Zalatix
Zalatix's JournalThe police have no duty to protect you. Really, they don't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.htmlJustices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.
"The world won't change much if Mitt wins"... do you think this is true?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002641414#post34Please help me out here.
Perhaps this is a correct statement and I'm the one that's out of my mind?
If we condemn Christianity based on the Christian Right
then what do we say about atheism in light of Ayn Rand?
And don't say we don't condemn Christianity on here. Some are quite happy to say nasty things about them.
A global collapse is NOT as bad as a plutonomy. And we have only ONE way out of either option.
Everyone is justifiably annoyed at any talk about looking forward to a global collapse. It is every bit as horrible as anyone has said it would be.
The problem is that a Plutonomy is actually worse. A Plutonomy is an economy or society that primarily exists to serve the 1%. In practicality it is a world in which the rich enjoy the comforts of life and the 99% get left outside their high walls to deal with the worst that the world has to offer: the bandits, the high crime, the pollution, the resource shortages, and cops who can't be bothered very often to tend to the situation. Let the poor eat each other, as far as they're concerned; just keep it away from the rich's front doorstep.
Okay now who's been to Mexico? A lot of folks, I presume. Well, I've also been to Mexico. Ever notice how the touristy areas are well protected because we Americans have money to spend there, whereas the other parts aren't so well protected? Ever wonder why the drug gangs are running wild in Mexico?
It's because an increasing majority of protection is reserved for the tourists and the rich, while the rest are left to face the wild running banditos who will think nothing of exterminating large swaths of a town to send some kind of message. NAFTA wasn't the only reason people immigrated from there to America.
Ever wonder why immigrants are returning to Mexico? Primarily it's because we're becoming like Mexico, economically speaking.
On top of that, the police are increasingly hostile to the interests of the 99% and they're failing their duties to the citizens... except wait, the Supreme Court has decided that their duties to the citizens isn't what we think it is, after all. As for America's drug gangs? We could have that problem handled, pronto. Gangs are not hard to find, and violent gangs plotting to commit violence aren't hard to catch. The problem, if you are feeling uncharitable, is that our law enforcement agencies simply do not care. Or if you're feeling charitable, they are vastly underfunded. Or they are too busy being ordered by the Government to chase Occupy protesters, recreational pot smokers or terrorist-funded mp3 filesharers ( 
). Take your pick.
In any case, at the rate we're going, we'll become like Mexico. We're headed for a society that has all the trappings of a failed civilization except the Plutocrats will be sitting safe and out of reach. Our schools are being underfunded. Disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine are running wild. Every attempt to tax the rich is being fought tooth and nail. And if challenged, I can post up examples of Democratic politicians helping the Republonazis screw over labor unions.
Okay, so most readers are now screaming (along with a lot of expletives) "Well, there's a third option between a total collapse and a Plutonomy... it's called REFORM!!!"
Hey, how's that reform going anyway? The GOP is marshaling behind Mitt Romney despite him being a Mormon (looks like Bachmann is now behind him, along with Newt), and his poll numbers are surprisingly strong against President Obama despite the GOP's idiotic war on women. Anyone want to guess why Romney is polling higher than 5%?
It's not because reform is wrong - it's not. It's because of one thing: the 56-58 million John McCain/Sarah Palin devotees who came out in full rabid insanity force and LOST in 2008, and who intend to go full screaming nutjob ahead over and over again in every election until they crush us Liberals out of existence. They are a plague of zombies, Terminators with no brains, they'll keep coming and they will not stop. This is no joke, we ignored this fact in 2010 to our peril. Look at the combined liberal and independent voter turnouts in 2010 and tell me I'm factually wrong: I ain't.
The problem here is not that Reform is less desirable than a massive global collapse. I fear I need to repeat that sentence about 5 times; or about 40 times to any normal crowd. When I say reform, I mean a Worker's Party that develops within the Democratic Party and which transforms the Democratic Party as thoroughly as the civil rights movement did. And when I say WORKER'S PARTY I do not mean a 3rd party; I mean a newly reshaped Democratic Party. That said, the problem is that the people who would fight tooth and nail for a Worker's Party are too few in number.
The problem here is that we need a hard core Worker's Party movement in the United States, one that is bigger than the 56-58 million voters who fought for Sarah Palin and John McCain and who are still fighting to the very last voter under President Obama's shadow. We need nothing less than 58 million voters dedicated to the very last constituent to a coherent Worker's Party, voters who will push up Worker-friendly Democrats like the next local Bernie Sanders or Barney Frank, to Congress, the US Senate, and to numerous offices in statewide elections. We must do this soon, or we will face something worse than a total collapse: we will be trapped in a Plutonomy.
The problem with a Plutonomy is that it will be one backed by police gangs and the military. It will be a system that can never be brought down EXCEPT by a total systemic collapse. Why? Because in a Plutonomy, the military and police will be deployed to destroy anyone who tries to take the Worker's Party route.
Oh yeah and all the environmental crises that society is facing? That will be a crisis for the 99%, not the rich. They won't ever want for clean water or food. And you think a total collapse is bad? Wait'll you find yourself dying of cholera or toxic waste in your water while the rich are living it up safe and sound behind their walls. Like I said, all the trappings of a collapse, but with the Plutocrats' shadow looming over your head.
A global collapse is a horrible thing. But it's better than a Plutonomy. And we can prevent BOTH if and ONLY if we scramble, right now, and create a Worker's Party within the Democratic Party that can pick up close to 60 million voters, quickly.
I'll repeat: our one way out of becoming a Northern Mexico is a Worker's Party, one that's as strong and energetic as the Republozombie Party.
Exactly how are we going to achieve that?
I've seriously had enough of the capricious policy going on here.
It's okay to say this to me:
"If I weren't so polite today, I might add an insult that would sting."
But it's against the rules to shoot back:
"I call your bluff. Bring it on. Please."
Of course I reported the former. But I don't expect it to get punished because it's okay to threaten someone... except when it isn't.
Further proof that I don't start fights, but when I come to finish them, the jury comes out to play.
Edited to add the Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002640173#post7
LOL!!! I wish this would happen nationwide. Kentucky court shuts down due to budget problems
If all the courts shut down nationwide, what would be the point of arresting Occupy protesters? Maybe next they can also find ways to cut the police gang budgets, too.
The effing cops and courts only serve the Plutocracy anymore anyway. Or throw women in jail for standing their ground against violent abusers.
http://news.yahoo.com/kentuckys-cash-strapped-courts-shut-temporarily-214945720.html
Kentucky's cash-strapped courts to shut temporarily
(Reuters) - Kentucky's top judge announced plans on Wednesday to temporarily shut down the state's court system to cope with what he characterized as "deep cuts" in the judiciary's budget.
John Minton Jr., the chief justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court, said 3,700 workers, including more than 400 judges and circuit court clerks, would be furloughed without pay for three days between August and October, forcing courthouses statewide to close.
Minton, who serves as the administrative head of the state's court system, said it would be the first time since Kentucky overhauled its court system in 1976 that courts would close to save money.
Kentucky joins a long list of states that have imposed cuts on court services in recent years in a bid to balance budgets hurt by the economic downturn, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Defenders of NAFTA might not want to hear a Mexican farmer's point of view on the subject.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-01/world/mexico.farmers_1_mexican-officials-mexican-government-nafta?_s=PM:WORLDFebruary 01, 2008|From Harris Whitbeck CNN
Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.
On January 1 Mexico repealed all tariffs on corn imported from north of the border as part of a 14-year phaseout under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
The farmers want the government to renegotiate the 1994 free trade agreement, which removed most trade barriers among Mexico, Canada, and the United States, saying livelihoods are at stake.
"NAFTA is very bad, very bad for Mexican consumers and for Mexican producers," said Victor Quintana, head of Democratic Farmers Front, which organized the protest.
The farmers complain that U.S. and Canadian grains are heavily subsidized and therefore undermine Mexican products.
http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/
The paper’s underlying hypothesis is that American corn subsidies, which led to the flooding of Mexican markets with American corn following the signing of NAFTA, is the primary factor responsible for the post-1994 internal displacement of rural farmers in Mexico. The trade agreement effectively eliminated all trade barriers and placed Mexico’s domestically produced corn in direct competition with highly subsidized corn imported from the United States. Consequently, Mexican corn farmers, who comprise the majority of the country’s agricultural sector, experienced drastic declines in the domestic price of their product and thus faced increasing difficulties to attain a sustainable living. Hence, we observe high levels of migration into Mexico’s cities in the latter half of the 1990’s, and the beginning of the 21st century, as these displaced farmers abandoned their previous livelihood in search of employment.
So not only did foreign outsourcing destroy millions of American manufacturing jobs, it also devastated Mexico's farmers.
Tell us again how free trade helped?
Free traders do NOT want to discuss WHY manufacturing is coming back to the USA
Remember all that yapping about how we owe it to the third world to make our workers homeless to make their lives better?
Well, that philosophy has come back to bite free traders on their ass, and you better believe they don't want to hear you talk about this.
Offshoring is wholly dependent upon moving production from America to nations where labor is cheaper and wages are paltry in comparison. In order for free trade to even exist, one populace has to be impoverished. When the nation you export your jobs to sees their people's wages rise, the game is over.
Not even Germany can beat this law of gravity. For instance, BMW and other German companies have been moving production to the United States, where wages are lower, to produce goods that were originally produced in Germany.
Here's a tip: You can shut down any discussion on free trade simply by asking, "What happens when you run out of sources of cheap labor"?
That question has ceased to be hypothetical. That scenario is now happening. America is running out of sources of cheap labor. Jobs, as a result, are coming back to the USA.
So much for the free trade argument. Offshoring is unsustainable. This is being shown by history.
http://blogs.cisco.com/manufacturing/made-in-the-usa-again/
-- Transportation, duties, supply chain risks, industrial real estate and other expenses will minimize cost savings of manufacturing in China compared to the US.
-- Automation and other productivity improvements in China will further undercut the primary attraction of outsourcing to China: access to low-cost labor.
-- Rising income levels in China will create greater demand for goods in the domestic Chinese market, driving production work for the North American market back to the US.
-- Because of rising Chinese labor costs, manufacturing of some goods will shift to other low-labor cost countries. However, compared to the US, those countries do not have the infrastructure, IP protection or political stability that is necessary to mitigate risk, which will encourage manufacturers to return to the US.
Edited to add: and jobs ARE in fact coming back, because of this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-manufacturing-expands-at-fastest-pace-in-10-months-as-orders-hiring-and-production-rise/2012/05/01/gIQAs4R2tT_story.html
The report, which exceeded analysts’ expectations, led investors to shift money out of bonds and into stocks. The flurry of stock buying put the Dow Jones industrial average on track for its highest close in more than four years.
.............
A measure of employment in the ISM’s survey rose to a 10-month high. This showed that factories are still hiring at a solid pace.
"Studies" that show this or that group is somehow mentally deficient... What is the agenda here?
The agenda behind posting studies that show "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" is clear: we hate Conservatives, for a damned good reason, and they deserve to be vilified.
But what is the point of posting "studies" that link born-again Christians to brain atrophy or other demographic groups having other sorts of mental weaknesses? Do we post this stuff for no reason, for the hell of it? Hardly. Only a truly intellectually dishonest person would nod their head to that.
The reason we come up with these studies to post on here is to vilify a group of people. Any other explanation is out and out horseshit. Just like when some idiot publishes a book called "The Bell Curve" or some idiot at Harvard disparages women's abilities in mathematics.
The point is to vilify and dehumanize, to portray that group of people as inferior. There is no other point to posting these studies. It's done by people who want to put another group of people down.
I don't mind doing that to Republicans; they do it to everyone who's not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Republican and I am a card-carrying member of the "you get what you give" club. However when we start going out and vilifying all the OTHER groups that we characterize as being affiliated with Republicans, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
Men declined in droves to drink the War on Women kool-aid when Lamebrain made his call to arms against Sandra Fluke and lots of liberal Christians, Born Again or not, are always swimming upstream against their own pastors or fellow flock to keep the message of Jesus's activism for the poor in the limelight. Alienating them with "studies" that just happen to coincidentally show they're more flawed than you or me, isn't the way to build the kind of coalition we need to destroy the power of the demographic that we truly hate: the Republicans.
Yeah I know I'll get flamed for this but I'm warning all liberals, if you keep doing this you will keep paying the price on election day, and even if you win, you'll keep being mystified as to why you're not utterly destroying the Conservative movement at the ballot box. I'm telling you right now why you keep failing to exterminate these Republican vermin: you keep vilifying groups that are not genetically hard-wired to vote Republican.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:30 PMNumber of posts: 8,994
