It Has Begun

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, I don't understand the tyranny thing.

The courts made the decision as per the law... if the legislature decides to write a NEW law, then that's fine.

This is a correct and fair use of their legislative power... you might NOT like the law, and it might be a complete fucking waste of time for Congress to get involved in one domestic case but there no question it's well within their power.

It's like saying that Congress wrote a law... and then the Courts made a decision about that law... and Congress said "Oh wait... we DID NOT intend that... we need to fix it!"

And then someone turning around and saying "Hey... that second law is tyranny of the legislative power!'

Let's take a deep breath, take a step back and think.

The problem here is that tis Congress getting involved at the root level of a problem... this is NONE of their fucking business... what's next legislating that my son needs to eat 5 meals a day rather than the 3 I decided... and by my son, i mean, JUST MY SON.

Dear Congressman,

I don't like the way that the street cleaners sweep the left side of the street first... can I please get a law that says they MUST clean the right side first.

[edited to add] Hey, maybe that's what impressive can do about trolls... write your Senator to make Laurel and Manu write a 'troll busting system'... but it should only apply to your stories.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Step to the left buddy, pick up your black uniform and death's head insignia. They like your kind.

Congress did pass alaw. They passed a law setting aside a judicial verdict. that isn't within the scope of their power.

They stripped the court that rendered that verdict of it's jurisdiction in the matter. That defintely isn't within thier mandate.

They pased the case to a federal court. That clearly contravenes the constitution. Any matter, not specifically granted to the federal government by the articles of the constituion is automatically a reserve power of the states. Medical matters, are and have been a reserve power of the states for over 200 years. The only exception, is federal laws dealing with controled substances and even those fall within a narrow scale. This has been rcognized by the federal courts, as recently as May 26, 2004, when it sided with the state of Oregon against Attorney General John Ashcroft's attempt to interfere in medical practice within the state.

This action, is fully as destructive of the rule of Law as Germany's enabling act.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

If the courts do not speak for us now, there will be no one left to speak for us when they come.

 

[Op_Cit]

This sounds like SOP #2 for Congress: Enact legilation that won't change anything but looks like you did your best. That way the legiscritters can vote whichever way looks best to their fuckees -- I mean constituents.

So here's my prediction:

No change to prior decision (remove tube) after x number of fed judges review the state court decisions. They (fed judges) may delay handing down their decisions to give time for feelings to die down while hoping she'll get pneumonia and die in the mean time.

My theory is that there must be vast legal ramifications (on the alternative) for the chain of all the judges in FL to have gone this far in supporting the husband's request.

I could be wrong. I was wrong after 9/11 in thinking that would wake people up to reality and stop being stupid... yet everyday the masses think they're safer flying having surrenderd their fingernail clippers to dufus airport screeners.

 

[Pure]

Shanglan said or asked,


On the other hand, I suppose, is the question my SO asked over dinner tonight. Who would it be harming for her to remain alive? If she's really completely functionless, then she isn't suffering and in fact has no idea that she's in this position. If she's not, then there's hope - and I did note that the quotation from the Institute for Public Health supplied by CNN stated that people in PVS can actually improve and regain some functions. I would certainly agree that if she'd expressed a clear desire not to have her life prolonged in this fashion, then it would be best to heed that wish. But given that there's really no way to verify that she wanted this, what harm is done by allowing her to remain in the care of people who love her and believe that she might yet regain some of her life?

That last, by the way, is intended as a seperate question from the legislative actions. That is, I'm asking what would be wrong about Mr. Schiavo letting her parents take her and care for her, not what would be wrong about federal legislators making up laws to apply to individual citizens. I can see what's wrong with that quite clearly.

Colly has answered this, but I'll put it my own way. Meddlesomeness and playing God are the two reasons.

First, you have to understand that the 'parent' thing is purely a fluke; a fact being used, in a handy way. The 'save Terri, the disabled person' group would make the same argument if it were here grandparents or great aunt.

And your arguments or your spouses would seemingly apply. Why NOT let Aunt Matilda, in her spare time from working for the Moral Majority, look after Terri?

The principle at issue, is, Does a church group, on its doctrines, decide life or death.

Surely you see the parallel with abortion (They do.). Let me ask you this: Supposing you had a baby with a bowel obstruction and a nasty hereditary disease that would kill it within a couple years, due to brain degeneration. YOu say (hypothetically). Let it die. YOu are served with a supoena, saying "The Evangelical Meddlers are requesting guardianship of your baby, and removal of your parental status since you want to kill your baby. Please appear in court on .... and prove your right."

You will note I've even extended the principle further, since the right do. I don't know if it's your position, Shang, but your position leads in that direction: Why not let the baby be cared for by Mrs Zealot up the street?

A side issue, is the *way* it's being done, but that's another topic. Incidentally it's correct a court appointed person may be preferable at times. But here there is no 'spousal abuse', except allegedly in 'killing' her (disconnecting her). As in the hypothetical cases above, when the meddlers wish to meddle, 'abuse' can be alleged against those who disagree.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This sounds like SOP #2 for Congress: Enact legilation that won't change anything but looks like you did your best. That way the legiscritters can vote whichever way looks best to their fuckees -- I mean constituents.

So here's my prediction:

No change to prior decision (remove tube) after x number of fed judges review the state court decisions. They (fed judges) may delay handing down their decisions to give time for feelings to die down while hoping she'll get pneumonia and die in the mean time.

My theory is that there must be vast legal ramifications (on the alternative) for the chain of all the judges in FL to have gone this far in supporting the husband's request.

I could be wrong. I was wrong after 9/11 in thinking that would wake people up to reality and stop being stupid... yet everyday the masses think they're safer flying having surrenderd their fingernail clippers to dufus airport screeners.

If it is upheld, this legislation changes everything Op. Reguardless of it's outcome on the case in question, if it stands, you enjoy anythihng you think of as a right at the pleasure of congress.

They can write a law specific to you, removing your entitlement ot any right. Even if you appeal it to a court and win, they may set the decision of that court aside, bar if from further rulings by taking it's jurisdiction away, and pass the case to any court they please.

AS cynical as you are, you must admit, no congress in history has ever so blatantly laid claim to all the powers of Tyrant.

 

[Op_Cit]

AS cynical as you are, you must admit, no congress in history has ever so blatantly laid claim to all the powers of Tyrant.

Cynic, n. A Blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are and not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eye's to improve his vision.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Don't make me go back and cite instances where they've done this over and over again. Most of the time these individualistic things are burried in the tens of thousands of pages of some omnibus spending bill. Pound for pound there is more corruption/tyranny in the Judicial and Administrative branches because the power is more focused in those branches.

 

[impressive]

For those who say, 'don't kill this disabled person,' I say, 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she wants to live; indeed that she's aware she's in a hospital with a brain injury.

And I say to use the moneys awarded by the court to provide the therapies that would make it most likely that such a statement would be forthcoming.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And I say to use the moneys awarded by the court to provide the therapies that would make it most likely that such a statement would be forthcoming.

I'm sorry for the thread jack Imp. It wasn't intentional. I've taken the discussion on the political aspects to another thread.

 

[Pure]

given the money floating around to back TS's parents, are you suggesting that she hasn't gotten the therapies that might work?

the best therapies are stimulative, right? haven't the parent and such been visiting and doing just that? the attorney who visited speaks of lifting her to ask if she wanted to live (receiving the 'answer' , "Ahhhh").
so stimulation has been given, and the results, evidence of improved mental function don't seem to be there.

i read one dr's report suggesting she might be taught how to swallow, but that's unproven, and in any case, far below the standard of clear consciousness, clear desire, and understanding.

have you read the medical affidavits posted? are any based on first hand evaluation? if you have pdf capabilities, why not translate to a rich text document and post one, here, that supports your view?

 

[elsol]

Deleted.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[impressive]

given the money floating around to back TS's parents, are you suggesting that she hasn't gotten the therapies that might work?

the best therapies are stimulative, right? haven't the parent and such been visiting and doing just that? the attorney who visited speaks of lifting her to ask if she wanted to live (receiving the 'answer' , "Ahhhh").
so stimulation has been given, and the results, evidence of improved mental function don't seem to be there.

i read one dr's report suggesting she might be taught how to swallow, but that's unproven, and in any case, far below the standard of clear consciousness, clear desire, and understanding.

have you read the medical affidavits posted? are any based on first hand evaluation? if you have pdf capabilities, why not translate to a rich text document and post one, here, that supports your view?

No one knows if certain therapies would work, because none have been attempted. I'm not one to listen when told: "It's hopeless. Don't even try."

There are therapies that have been shown to be effective in restoring the ability to swallow (and ability, by the way, that we don't even know Terri lacks because testing has been withheld). ... Terri has not been allowed access to new therapies. That, to me, in the absence of concrete evidence of her wishes, is criminal.

Stimulation by visitors, even parents, is a far cry from professionally-delivered services. If Terri, as Ms. Weller's essay claims, has made enough progress to attempt to vocalize with such amateur stimulation, what could she accomplish with true therapeutics?

 

[elsol]

Aha... I see the bill that has everyone all worked up.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.653:

Well.. that's certainly slimmer in intent than the first try.

Still being framed as a Fourteenth Amendment due process defense although this one is only implied which is a bad idea.

Gotta give it to the conservatives, they certainly know how to do this.

[edited] Actually, thjs is just a badly written law... who fucking wrote this piece of shit, they had a better shot at the first one surviving a constitutional challenge.

This things has more caveats than a lobster dinner.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Kassiana]

Is there any precedent for a law built around one person
--Actually, yes. We didn't study them much in law school, but since it was interesting and unique I remember one of my profs telling me that there are numerous so-called "private laws" passed each year which only affect one person. They're normally passed only in immigration cases and say something along the lines of "Al Engel is hereby granted the right to remain in the United States."

This, obviously, is not and will not be passed as a "private law," but in effect so far it seems the same. It's geared toward one person.

The courts have yet to rule on it. I'd be interested to see what the Supremes make of it.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Everyone is right, you can dispute everything, different doctors will dispute everything, the asshole lawmakers are using this as a grandstanding opportunity to dispute everything.

Forget it all.

One thing is clear and not up for debate.

She did not have in writing that she wanted to die rather than (go debate something here) so her husbands words mean nothing to the parents.

Her husbands words should mean nothing to the doctors or lawmakers, without anything in writing from her, at least not when the parents are in opposition.

The parents ARE in opposition.

The husband should divorce her and turn over complete guardianship to her parents, on moral grounds because he can't be sure of the extent of her brain damage and her parents oppose his wishes, and on legal grounds because there is nothing in writing from her, only his words.

I am sick of hearing doctors and lawmakers talk about how painless they think starvation and dehydration is, once they have starved and died of thirst they will be qualified to make that judgement.

Give the husband a hammer and let him do it fast if that is how you feel. She is not an animal needing to be mercifully put out of her pain.

The husband apparently did, and perhaps still does, love her and wants to respect her wishes. If he loved her more he would say "I cannot be sure" and neither can her parents. If he wants her death, and they want her life, the doctors and lawmakers should not be allowed to kill.

There is nothing in writing from her, and definitely nothing saying "Starve me to death if you are not sure."

END OF DISCUSSION IN MY OPINION.

 

[Somme]

Cynic, n. A Blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are and not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eye's to improve his vision.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Don't make me go back and cite instances where they've done this over and over again. Most of the time these individualistic things are burried in the tens of thousands of pages of some omnibus spending bill. Pound for pound there is more corruption/tyranny in the Judicial and Administrative branches because the power is more focused in those branches.

I can only suggest :- https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=323307

& https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=322117&page=2&pp=25 - about halfway down....

 

[gauchecritic]

Ok, I'm probably wrong but isn't there something in the Hypocratic oath that says you have to preserve life rather than end it?

I agree with the view that, assuming that feeding and daily simple nursing are all her requirements then why can't she go home to mom's?

Force feeding is not an issue here because I am unwilling to believe that a hospital will feed her anything other than her 'requirement' probably in the form of some nutrient solution such as those available to anyone with swallowing problems.

Aspiration can be obviated (since she is I assume, gastrostomised) by a medical procedure called a Nissan Fundiplication. A vibrating matress will go quite some way to reducing bed sores. Excreta are managed as is obvious. And damaged brains have enough extra capacity to re-learn certain basic 'skills' (gross and sometimes fine motor control) via what is termed "patterning". What harm will it do that she goes home? Particularly home to someone willing to give the time and/or money necessary to care for her?

And I'll ask this again since no-one cared to answer or comment last time. Since when has feeding been medical intervention? In my view drowning would be quicker and less cruel but who's gonna do that?

 

[cantdog]

BTW, it's "Sieg Heil". Hail Victory (or something, I'm sure there'll be a test at some point.)

But the issues you're concerned about are long dead and gone (anybody's rights let alone states').

And Elsol, the tyranny thing is that you forget: the Constitution specifically enumerates the authority of Congress. (Not that anybody pays attention to that rag anymore.)

They just go along with the common myth that a "law" can ever possibly solve any problem. But hey, it's the religion of the state.

Op_cit, to repeat that constitutional government has been attacked or circumvented before is moot.

The point Colly makes is, it is being done here, in this silly law. Do you like that, or not? Do you oppose it, or not? Every one of these clowns took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Whether or not anyone has done shit like this before, I oppose it. I don't just write a post to the porn site, I have written already to my congressional delegation and the paper here. m I have sent yet more money to ACLU. I oppose it. Constitutional government in America is now a partisan issue. Freedom is not free. I suggest you also support the constitution. I think it's a good idea.

 

[impressive]

Ok, I'm probably wrong but isn't there something in the Hypocratic oath that says you have to preserve life rather than end it?

I agree with the view that, assuming that feeding and daily simple nursing are all her requirements then why can't she go home to mom's?

Force feeding is not an issue here because I am unwilling to believe that a hospital will feed her anything other than her 'requirement' probably in the form of some nutrient solution such as those available to anyone with swallowing problems.

Aspiration can be obviated (since she is I assume, gastrostomised) by a medical procedure called a Nissan Fundiplication. A vibrating matress will go quite some way to reducing bed sores. Excreta are managed as is obvious. And damaged brains have enough extra capacity to re-learn certain basic 'skills' (gross and sometimes fine motor control) via what is termed "patterning". What harm will it do that she goes home? Particularly home to someone willing to give the time and/or money necessary to care for her?

And I'll ask this again since no-one cared to answer or comment last time. Since when has feeding been medical intervention? In my view drowning would be quicker and less cruel but who's gonna do that?

Patterning is not widely embraced in this country, although I've seen it work wonders in some. The big professional organizations bitch slap it. Frankly, it seems almost as if they're threatened by its anecdotal successes. Imagine that! There's a fellow here in the U.S. (a good ol' boy from Kentucky) who patented a contraption called a Quadriciser that does patterning automatically. A nifty neat-o Why-didn't-I-think-of-that? piece of equipment that is helping stroke patients left and right. Hell, even if the neurological benefits aren't forthcoming, the circulatory, respiratory, and musculo-skeletal benefits more than make up for it. One in every nursing home in the country would pay for itself 200x over in the improved health of the inmates (I mean, patients).

As you say, overfeeding is not an issue if basic precautions are observed. A simple "milk scan" can be used to determine the rate the stomach empties, thereby setting the pace for delivery of "nutrient solution" via the gastrostomy (bolus or pump) and obviating the need (in the absence of reflux) for a Nissan fundo (which, as a surgical procedure, carries some risk).

There will come a time, of course, when aging parents can no longer carry the load. As I understand the situation, her siblings are then willing to take over.

I get the impression that the general public thinks she is reliant on a ton of fancy schmancy life support equipment.

 

[Lisa Denton]

For those who say, 'don't kill this disabled person,' I say, 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she wants to live; indeed that she's aware she's in a hospital with a brain injury.

This quote is not complete and therefore probably totally out of context from the entire post. Apologies to Pure, but relevance follows.



For those who say "Kill this disabled person," I say, 'produce a statement or clear indication from terri that she wants to die ; indeed that she's aware she's in a hospital with a brain injury.

Her husband's word is not a legal document, her parents, who may have had some contact with Terri while she was mentally healthy (heavy sarcasm), do not agree that she would want to die. And fuck the word "DIE," not giving food to a disabled person is killing. The courts fucked up ever hearing the case, and don't need to change anything.

The husband says she wants to die, the parents say she wants to live.

Without documentation from her that she would want to die, the doctors should feed her and the fucking lawmakers should handle cases with documentation and get out of the grandstanding public arena of a "he said---she said" debate to decide if a person should be killed.

What will be done to a doctor or nurse who feels it is thier duty not to let this person die in front of them while they can prevent it, will they be thrown in jail? What will the charge be? Anti-murder?

 

[elsol]

And Elsol, the tyranny thing is that you forget: the Constitution specifically enumerates the authority of Congress. (Not that anybody pays attention to that rag anymore.)

They just go along with the common myth that a "law" can ever possibly solve any problem. But hey, it's the religion of the state.

The Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

City of Boerne vs. Flores
Section 5 is valid if it exhibits ' a congruence and proportionality' between an injury and the means adopted to prevent or remedy it'.

Let me spell it out:

Nor shall any State deprive any person of life... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.

*cough*cough*

Surely, the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the very rights that everyone is up in arms that they don't have. Otherwise, you've pretty much dismantled the civil rights movement.

Unless, I'm wrong here and somehow the Fourteenth Amendment is just a figment of my imagination.

So there's really three issues here...

a) Does something make a State Court NOT a part of the State Government or a state agency and therefore the Fourteenth does not apply to them... I would appreciate SCOTUS citations on this one because it seems flaky to me.

a) An argument that says this is law does not fall under the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment.

b) An argument stating that this law does not pass the Boerne test.

I would be interested in hearing any since I have my own opinion on these issues.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Ok, I'm probably wrong but isn't there something in the Hypocratic oath that says you have to preserve life rather than end it?

The AMA approved oath

You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred: That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members. That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.

That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice.

That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it.

That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.

These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.

The modern version of the classic oath

I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

The modern version of the classic does... but if that were followed, women can kiss abortion goodbye.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Op_Cit]

*cough*cough*

Surely, the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the very rights that everyone is up in arms that they don't have. Otherwise, you've pretty much dismantled the civil rights movement.

No, the interpretation of these amendments is that they are a tool of the judiciary. Otherwise they would say something like "congress can now make laws to regulate Lego production in the southwestern US."

However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it is the welfare clause that they (Congress) use to do anything else that they want to use. Madison would have jumped up and down against this law citing the tenth amendment which says, if it ain't specifically listed here (USCon), it is in the state's realm of authority and not the federal government.

Remember, the constitution is filled with interpretive black holes like "Due Process": WTF constitutes that? The Fifth Amendment's protection of property is now violated, probably every ten seconds these days, by the "siezure laws" that were instituted to combat drug smugglers. Courts currently allow these siezures.

I haven't looked at these cases (supporting gov. siezures) but I'd bet more than one argues "general welfare" trumping the Fifth.

 

[Op_Cit]

Op_cit, to repeat that constitutional government has been attacked or circumvented before is moot.

The point Colly makes is, it is being done here, in this silly law. Do you like that, or not? Do you oppose it, or not? Every one of these clowns took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, it is silly. My reaction here is to the Captain Renault-esque reaction of others ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!").

If you are active with ACLU then you must know of thousands of incidents of tyranny of government over the individual even before 911. And the ACLU doesn't support all civil liberties (they rarely get involved in 2nd amendment issues or tax issues). People have gone disappearing into the "nacht und nebel" (night and fog) by means of US Government approved but "illegal" actions for a long, long time.

It does nobody any good for me to say "Here, here Colly. Point well taken. Somebody pass the salt and pepper....".

I doubt anybody here will be swayed by somebody saying "this ain't right", because views on government are religious in that they are based on faith.

However, outrage on this issue might serve to open one's eyes to the reality that this can and does happen. And if it's happening now, it probably has happened before. If it happened before, there must be a root cause.

The use that can come of this is they may get active against all abuses, or more importantly, learn. Learn to see how this existed before. Learn to see how to see. Learn to be able to proactively deduce effect from cause and learn to be able reason the negative effects of a proposed solution before it is implemented. Learn to not be a fool.

I'm a huge pain in the ass about not being a fool, because I have certain knowledge that I have been a bigger fool than anybody else in the world. I continue to operate under the recognition that I am probably being a fool at this very instant as a means to enable myself to learn. I have not yet made the transition into full Taoism, so I still try to reach out to others on the path. (Yet as time goes by I, more and more, resign myself to the wisdom of Tao.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We each have our own moments of political satori, depending on what we hold dearest and the way we think about our country and government. What might be an earth-shattering disillusionment to me might make you just yawn, and vice versa.

I had my first moment many years ago when I realized that my government lied to us not only about Viet Nam, but about many many things. I was very nnaive before then.

I had another moment of Satori when some friends of mine were arrested and I saw first hand how cops lie and how the legal system really works. Since then, the argument, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the police" has become the most sordid type of joke.

My own most recent baptism was last November third, when the country that I'd always thought of as sensible, expansive, and liberal (in the classical sense), proved itself to be none of these. I know, I know, you can come up with all sorts of analyses for how Bush won re-election, and for most of us it's hardly the end of the world. For me it was though, or the end of one kind of world. I truly felt like a man without a country, and I still feel that way today.

The passage of Teri's Law doesn't really surprise me, nor does the outlawing of government workers' collective bargaining right by Givernors' executive order. I expect we'll see a lot worse before this crew is finished. I just hope a lot more people will have their political satori over this kind of crap, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[cantdog]

It is more likely that the present crew will be displaced by a crew representing a different set of corporations. Hightower says they ought to have NASCAR jackets showing the logos of their sponsors, so you'd know who you were dealing with.

The electorate is sidelined. They still have to be placated or distracted, but the agenda is not set by them.

 

[Op_Cit]

My own most recent baptism was last November third, when the country that I'd always thought of as sensible, expansive, and liberal (in the classical sense), proved itself to be none of these. I know, I know, you can come up with all sorts of analyses for how Bush won re-election, and for most of us it's hardly the end of the world. For me it was though, or the end of one kind of world. I truly felt like a man without a country, and I still feel that way today.

Yes, but now having your eyes opened, will you go back to sleep when your favored candidate gets into office?

Or do you use your new found perspective to look back in history and see how both sides of the political spectrum have done the same things? Are you able to see how they actually cooperate with each other in the coverups?

Seeing now the lies, do you see that it is not just sporadic, but infact systematic?

For example, being from the left are you able to now see how Ken Star (supposedly right wing), who was appointed to handle the Clinton investigations, was in reality tasked with quashing as much as he possibly could?

Have you been able to shake off the myth that a government investigation is for the purpose of getting to the bottom of things? (They are actually for covering up as much as possible while allowing certain political leverage for special interest graft.)

People love the myths, they make us feel better. They think that Internal Affairs departments are there to keep cops honest, when in fact their primary purpose is in covering up and protecting the "image" of the police departments.

I've consulted at the highest levels of corporate america, and it was very eye opening to me to see how the union bosses were in bed with the corporations. Most CEO's love the unions, because they keep the wages down. At Boeing, everytime a new model is due for delivery you will find a strike taking place. Why? Because by contract, Boeing doesn't have to pay late penalties to their clients for circumstances out of their control, like strikes. They work with union management to arrange these strikes whenever they need more time.