting and sound, which meant that I had to light the ER set with a Rosco 51 (light almost no color lavender gel in a cool shade for those not familiar with the Rosco line of gels) from the right and a Rosco 96 (lime) from the left to give it the proper sterile green effect that hospitals have. Side Note: I try to avoid hospitals at all cost, they literally make me ill, probably due to the lighting and the smells.

The scene was a 12 year old had od'd on a few different kinds of prescription drugs while at a party. The 12 year old dies in the ER after falling into a coma on the ambulance ride over, and the ER doc has to tell the greiving parent.

This scene happened from 10:00 to 12:30 every fifteen minutes, with a new rotation of 7th graders watching each time. After the scene ended the ER Doc would take questions from the 7th graders.

1st off, how cool must that 12 year old have been to get invited to a party with drugs?! When I was twelve I had one friend who lived across the street and really only liked me because she and her boyfriend would come over to my house after school and make out since my mom wasn't home (sorry mom). I didn't even know about parties that may or may not have been happening, let alone get invited to them.

2nd, the ER doc not only was very quiet (he refused to use a mic), but he was also very condescending to the kids; calling the prescription drugs "medicines" and using the tiny voice that always ends with a questioning tone when addressing the kids. I don't have kids, nor do I ever plan to. I do however respect them as people and refuse to talk down to them, whether they're four or fourteen.

Each session there was at least one kid who would ask how often kids actually came in to the ER with a drug overdose, and of those how many died in the ER. Hah! I love it when kids, or anybody for that matter, questions authority. The doc responded too often, but refused to give an actual number. The reason he refused to do this is that we live in a town of 23,000 people. Our statistics are much lower than figures from other places. And that's a good thing.

My point here is not that kids should be doing drugs; they should wait until their brains are more fully developed which doesn't happen till 17 or 18. At that age, they can have a better idea of the drug and hopefully they have a job by that time and don't want to show up to work in coke-lock or too stoned to move. But live and learn you know.

My point is that the Drug Store Project, and many more programs like it, try to use fear to teach kids, no I'm sorry, to control kids. Education is fine, education through fear is not. Our society however, is addicted to fear, addicted to being afraid. Look at the news, printed, on TV, on the Web, or even on the internet. It's item after item of impending doom and scandal.

The Drug Store Project only promulgates that fear is the way keep people under control.

Now smoke some pot and think this over.