- Could our society implode on the race issue?
- Business becomes the villain? Is Hollywood Making money from Financial Crises?
- Limited best seller Inside Job: The Looting of the American Savings and Loans
- Now, AT&T, the once proud flagship of American commerce uses outright fraud to boost earnings
- Another New Thought: Helicopter money and fiscal rules
Could our society implode on the race issue?
Our social issues are featured in our founding documents which, by the way, are not normally considered to be the "law of the land". For that we need to turn to the Constitution and any other documents considered to be siilar to by-laws or "governing documents", which - in our case would be statutes, the often rambling texts that seem so drawn out and boring with exceptions and conditions that in the end, he attempt o regulate nearly convinces readers they mean nothing. Thus, although we have had straightforward documents like the Emancipation Proclamation which promise equality, equality is not a law of the land or even a stated motto for the nation unless eventually interpreted to be such by the Supreme court.
Our social issues are featured in our founding documents which, by the way, are not normally considered to be the "law of he land". For that we need to turn to the Constitution and any other documents considered to be by-laws, which - in our case would be statutes, the often rambling texts that seem so drawn out and boring with exceptions and conditions that in the end soften the meaning of the statute. Thus, although we have had straightforward documents like the Emancipation Proclamation which promise equality, equality is not a law of the land or even a stated motto for the nation. Not like the belief held by the French in a nation devoted to liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Apparently, In the USA there is no Federal law that says it is punishable to gun down unarmed people, that is, no law outside the law of the wild west - which supposedly no longer exists except in select where it is considered needed and id allowed, which brings a presidential candidate to declare he can gun down someone and escape consequences or in the case of the law of the jungle, assumed to no longer apply to the barren landscape of the United States.
Another unarmed black man was shot down in Califonia this time because he took something out of his pocket and assumed a shooting stance - which is enough of a provocation to the police who rushed onto the scene to gun him down. brings back to mind a photo published on some news site which depicted a group of young blacks seated on something that isolated them from passers-by and they carried placards that asked the question, 'AM I NEXT?" Is that provocation enough to gun them down, that confrontation, taunt, the daring attiude? Something is amiss here, and ii is a social aberration. are we coming apart at the seams? Who would have the audacity to say this is enough to bring on reprisal of the severest form for themselves? It is the police and the miliiia who is armed with the more powerful weapons who need training in what the weapons can initiate. One unstable personality armed with a murderous weapon can undermine all the written laws and mottos of the keenest, well- intentioned minds in history. It would seem that the one goaded into killing another, must have the ideas in mind as he approaches the setting, "what would i do iF. . . . Damn right I'm within my rights self-dfense!!. If nohing less it begins in the element of fear an a propensity to react with violence and deadly force.Should he/she be there and where is the supervisor who should be making the decision of whom should be sent on the mission ostensibly to quell the attitudes of the groups facing each other and what is his/her training to make the decision?
Is common ense and good judgment a hopelessly lost art or absent technical competence to determine who has the wild-eyed look , the highly agitated state that converts - As you might guess, the destabilizing events go further than the staring down and double dares that provoke outright murder in the streets. It brings us presidential candidates - long before Donald Trump was invented who lie and try to generate hostilities and pit one class against another to solve unrelated problems, planting the seed which turns confrontational dares into invitations to massacre? What do they tell the squads at the assembly point or before that might raise otherwise sensible and stable personalities into rejecting all those treasured social values they've been taught and probably taught their children and families is the proper attitude required for the job at hand only to ignore it themselves at the critical moment that counts -how they show up at the scene preparing to disburse an agitated crowd. They must know the meaning behind the 'Am I next ?" placards! They must know that they must resist the temptation ot being goaded into deadly action. They must have some comprehension of what effect gunning down anyone will have on the image created at home and abroad! Can they think no further than self and/or that flash of personal anger and hatred? During WWII, O&S was in situations where action was required in matters of self-defense. There were taunters, too, who required no more than thinking of consequences to give in to defending personal beliefs and values and defending "false honor". The first incident highlighted by personsl inaction sent him to a hospital in Australia. There was no hesitation in the following.But, There is a distinction in war or responding to neighborhood unrest demonstrated by youths with a mission.
If the "enforcers can not make the distinction under all circumstances, they should not be included in the group of enforcers assigned to quell disturbances. And, if the supervisory personnel responsible for making the decision whether the select personnel can stand up to the stress and strain of the taunting, they should be removed from the responsibility until they are either retrained to meet the requirements or denied the opportunity to make the same mistake again.
This is an issue that desperately needs attention and redirection. Someone is not doing their supervisory job adequately - or, someone is in a position they are not constitutionally equipped to handle. Do we need a thorough study of the first line supervisory personnel by trained psychologists before the entire situation rises beyond control and we end up with much more of this outright murder. No jury in the world has the right to say that a member of the general public or even a properly equipped, trained member of the police force or militia should have the right to set the example of losing his temper or abandoning civilized standards to respond to taunting with murderous intent. And, it is patently wrong to shift the blame for the murder back onto the taunters as ill-advised as that is. People are so riled up about this issue, they can think nothing else than murder is no proper response to words or behavior. It's not something to be put aside until later, because it now appears to have passed the point of no return.
People are offering themxelves up as martyrs, which means they consider the breaking point to have been breached. And, if a few believe, the opposition can very easily prove the martyrs to have been right in the response they draw.