Media questions first-amendment auditors

 

I think it’s fair to say that some of these folks are simply trying to evoke a response from the police in order to bait them into a confrontation (though I don’t think it’s accurate that they’re “known for getting into people’s faces”…the police are coming up to them, not the other way around). I also think it’s fair to say that officers sometimes embarrass themselves and their departments in the way that they respond. I guess my question would be…if someone is engaging in a legal activity, such as recording what they can see from a public sidewalk, why would you talk to them at all? Someone engaging in this kind of activity knows that what they’re doing is legal, and is well aware of their rights…the whole reason they’re doing it is to see if YOU’RE aware of their rights too. An officer most certainly can walk up to them and initiate a conversation, but if they’re rebuffed, and the person doesn’t want to talk to them, that should be the end of it. No pressing the issue, no demanding ID, no threat of arrest. The Commissioner that they talked to mentioned potential lawsuits, settlements, and getting officers fired. If any of those things happen, is that the auditor’s fault? No! I believe there is room for improvement on both sides of the equation. As a citizen, I should be mindful of the law, and respectful of those whose job it is to enforce it. Those whose job it is to enforce the law have a duty to uphold the public trust. Bothering people who aren’t breaking the law is not the way to do this. I’d even venture to say that once these auditors see that they’re not going to get a reaction from the police, they’ll go away. Until or unless that happens, officers will continue to become YouTube stars, and cities will continue to pay out large settlements.
The cops always initiate the contact. Just leave law abiding citizens alone. The video never points out that the cop had no right to touch a person, unless they are breaking the law.

All the cops have to do is obey the law. Same goes for civilians. If they did that there would be no problems.

The law enforcement community brought this on themselves. can you imagine how boring it would be to watch police officers behaving correctly ?
I find it amazing how these auditors are PROVING that cops are EXTREMELY IGNORANT to the law and what’s legal.
If they have done nothing unlawful, leave them be, don’t react and they will leave you alone. The police in these videos are often ignorant of the law or just belligerent.
‘How to handle 1st Amendment Auditors?’ There is nothing to ‘handle’, when someone isn’t breaking the law they don’t have to talk to police or identify, so run along and finish mopping the floor at the station cops. This is part of the problem, that police think they have to ‘find a way’ to control every single person they see.
When I first started watching these videos, I took issue with what the auditors were doing and then as I watched more and educated myself, I started to understand their motives. There are some auditors who take to the streets with a clear agenda and bias against the police and do everything they can to provoke them so I tend to not watch them but there are others who truly seem to be standing up for their rights and are more than happy to find officers that respect what they are doing as opposed to hoping to find bad officers. My favorite auditor is Amagansett Press, for example. It still baffles me that police academies aren’t teaching basic constitutional law and that departments aren’t educating their officers about basic first amendment rights. A guy with a camera on a public sidewalk isn’t a threat and since we don’t live in Russia, he isn’t required to produce “papers” because you demanded them.
Its through the first amendment auditors that i have come to realise the importance of the constitution and how it can work for the little guy. I don’t know why they’re being presented as aggressors, yet its usually those in authority that are the aggressors.
These auditors are protected everyone’s rights. You might not like them but that is what they are doing.
As time passes we don’t automatically get more and more rights. Out rights erode away. That’s why as a former law enforcement officer I support audits.
When you abuse and disrespect the citizens so long this is what you get and they’ll like how the tables turned a little bit. Now they have to be held accountable for their actions which could be recorded back in the days.
4:30 officer asks “If they’re truly the media, then aren’t they subject to the same rules as what apply to you?” This is the crux of why the mainstream media sides with the cops on this one. They don’t like “amateurs” stealing their viewers. They feeeeel that it’s an insult to THEIR profession. The “rules” that the officer is referring to are not laws. They are company policies. If the reporter doesn’t follow those rules, he will get fired, not arrested.

 

I love the way the news reporter says that the auditors are known for getting in people’s faces. She must not watch many videos does she not see how the people walk right up to their cameras and get into the auditor’s faces. I do agree that some auditors push some buttons on some people but that still doesn’t give people the right to violate their first amendment rights.The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights. How many news reporters push their camera and microphones right up into people’s faces to get their story. Double standard. Because they work for a major news outlet they think they are better than everyday normal citizens who go out and report what they see going on in America and reporting corruption that most news reporters don’t have the where for all to do on their own. They are paid by a news agency and are only allowed to report on what they feel is news worthy. They have no free will of their own. Unless it’s a live video all their work is edited so as not to compromise or offend whoever or whatever they are reporting on.
My question. Where’s the cops when a tv crew with cameras are at the same place the auditor was at? Why are “they” not concerned? Isn’t this suspicious activity (as they say)? Where’s the ID check? So this is the cops warning other cops to be on your best behavior when a camera is out? If cops have nothing to hide why attempt to make a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected act villainous?
The reporter is right in front of the military installation. Wonder if they called the cops on him?
The cops need to smarten up and be able to tell the difference between someone that is a real security risk and someone who is just doing an audit. As soon as they realize they’re dealing with one of these auditors they need to just say “thank you, carry-on citizen.”
Auditors like him have NOT broken the law in any way. When a cop violates the rights of auditors it is their own actions that has earned their firings and lawsuits. The under sherriff was the law breaker and the same law applies to him. Putting hands on someone without cause is Not legal. The badge doesnt earn them extra rights.

“get a settlement from the city and possibly get the officer terminated”.

GOOD.
A good auditor does not leave to provoke a reaction. The reaction is left entirely up to the officer.
This news report is a perfect example of how biased news is and how it does not report facts anymore, it reports feelings

 

 

It’s unfortunate that both the reporters and even the auditor himself misrepresented the entire auditing community. There are bad auditors that intentionally provoke and unnecessarily escalate encounters, but the overall goal is to never to do that–usually the police will do that themselves out of ignorance of the law.

 

This news agency should be ashamed of such a biased report. As a news agency, you would think they would be on the side of free speech and press 🤦🏼‍♂
I love how the news guy ends the video by getting a shot of himself standing in front of what appears to be a military installation. As if his 1st Amendment right to do so is somehow different than anyone else’s. The hypocrisy is staggering.
It’s funny how they left out that if the cops were just calm, professionals following the law, citizen’s rights, and proper police policy, NONE of this would even be an issue. Yep, they sure left that out of the story.
If the officers aren’t doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
When the government becomes transparent and cops stop abusing free citizens. We won’t need auditors, until then auditors keep up the good work.
I love how they make it seem like recording a video on a sidewalk is the scariest thing, while also recording a video on the sidewalk. Oh cause your camera is bigger? Or you have a news jacket on? How is that any different?
WXYZ should be embarrassed by this report.
“They tricked me into doing something wrong by checking if we were doing something wrong”
Why are these ‘trained professionals” so easily, and so often, provoked by ordinary citizens with a camera? Why do these ‘trained professionals’ so easily, and so often, ‘take the bait’ despite extensive training, re-training and cross training? Why are these ‘trained professionals’ either ignorant of, or purposely ignore, the very laws which they have sworn to protect? Why do these ‘trained professionals’ first escalate, and then retaliate, over such simple constitutionally protected activities?
love how they say “1st amendment rights” so sarcastically. I was on the side of thinking these guys were frauds at first. after watching a lot, i am so glad they are doing what they do. These “officials” are not the little victims they try to act like.
“It is all his first amendment right”, said with a nod and a wink. You can just see the disdain the reporter has for someone other than the “news” exercising their rights.
I love how the reporter feels as entitled and as above the law as government officials do. They think they are better than an on the street indie journalist running their own business and creating an audience.
“File a law suit. They’re gonna get a settlement from a city. They’re possibly going to get the officer terminated” So they’re holding people responsible for their illegal activities! Got it!
Law enforcement uses “bait tactics” all the time……but don’t like it when they think it’s being used on them. SMH
“Known for getting in people’s faces.” Not sure I’ve ever seen an auditor get in anyone’s face. I’ve seen people get in auditors’ faces.
When you’ve witnessed enough injustice perpetrated by the employees that are paid by your tax dollars, and when you see your tax dollars frivolously passed out, like candy, to those that have no accountability for their actions, then there should be no surprise when people start testing the system for its effectiveness. If the auditors are exposing flaws in the system, then pointing an accusatory finger at them is nothing more than an attempt to justify a broken system.
Love that they interviewed the sheriff that literally assaulted the auditor!! Did he go to jail? No…… trying to make auditors into Villians and literally only catch cops breaking the law!!
If the city is offering a settlement and the officer is losing his job then the cop was was violating rights and breaking laws. Without the auditors would continue with his crooked ways
Every single thing the police officers, the chief, and the anti Auditors say, is also true about themselves, and that’s why there’s auditors! When the cops investigate themselves, it doesn’t work out very well!
Some of these auditors may appear to be annoying, however they’re willing to reveal how many government agencies throughout this country that are not constitutionally compliant. Keep up the good work! We need more of them.
This reports bias is clearly a result of them being out done in holding authority accountable by amateurs.
The fact that they have to send a mass email out to government employees telling them to not violate but respect the rights of American citizens shows how messed up the justice system really is.
They are known for getting in people’s faces.” Actually, they are known for being confronted by other people.
Love it how the tele-prompter told the reporter to call the audits “verbal attacks” . I KNOW that wasn’t the verbiage she’d use. It was forced upon her.
Finally the cops are starting to think about what they are doing
4:30 Here’s the thing, they don’t come up and put their hands all over cops, they don’t walk up to cops trying to dominate every encounter. Some of them may, but the majority of them obviously don’t. And so what if they are trying to provoke these cops? if the cops can’t handle their temper around these guys, even when they know they are being filmed, how well do you think they handle that temper with people when their isn’t a camera around?!?! This video being shown with the cop being interviewed does NOT paint him in a good light and it’s a perfect example of why 1st amendment auditors are needed. Oh yeah, talking about the Freedom News Now guy when he said “they beat their wives” or whatever. He was trying to provoke an angry response, because cops are PAID to keep their cool when dealing with people like him. Who cares if they don’t actually beat their wives, I’m sure some of them don’t! Regardless, the police lie to the public all the time trying to provoke the response they want from us. The only difference is if they get the response they want, we end up in prison for a long time whether we’re guilty or not… But that’s ok I suppose.
Last cop went hands on as soon as he stepped out of the door. That cop is the reason why we need the auditors.
The irony of explaining how the auditor filmed that tank place out front, to only do it in the last segment of the video themselves but with a way bigger camera 😂

Louis DeJoy Answers For His Corruption

“Postmaster General Louis DeJoy defended his management of the U.S. Postal Service to the House on Monday amid concerns that his cost-cutting measures have jeopardized the agency’s ability to serve Americans.

Mail service has slowed across the country, according to internal documents obtained by the Oversight Committee, but DeJoy denies that is part of any attempt to reduce throughput to complicate voting by mail this year.

In fact, he said in his prepared opening statement, DeJoy expects the Postal Service to be able to accommodate all the mailed ballots that Americans send this year.

The postmaster general encouraged voters to request ballots early and return them early but said he is confident that the Postal Service can handle any surge in ballot traffic, which in the most extreme case would amount to less than one day’s worth of current volume.”

If Wealth Is Justified, so Is a Wealth Tax

Not surprisingly, American billionaires have dismissed recent wealth-tax proposals as an affront to the entrepreneurial spirit to which they attribute their massive wealth. But the ultra-rich never would have their great wealth without legal subsidies from the state and reliable enforcement by the courts.

NEW YORK – Economic inequality has moved to the top of the political agenda in many countries, including free-market poster children like the United States and the United Kingdom. The issue is mobilizing the left and causing headaches on the right, where wealth has long been viewed as worthy of celebration, not as demanding justification.

But today’s concentrations of wealth do demand justification. In 2018, Forbes listed three billionaires among its top ten most powerful people in the world. Next to the heads of states of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one finds not only the Pope, but also Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Google co-founder Larry Page. All three owe their power not to public position or spiritual influence but to private wealth.

As contenders in the Democratic primary for the 2020 US presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have promised to impose new taxes on the super-wealthy. Warren’s wealth-tax proposal – a levy of 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million, rising to 6% for fortunes greater than $1 billion – has ruffled billionaires’ feathers. According to Gates, he has paid more in taxes than almost anybody – some $10 billion. And while he would consider it “fine” if that figure had been doubled to $20 billion, he believes a much higher tax would threaten the incentive system that led him (and others) to invest in the first place.

For his part, Michael Bloomberg, the founder of the Bloomberg news empire, a former mayor of New York City, and now a Democratic presidential contender himself, argues that a wealth tax might be unconstitutional, and that it would turn the US into the likes of Venezuela. And not to be outdone, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested that taxing billionaires’ wealth would lead to worse outcomes than leaving it where it is, implying that the ultra-wealthy know better than the peoples’ elected representatives how tax revenues should be spent.

Note the sense of entitlement underlying each of these reactions. Each man’s billions, we are told, belong to him; he earned the money and should therefore get to decide how to spend it, be it on philanthropic projects, taxes, or neither. The billionaires tell us that they are willing to pay a fair share of taxes, but that there is some undefined threshold where the incentives to innovate and invest will be thrown into reverse. At that point, apparently, the ultra-wealthy will go on strike, leaving the rest of us worse off.

But this perspective ignores the fact that accumulated wealth is largely a product of law, and by implication of the state and the people who constitute it. As economist Thomas Piketty demonstrates in his 2014 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the rich today hold most of their wealth in financial assets, which are simply legally protected promises to receive future cash flows. Take away legal enforceability, and all that remains is hope, not a secure asset.

Moreover, the private empires over which today’s billionaires preside are organized as legally chartered corporations, which makes them creatures of the law, not of nature. The corporate form shields the personal wealth of the founders and other shareholders from the corporation’s creditors. It also facilitates the diversification of risk within a company, by allowing discrete pools of assets to be created, each with its own set of creditors who are barred from making claims on another asset pool, even though the parent company’s management controls all of them.

Further, the company’s own shares can be used as currency when acquiring other companies. When Facebook bought WhatsApp, it covered $12 billion of the $16 billion purchase price with its own shares, paying only $4 billion in cash. And, as with Facebook, corporate law can be used to cement control by founders and their affiliates through dual-class share structures that grant them more votes than everyone else. As such, they need not fear elections or takeovers of any kind.

Finally, companies whose assets take the form of intellectual property (IP) and other intangibles tend to rely even more on the helping hand of the law. As of 2018, 84% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 was held in such intangible assets. It takes a legal intervention to turn ideas, skills, and knowhow – which are free to be shared by anybody – into exclusive property rights that are enforced by the full power of the state. And in recent years, Microsoft and other US tech companies have boosted their earning power significantly by promoting US-style IP rules around the world through the World Trade Organization’s body for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

To be sure, there are good reasons for states to adopt laws that empower private agents to reap the rewards of organizing businesses and developing new products and services. But let’s call a spade a spade and a (legal) subsidy a subsidy. While Bezos, Bloomberg, Gates, and Zuckerberg may well be savvy entrepreneurs, they also have benefited on a massive scale from the helping hand of legislatures and courts around the world. This hand is more contingent than the invisible one immortalized by Adam Smith, because its vitality depends on a widely shared belief in the rule of law. The erosion of that belief, not a tax, poses the greatest threat to billionaires’ wealth.

Narcissism and Its Discontents | Ramani Durvasula | TEDxSedona

Narcissism has not only become a normalized social condition, it is increasingly being incentivized. The framework of narcissism with the central pillars of lack of empathy, entitlement, grandiosity, superficiality, anger, rage, arrogance, and shallow emotion is a manifestation of pathological insecurity – an insecurity that is experienced at both the individual and societal level. The paradox is that we value these patterns – and venerate them through social media, mainstream media, and consumerism, they represent a fast-track to financial and professional success. These traits are endemic in political, corporate, academic, and media leaders. There are few lives which are not personally touched by narcissists – be it your spouse, partner, parent, child, colleague, boss, friend, sibling, or neighbor. Whether societally or individually, the toxic wave of narcissism, entitlement, and pathological insecurity is harming us all. The enticements of charm, charisma, confidence, and success can draw us in or blind us to the damaging truths of narcissism. The invalidation inherent in these relationships infects those are in them with self-doubt, despair, confusion, anxiety, depression and the chronic feeling of being “not enough,” all of which make it so difficult to step away and set boundaries. The illusion of hope and the fantasy of redemption can result in years of second chances for narcissists, and despondency when change never comes. It’s time for a wake-up call. Health and wellness campaigns preach avoidance of unhealthy foods, sedentary lifestyles, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, but rarely preach avoidance of unhealthy or toxic people. Yet the health benefits of removing toxic people from a life may have a far greater benefit to both physical and psychological health than going to the gym. We need to learn to be better gatekeepers for our minds, bodies, and souls. Instead of habituating to the global shift of validating narcissism and other toxic patterns, it’s time to understand it and take our lives back. Dr. Ramani Durvasula is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Santa Monica and Sherman Oaks, CA and Professor of Psychology at California State University, Los Angeles, where she was named Outstanding Professor in 2012. She is also a Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg.

today I am going to talk about the most
overused misunderstood problematic words
of our time a phenomenon a word that is
shaping all of our destinies that word
is narcissism narcissism is a word that
is being used to understand bad behavior
everywhere in national leaders in heads
of state heads of corporations fancy
academic types athletes celebrities we
actually no longer recoil at their
grandiosity their entitlement and their
incivility in fact too many people award
them grudging admiration for their
successes and that grants permission to
everyone to replicate these abusive
patterns of behavior with impunity now
things got confusing when people started
using narcissism as a clinical term it
became a way of medicalizing bad
behavior it’s actually not a diagnostic
term narcissistic personality disorder
is a diagnosis but it’s pretty rare
because these folks don’t show up to be
diagnosed anyhow so narcissism is in
fact a personality pattern it’s a sort
of way of relating to the world it’s an
adjective to describe their style much
like you could describe someone as
agreeable or stubborn or introverted
some of these patterns are valued by
society and others aren’t and the fact
is most people don’t receive being
called narcissistic as a compliment it’s
just however a descriptive term and no
matter how much we turn our noses up at
it paradoxically as a society we reward
it dr. Alan Francis was one of the
architects of the diagnosis of
narcissistic personality disorder and he
argues that we actually give badly
behaved jerks and out when we call it a
diagnosis if a person is a jerk then
they’re a jerk disliking a pattern of
behavior doesn’t make it a mental
illness that so-called jerk has to be
experiencing problems in their lives
and for their narcissism to actually be
considered a diagnosis
so if we were to cobble together all the
various things that make up narcissism
we land on a very uncomfortable summit
narcissism is comprised of certain
pillars as I call them

  • lack of empathy
  • grandiosity
  • entitlement
  • superficiality
    admiration and
  • validation seeking
  • hypersensitivity rage and a
  • tendency to manipulate and exploit people

it’s confusing because they’re simultaneously
under responsive they tend to be
emotionally aloof cold and distant but
then they’re hyper responsive they have
hair-trigger temper that set off like
that when their fragile egos get
threatened so narcissism however I
believe is synonymous with pathological
insecurity the key to understanding the
narcissist is that they feel constantly
unstable and empty their grandiosity is
actually an immature defense against
these threats to them their sense of
self and they’re desperate for the world
to keep validating them on their good
days they look happy they’re great
they’re grandiose but on the bad days
the facade crumbles quickly and we see
disproportionate rage shame and
vindictiveness I became interested in
narcissism through a couple of different
pathways but the most striking was the
fact that more and more clients were
coming into my office and talking about
relationships in which their partners
treated them with utter disregard
indifference coldness they lacked
empathy they would question their
reality they would lie to them at times
they were unfaithful they were
inconsistent and no matter what they
tried with their partner it didn’t get
better at the same time I started
working with more narcissistic clients
and would you know nothing we tried
really made things better in fact they
just remain difficult people and I don’t
think I’m not bad a therapist so it was
clear that these relationships were
being kept in place simultaneously by
hope and fear hope that someday it would
get better if they kept trying harder
but fear that if they left these
relationships they would be alone
forever without
partner or even without a mother and
some of them had the fear that maybe
this is as good as it gets the world has
become more insecure and the reasons for
that are varied galip’s annual global
emotions report said that in 2017 was
the most miserable in about a decade the
report indicated that sadness anger
worry stress and physical pain were more
frequently endorsed last year than in
the ten years prior
now Gallup speculated on a variety of
reasons for this but let’s pitfall for a
minute could it be that this increase in
misery could reflect the increase in
insecurity incivility and tolerance of
narcissism our world supports the
increasing insecurity in our world and
the platforms that capitalize on it such
as consumerism have created optimal
fertile ground for narcissism to
incubate and proliferate when human
value is driven entirely by external
incentives such as success then
qualities such as empathy do not have a
fighting chance because we no longer
value them and they’re no longer
valuable so why do we get pulled into
these relationships
we’re not flocking to narcissism because
we love emotional coldness or
invalidation or shallow people
we’re drawn in because narcissism is
seductive I call it the three C’s of narcissism

  1. charm
  2. charisma and
  3. confidence

that’s not to say that all charming and
charismatic people are narcissistic
however we do know that these traits are
so seductive that we get drawn in and
they can blind us to the more venomous
characteristics that are unfolding at
the same time such as entitlement
vindictiveness or lack of empathy so
then once a person is in a relationship
and it’s uncomfortable and is painful
why would they stay with a narcissist
all of us are vulnerable to those
narcissistic charms and in fact we may
be rendered even more vulnerable to
sticking around for the abuse by a
narcissist if we originated from family
systems in which the patterns of
narcissism were normalized such as
having a cold authoritarian
distant invalidating or abusive parents
our own insecurities render us
vulnerable and also less able to climb
out when the climate shifts from charm
and charisma to invalidation and abuse
most of us are great at giving second
chances and second chances are in fact
the accelerant for narcissism at all
levels when we are in a narcissistic
relationship we make excuses that’s just
how he is he didn’t really mean that she
means well ah that’s just her culture
and there’s the rub that’s how this
infectious virus of being in any form of
narcissistic relationship whether with
an individual or a family or a company
or a culture can slowly proliferate and
take over most of us issue second
chances with zeal our storytelling in
our culture is immersed in tales of hope
redemption and forgiveness and while
that’s all very healthy in the wrong
hands hope and forgiveness may not
represent an opportunity for growth or
change or restoration but rather
permission to just keep things going as
they are because with narcissists
forgiveness is interpreted as hey let’s
just keep the status quo have we created
a world in which narcissism as a pattern
as a personality is becoming necessary
to succeed in the new world order this
is where we hit a bit of a problematic
divide the very qualities associated
with material success are actually bad
for our health because while these
qualities may be festered and fostered
by our cultures and our schools and our
economies and our societies they are
never going to be good for our close
relationships and that doesn’t just mean
spouses and partners that means parents
children siblings extended family
friends colleagues narcissistic patterns
undercut the core of what’s necessary
for healthy relationships those things
include mutuality respect compassion
patience genuineness honesty and trust
things that are simply not possible with
the system or a person which is
narcissistic and it’s in that intimate
relationship space where we see the most
profound impacts of a narcissist what
did that be a spouse or a partner a
relationship with a narcissist is a
gradual indoctrination you slowly become
inured to their lack of empathy though
Tantrums their rage their insults and
their entitlement their lies and their
challenges to your reality they’re
insulting words slowly become your
self-talk and before you know it your
new mantra becomes I am not enough
anyone who’s had a narcissistic parent
will acknowledge that it shaped the arc
of their lives it instilled an
insecurity in a chronic jousting at
psychological windmills from an early
age narcissistic parents leave a legacy
including an inability to trust your own
instincts to safely enter close
relationships to trust your own
abilities and a lifetime can be spent
trying to gain the notice of the aloof
detached and disconnected parent the
proliferation of narcissism and
leadership in our culture governments
companies and world has made very
difficult workplaces the narcissistic
boss is the insecure tyrant
these are workplaces ruled by fear and
subterfuge abuse and vindictiveness
deceit and slippery ethics and in the
face of the me2 movement the top notes
of narcissism pervaded all of the
stories the entitled and untouchable
tyrant pillaging the workforce and in
most case with almost no consequences
the most painful realization is that
narcissistic patterns are just not that
amenable to change at a minimum for any
change to occur the narcissus has to
recognize the harmful pattern of their
behavior then they have to want to
change it and then they have to put in
the daily work of change there is a
small number of cases where that kind of
happened but under conditions of stress
and frustration the usual issues of Rage
will pop up the rubberband of
personality returns to its usual shape
and size
the small changes that could be made may
not be enough to make a close intimate
relationship sustainable and if somebody
is not willing to recognize that they
need to make changes because they’re
hurting other people there’s little
likelihood they will make a change but
there is a likelihood they will continue
to blame other people the world or you
for their bad behavior so that means
that the only remaining strategies are
to maintain your expectations and set
boundaries not to try to change that
person or waste hope on the possibility
of change but to recognize that this is
how it is and either accept it or slowly
step away from it now this is very
individual and it’s not always possible
if it’s your parents or your child who’s
narcissistic you may not be willing to
sever that tie finances culture children
or love can make walking away from a
marriage or a romantic relationship
seemingly impossible and that’s fine but
managing expectations on this pattern
can protect you from the downstream
effects of this ongoing abuse and allow
you to construct a more realistic
reality sadly most of us put 90 percent
of our hearts minds and souls into our
most dysfunctional unhealthy
invalidating relationships and save the
little bit that’s left for the people
who are good and kind to us it’s time we
flip this skewed calculus and start
giving the best of ourselves to our
healthy and reciprocal relationships and
really only give the bare minimum to the
relationships that really aren’t helping
us grow perhaps that’s a healthier way
of negotiating these treacherous waters
of narcissism without losing ourselves
in the depths of self-doubt and
self-criticism now this can be extended
to our thinking about the world at large
it can be small fixes such as turning
off the polarizing discourses we hear
and learning to measure our self-worth
and the worth of others with new metrics
of success

  • authenticity
  • compassion
  • kindness
  • and empathy

we can learn to
tend to our own gardens and not get
pulled into hostile interactions that
benefit no one so this begs a question
can there be happy endings or
narcissistic or
tagging istic personalities and cultures
are concerned I actually think there can
be the greatest challenge about happy
endings in real life is that they rarely
look like the ones we crafted when we’re
young and it’s easy to get stuck in our
own old narratives people who come from
narcissistic families may feel as though
they missed out on having a parent who
is an ally or a supporter even as they
go into adulthood people who married
narcissistic partners may find
themselves mired in a nightmare of
emotional abuse or simply finding that
they’re actually alone despite being
married few people write stories of
their lives that build in disappointment
I have found that survivors of all kinds
of narcissistic and antagonistic
relationships actually can and do have
happy endings they just don’t look like
they thought all of us are bigger than
this epidemic of narcissism any of us
can change that you are not enough
narrative that still resonates we can
repair it ourselves we can look at the
entitled shenanigans of people who
shriek don’t you know who I am and
realize that you don’t give a damn about
who they are where there are scars
beautiful things actually can spring
forth
khalil gibran writes out of suffering
have emerged the strongest Souls the
most massive characters are seared with
scars yes the world is in fact becoming
more narcissistic and insecure
don’t let the global epidemic of
incivility infect you inoculate yourself
find your communities find common ground
with other people instead of living in
polarization practice kindness and
empathy even when other people are not
choose your friends and your romances
with care every life story can be a
miracle or a tragedy it just depends on
how you write it
these days with the world in such
disarray anyone who is surviving with
their empathy unbroken their hearts
sound their integrity in place and
theirs
sense of humor intact is nothing short
of dauntless pushing back on narcissism
is a human rights issue all of us need
to stop giving permission to narcissism
and narcissists and start taking our
lives our souls and our world back thank you

Three Questions for Judge Kavanaugh

Judge Kavanaugh, I don’t know what happened in 1982. But I’m deeply troubled by what I perceive as your lack of integrity last week. You told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that your “have you boofed” yearbook question referred to farting, that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game, that a “Renate alumnius” was simply a friend of Renate with no sexual insinuations, that the drinking age was 18.

Really? As James Comey tweeted: “small lies matter, even about yearbooks.” No one sensible is going to hold teenage drinking against you, but we are bothered when you mislead senators and the public today and deny what is obvious: As you put it in 1983, “we’re loud, obnoxious drunks.”

.. What can we call these but lies? And they come on top of deeply misleading testimony about your knowledge of stolen documents when you were in the Bush White House and your involvement in judicial nominations then.

.. 2. Do you have empathy for those who aren’t so blessed as yourself?

An air of entitlement hangs over both your testimony

.. Where the Supreme Court has made its worst mistakes, the problems have arisen often not from a lack of intelligence but from a failure of empathy.

  • In Dred Scott and Plessy, justices did not appreciate what it meant to be black in America;
  • in Korematsu, what it meant to be a Japanese-American facing internment;
  • in Buck v. Bell, what it meant to be a marginalized woman;
  • in Lochner, what it meant to be a laborer;
  • in Bowers v. Hardwick, what it meant to be gay.

If you had been on the court, Judge Kavanaugh, in 1873 for Bradwell v. Illinois, which upheld the State of Illinois’s decision to deny a woman a license to practice law based on her gender, your opinion no doubt would have been well reasoned — but would it have been just?

The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct states, “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Sneering at senators, even when feeling provoked, does not fit that code.

.. I’ve learned from my criminal justice reporting that witnesses err surprisingly often. You have earned a reputation as a first-rate conservative judge, and I thought it possible that there was some mistake and that you had been terribly wronged. But ultimately what perhaps damaged you most was not the unproven allegations of assaults decades ago, but your own lies and partisanship just last week.

.. President Trump has mocked Dr. Blasey, and Republican senators have released an explicit sexual statement to shame Julie Swetnick, another woman whom they have not bothered to listen to. So it appears that your side’s strategy is not to dispel the suspicion but rather to humiliate the accusers — violating them in a display of power and entitlement that is an echo of what they say took place so many years ago.

If that’s the path you choose, you should not sit on the Supreme Court.

Our Real Immigration Problem

America’s immigration crisis right now is that we don’t have enough immigrants.

.. First: The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a record low. In May, The Times reported that women “had nearly 500,000 fewer babies than in 2007, despite the fact that there were an estimated 7 percent more women in their prime childbearing years.” That’s a harbinger of long-term, Japanese-style economic decline.

.. Second: Americans are getting older. In 2010 there were more than 40 million Americans over the age of 65. By 2050 the number will be closer to 90 million, or an estimated 22.1 percent of the population. That won’t be as catastrophic as Japan, where 40.1 percent of people will be over 65

.. Third: The Federal Reserve has reported labor shortages in multiple industries throughout the country. That inhibits business growth. Nor are the shortages only a matter of missing “skills”: The New American Economy think tank estimates that the number of farm workers fell by 20 percent between 2002 and 2014, accounting for $3 billion a year in revenue losses.

The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

.. Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent. In Israel, the share is 22.6 percent; in Australia, 27.7 percent

.. It was nice to hear Republican legislators decry the family separation policy.

.. there’s no sugarcoating the fact that a plurality of Republicans, 46 percent, favored it, while only 32 percent were opposed

.. This isn’t a party that’s merely losing its policy bearings. It’s one that’s losing its moral sense. If anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, then opposition to immigration is the conservatism of morons.

.. It mistakes identity for virtue, entitlement for merit, geographic place for moral value. In a nation of immigrants, it’s un-American.

The Bible’s #MeToo Problem

Dr. Trible labels such stories “texts of terror.”

.. When we remember that a third or more of the women sitting in our pews have been sexually assaulted and the majority of them have been sexually harassed, the absence of biblical women’s stories is telling.

..  almost half of transgender individuals report being sexually assaulted.

.. The muting of the #MeToos of the Bible is a direct reflection of the culture of silence at work in our congregations. An assumption is woven into our sacred texts: that the experiences of women don’t matter. If religious communities fail to tell stories that reflect the experience of the women of our past, we will inevitably fail to address the sense of entitlement, assumption of superiority and lust for punishment carried through those stories and inherited by men of the present.

.. Statistically, perpetrators do not lurk in shadowy corners, waiting to pounce. They are men who have a hint of power, or wish they did, who understand women in much the same way so many of the stories of the Bible do — as objects to be penetrated, traded, bought or sold. They are sitting in our pews, or, sometimes, standing in our pulpits.

.. Abuse takes place when one person fails to see the humanity of another, taking what he wants in order to experience control, disordered intimacy or power. It is the symptom of an illness that is fundamentally spiritual: a kind of narcissism that allows him to focus only on sating his need, blind to the pain of the victim. This same narcissism caused the editors of our sacred stories to limit the rape of Dinah to only nine words in a book of thousands.

.. abusive narcissism must be unraveled through a transformation of heart and mind.

.. If I were preaching the story of Dinah, I might simply ask, “How do you think she felt?” It’s a question that some men have never considered. Though some abusers are beyond the reach of compassion, I have in my work as a pastor witnessed the ways hearts can open when someone tells a story. It is empathy, not regulations, that will create a different vision for masculinity in our nation, rooted in love instead of dominance.

.. But transformation happens only in the hard light of truth.