Disputing legal reproductive rights

Okay. Think I’m finally ready to start broaching the topic of gender/sex on here. It’s not what I consider my primary focus, but gender relations are a significant concern today, me speaking as an American. Can’t deny it, can’t get around it, so might as well confront and dissect it and see what sense can be made.

To start with, I offer up a video from JohntheOther titled “Reproductive Rights” where he advocates on behalf of men saying that they deserve the right to decide whether or not to be parents, and if men choose not to they ought to have the right to refuse parental involvement and child support expectations. An argument he puts forth is that abandoning live offspring financially and legally is the male equivalent of a woman opting for an abortion, claiming the two situations are “parallel.”

I actually can understand, to a degree, where JohntheOther is coming from in terms of men gaining legal reproductive rights. He’s right that women have an option to terminate or prevent pregnancies, though I argue that men do also have power to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies occurring. Because men currently lack as many options as women does not negate that truth.  Pregnancy can be and often is imposed on both parents without that result intentionally being sought. Women have more options for avoiding pregnancy, but men do have options and that should not be ignored or trivialized.  Because women are now granted self-determination in terms of legal reproductive rights does not imply men have no such legal self-determination themselves. Abstinence is a choice too, as is undergoing a vasectomy, as is the decision to engage in sex with women who for whatever reasons are unable to become pregnant.  Those are choices men do possess, and let’s not reduce that down as if it ceases to matter. Unequal rights under the law, yes, but still both sexes do confront choices and options that can determine their fate.

In a society where women have to take abortion into serious consideration as an option when men are no longer held legally or financially responsible for providing for an unwanted child’s care, I imagine that will lead to women retreating back to past standards of conduct when abortion wasn’t an option. Meaning this legal shift will likely result in women becoming much more selective when it comes to partners they engage in sex with, assuming that many women continue to have moral qualms with undergoing abortions. Otherwise abortions will become the norm, and both sexes will have to cope with that (which I don’t think people will be able to without more resentment and disrespect coming between us). Perhaps a shift in attitudes where more caution returns to women when it comes to our sexual choices wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Feminists and others have declared for decades that women’s right to choose should be respected, and now that choice has come home to roost it appears. If women do have a choice, shouldn’t prospective fathers also be provided a choice?

My primary concern here is with children’s need to be cared for and loved and not wind up warded to the state by parents who bring them into this world and then abandon them. That is my moral qualm, which has been touched on in a video I posted on YT and will be expanded on here in a future post.

But let’s focus here on the dialogue going on back and forth between JohntheOther and Friendough. Friendough’s original video is viewable here.

JohntheOther’s analogy involving a gay couple where one opts to buy a boat compared with a man and woman determining care for a child are so completely separate and different that it strikes me as insulting. A child is not a piece of property, not an inanimate object. A child requires significant care provided to him or her that extends far beyond financial concerns. This is a question of how to manage bringing new human beings into the world and determining who ought to be held responsible for their upbringing — caring for our young being an extremely serious matter that extends also beyond legal concerns. It’s the creation of a new generation of people, and the quality of their upbringing has a significant impact on who they become as they grow up. Neglect and abuse them and you may psychologically destroy those individuals. Leave them warded to the State and let them be transitioned from foster home to foster home, where the chances of being sexually violated is 30% higher than in regular society, and I assure you that many will come to resent us all.

We are not simply determining legal responsibility here; we are actively deciding how to  fashion the future. We are determining what sort of existence future generations may face, and that is a heavy burden to consider. We must step outside of our own wants and desires long enough to take in the hefty implications of what is being proposed by both feminists and MRAs in agreement with JohntheOther. They are proving alike in their pushing for each respective sex to have the right to terminate care and/or walk away and leave living beings to be cared for by others or possibly institutions. I am arguing for a third way, perhaps viewed as more traditional in some aspects, though one of my major arguments is that it would be seriously useful at this point if more people paused and deeply considered how little reason there is to bring so many new beings into existence at this point in history. An argument to be expanded on as time rolls on.

And here’s Friendough’s response to JohntheOther:

The consequences of pregnancy do indeed occur whether or not we want this. We can do what we’re able to prevent it, but sometimes it does happen anyway. That is a fact of life.

But that does flip us back to women’s options to terminate pregnancies or abandon newborns. Personally, I take serious issue with women being granted the legal right to “surrender” their children (within a certain amount of time and depending on state laws) to so-called “safe havens.” That’s a bad law, IMO, and it complicates this entire situation by neglecting the interests of the child. I am aware of why these laws came into being, but because some women choose to criminally commit infanticide is not a good enough reason to make it legal for women to abandon their babies in a society where abortions are pretty much freely available during the first and at least part of the second trimester of pregnancy.

Life comes with all kinds of consequences and responsibilities, chosen or not, and that applies to both women and men.

There is a TREMENDOUS difference between abortion and abandonment, that I do completely agree with. Abortion terminates a life, whereas abandonment involves a human brought into full existence. I see abortion as clearly preferable to abandonment in nearly all conceivable cases.

I get the notion that women reserve the right to terminate pregnancies, whereas men lose control once conception occurs, and this leads me back to what I said up above about perhaps this leaving us little option but for women to return to being more discriminating with sexual partners and to become dedicated in their use of available birth control options if they wish to avoid undergoing abortions, or else get used to undergoing abortions if casual, unprotected sex is to persist. Apparently this is where we stand today.

That we devote this much time and energy debating the legality of these matters is what I’ve come to see as folly. Where is the moral consideration in people’s arguments? Has that dimension ceased to be important to some people, perhaps because we live within such a diverse social climate that morality seems too subjective to bring up in public debate?

Ethics After Certainty

I have just finished rereading the paper titled “Alone Again: Ethics After Certainty” written by philosopher Zygmunt Bauman.

Very, very good piece. On pages 40-41, he goes into the option to either engage or disengage, and while I understand the point he was making, I will argue that disengagement on a higher level can become the best option once voicing critical concerns and exhausting legal channels have proven insufficient for rectifying our problems. And this form of disengagement I’m referring to is for communities, provinces, willfully-determined groups of citizens, clans and tribes that choose to no longer partake in being subjected to the corruption of this government, thereby making the determination to go sovereign. It is a right citizens do possess, and most certainly not a trivial one at that. I won’t pretend to know how communities might secede in this fashion, though I would suspect having several do so simultaneously will prove too difficult for the government to effectively thwart.

That is indeed an extreme measure. I’d personally rather we thoroughly seek redress through our political channels, demanding that our representatives cater to the people over their major financial contributors, backed by our willingness to impeach and replace them if they refuse to comply. But who do we replace with? It is my opinion that average people would do a better job than these so-called “Washington insiders” and “professionals,” but then that all depends on the integrity we expect and the values we choose to embrace and uphold.

In a society with a toxic culture, we’ve all been fed lies and fantasies, dangerous ones at that. How does one come to see and think outside of the common indoctrinated lens? It’s a struggle and it requires time alone, away from television, with quality books full of ideas, remaining open yet critical, allowing deep introspection while examining the world outside of our own selves.

Thoughts will be expanded on as time rolls on. Time to finish dinner. Partner is sick with a cold, so I whipped up spaghetti bake with sides of whole green beans and Texas toast.  Happy

The Sad Fate of Aaron Swartz

It’s a case that’s bothered me a quite a bit. As many already know, Aaron Swartz took his own life earlier this month at age 26 due to feeling there was no way out of his legal conundrum after state prosecutors rejected all pleas and let it be understood that they would settle for nothing short of Aaron pleading guilty to 15 charges and that it was within their power to push for the maximum sentence, which could have resulted in 30 or more years in prison. Aaron’s crime was downloading millions of articles and documents from JSTOR academic database with the intent to freely distribute this information to the public. In my firm opinion, he was in the right and fighting for a good cause.

JSTOR (along with EBSCO and other scholarly journal databases) are accessible to students and university faculty, but once outside of academe the cost for access is steep, which thereby cuts most of the public off from what is being argued in academia. The problem with this is these academics do actively influence public policy, yet average citizens are effectively cut out of the debates taking place within ivory towers. Arguments that affect our lives and impact our political system are removed from our view unless we are willing to pay handsomely for access. It seems Aaron recognized this for the injustice that it is and aimed to free up the information for the masses, and he was handled severely by the Law as a result.

“Prosecutors defend charges against Reditt co-founder Aaron Swartz,” on RTAmerica:

“WikiLeaks confirms relationship with Aaron Swartz,” on RTAmerica:

 

What really makes my hair bristle is the FBI’s National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, which Susan Hockfield, President of MIT, resided as a member on since 2005. Information provided on that FBI link:

The board, which will consist of the presidents and chancellors of several prominent U.S. universities, is designed to foster outreach and to promote understanding between higher education and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The board will provide advice on the culture of higher education, including the traditions of openness, academic freedom, and international collaboration. The board will seek to establish lines of communication on national priorities pertaining to terrorism, counterintelligence, and homeland security. They will also assist in the development of research, degree programs, course work, internships, opportunities for graduates, and consulting opportunities for faculty relating to national security.

Graham Spanier, president of Pennsylvania State University, will chair the board.

 

Anyone else see anything odd in that? Graham Spanier, (now former) president of Penn State University — that’s the same Spanier involved in the cover-up of sex scandals involving assistant coach Sandusky molesting boys in The Second Mile program. The same man who turned his back on protecting innocent boys subjected to harm from trusted authority figures chaired a board responsible for throwing the book at Aaron Swartz for downloading academic journal articles with the intent to freely distribute?? Anyone can see that that doesn’t add up, not unless your prerogative is to promote the power of the State while protecting your own status. These crimes were treated according to how they might impact their respective institutions and concerned faculty — one swept under the rug for fear of negative publicity, the other deemed worthy of punishing to the full extent of the law because it might have lost universities a few bucks and freely enriched the public in turn.

The ill will in this is threefold and in my eyes a sure sign of sociopathic self-concern on the part of Spanier and others like him at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

Looking into the Trilateral Commission

In the hour or so I have before heading back to work let me post up information I previously reviewed about the Trilateral Commission. This is what one does for entertainment when cable television isn’t an option.  Screw being spoon-fed diversionary tactics and an endless stream of ads (not that ads can be completely avoided online).  Without further ado…

About the Trilateral Commission:

The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s has deepened into “globalization.” That interdependence also has ensured that the current financial crisis has been felt in every nation and region. It has fundamentally shaken confidence in the international system as a whole. The Commission sees in these unprecedented events a stronger need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) have been the primary anchors of the wider international system. Doubts about whether and how this primacy will change do not diminish, and, if anything, have intensified the need to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.

Looking at the Trilateral Commission’s Membership page:

To help preserve the Commission’s unofficial character, members who take up positions in their national administration give up Trilateral Commission membership. New members are chosen on a national basis. The procedures used for rotation off and for invitation of new members vary from national group to national group. Three chairmen (one from each region), deputy chairmen, and directors constitute the leadership of the Trilateral Commission, along with an Executive Committee including 36 other members.

Membership in The Trilateral Commission is by invitation only.

 

Rereading the membership list on the Trilateral Commission’s website.

Members who especially stood out to me:

  • Founder and Honorary Chairman: DAVID ROCKEFELLER
  • North American Group Chairman: JOSEPH S. NYE, JR.

University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

  •  North American Deputy Chairman: LORENZO ZAMBRANO

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, CEMEX, Monterrey, NL, Mexico

  •  Former European Chairman: PETER SUTHERLAND

 Chairman, BP p.l.c., London; Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Chairman, London School of Economics; UN Special Representative for Migration and Development; former Director General, GATT/WTO; former Member of the European Commission; former Attorney General of Ireland

  •  European Group Deputy Chairman: VLADIMIR DLOUHY

 Senior Advisor, ABB; International Advisor, Goldman Sachs; former Czechoslovak Minister of Economy; former Czech Minister of Industry & Trade, Prague

  • European Group Chairman: JEAN-CLAUDE TRICHET

Former President of the European Central Bank (ECB); Honorary Governor of the Banque de France; Chairman of the Group of Thirty; Chairman of the BRUEGEL Institute, Paris

 

For the record, CONDOLEEZA RICE and TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, U.S. Secretary of The Treasury, are also listed as belonging to the North American Group (no big shocker there).

 

Rereading the Trilateral Commission’s bio page on Peter Sutherland:

[He] is chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995–current). He is former chairman of BP plc (1997–December 2009). He was appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008. In addition to his chairmanships listed above, he is a member of the Supervisory Board of Allianz and the Advisory Board of Eli Lilly. He is currently UN special representative for migration and development. Before these appointments he was the founding director-general of the World Trade Organization. He had previously served as director-general of GATT since July 1993 and was instrumental in concluding the Uruguay GATT Round Negotiations.

Prior to this position, he was chairman of Allied Irish Banks from 1989 to 1993 and chairman of the Board of Governors of the European Institute of Public Administration (Maastricht) from 1991 to 1996. […] From 1981 until early 1982, he was attorney general of Ireland and was a member of the Council of State. He was reappointed in 1982 and served until 1984 when he was nominated by the Government of Ireland as a member of the Commission of the European Communities in charge of competition policy. During his first year at the Commission he was also responsible for social affairs, health and education, and thereafter for relations with the European Parliament.

 

Wikipedia claims Sutherland is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, which seems to matter since that’s a confidential meeting of the world’s elite.  What’s up with all the secrecy?

Lorenzo Zambrano’s bio page had this to say:

Mr. Zambrano joined CEMEX in 1968. He was named chief executive officer in 1985 and has served as chairman of the board since 1995. CEMEX is one of the world’s largest global building solutions companies; its stock is traded on the Mexican Stock Exchange and listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Zambrano is a member of the IBM Board of Directors, the Citigroup International Advisory Board, and the boards of several leading Mexican companies, including Femsa, Grupo Financiero Banamex, and Televisa.

[All bold emphasis mine.]

Notably, I see once-Pacific Asian Deputy Chairman, Shijuro Ogata (former Deputy Governor, Japan Development Bank; former Deputy Governor for International Relations, Bank of Japan) is no longer on their list (as he was in 2009 when I first began this inquiry into the Trilateral Commission). Just putting that out there, whatever its relevance.

Lots and lots of banking and high-end economics people mixed in with former ambassadors and academics. Nothing too terribly exciting—a long list of major financial bigwigs doing their part to rule the world. It’s interesting to sift through the names and the businesses and institutions these people are affiliated with while connecting dots concerning what’s happening in our economy.

Just working my way through the screws and bolts of what I’ve collected over the years that have given me reason to pause and wonder. More info to come as time permits.

“The Century of the Self”

This film is one of my personal favorites, offered by the BBC and titled “The Century of the Self”:

 

Key name to take away from this video: Edward Bernays, the grandfather of American public relations (a.k.a. propaganda) and nephew of Sigmund Freud. Very important information there that tells us so much about the last American century and how we as a people have wound up where we now sit.

Chris Hedges’ book “Empire of Illusions: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle”

Having read a number of Chris Hedges’ books, including American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, Losing Moses on the Freeway, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, his 2010 book titled Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle is another I’d like to offer up to others, though I wouldn’t recommend beginning with reading this one, this book being more of a summary and broad treatment of a collection of problems facing society. Hedges hits several major points, from our tantalization with Jerry Springer-esque forms of entertainment to the personal and societal destructiveness of hardcore pornography; from the dangers of corporatism and the realities and consequences we face today, as a nation and a people, politically, socially, and economically, to the power of love. This man does a great job of telling it like it is!

I’ll include some excerpts below, beginning on pages 14-15:

In The Republic, Plato imagines human beings chained for the duration of their lives in an underground cave, knowing nothing but darkness. Their gaze is confined to the cave wall, upon which shadows of the world above are thrown. They believe these flickering shadows are reality. If, Plato writes, one of these prisoners is freed and brought into the sunlight, he will suffer great pain. Blinded by the glare, he is unable to see anything and longs for the familiar darkness. But eventually his eyes adjust to the light. The illusion of the tiny shadows is obliterated. He confronts the immensity, chaos, and confusion of reality. The world is no longer drawn in simple silhouettes. But he is despised when he returns to the cave. He is unable to see in the dark as he used to. Those who never left the cave ridicule him and swear never to go into the light lest they be blinded as well.

Plato feared the power of entertainment, the power of the sense to overthrow the mind, the power of emotion to obliterate reason. No admirer of popular democracy, Plato said that the enlightened or elite had a duty to educate those bewitched by the shadows on the cave wall, a position that led Socrates to quip: “As for the man who tried to free them and lead them upward, if they could somehow lay their hands on him and kill him, they would do so.”

We are chained to the flickering shadows of celebrity culture, the spectacle of the arena and the airwaves, the lies of advertising, the endless personal dramas, many of them completely fictional, that have become the staples of news, celebrity gossip, New Age mysticism, and pop psychology.

On porn and profits, page 58:

There are some 13,000 porn films made every year in the United States, most in the San Fernando Valley in California. According to the Internet Filter Review, worldwide porn revenues, including in-room movies at hotels, sex clubs, and the ever-expanding e-sex world, topped $97 billion in 2006. That is more than the revenues of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo!, Apple, Netflix, and Earthlink combined. Annual sales in the United States are estimated at $10 billion or higher. There is no precise monitoring of the porn industry. And porn is very lucrative to some of the nation’s largest corporations. General Motors owns DIRECTV, which distributes more than 40 million streams of porn into American homes every month. AT&T Broadband and Comcast Cable are currently the biggest American companies accommodating porn users with the Hot Network, Adult Pay Per View, and similarly themed services. AT&T and GM rake in approximately 80 percent of all porn dollars spent by consumers.

[Bold emphasis mine.]

Broaching the topic of the fall of the United States of America on page 142:

The country I live in today uses the same civic, patriotic, and historical language to describe itself, the same symbols and iconography, the same national myths, but only the shell remains. The America we celebrate is an illusion. America, the country of my birth, the country that formed and shaped me, the country of my father, my father’s father, and his father’s father, stretching back to the generations of my family that were here for the country’s founding, is so diminished as to be unrecognizable. I do not know if this America will return, even as I pray and work and strive for its return.

The words consent of the governed have become an empty phrase. Our textbooks on political science and economics are obsolete. Our nation has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations, and a narrow, selfish, political, and economic elite, a small privileged group that governs, and often steals, on behalf of moneyed interests. This elite, in the name of patriotism and democracy, in the name of all the values that were once part of the American system and defined the Protestant work ethic, has systematically destroyed our manufacturing sector, looted the treasury, corrupted our democracy, and trashed the financial system. During this plundering we remained passive, mesmerized by the enticing shadows on the wall, assured our tickets to success, prosperity, and happiness were waiting around the corner.

Chris Hedges includes substantiating literature on the topics discussed, listed in the bibliography, with a few titles and authors specifically mentioned on page 146:

There were some who saw it coming. The political philosophers Sheldon S. Wolin, John Ralston Saul, and Andrew Bacevich, writers such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, David Korten, and Naomi Klein, and activists such as Bill McKibben, Wendell Berry, and Ralph Nader warned us about our march of folly. In the immediate years after the Second World War, a previous generation of social critics recognized the destructive potential of the rising corporate state. Books such as David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd, C. Wright Mills’s The Power Elite, William H. White’s The Organization Man, Seymour Mellman’s The Permanent War Economy: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, and Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Irony of American History have proved to be prophetic. This generation of writers remembered what had been lost. They saw the intrinsic values that were being dismantled. The culture they sought to protect has largely been obliterated. During the descent, our media and universities, extensions of corporate and mass culture, proved intellectually and morally useless. They did not thwart the decay. We failed to heed the wisdom of these critics, embracing instead the idea that all change was a form of progress.

In his book Democracy Incorporated, Wolin, who taught political philosophy at Berkeley and at Princeton, uses the phrase inverted totalitarianism to describe our system of power. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the Constitution while manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens, but candidates must raise staggering amounts of corporate funds to compete. They are beholden to armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington or state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. Corporate media control nearly everything we read, watch, or hear. It imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. It diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarianism regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” Wolin writes. “Economics dominates politics—and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness.”

[Italicized emphasis his. Bold emphasis mine.]

Excerpts don’t do this book justice. I agree so much with this author. The man makes a great deal of sense, especially when I read this book in conjunction with other books like Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Richard L. Rubenstein’s The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, as well as Ron Paul’s End the Fed (not that I personally share Ron Paul’s exuberance for returning to a gold standard).

Here is a review of Empire of Illusion in The Cleveland Leader. I don’t share the reviewer’s disappointment with the ending, lamenting that “Hedges didn’t conclude his work with some small glimmers of hope.” Au contraire. Mr. Hedges ended on the most hopeful message one can offer: that we learn to love one another and make the necessary sacrifices to pull through. Love is no small matter. It may be all we really have…all that will ever set things right.

Below is an interview of Chris Hedges on GRITtv (July 2009):

A glimpse into police misconduct

Switching gears this evening from transcribing, which I will return to periodically, I’d like instead tonight to focus on a few examples of misconduct by authority figures, in this instance, the police.

In a new lawsuit, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs, of Irving Texas, say they were searched inside their underwear by female Texas Trooper, Kelley Helleson, after a routine traffic stop in Dallas in July.

The trooper who pulled them over, David Farrell, says on tape he saw them throw a cigarette butt out the window and smelled marijuana when he pulled them over. No drugs were found and they were released with a warning. The [relatives] say the trooper who performed the search used the same pair of gloves on both women.

 

Here is the same video as that above, this time un-edited and full length (though glitchy to where it repeats in places).

Here’s a link to the WFAA-TV news story on that presented above. And here’s a link to the lawsuit filed by the women in the above video against Texas State Trooper David Ferrell (dated December 2012). An excerpt from the lawsuit follows:

“This intrusive cavity search occurred on the side of a public freeway illuminated by lights from the police vehicle in full view of the passing public,” the lawsuit reads. “Moreover, this roadside body cavity search was done without her consent.”

 

Damn. And all because that trooper claims he smelled marijuana in the car. That’s it and that’s all.

Next, we have the case of “Breakfast in Collinsville (with Michael Reichert),”a well-made video containing the original police video footage that led to a well-deserved lawsuit for an illegal search:

The gist: On December 4th 2011, StarTrek fans Terrance Huff and Jon Seaton are stopped illegally after a StarTrek Exhibition for suspected drug transportation in Collinsville, Illinois. Award winning filmmaker Terrance Huff does a breakdown of an illegal traffic stop and subsequent search involving a K9 Officer who has a questionable past.

 

How much bullshit was that traffic stop? Talk about blatantly violating this man’s civil rights. Think this shit is rare? Think again. There are good police officers, and there are bad ones, and in a system that’s increasingly putting the squeeze on people with integrity—that is, quality, law-observing police officers—how long can we assume it will be before decent people no longer comprise the majority of officers on the force?

 

“No one can be good for long if goodness is not in demand. — Bertolt Brecht

 

At what point do we as a citizenry start getting real with ourselves and one another on the direction our society is taking? There’s a lot to take in today, and an indecipherable, complicated profusion of laws on the books combined with the degraded state of law enforcement is a very significant concern confronting our society. With law books rendered unnecessarily complicated by a ceaseless stream of new laws introduced, plenty of which are unneeded and/or unenforceable, we’re put in a situation where individuals cannot possibly keep up with what all is legal or illegal, and thereby we are hindered and compromised when it comes to protecting and legally defending our rights and interests. This, of course, involves various outlying factors that further complicate the situation, including the debased state of our political system and the impact economics have on all sectors of society, but that’s beyond the scope of today’s post.

Carrying on…

After Angela Garbarino was arrested in Shreveport, Louisiana last November [2007?] on suspicion of drunk driving, she wound up lying on the police station floor in a pool of her own blood with two black eyes, a broken nose, two broken teeth, and other cuts and bruises.

Garbarino says that Officer Wiley Willis beat her up after turning off the police video camera. Willis’s attorney insists that Garbarino slipped and fell when Willis tried to prevent her from leaving the room. However, Garbarino says that the extent of her injuries are proof that she was beaten.

 

Here’s the 2011 case of Florida Trooper Watts pulling over Miami Police Officer Fausto Lopez abusing the power of his position by traveling off-duty to his side job at speeds purportedly surpassing 120 mph:

Feeling sorry for the Miami cop in the video above? Consider the following video of Miami cops mistreating a peaceful protester and then laughing about it later on camera:

Continuing on…

That’s enough of that for now. A topic to be revisited another day.