A U.S. Senator Thrown to the Ground: Security on Steroids

A U.S. Senator being thrown to the ground and handcuffed rather than escorted out of the building because he asked a difficult question for the speaker holding a news conference illustrates not only the bias towards using excessive force that having police power lavishes on human nature, but also a proclivity toward excessiveness without any internal mental check that is entwined in virtually any human brain. That the primary arresting FBI employee was the only person in the room wearing a bulletproof vest inside the federal (government) building may also reveal his penchant for exaggeration—or, going too far without realizing it. The prescription in terms of public policy is a strengthening of checks on law-enforcement employees even, if possible, by embedding other municipal (or federal) employees whose sole function it is to evaluate police conduct either by listening in or observing even in real time. A U.S. senator being thrown to the ground and handcuffed in a federal building in California rather than escorted out of the building evinces a power-trip more base, violent, and primitive than the typical power-trips that occur on the “floor” of the U.S. Senate. It must have been a shock to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla on June 12, 2025 to be physically shoved to the ground, especially if the rationale for his removal from the press conference was itself an exaggeration.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was holding a news conference in early June, 2025 as protests against the arrests of illegal aliens were going on outside in downtown Los Angeles in California, when U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla said, “I have questions for the secretary!”[1] Even if the senator was trying to visibly score political points with his constituents by interjecting, which, by the way, would be in the realm of the sort of power-trip that is quite common in politics, the reaction of the Trump Administration may point to a trumped up political reason for the violent way in which the senator was manhandled by Secret Service employees and then the FBI agent. The White House accused Padilla of “disrespectful political theatre” and Noem herself accused the senator of having ‘made a scene.”[2] If these opinions were behind the manhandling of the senator, then “criminalizing politics” steeped to a new low: instant violence against the elected representative for being political. The violence itself is much worse than merely charging someone for being political in a way that offends someone else in power.

For its part, the Secret Service lied that Padilla had “lunged at Secretary Noem,” and furthermore that the agents there “thought he was an attacker.”[3] Reviewing the video of the event shows the willingness of people with guns to lie to protect themselves, which I contend is reason enough for additional checks on law-enforcement employees, whether federal or state. That the senator, the most senior Democrat on the U.S. Senate’s Border Security and Immigration subcommittee, announced repeatedly that he was a U.S. Senator belies the credibility of the claim that he was thought to be an attacker.

California’s Gavin Newsom, head of state, chief executive, and commander-in-chief of California’s National Guard (i.e., army) wrote online a poignant point worthy of our consideration: “If they can handcuff a US Senator for asking a question, imagine what they will do to you.”[4] Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much imagining to consider the actuality of employees of a government in law enforcement presuming that the law is theirs to make in real time—casting a blind eye intentionally on the actual law—and lying and threatening even victims of a crime with arrest should they object. Enforcing existing law does not give a government employee the discretion with which to ignore the law and even come up with one’s own law and yet how easy it is simply to ignore this vital point in the carrying out of one’s “duties.” I have witnessed this mentality enough to know that it is too common to ignore, and thus I contend that more checks are needed on law-enforcement employees on the non-supervisory level locally, at the member-state level, and at the federal level in the United States. The problem is worse “on the ground” than has reached the public air-waves.

Even if Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, was right in opining, “Padilla embarrassed himself and his constituents with this immature, theatre-kid stunt” because “he wanted attention,”[5] treating the senator as if he were an attacker rather than simply escorting him out of the building—or even letting him remain and treat the altercation between him and Noem as political—reveals an emotionally jejune, hyper-“trigger-happy” mentality among the Secret Service and FBI employees in that federal building. Such a mentality among government employees who have been given the legal right to use force is, I submit, dangerous, and thus should be exculpated from the ranks of law enforcement in any jurisdiction, lest the trend eventuate in people being surrounded by security simply for being angry and even raising one’s voice at a political event. Treating such as a threat is itself passive-aggressive, which as we have seen can turn outright aggressive given the human, all too human proclivity to go to far. 

Put more plainly, assuming that lies used to cover-up the underlying mental ailment, Secret Service employees who perceived the senator lunge at Noem and thought Padilla was an attacker should be put on mental-health leave so they can relax and untighten, and be subjected to psychological tests on latent aggression, for their sort of power-trip is much more dangerous than that which goes on in the U.S. Senate—and the White House, for this incident is but a glimpse toward a realization that not enough had been done even in multiple jurisdictions to root out the sordid pathology from the field of law-enforcement. De facto absolute power “on the ground” loves a vacuum of accountability, and is even willing to lie to keep it at bay.

---

1. Ali Abbas Ahmadi and Kwasi G. Asiedu, “US Senator Dragged Out of LA News Conference and Handcuffed,” BBC.com, June 13, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Police Brutality: A Symptom of a Brain Sickness Stimulated by Large Doses of Power

Behind the ornate rooms and regalia of a head of state, the stately appearance of legislative chambers, and even revered democratic constitutions, the basis of a government is its power—even if beyond authorized limits—to use lethal force against even its electorate peacefully protesting. As the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 show, human beings who have police power—even beyond the authorized—have at the very least a proclivity to abuse people without countervailing power. The students who were assigned as prison guards in the experiment because so abusive toward the students assigned as prisoners that the experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days in a two-week period. Even the experimenter, who took on the role of prison superintendent during the experiment, “had become indifferent to the suffering” of the students who were in the role of prisoners.[1] Lest it be concluded that college students are simply too immature to assume even what seems to be absolute power over other students, such behavior is arguably common among actual police employees. Lest it be further concluded that such behavior is part of an autocratic regime, even the known instances in republics suggest that human nature itself cannot handle such discretion as police departments and their employees have. Incredibly, even with the result of the Stanford study, no one seems to go to this conclusion; rather, primitive human nature may be poised to jump from incident to incident as if doing so enough would end the abuse of such power.

The presumptuousness that police departments and individual employees have in abusing their powers to harm even nonviolent protesters was on display to the world on June 4, 2020 as police in Buffalo, New York, pushed down a 75 year-old man who ironically had stood for peace and justice for decades. The violent act itself by two police employees was telling. Video shows Martin Gugino approaching an oncoming police employee in a nonviolent manner to talk—perhaps to ask a question. Another police employee immediately speeds up his pace—the first indication of possible aggression. Then he and another employee pushed Martin backwards. Incredibly, one of the employees who pushed Martin then shock his head back and forth as if the incident had been Martin’s fault, when the fault lied with the employee. Such shirking of responsibility is a convenient mental tactic by which the abusive mind seeks to justify/protect itself—the delusion being hidden to such a mind by the mind itself.

That the other police employees kept walking past Martin as he lied on the cement with blood coming from his right ear suggests the presence of a group-think dehumanizing even a victim of police aggression. A man off-camera then scolds the police employees for walking past Martin and not even bothering to call an ambulance. Instead of respecting the man for his compassion for Martin and justified reproach of the tax-payer salaried employees, they push the man forward and handcuff him. Perhaps that man and other people in the vicinity should have acted on an instinct to remain silent and offer a NAZI salute. I’m sure the police employees would have felt especially emboldened to exploit the personal conflict of interest out of anger. Were he alive, Gandhi might have recommended that the people in the vicinity stay silently in place and take the blows to show the employees’ moral sickness to the employees themselves and the world.  

At the very least, the moral sickness could include exploiting a personal conflict of interest out of anger, and taking non-threats as threats—that is, being over-sensitive and over-reactive. Out of arrogance, the employees may even have presumed, how dare the old man come to us to ask a question! As for the man—the anonymous Christian—who attempted to shame the Roman police into at least stopping to tend for Martin, how dare anyone talk to us that way.

In short, the mentality of the police employees on the scene may have been too used to abusing their power even and especially when its exercise goes beyond their delegated authority. This implies that accountability from and on police departments in general—and not just in New York—had been practically non-existent. In other words, police employees are routinely given too much discretion (i.e., power) relative to what the human brain can handle, and a system has been set up that protects this dysfunctional sickness such that it is no longer viewed by the aggressors as a sickness.

The implications for public policy are not merely to fix the system of broken accountability; a reduction of discretion is also called for both in terms of what authority governments give their respective police departments and what authority they in turn give to their managers and non-supervisory employees. Incident-specific responses to police brutality do not do justice even to the first task.

How police departments, police unions, and the police employees themselves react to accusations of can say a lot about the dysfunctional sickness that protects abuse manifests in a “clean up” capacity. The sickness itself may convince the infected brains, but the denial makes it possible that people without the vested interest get to glimpse the disease through its symptoms. That is to say, the sickness may cause the infected brains to unwittingly reveal too much.

In trying to defend the two abusive police employees, John Evans, president of the local police union, said, “Our position is these officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square. It doesn’t specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40. They were simply doing their job. I don’t know how much conflict was made. He did slip in my estimation. He fell backwards.”[2] Evans’ statement is revealing in ways that he did not likely intend. Firstly, general orders, such as to clear an area because of a curfew, have plenty of room for discretion, which the head of the labor union ignores. For example, the police could simply have stood at one end of the public square and fired on anyone in it. Alternatively, the police could have walked through the square, arresting people who refuse to leave. Both approaches are consistent with the general order to clear the square. Secondly, in asserting that Martin fell backwards from slipping, which is clearly not the case in the video, the police union’s position was that lying to protect abusive police employees is acceptable—perhaps even laudable.

Moreover, that 57 police employees in that riot squad quit because the two abusive employees were suspended allows us access into the sordid mentality of entitlement even to push over an old man and walk past him with apparent indifference. A squad’s solidarity can thus effectively enable the presumption to over-react to non-threats by committing violent acts. Such a squad, and police department, moreover, would have no moral objection to covering up episodic eruptions of the sickness within. In short, the law doesn’t apply to the departments and employees tasked ironically with enforcing the law. In conveniently excluding themselves, such departments and employees therein reveal their criminal mentality under the ripped cloak of public decency.

In spite of living in democratic republics, Americans were at the time especially vulnerable. “In recent decades, police [there] have amassed power through laws that grant them a high level of immunity, a lack of oversight, big budgets and a focus on reforms that [have brought] little change.”[3] Even though police departments are responsible to democratically-elected officers of cities in a given republic, such as New York, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has been involved in modifying anti-crime legislation and “trying to make elected officials accountable to police, rather than the other way around.”[4] An institutional conflict of interest has been exploited here at the expense of legitimate democratic governance.[5]

To be sure, electorates in some of the American republics have willing ceded to the police a lot of power. In Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, the dominant political ideology assumes that a visibly-heavy police presence is justified and even necessary as a deterrent against crime. That ideology falsely assumes that innocent citizens would not be uncomfortable seeing so many police cars and helicopters on a regular basis—in what can be called the emergencization of the status quo. That fly-through helicopters fly regularly in one area outside of the FAA-mandated corridor with impunity points to how much power the police department has and what its mentality is. That even the campus police department at a local university, Arizona State University, presumes (over academic culture) to park regularly on campus sidewalks and in the middle of academic courtyards suggests that perspective can be warped by the brain sickness of power and little accountability on that sickness would be very unlikely from a pro-police “academic” administration (and student government!), which in turn is not democratically elected. The explicitness by inconsiderate shows of the dominance by force impedes the free exchange of ideas and an atmosphere conducive to thinking. Rather than enhancing the feeling of security, especially during school days, the culture of dominance puts everyone there, especially students from more balanced States on edge. That is not an academic culture, and in fact eclipses it on its own turf. 

Given the weaknesses of the human mind, the decisions or captures of governments and especially non-governments such that they succumb to their own police departments are dangerous, and in fact can easily enable police over-reaches, whether aggressive or passive-aggressive (e.g., pensive presences) with the presumption of impunity. In 2020 with protests taking place in the U.S., E.U., Australia, and Brazil (and other countries), the world may have been awakening to just how lapse-prone the brain can be with de facto absolute physical power. 
To be sure, that those protests were blind to a likely-increasing sordid, deeply selfish disrespect for the law and inconsiderateness of strangers and even neighbors does nothing to reduce that problem (if indeed such respect and considerateness can be treated, much less forced). Although that mentality can easily spark anger, police employees who act on the basis of personal emotion are themselves disrespecting law. In other words, even if incidents of police brutality had been increasing to meet another mentality that refuses to respect the law and thus its enforcers (even apart from their abuses of power), one primitive mentality need not match another, that is naturally anger-provoking. Perhaps the flash point is disrespect being naturally met with disrespect. In the end, anti-social criminals can expect to be dealt with, but within measures that are compatible with the human brain.

---

1. Stanford Prison Experiment.

2. “Buffalo Police Riot Squad Quit to Back Officers Who Shoved Man,” BBC.com, June 5, 2020 (accessed June 6, 2020).

3. Julia Mahncke, “Why Police in the US Are So Powerful,” DW.com, June 6, 2020 (accessed same day).

4. Ibid.

5. For more on institutional conflicts of interest, see Skip Worden, Institutional Conflicts of Interest.

An Aggressive Culture Applied to a Pandemic

If a local culture does not value education, such that the public education system is weak, and furthermore engages in and enables aggressive behavior, even self-protective statements and efforts can provoke aggressive responses based on ignorance. In such a culture, authorities may be particularly unlikely to stem such aggression, and they may even be inclined to engage in active or passive aggression against victims rather than enforce laws and rules. For existence, police called on a noise complaint at an apartment complex may willfully or unwittingly turn on the complainer not due to lack of noise, but, rather, out of ignorance as to what constitutes a residential disturbance, fear of confronting people who are disturbing others, a desire to inhibit future calls or simply due the aggressor’s bidding by blaming the victim for complaining. Besides indicating a corrupt, sordid police culture, that of the locality itself would likely be compromised. During a pandemic, such pathology might be especially transparent because it is clear when people and authorities are not only not enforcing laws and organizational policies geared to protecting both employees and customers, but also acting against public health by turning on the victims. The case of Arizona and, more particularly, the Phoenix police department, is particularly revealing.

On March 30, 2020, the chief executive of Arizona issued an executive order in response to the coronavirus pandemic. With enumerated exceptions, people in Arizona were to stay in their places of domicile. Essential activities constitute the first exception in the order. Obtaining food (i.e., groceries) is first on the list of such activities. Interestingly, outside exercise, including walking, and “constitutionally protected activities such as speech and religion” are also listed.[1] The order requires that when “individuals ar using shared or outdoor spaces when outside their residence or property for Essential Activities, they shall to the extent possible maintain physical distancing of at least six feet from any other person, consistent with guidance from the CDC.”[2] The word shall here means must. The executive order is stronger than mere guidance. Even so, even local police in Phoenix took physical distancing to be nothing stronger than CDC guidelines. Even though the executive order states that “(n)o person shall be required to provide documentation or proof of their activities to justify their activities under this order,” the order was enforceable against infractions. Even so, the police in Phoenix were not necessarily grasping this point.

  

For example, while I was shopping at an Albertsons (Safeway) grocery store in Phoenix on May 1, 2020, when the executive order was still in full effect, a man approached me very closely from behind while I was at the front of a one-way aisle. Even though the “cash register has emerged as the most dangerous place” in a grocery store, “according to public health and worker safety experts,” the most dangerous place for customers may be the aisles when confronted with a customer who not only refuses to keep a distance, but also becomes physically and verbally abusive as a result.[3]

The customer who I encountered was confrontational and aggressive from the outset. He refused to step back, causing me to back up past the product I had been selecting. I asked him to step back so I could get the product, but he told me I would have to go down the aisle and come around again. We were at logger-heads. The aisle was too narrow for him to pass me. Indeed, passing me so closely would have violated the store requirement that six feet be maintained where possible (e.g., excepting the cashier area). While I was calling for a store employee or manager to come (none did), the other customer rammed into my cart, causing it to block the narrow aisle. Both he and his wife (far behind him) were hurling insults to me even though he had violated the store requirement. Even as I was walking to the store manager’s office, the customer’s wife felt the need to insult me. It is such aggression on top of fault that I submit is particularly toxic, as well as prevalent in the local culture there.

A police supervisor claimed he couldn't tell tell from either my video or the store's who slammed into whom. Why would a police manager lie? I had called to complain about his subordinate, but the supervisor managed to dissimulate and deflect (indicative of the culture).

Adding insult to injury, when the police arrived—seven or eight of them!—after I had agreed to the manager’s suggestion that I report the aggression to them, four of the police were positionally or vocally hostile and even confrontational with me even in approaching me. Put another way, when the caller is the victim, he or she does not need three police standing in a hostile pose behind the police employee conversing with the victim. Such distrust applied to a victim is consistent with blaming the victim.

Even though the store manager told me later that she had told the police that the store requirement on physical distancing was not a suggestion, the policewoman told me that the manager had told her otherwise. I showed the police employee a large sign indicating that maintaining six feet of distance was a store requirement and told her that a store policy is not a suggestion, then she was once again antagonistic, threatening me by asking me if I understand that I could be charged with assault because my cart blocked the aisle after the other customer repeatedly slammed into the cart. 

I don't know why law enforcement would even venture an opinion on a store policy (and getting that wrong) when it is clear that law enforcement enforces laws. The police employee even got the law wrong. She erroneously claimed that the governor’s executive order only gave a guideline for physical distancing, so it was unenforceable. Strangely, she even told me that the police cannot enforce a store policy, or suggestion as she viewed a policy to be. “A store policy is not a law,” the police employee told a man with three degrees in business. Perhaps because she was irked at me for knowing more, she even told me that I had committed an assault against the customer who had rammed my cart because my cart was blocking the aisle. Incredible!

Was there no limit to the lengths that the local police would go to blame the victim? Later, when I spoke with the policewoman’s supervisor, who had also been at the store but had not bothered to speak with me, I was stunned when he claimed that he couldn’t tell from the store’s video (and presumably mine, as the police woman had shown my video to him in the store) who was slamming whose cart. After the police herd had left the store, the store manager and I examined very closely the store video, and we agreed that the other customer had rammed my cart—not vice versa. Yet later, the police supervisor claimed that nothing of the sort was on the tape (including my own!) and that the store manager had agreed with him. “It is on tape,” I told the supervisor by phone. “You’re wrong,” he said, “maybe your conduct was disorderly.” He was threatening to charge me with disorderly conduct!

In short, the local police seem to have been getting away with turning the tables on victims, especially if a police employee (or supervisor!) is annoyed when a victim tries to support his or her claim even with audio-video by returning to the matter of the actual aggression. Even when I called in a complaint against loud, heavy-bass music near my apartment, the policeman who responded felt the need to focus on me rather than the ordinance-violator. “She says that you taping her music from inside your apartment is harassment.” Even getting some evidence away from the culprit’s apartment outside would not constitute harassment. In fact, for a police department to discourage evidence and then refuse to intercede for lack of evidence (i.e, he said, she said) suggests (just a suggestion!) a dysfunctional police culture (as well as incompetent employees). For a police department to take such a counter-claim seriously and even use an accusation-tone with the victim of the disturbing loud noise may suggest (just a suggestion!) that the police employees are habituated to blaming the victim or even viewing every call as a dispute rather than a complaint.

In my conversations with the policewoman at Safeways and her supervisor later by phone, neither person wanted to talk about the aggression against me. They were both accusatory throughout. Even though I had both the store requirement and that in the governor’s executive order backing me up (as well as even my video of the incident), the strategy of the police was to undermine me at every point—too keep the focus on me—even accusing me of physical assault and disorderly conduct. The store manager had suggested that I let her call the police, and I concluded after the police herd had left that I could no longer trust the police to even focus on aggressors. Such passive aggression, moreover, is a glaring indication of a dysfunctional department culture.

---

[1] Executive Order 2020-18, State of Arizona, March 30, 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Nathaniel Meyersohn, “This Is the Most Dangerous Place in the Grocery Store,” CNNbusiness, May 1, 2020 (accessed same day).

Police/Security Over-Reaches: A Mentality Unfit for the Job

Absolute authority corrupts absolutely. On an organization or even a local scale, people with authority can play considerably on the ignorance of individuals to over-reach at their expense. As a consequence, surveillance and actions can be horribly excessive without there being recognition of it. Seeing an off-duty police employee wearing a bullet-proof vest and standing next to a store security guard in the entry-way of a grocery store in Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, can give at least new-comers an immediate sense of the excessive use of authority to intimidate even the innocent shoppers. As if seeing a policeman and security employee "greet" customers entering the store was not enough, I also saw a young mother with her young daughter in one of the aisles “freeze up” at the sight of the policeman (wearing a bullet-proof vest) staring at them in a confrontational posture from the end of the aisle. I could not believe my eyes. As the front doors opened as I left the store, I looked up only to see a security guard with his feet pointed right and left, respectively, in a confrontational posture. 

A security guard stands in a confrontational posture at an Albertsons (Frys) grocery store in Phoenix.

Could such practices ever be accepted as the default in the "land of the free"? It depends on the State. Furthermore, how does such ill-fitting excessiveness, which would only fit were someone reported to be shooting in the store, shift from inappropriateness to become the default—the status quo? Typically the underlying mentality is one of stubborn ignorance that cannot be wrong, backed up by an excessive and microscopic grip on real or invented authority. How is it that the more educated and broad-minded perspective in upper-echelon management comes to doubt even its common sense by being hoodwinked by the lower mentality? Excessive delegation to middle-and-lower levels of management, where the wider perspective can easily be lacking, may be part of the answer. Playing a supporting role, the value-system in the local culture may actually support the excess or look the other way in blind obedience to an ideology. Finally, if a practice beyond the pale gets its toehold in the status quo, then people can become blind to the excessiveness and treat it instead as normal. Excessiveness as the new normal. Dislodging an invasive or encroaching unquestioned trend can be very difficult given the nature of the status-quo default to act like cement. Two case studies demonstrate that an absurd over-reach by someone in the security field can occur. The first took place in Orlando, Florida. Accountability did occur, so the absurd was not allowed to become ensconced. The second was in Phoenix, Arizona. Such accountability is much more difficult there, so the aggressive over-reach of authority would likely become further ensconced in the conducive or enabling local culture. 

In September, 2019, an elementary school “resource officer” arrested two 6-year-olds at school in Orlando, Florida. At least one of the kids had committed the high crime of kicking another student. The “resource officer,” a misleading term for what was actually a policeman capable of making arrests (a resource for whom?), was subsequently fired for not having obtained permission from a “watch commander.” The militaristic term, commander, in having anything to do with first-graders, makes clear just how far the Orlando police department had overreached. Indeed, I submit that the cloak of being a resource is just as dishonest, and overreaching, as is the appropriation of military terms. A police employee is neither a security guard nor a military commando.

Of course, arresting a first-grader is such an obvious overreach that the judgment involved in the overreaching itself is arguably incompatible with the legal right to use lethal force. At least one of the first-graders was arrested for battery, fingerprinted, and had mugshots taken. That a police employee (or department) would even suppose that with a commander’s permission is appropriate or sufficient to arrest a first-grader for kicking another kid is so far-fetched that a lack of perspective, not to mention common sense, was also in the mix. Even Florida State Attorney Aramis Ayala chastised the Orlando police department when she said, “These very young children ought to be protected, nurtured, and disciplined in a manner that does not rely on the criminal justice system to do it.”[1] That a police employee (and department) would interlard that system indicates a basic lack of understanding regarding that system and the fact that it has boundaries. People who have problems with boundaries should not be wielding power, for such people love power too much to exercise it realistically. For a child to make being a child a crime suggests that that child should not be allowed to play with guns, much less to be lawfully entitled to use them. 

Such an obvious overreaching mentality can also exist “under” the police, such as in security guards. In Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, the security guards on the light-rail trains have regularly over-reached beyond their authority. This reflects the culture, as the same tendency can be observe in other domains there. 

For example, some of the employees of the security subcontractor have turned on passengers simply for taking pictures inside the train. Guards have aggressively threatened to kick such passengers off the trains, using the flimsy excuse that the guards had been photographed and the erroneous claim that picture-taking on the trains was illegal. Such ignorance that could not be wrong backed up by authority that simply did not exist is inherently toxic and utterly incompatible with (i.e., a danger to) wielding even the authority that has been authorized. Beyond even the ignorance is the sheer aggressive nature that looks for any opening in which to bully another person. In fact, the dismissiveness of other people’s natural boundaries may itself be sociopathic. The aggression unleashed by efforts to hold such people accountable points to a demented perspective in which the victim rather than the aggressor is actually the aggressive party. 
It is interesting, or telling, that security employees would be so preoccupied with passengers taking pictures and yet actually refuse to do anything, whether on a platform or on a train, about a passenger known to have walked across the tracks even in front of an oncoming train. 

This man rushed across the tracks so fast his baby's carriage back wheels caught on a rail.  

Once I witnessed a man run across a street (amid oncoming cars) and across the tracks before entering the train-car that I entered. The security employee told me that he too had seen this, but could do nothing. "The street is not our property," he explained. "Aren't the tracks your property?" I countered. He did not reply. Being so reluctant to even confront such a passenger (or people smoking on the platforms) is quite a contrast to the excessive presence of the employees on a train car. 

Three security employees are clustered together in one half of a rail car. Typically none of them would be checking tickets. Imagine being a passenger surrounded by security guards! 

Looking at me leaving the train and then at the three security employees, the man in the foreground asked me if he could enter the train! When I was on the train standing next to the door, the security employee shown on the right walked over and stood in the middle between the doors, blocking the entry-way to the rest of the car. He was too big to be standing in that space, but I suppose he felt that he could do whatever he wanted as he had a badge.

That the security company put as many as six guards at a time in a car (typically not during commuter times, as office workers could be expected to complain) suggests a proclivity toward and enabling blind-spot concerning excessiveness itself. At the very least, the employees don't care whether passengers feel uncomfortable as a result. Sometimes the excessiveness is so obvious on a rail platform that customers may stand at a distance until a train comes.

Four or five security employees were on this platform. 

Twice I witnessed around fourteen police and security employees enter a rail car to check tickets. In both instances, three or four passengers were taken to the platform to be surrounded by the police and security employees as the latter wrote municipal citations! Imagine if so much attention were directed to a motorist pulled over for speeding! In effect, the passengers were being treated as criminals likely to become violent. 
Tellingly, at least one supervisor of bus drivers at a bus-transfer hub in Tempe decided to have his new van's yellow lights flashing continuously, as if the default were to treat the routine as a constant state of emergency just because one might be possible. 

Even during daylight hours, on a Sunday when the hub was virtually empty, a supervisor still felt the need to have his flashers on!

The flashing yellow lights on top of the white van are barely visible, and yet presumably someone thought they were fitting. 

People who are not willing or able to perceive when they have gone too far should not be permitted to wield power over other people. 

The relationship between excessiveness and over-reaching is an interesting one. Perhaps the former connotes being oblivious while the latter stresses the underlying motive. In both of the cases of Orlando and Phoenix, the excessiveness in the over-reaching itself was of such an extent as to be utterly transparent to the naked eye. It is perhaps a easily overlooked truism that going beyond authorized authority is itself an over-reach.

Typically when an over-reach or excessiveness is treated as part of the legitimate status-quo, or societal default, the culprits eventually go so far that they come to be viewed as a problem. For example, the decision of Allied Security in Phoenix to have the ticket-checkers/security-guards wear police-color uniforms and even separate silver badges could eventually lead to the company being charged with intentionally impersonating police. 

One of six security employees (not the one who became aggressive concerning picture-taking of half of the car)  watching passengers (rather than checking tickets) on a routine basis rather than because of an incident suspected or in progress on one car of a light-rail train in Phoenix. The obvious police impersonation, with its (intended) implications of additional authority, is no accident. Even though the employee pictured here was not belligerent, she and another employee blocked the conduit between the two sides of the car (and thus were "front and center" for any general picture-shot).

I submit that the impersonation to look like police employees was geared to intimidating customers beyond that which a security guard as such could muster. On account of the low pay, minimal qualifications (a High School diploma), and the bad (hiring) management (as reported by former employees online), it should be no surprise that the attitude toward customers has been more like that of the local police to the citizens than customer service in a company. The allure of power taken can be too much, especially if that elixir is not ideally in a customer-service attitude.
In the Phoenix Public Library, the security employees also wore silver detachable badges, at least as of 2019.  

The security employees are so numerous that a patron could easily sense that the library's management had gone too far. That the security employees intermingle with the police stationed at the library renders the impersonation problem more of problem because patrons could more easily assume that the employees also have police powers. 

The policewoman is at the left-back, next to one of the security employees. 

That the police and security employees are constantly making the rounds passing by patrons who are reading or studying does not render the library a place conducive to studying. 

At the Tempe Public Library, armed security employees with badges stood at the entrance at least by 2019. A volunteer told me that a manager had insisted that the "Welcome" desk be relabeled "Security" just in case patrons miss the point even in seeing two armed guards in front. 

Those security guards, each having a gun and taser, also made rounds through areas where patrons were reading or studying, as the video below testifies. 

At one of the pot dispensaries in Phoenix, a security guard could be seen sitting at a close proximity to the customers on whom he was keeping a direct eye. I doubt it made any difference to him whether they felt uncomfortable with his excessiveness. To him, he may not even have been excessive. 

The security guard is seated on the right, positioned to face the three customers seated against the side wall. Was the guard worried that one of the customers would suddenly explode in reefer madness? Such over-blown assumptions, while ludicrous, have existed in Arizona even as marijuana was legal in some of the other States. 

In the television series, Downton Abbey, the Dowager Countess, played by Maggie Smith, remarks that power goes to the head of a common person like strong drink. She is referring to the village physician whom the British military put in charge of the military hospital during World War I at the Downton residence. If that could be said from her perspective of a physician, the hiring of (in many cases) inner-city youth to wear badges on trains can be expected to lead to a host of problems.  

The dynamic can be explained by appropriating Nietzsche’s philosophy in which some people are weak internally and so they cannot resist their instinctual urge to dominate even and especially the strong. The weak resent the strong for their self-confidence and surfeit of strength. Whereas the strong do not feel a need to use more power than necessary because they have more than enough strength anyway, the weak will stoop to even cruelty to exact even a bit of pleasure from the exercise of power externally; exerting power internally, as in mastering an intractable urge, requires more strength than the weak have.

If a hiring budget is inadequate to attract a certain maturity- and knowledge-level, then fine-tuning the hiring criteria will not be adequate. Unfortunately, if, as Nietzsche says, the weak cannot but be weak and the strong cannot but be strong, then training too can be expected to have limited usefulness. Organizational, governmental, and even societal accountability may have to be called on to supply the needed check on the power-overreaches. Unfortunately, in such a law-and-order culture as has existed in Arizona at least through the first two decades of the twenty-first century, security guards as well as the local police could be expected to get away with a lot. Even the state's major universities, including ASU and UA, were not immune from over-reaches by security guards given police status (a police department is reports to a city, rather than an organization), and yet students passively took it while the "academic" administrators compromised academic ways to make way for other values such as intimidation (i.e., of students). 

It was not uncommon, at least by 2019, for campus "police" to park their cars on a routine basis on sidewalks used by students to get from class to class. The assumption that they would not be concerned passing such a car belongs in a fantasy movie rather than on at an institution of higher learning (at least in principle). 

It was not uncommon for campus police to "patrol" in one place on an ongoing basis out in front where students walk. The obvious need to stick out carries with it a certain amount of ego and lack of concern for how the young students may be affected emotionally. Few, I submit, would feel that such a presence during a school day is necessary to feel safe. 

In fact, in addition to the campus police, ASU hires student security guards. The result is a sense of constantly being watched on that campus, which obviously must have had cameras too. 
Once while talking to two students representing a cause at a table, I noticed that a student security guard was taking his job too seriously, or was told to do so, by how he was so obviously watching us. I was reminded of the secret police of the Communist states in the last century. 

Notice how needlessly confrontational the security employee's posture is in this picture. 

To the extent that a local culture enables the over-reaches by casting a blind or even permissive eye, as in Arizona, the imposition of checks on authority are especially important. That Florida's authorities, in contrast, came out against the child-cop who tried to criminalize being a child suggests that not every state is as dire in this respect as is Arizona. 

---

1. A. Willingham, Artemis Moshtaghian, and Amir Vera, “A School Resource Officer Is Fired after Arresting Two 6-year-old Children,” CNN.com, September 23, 2019 (accessed same day).

On the Unitary and Imperial American Presidency

In December 2009, Abdullah II, King of Jordon, dismissed the prime minister and replaced him with a palace aide and loyalist, dissolved Parliament, and postponed legislative elections for a year.   For all the defects of a representative democratic system, it is far superior to autocratic rule, especially by a dictator.   It is natural for people to resist preemption. “The nature of humans is they want democracy,” said Ali Dalain, an independent member of the Parliament that was dissolved. “One person cannot solve all problems and cannot make everyone happy, so people must share in determining their fate.”[1] These quotes are revealing from the standpoint of the unitary and imperial American presidency. 

   

Regarding “one person cannot solve all problems,” the American theory of the unitary executive and, moreover, the imperial presidency can be challenged. The unitary executive means that one person as president is better than a presidential council, for example. In a council, it may be difficult to reach a final decision, which is a drawback especially in times of emergency. Hence, the president's role as commander in chief has been tied to the unitary executive model. However, the emergency card has, I submit, been overplayed. A better reason is that a final say may be needed on contending military plans, but a council's majority could be taken. Most importantly, one person can be wrong, even in military matters. Would President George W. Bush have been able to link Iraq to the attack on September 11, 2001 and thus invade the country and occupy it for years had a presidential council have had to sign off? To be sure, only Congress can declare war, for it is a conflict of interest for the commander in chief to do so. Yet the fact that such commanders have been able to unilaterally begin military engagements means that the problem of one person being wrong should be taken seriously.  

The imperial presidency refers to the increase in presidential power in the twentieth century in the U.S. This has been at the expense not only of Congress, but also the state governments, given the federal power of preemption. In proposing laws, the president depends theoretically on Congressional leaders to steer the legislation through the lawmaking machinery. Should the Congress pass an alternative, the president can veto it, yet this does not mean the president's own proposal becomes law. So, constitutionally, the relationship seems balanced, and ample opportunity for voices exists. Even so, the president has an edge on Congress in that the latter goes on recesses whereas the West Wing is always working (though the same could be said of congressional staffs). So more to the point, the president is nearly always in the spotlight--relative even to individual senators--and thus can mold public opinion. 

Given the increased power of the presidency, it can be argued that too much power has come to be in the hands of one person. Human nature may not handle wielding so much power very well. The Stanford experiments in the 1960's on the abuse of power testify to the problem. Whereas the presidency may have a figure head without running into this problem, spreading out the power may fit better with how humans are constituted, especially those humans who suffer from ailments such as malignant narcissism. A presidential council could put a check on such a person, especially if he tends to lose control of his urges of the moment at the risk of the reputation, at least, of the presidency and the U.S.  

Disassociating the presidency from "one person" could also disspell any associated hero worship that has held on from ancient king-worship.  This tendency is evinced not just when a president is sworn in, but also when he gives the State of the Union address. Contributing to the problem, the media obsesses on his every move, including what he is doing on vacation.  

1. Michael Slackman, "Jordan's King Remakes His Government," The New York Times, December 22, 2009. 

Saudi Arabia Going After Dissenters Abroad: On the Egregiousness of Concentrated Power

After having been selected by his father as the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia “authorized a secret campaign to silence dissenters—which included the surveillance, kidnapping, detention and torture  of Saudi citizen—over a year before the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, according to American officials” with access to the classified reports.[1] The killers of Khashoggi had been involved in at least 12 other such operations starting in 2017. The sheer egregiousness of the operation under the crown prince says something about not only dictatorship, but also the nature of power itself.

According to the American officials, “(s)ome of the operations involved forcibly repatriating Saudis from other Arab countries and detaining and abusing prisoners in palaces belonging the crown prince and his father, King Salman.”[2] Although Saudi law forbids torture as it is considered an abuse of power, and confessions made under duress are inadmissible in Saudi courts, dictators can easily ignore the force of law as if it were just a moral imperative. Furthermore, Saudi officials acknowledged after Khashoggi’s murder “that Saudi intelligence service had a standing order to bring dissidents home.”[3] Hence the torture and murders involved international relations, a fact that points to not only the extent of the crown prince’s use of power to go after dissent, but also the sheer brazenness and even the underlying mentality.

Extending the reach to include Saudis in other countries points to the egregious extent to which the crown prince went to stifle dissent. “Saudi Arabia has a history of going after dissidents and other Saudi citizens abroad, but the crackdown escalated sharply after Prince Mohammed was elevated to crown prince in 2017, a period when he was moving quickly to consolidate power. Since then, Saudi security forces have detained dozens of clerics, intellectuals and activists who were perceived to pose a threat, as well as people who had posted critical or sarcastic comments about the government on Twitter.”[4] That writing a critical or even sarcastic comment on a blog or on Twitter could justify being kidnapped in another country and killed there or brought back to Saudi Arabia points back to a dictator’s attitude toward power—that a person cannot have too much of it, and thus that any external (or even internal!) constraint is to be regarded as not only pliable, but easily pushed aside altogether.

When a Saudi group linked to the crown prince killed and dismembered with a bone saw inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey’s government was using surveillance video and audio recordings to uncover the crime.” According to Bruce Riedel a former CIA analyst, “the team’s sloppiness showed that it was used to operating freely inside the kingdom and not under the watchful eye of an adversary’s intelligence service.”[5] The brazenness may suggest that as condensed in a dictator, power warps the mind’s perspective. 
By analogy, gravity warps time and space. As the mass of power increases, perhaps past a threshold point, the normal perception and judgment of having gone too far may be skewed by the power itself. Perhaps similar to additions, the high from the intense pleasure from having a lot of power occasions the warping of perception and judgement regarding one’s own power and the illusion that complete control over other people, hence with zero dissent politically, is achievable. Other operative mental defense-mechanisms doubtlessly include denial. If so, then checks on substantial power being held by political officials (as well as religious, educational, and business officials) are grounded in what having a lot of power does to the human mind. Put another way, a limit exists as to how much power is compatible with human biology.

---

[1] Mark Mazzetti, “Saudi Prince Ran Brutal Campaign to Stifle Dissent,” The New York Times, March 18, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

Political Power and Jesus' Way: A Dictator Comes to Value the Kingdom of God

Religion and political power can be dangerous if combined and aimed at people deemed to be apostate or heretical. In calling for the Crusades, our Roman Catholic popes put their political power behind the theocratic and political goal of taking back Jerusalem “for Christ.” Those popes and the kings and soldiers who went to war with the Muslims there wittingly or unwittingly violated Jesus’s preachment to love rather than fight enemies. Christianity and political power have not mixed well, historically. The U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government and, presumably, the states, to establish or sponsor a religion or even favor one. Theocracies, such as those in the Calvinist colonies in New England (except for Rhode Island, which allowed freedom of religion), would be excluded as a political form for the Union as well as its member-states. Rather than meaning “sub-unit” or “province” as in Normandy in the E.U. state of France, the American Continental Congress has applied “state” in the generic sense of a polity with a yet-to-be-determined political system. Hence while the Articles of Confederation were in force, before the U.S. Constitution, the states could legally form theocracies. The film, The President (2014), is fictional, but this doesn’t stop its portrayal of a toppled president in hiding from looking realistic, given the cases of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The character arc of the president while he is in hiding, or “on the run,” captures a generally unknown way in which Jesus’ preaching on how to enter the unknown Kingdom of God can apply to political power in a good way. This is not to advocate theocracy, however. Rather, individuals who wield power, whether in government or business, can come to see the very nature of power differently and gain new insight into the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus.

The full essay is at "The President."

Constructing a Constitution: Egypt in the Arab Spring

Concerning a new constitution, which is more important: the process or the content? In Egypt in 2012, that most secularists and the Coptic Christian representatives walked out of the assembly working on a constitutional document suggests that the final product would not have legitimacy for all of Egypt. To be sure, it is possible for a partisan group to design a system of basic law that is not overtly self-serving at others’ expense. The document that emerged from the assembly weakens the presidency and strengthens the parliament. This shift was in line with the popular protest in “the Arab Spring.” However, the assembly left in place a “longstanding article” grounding Egyptian law in the principles of one religion. Furthermore, a provision on women’s equality was left out, and the military generals would keep their existing power. Moreover, anticipating dissolution from Mubarak-appointed judges, the assembly began its work from the last Egyptian constitution.

Do the members of the constitutional assembly look liberal or conservative?  Reuters

Basing deliberations on the status quo works against the process needed to arrive at a new constitution, especially if the last constitution had been constructed in a very different time. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that legal experts indicated that the assembly’s final document was “almost identical to the 1971 constitution written by former President Anwar Sadat”—hardly a democratic document.

The construction of a new constitution from scratch would have had particular value in allowing the old political system to “catch up” to the contemporary context. The default, in short, in a constitutional assembly’s deliberations should not be based in the status quo. This point is easily missed, particularly when the other weakness of a partisan group dominating the assembly is also the case.

In the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz’s expression), delegates from all of the principal segments of society should be included in a constitutional assembly, with no group having a majority. Where such a majority is the case, a certain percentage of the minority should be required for an article to be adopted. Second, rather than being based on the last constitution, the starting point could be based on a new blue-print formulated in very basic terms by a committee (composed of delegates from the major segments of society). In the case of Egypt, delegates favoring particular major religions as well as secular society should have been on such a committee, and, moreover, active in the deliberations of the committee of the whole—the assembly itself.

A constitutional assembly should be a microcosm of the macro society, and thus inclusive of the powers and the non-so-powerful. Ideally, Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” should apply, wherein no delegate knows which segment he or she is in. Hence, no segment is apt to be left out or expunged. The veil would apply as well to the existing or prior constitution, so ever its assumptions would not serve as the default for deliberation. In short, a constitutional assembly should “reinvent the wheel” in the context of where a society is, rather than was. This does not mean that the resulting document would necessarily be progressive, particularly if a given society is traditionally-oriented.

In the case of Egypt, the “new” constitution drafted by the assembly, unlike the constitution that had been written by Anwar Sadat, includes a reference to the laws of a particular religion. In fact, both the state and “society” are given the authority to “ensure public morality.” Lest it be supposed that Egyptian society had become more traditionalist and religious in terms of a particular religion since 1971, the changes from the status quo document could simply have been a reflection of the partisan make-up of the assembly. 

In conclusion, all major segments of society must ratify a proposed document of basic law for it to have legitimacy and a real chance at a sustained run. Absent such approval of a super-majority or of all of the major elements of society, a proposal should be read as partial or incomplete. Rather than returning to it, a new assembly of delegates should “start from scratch” so a document can be crafted with presuppositions freed from the tyranny of the status quo and any major faction.

Sources:

David Kirkpatrick, “Islamists Rush Through Egyptian Constitution and Prepare to Vote on It,” The New York Times, November 30, 2012.

Sam Dagher and Matt Bradley, “Egypt Adds Islamic Influence to Constitution,” The Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2012.