There's a lot more than symbolism. But okay, let's talk symbolism.

Having marched in the 60s (and my Bernie-clone journalist-father sided early with MLK) and having mourned both King & Bobby, I know tense times can push radicalization that ranges from overdue ferocity (#MeToo and BLM and toppling confed statues) all the way to over-wrought and unhelpful shrieks, or even enemy agitprop. Time tells the difference, of course, and often I've needed to change where I drew those lines, for example when I revised my opinion of Malcolm X. (Let's have some fun and put him on Lee's pedestal!) 

Alas, I will get dissed for even raising the fact that this spectrum -- ranging from long-overdue fury and fed-up activism to unhelpful radical preening*, to falling for KGB/KKK agitprop lures -- even exists. Those applying purity tests (that they conveniently get to rule-upon) won't accept me as an ally, however hard or long or effectively I have fought for the Great Experiment. (Far more effectively than most of those radical judges.) 

Still, I'd rank Cortez and Pizarro and Jackson and Sheridan higher, as murderous white oppressors of indigenous peoples, than the Italian explorer Columbus, who arguably did little more than slightly accelerate an an inevitable contact that others botched into holocaust.

As for Churchill, whose statue is now under attack? Was he a man of his times who said things cringeworthy by later standards? Absolutely. Though Gandhi also freely admitted that his guilt-tripping tactics could only sway the public conscience of a British public that HAD a conscience, and that most empires - especially those of Hitler or Stalin - would simply have rubbed him out, with a shrug.

Only fools ignore how crucial Churchill was - for all his faults - at unifying resistance to those vastly more-evil empires. Can you truly claim to be anti-nazi while howling at the one person who most-consistently and effectively thwarted Hitler's mad dreams?

Elsewhere I quote Fredrick Douglass's eulogy of Abraham Lincoln (look it up!) where he avows that he spent years frustrated with Lincoln's seemingly tepid abolitionism... till he realized that there could have been no ally better suited and positioned to steer a path through perilous times and bring the needed change.

When judging historical figures, one test stands above all others. Did he or she strive to move the needle forward? Were they substantially better than those they led and better than their times? By that standard, Jefferson and Washington led, even in the cautionary tale of their self-admitted hypocrisies, but especially in setting momentum to a ponderously too-slow but inexorable arc of history and justice that, for all its frustrating faults, shines brightly against all the rest of the last 10,000 wretched years. A momentum that today's activists replicate, reinforce and re-invigorate.

Gene Roddenberry put women crew in miniskirts and made Uhura a receptionist, and we had to wait a long time for Sisko. So was GR a sexist-racist pig? Or was he the fellow who lifted our gaze from a morass of sci fi dystopias to imagine a better future of justice and peace, when all of these issues will be viewed in retrospect as the weird reflexes of frightened caveman ancestors? See what MLK said about Star Trek, before you blurt a reflex answer.

We're now in the fight of our lifetimes to preserve that Experiment. To prove that government of, for and by the people shall not perish from the Earth. Some would split our coalition with obsessive symbolism attacks aimed not at redressing injustice, but preening a high virtue-classification for themselves, while offending the very public whose support we need, right now. 

I draw that line between confederate statues (boo!) and taking Jackson off the $20 bill and painting BLM on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Trump's stolen house (choice!), on the one hand - and Churchill and Washington on the other. 

But I HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE. I'll even listen.

Will you? 

== Beware of allies who would weaken us ==

* Again this is about splitterism. Shall we seek a broad Union Coalition to win this Phase Eight of the American Civil War? Or take pleasure in offending the very allies that we need?

Because if we don't win it crushingly at the ballot box in November, we may be forced into a much worse Phase Nine. Take a hint from the recent "Generals' Revolt." We need allies now, more than ever.

I arm you here with all you need, in order to quash those splitter mantras. Get to know these facts, so you can show the splitters they are factually wrong, in almost every respect! And yes, there's much more in Polemical Judo.

== It's the cop unions, stupid ==

I predicted in The Transparent Society (1997) that cop-cams and bystander video recordings would hold police accountable… though perhaps in grudging increments. Even earlier, in my novel Earth (1991) I talked about how there would be *fewer* police in a future when all citizens can record whatever they see with their eyes… when most kinds of violent street crime largely vanish because it is always caught. (The Seattle experiment could preview this result… at least during its zealous “co-op” phase.)

That - of course - is how to “defund the police”… by reducing our need for them, plus ensuring that only grownups get on the force, because cameras catch imbeciles like these Chicago fools lunging in a congressman’s office while their city was being looted.

Cop unions around the country must decide - right now - whether they are here to protect the assholes, or to protect good cops from the assholes. There is no longer any middle ground, and the "good majority" needs to say so.

== Late notes ==

Vote Veterans pushes candidates for office who have served. Yes, most are Democrats. That’s a trend based on a lot of things, including the devolution of the Republican Party into fact-hating virulence and madness. So these folks are stepping up to defend America again.  Oh, I wouldn’t mind a bit if Joe chose Tammy Duckworth. Look her up.

Six former confederate states plus (you’d guess) Indiana use age as an excuse to limit use of absentee ballots, violating (as asserted by Equal Citizen) the 26th Amendment.

Finally... Borowitz is a national treasure!

Black Lives Matter! So demand TECH!

Again and again, I try to point out that dogmas are seldom our friends.  Take the trend, in our civilization, toward expanding our horizons of worry, opportunity and (above all) inclusion. That moral arc has been historic and important and it must continue!  Indeed, passionate agitation for reform has its vital place. Though as I show, the advances we’ve made (and must keep making) have also happened because of economic and psychological and pragmatic reasons. 

This should make fans of progress happy! It means that our moral march forward, toward inclusiveness, tolerance and diversity, has strong support from traits other than just indignation. 

Shall we test it? I am about to say something about the “BlackLives Matter” movement -- something that is utterly friendly and supportive… and I hope this pragmatic suggestion will be well-received.

Yes! Absolutely, almost-weekly tales about tragic victims-of-racism like Eric Garner and Walter Scott (shot in the back), Samuel DuBose (shot in the face) and Sandra Bland have rocked America, revealing what black activists have been telling us for years.  About the danger they face – each day – from that percentage (even if it is small) of police officers who are thugs in uniform. It has to be frustrating for the righteous activists.

“Oh, now you’re finally starting to believe us?  Now that cameras are catching the bastards in the act?”

Well… um… yes?  Many of us believed you before the current wave of video revelation began with Rodney King. But of course the balance of credibility shifted dramatically when cameras spread even wider. And yes, visual proof is sure gonna help. Which raises the central question here –

Why aren’t you making the cameras themselves more of an issue in all this?

Think. What is making the biggest difference today? Technology! The phone-cam is turning into a Great Equalizer, even more than a Colt 45 was in the old west.  Every year cameras get faster, cheaper, better, more numerous and more mobile, at a rate faster than Moore’s Law. And so far, the chief result has not been Big Brother! It has been empowerment of average citizens. Cameras - and other tech - are helping people hold elites accountable.

== This was inevitable ==

All right, I predicted this way back, via a 1989 novel Earth, portraying ghetto youths and the elderly defending themselves this way, in the 2030s. It’s happening quicker in real life. 

Even closer was the forecast in my nonfiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? (1997).  There I described a scene of the near future, when each cop would be wearing a recording device… and every person stopped for a traffic violation would step out of the car asking “what’s the problem, officer?”… with a blinking shoulder cam of his or her own.

Can you honestly doubt that day is far away, any longer? Which brings up again that core question.  In addition to hands up! and Black Lives Matter! Why aren’t you also shouting “We want more tech!”

Why aren’t you focusing on what has actually made the biggest difference, so far – getting more and more cameras out there, into the hands (better yet, onto the shoulders) of youths and others who are in danger?  Perhaps demanding pertinent tech classes in minority area high schools? Or asking your nerdier kids to help equip the others with tools they need to save their lives? 

Here’s where a couple of billionaires might be approached for grants, financing the development and distribution of hands-free (that’s important!) shoulder-cams that upload directly to free storage in the cloud. Flood some problematic city with these things, as a test… and watch how quickly the balance starts to change.

A balance between bad cops and the more numerous good ones, who now will feel empowered – and highly motivated, with active citizen help -- to rid their ranks of bullies and thugs.

Sure, "Black Lives Matter!"  But if you really want to leverage the trend that is practically changing everything, you will add another cry:

"Give us more tech!"

==You have the right to film ==

Following up. This Slate report gives detailed background to the growing legal consensus that you have a right to record your interactions with police, a right that has been declared "settled law" by both the Obama Justice Department and four federal circuit courts. This abstraction gained fiercely palpable pertinence in the case of the recent arrest of Sandra Bland, which was captured by the arresting officer's dash cam.

"Dashcam footage of Sandra Bland’s arrest is disturbing for a number of reasons—including trooper Brian Encinia’s apparent use of excessive force in subduing Bland. But for civil liberties advocates, a less dramatic moment of the footage is nearly as disquieting. When Bland attempts to film the encounter on her cellphone, Encinia demands that she “get off the phone.” When Bland insists that she has “a right to record,” Enchain repeatedly barks, “PUT YOUR PHONE DOWN!” Eventually, she does. It’s clear she had no choice."

And there you have the reason why we need special Shoulder Cams (as I portrayed in The Transparent Society). Autonomous and automatically uploading to the Cloud. So that you can emerge from the car with completely open hands.

Demand this tech. Work with a Good Billionaire. Choose a city and distribute these things en masse. Do the test now.

== An inexcusable omission ==

Sorry, but the point must be belabored. What activist or pundit seems willing to emphasize the role that technology has played in this ongoing revolution, transforming and shifting power on our streets? That omission is bizarre… and somewhat culpable… since our main goal should be a pragmatic one. The practical ending of these abuses! 

It is time to add a new slogan.  One that may offer less opportunity for righteous rage, but that promises a stronger chance to actually solve problems.

Give us more tech!

====

SINCE POSTING THIS:  From yesterday's NY Times on the Cincinnati case: "She (Dubose's mother) and other family members said that if it were not for the body camera worn by Officer Tensing, his story would have been accepted and he would have gone unpunished. Choking back tears, Terina Allen, a sister of Mr. Dubose, said, “Every day now, I’m going to be marching for video cams."

Right on.  Turn em on.