The Why and How of Tragedies

In the aftermath of a tragedy, there are supposed to be five stages of grief- denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance- but I'm starting to wonder if we've missed one. After a deranged dipshit murders people in a gay nightclub, or when a short tempered police officer murders an unarmed man, or when a psychopath shoots a dozen police officers at a rally against police violence, the first or second reaction is usually the question “why?”

I have to work hard not to conflate the question “why” with “how.” They're different, and I know that. But sometimes, if you look from only one angle, you can only see the how.

Bear with me a minute. If you look at the “how” of any given circumstance, what you're looking at is strictly logistical. The details of the tragedy that occurred at 10 pm last night in Dallas are still coming in, but what we know is that there was at least one person using a high powered rifle from an elevated location to specifically target police officers. As I type this, that's all anyone really knows right now.

That's how this thing happened.

The why, though, is a tricky bastard. Why doesn't come along nicely; to ask why something exists is to combine the tangible and intangible aspects of possibility. There's two ways to look at it: there's one right answer, or there isn't. So here's how I have to understand the difference: if there was something we could do, in the real, actual world, that would have prevented something from being, then it's a how. If we we know the how, but can't do anything about it, then it's a why.

It sounds confusing, because I'm struggling to describe the abstractions I create in the wake of tragedy and because there are a bunch of factors that contribute to the violence we experienced last night.

First of all, we need to be absolutely certain that there is a political aspect to this. Over 500 people have been killed by the police this year. Some of those people were unarmed, and most of the unarmed were black. This might be retaliatory, but it might not be. The shooter, whoever he or she is, might have been opportunistic after realizing that there would be a large amount of police in a protest of police violence. It's possible, but highly unlikely.

But if it was politically motivated, then is there some action we could have taken that would have made the murder of five human beings and the serious injury of 9 others emotionally unreasonable, even by the standards of a sociopath, or logistically impossible by eliminating the means to accomplish it?

Why, and how. How did somebody do this? Why did somebody do this?

I'm going to tell you something awful. The why is all of us. We made this happen. You and me and everyone else, we let tragedies happen through complacency and silence. When a police officer kills an innocent person, and nobody holds him accountable, it's because nobody (including us) holds them accountable. We've put people in charge of investigating tragedy and punishing people responsible. If they don't do their jobs, then it's our job to find somebody who does.

You might be wondering if “doing our jobs” includes shooting innocent people. No. Violence is a reaction from weakness. To resort to violence is to acknowledge that you are so powerless that you need to gain some via the suffering of someone else. Those who gain power through violence never retain it. When the US (mostly Russia) defeated a tyrannical government in 1945, we gained power over Germany. We couldn't sustain that power. Germany now controls itself. In another scenario, we've been trying to assert power in the Middle East for decades, and all we've done is empowered one of the worst collections of pseudo-religious human garbage the world has ever seen.

Police officers depend on the power of the law to do their jobs. But sometimes the law doesn't protect them, or protect people from them. That's when bad things happen. There's a constant power struggle between people, and when we only provide violence to settle it, we are the ones to blame.

Power comes from the people, and right now, the people are fucking up.

That's why these things happen.

 We could change things. Maybe we will. But one thing is certain- it's going to be too late to save a lot of people, and that is on all of us.

My name is Sam.  I'm on Twitter.  swellbo@gmail.com is my email address.

Reporter Has Thoughts! Sam Recoils!

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to meet Chris Cillizza. 

Chris Cillizza is a man who writes two or three opinion articles a day for the Washington Post's online feature section.  This would mean he's usually insanely busy pumping out 3000 words a day, which I guess means he can't take the time to make sure one of his articles is any good. Go give them a read, and then tell me his job couldn't be done better by a 14 year old ritalin addict in their high school journalism class.

His title on the Washington Post website is “reporter,” but that's probably because there wasn't enough room on his header to write “Firehose Attached to a Septic Tank.” This is his article about a meeting between the former President of the United States and the current Attorney General. While it looks on the surface to be just another hit piece on the former First Lady, upon close examination, it might be the largest pile of haughty bullshit the internet has ever seen.  Let's take a look, shall we?

A big part of politics is appearances and perceptions. If something looks bad, people will likely conclude it is bad — even if there's no actual evidence or proof of its relative badness.

I WILL NOW WRITE AN ENTIRELY SERIOUS ARTICLE WHERE I ASSUME THERE IS A SEEDY UNDERBELLY TO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS BAD DESPITE NO “ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF PROOF OF ITS RELATIVE BADNESS.”

Politicians know this; it's why they don't wear funny hats or get in tanks (anymore).

WE INTERRUPT THIS SCATHING COMMENTARY ABOUT THE CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES TO TAKE SHOTS AT SUPER-RELEVANT POLITICIAN MICHAEL DUKAKIS.

And it's why Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should have known better when they huddled privately at the Phoenix airport earlier this week.

CORRECT. THEY SHOULD HAVE REALIZED SOME HACK JOURNALIST FROM THE ONLINE ARM OF THE WASHINGTON POST WOULD TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE SECRETLY AGENTS OF HYDRA.

Lynch is the nation's top cop and, as such, oversees the FBI...

WAIT, THE HIGHEST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IS IN CHARGE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT? NO SHIT.

...which is conducting an investigation into whether Hillary Clinton or any of her associates broke the law in setting up a private email server for her electronic correspondence during her four years as secretary of state. Meeting privately with the former president of the United States who also happens to be Hillary Clinton's husband looks really, really bad.

UNLESS YOU'RE PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON POLITICAL GAFFES FOR PAGE VIEWS, OR YOU AREN'T PARTICULARLY GULLIBLE.

Lynch insisted in the wake of the meeting that it was purely cordial, saying Wednesday that the two spoke about “his grandchildren and his travels and things like that.” She added that the email probe never came up.

OH RIGHT. LIKE PEOPLE WHO HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER SINCE 1991 HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT.  WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, MA'AM!?

That answer, not surprisingly, didn't satisfy lots and lots of Republicans — and even some Democrats. "I think she should have said, 'Look, I recognize you have a long record of leadership on fighting crime but this is not the time for us to have that conversation,' " Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said of Lynch in an interview with CNN. " 'After the election is over, I'd welcome your advice.' "

IDEALLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE HYPOTHETICALLY EXCUSED HERSELF FROM NONEXISTENT ELEMENTS OF A PRIVATE CONVERSATION BECAUSE SOME DIPSHIT REPORTER DOESN'T BELIEVE SOMEBODY WOULD ASK SOMEBODY ELSE ABOUT THEIR GRANDKIDS.

Lynch bowed to the public pressure caused by her impromptu meeting Friday morning, announcing that she will accept whatever recommendation federal prosecutors make in the email case.

LIES!  NO OTHER BOSS HAS EVER LISTENED TO THEIR EMPLOYEES! WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, LORETTA LYNCH?!?

Lynch repeatedly acknowledged in an interview with The Post's Jonathan Capehart at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado that her meeting with Bill Clinton had cast a shadow over the investigation.

SHE THINKS THE SPECULATIVE MEDIA WILL BLOW SOMETHING OUT OF PROPORTION. WHO THE HELL ARE WE TO PROVE HER WRONG?

After much prodding from Capehart, she even basically acknowledged the meeting never should have happened in the first place.

"I certainly wouldn't do it again," she said.

BUT ABSOLUTELY NOT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO STOP BEING PRODDED.

While a Justice Department official who spoke to The Post insisted this was standard operating procedure -- and Lynch insisted this determination had already been made prior to her meeting with Bill Clinton...

BULLSHIT! YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE SOMEBODY DOES THEIR JOB WITHOUT HAVING VAGUE ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION LOBBED AT THEM? WHO DOES SHE THINK I AM? AN NFL FAN?

Lynch's announcement was clearly a direct response to questions raised by her meeting with the former president earlier this week.

AHA! HER ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED HER CLEARLY PROVE THAT SHE WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS! BUSTED!

She admitted it was, noting that details about the investigative process are rarely shared publicly.

I DID NOT REALIZE THIS. I THOUGHT THAT ALL INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES ALWAYS BROADCAST THEIR EVIDENCE OVER TWITTER.

Lynch handled tough questions from Capehart about as well as she could have... 

NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT SOMEBODY WOULD EVER ASK THEIR OLD BOSS ABOUT THEIR TRAVEL PLANS.  

But that still isn't likely to change much of anything. If the FBI now returns something short of an indictment for Clinton and her top aides, Republicans will cite the Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting as

evidence that the process was tainted from the start...
THAT'S RIGHT.  NOT ONLY DID IT BECOME TAINTED FROM THE START, BUT IT ALSO IMMEDIATELY BECAME TAINTED AFTER THIS CONVERSATION TWO DAYS AGO.  IT'S LIKE TAINT-CEPTION.
 ...that a Democratic administration simply can't be trusted to look deeply into the person the party is preparing to nominate for president.

IF MRS. CLINTON AND HER AIDS ARE NOT BEATEN TO DEATH ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN, IT WILL PROVE THAT ALL DEMOCRATS ARE CORRUPT. #SCIENCE.

(Republicans, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn, are already calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the email case.) 

“SURE, WE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A FRUITLESS GOOSE CHASE IN THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS, BUT WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T WE TRY IT AGAIN?”

There might have been no way — in lots of people's eyes — that Clinton could be fully exonerated on the email controversy even before this Bill-Lynch meeting.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SENSATIONALIST BULLSHITTERS LIKE ME. THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE DOING REAL RESEARCH AND REACHING THE SAME CONCLUSIONS I'M REACHING. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T PROVE THAT I'M USELESS.

But, if there ever was that chance, it's gone now. It's like playing a basketball game in which you felt like the refs gave your team a hard time and then finding out that the other coach had dinner with them the night before the game.

FUCK SOLVING THE COUNTRIES PROBLEMS, THE GOAL OF POLITICS IS TO OUTSCORE THE OTHER TEAM, DAMMIT!

It's possible, of course, that nothing was even mentioned about the impending game; they might all just have been in the same restaurant and sat together for a drink or whatever.

JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR: IN THIS BASKETBALL ANALOGY, ONE BASKETBALL TEAM IS THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO INDIBT HILLARY CLINTON, AND THE OTHER SIDE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T. THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A SIDE THAT WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

But no one would ever be able to convince you that there wasn't something nefarious going on at that dinner. And, it just plain looks bad.

IN ADDITION TO LOOKING NEFARIOUS, IT ALSO LOOKS BAD. TRY NOT TO GET CONFUSED.

Increasingly, the Clintons' defense on the email story is summed up in two words: "Trust us."

TRUST ME THAT I'M NOT SIMPLY INVENTING THIS DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT GOING TO LINK TO ANY QUOTE OF ANYONE ACTUALLY SAYING ANY OF THIS.

Trust Hillary Clinton that the thousands of emails she decided to delete as totally personal were totally personal and didn't mention work at all — despite the fact that a State Department email release earlier this week fundamentally undermines that argument.

DON'T WORRY, THIS SOURCE LINKS ONLY THESE SEEDY EMAILS. IT DOES NOT, I REPEAT, DOES NOT, ACTUALLY LINK TO ANOTHER STORY I WROTE ABOUT THE EXACT SAME THING THIS IS ABOUT, WHICH THEN LINKS TO THE EXACT SAME STORY WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WHO AT LEAST ATTEMPTS TO BE OBJECTIVE, NEITHER OF WHICH SO MUCH AS QUOTE A STATE DEPARTMENT RELEASE.

THERE ARE ACTUAL SEEDY EMAILS BEHIND THIS LINK, AND THIS ISN'T JUST AN ATTEMPT TO JUMP UP TRAFFIC WHILE PROVING NOTHING. TRUST ME.

Trust Hillary Clinton that the only reason she set up the server in the first place was out of "convenience."

VERY FUCKING LIKELY. AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING CONVENIENT ABOUT HAVING ALL OF YOUR EMAILS IN ONE PLACE.

Trust Bill Clinton (and Lynch) that their huddle in Phoenix was purely friendly and never touched on the email server investigation.

THAT'S RIGHT. SHE ACKNOWLEDGES IT LOOKS SUSPICIOUS. THAT'S THE KEY SIGN OF A GUILTY PARTY. COMBINE THAT WITH ZERO EVIDENCE, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL THE ANTITRUST YOU NEED.

Trust them both that this whole thing is simply a Republican witch hunt and/or a trumped-up "scandal" created by a bored and adversarial media.

BECAUSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE TO A CLINTON.

The problem with the "trust us" defense?

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT I JUST MADE IT UP?

Poll after poll suggests that a majority of the public simply doesn't trust them — saying that the words "honest" and "trustworthy" don't apply to Clinton.

UNLIKE ALL OTHER POLITICIANS, WHO ARE TRUSTED COMPLETELY BY EVERY AMERICAN.

In an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week, 41 percent said that Donald Drumpf would be better about being "honest and straightforward.”

PEOPLE DON'T JUST WANT A PRESIDENT WHO CALLS MEXICAN PEOPLE CRIMINALS, DRUG DEALERS AND RAPISTS- THEY WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REALLY MEANS IT.

While just 25 percent said Clinton would be better on those things. (One in three said neither candidate would be good on those traits.) And, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, six in 10 registered voters believe Clinton has handled her email issues poorly.

THE OTHER FOUR OUT OF TEN ARE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND WHAT EMAIL IS.

This whole mess created by Lynch and Bill Clinton will only make those numbers worse, further exposing Hillary Clinton's biggest weakness in the eyes of voters. And she has her husband to "thank" for it.

IN CASE  YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS IS SARCASTIC, I'VE DECIDED TO PUT “THANK” IN QUOTATION MARKS.

Holy shit, Cillizza.  Holy shit.

My name is Sam, and I live in Austin, TX.  Want to see me troll other people?  Check out my twitter. Want to troll me?  swellbo@gmail.com