Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 It should be deemed religious regardless of any justice's political ideology, because it manifestly is. However, to cover all possible bases in terms of judicial bias, the perfect plaintiff should be religious, perhaps an observant Jew such as Rita, whose religion of choice is irreconcilable with AA theology. In such a situation, it is all but impossible to deny that there are TWO religious views at issue in the plaintiff's life, and that the State is coercing her to attend religious " services " that run contrary to her freely chosen religious views. Much better plaintiff that one of those libertine and vile atheists. --Mona-- --------------------------- From a more ideological than pragmatic veiw, I come at the issue from the opposite angle. I fully agree that reardless of political ideology xA is what it is - manifestly religious. XA's defense has always been something to the effect that; it is nothing more than a set of " spiritual pricipals " which are " suggestions, " open to interpretation, and not incompatable with any particular belief structure. Though it is a blatant fallacy, for the sake of argument, let them have it. With the religious issue isolated and put aside, we can then concentrate on the existential issues of the controversy. First of all it needs to be calrified as to exactly WHY are certian lawbreakers mandated to participate in the xA programs. If it is for the specific intent of rehabilitation, which in this case entails succesfully abstaining from drugs, the primary issue becomes efficacy. The research that has been done has reveiled a success rate of xA to be no better than no treatment (two studies using control groups forgot -the names and dates.) I have yet to see any results of mandated xA. The point is that if the court system is to be considered efftive in rehabilitation, naturally they would want to compare scientific results. The analogy that I think of is the tobbacco industry, using lies and manipulation tactics to present " evidence " that cigarette smoking is harmless, non-addictive, and a really groovy thing to do. This lead to bantering between scientists and paid proffessional liars, calling themselves " scientists " disputing the " evidence. " The sientists, and court systems were letting them get away with this, in effect validating them. In the case of cigarette smoking, just look at what smoking is; directly inhaling the smoke frome a burning substance. A molecule of common sense, and two funtioning brain cells is all it takes to conclude that smoking is a pshycally destructive activity. Research and evidence are entirely unnessesary to convince the GP. XA does exactly the same thing with liars presenting false evidence, manipulated results, pseudo-science bullshit, etc. Just look at what xA is, use common sense, and the lack of credibility is obvious. AA is a program developed on the basis personal experiences and beliefs in 1935. AA has never subjected itself to critical analysis, verifiable research, or allowed the inroduction of any new evidence since it's origin. Scientific credibility is absolute zero. Since AA is stricly non-proffessional the groups themselves are not reqired to uphold any standard. It is entirely unregulated. Professional credibility is absolute zero. If we focus on the scientific and profesional ethics of the issue and illiminate the religious part of it, we can set very specific guidelines that must be adheared to, in order to determine if the court system is using resouces that that are condusive to effective rehabilitation. I believe the point is to set a higher ethical standard for society, in the cooperation of the fields of medicine, psychology and criminal justice, with the intent of upholding the basic human rights of the individual, improving the efficacy of the procces, and upholding a moral obligation to respect societal diversity. This can done by using religion, as well as you can brush your teeth using a crowbar. Somehow the rediculous idea that the right to practice one's religious beliefs supercedes all other individual rights has been forced into the mentality of the American public. This only serves the purposes of dogmatic fundemetalists who viciosly and violently oppose the idea of religious freedom. If a religion is based on the idea that it must violate the rights of people that are not a member of that religion we, as a society have a moral obligation to discredit that religion. In the case of the libertine and vile fundementalist xtians, their dogma neccesitates prosylitizing. The idiology has no legitimate credibility, therefore, it can only be promoted by use of manipulation, lies, threats and violence. In other words, practice of fundementalist xtianity mandates the violation of the basic human rights of those that are not a member of that religion. The result is that I live in a society where dogmatic propaganda that blatently promotes ideological bigotry an violence is more protected and respected than legitimate information that critisizes their idiotic dogma. Devin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 > > > It should be deemed religious regardless of any justice's > political ideology, > because it manifestly is. However, to cover all possible bases in > terms of > judicial bias, the perfect plaintiff should be religious, perhaps an > observant Jew such as Rita, whose religion of choice is > irreconcilable with > AA theology. In such a situation, it is all but impossible to deny > that > there are TWO religious views at issue in the plaintiff's life, and > that the > State is coercing her to attend religious " services " that run > contrary to her > freely chosen religious views. Much better plaintiff that one of > those > libertine and vile atheists. > > --Mona-- > --------------------------- > > From a more ideological than pragmatic veiw, I come at the > issue from the opposite angle. I fully agree that reardless of > political ideology xA is what it is - manifestly religious. XA's > defense has always been something to the effect that; it is > nothing more than a set of " spiritual pricipals " which are > " suggestions, " open to interpretation, and not incompatable with > any particular belief structure. Though it is a blatant fallacy, for > the sake of argument, let them have it. With the religious issue > isolated and put aside, we can then concentrate on the > existential issues of the controversy. > > First of all it needs to be calrified as to exactly WHY are certian > lawbreakers mandated to participate in the xA programs. If it is > for the specific intent of rehabilitation, which in this case entails > succesfully abstaining from drugs, the primary issue becomes > efficacy. The research that has been done has reveiled a > success rate of xA to be no better than no treatment (two studies > using control groups forgot -the names and dates.) I have yet to > see any results of mandated xA. The point is that if the court > system is to be considered efftive in rehabilitation, naturally they > would want to compare scientific results. > > The analogy that I think of is the tobbacco industry, using lies > and manipulation tactics to present " evidence " that cigarette > smoking is harmless, non-addictive, and a really groovy thing to > do. This lead to bantering between scientists and paid > proffessional liars, calling themselves " scientists " disputing the > " evidence. " The sientists, and court systems were letting them > get away with this, in effect validating them. In the case of > cigarette smoking, just look at what smoking is; directly inhaling > the smoke frome a burning substance. A molecule of common > sense, and two funtioning brain cells is all it takes to conclude > that smoking is a pshycally destructive activity. Research and > evidence are entirely unnessesary to convince the GP. > > XA does exactly the same thing with liars presenting false > evidence, manipulated results, pseudo-science bullshit, etc. > Just look at what xA is, use common sense, and the lack of > credibility is obvious. AA is a program developed on the basis > personal experiences and beliefs in 1935. AA has never > subjected itself to critical analysis, verifiable research, or allowed > the inroduction of any new evidence since it's origin. Scientific > credibility is absolute zero. Since AA is stricly non-proffessional > the groups themselves are not reqired to uphold any standard. It > is entirely unregulated. Professional credibility is absolute zero. > > If we focus on the scientific and profesional ethics of the issue > and illiminate the religious part of it, we can set very specific > guidelines that must be adheared to, in order to determine if the > court system is using resouces that that are condusive to > effective rehabilitation. > > I believe the point is to set a higher ethical standard for society, > in the cooperation of the fields of medicine, psychology and > criminal justice, with the intent of upholding the basic human > rights of the individual, improving the efficacy of the procces, and > upholding a moral obligation to respect societal diversity. This > can done by using religion, as well as you can brush your teeth > using a crowbar. > > Somehow the rediculous idea that the right to practice one's > religious beliefs supercedes all other individual rights has been > forced into the mentality of the American public. This only serves > the purposes of dogmatic fundemetalists who viciosly and > violently oppose the idea of religious freedom. If a religion is > based on the idea that it must violate the rights of people that are > not a member of that religion we, as a society have a moral > obligation to discredit that religion. In the case of the libertine > and vile fundementalist xtians, their dogma neccesitates > prosylitizing. The idiology has no legitimate credibility, therefore, > it can only be promoted by use of manipulation, lies, threats and > violence. In other words, practice of fundementalist xtianity > mandates the violation of the basic human rights of those that > are not a member of that religion. The result is that I live in a > society where dogmatic propaganda that blatently promotes > ideological bigotry an violence is more protected and respected > than legitimate information that critisizes their idiotic dogma. > > Devin Devin, Thank you for an insightful and well, brilliant, post. You are absolutely correct and have stated things extremely well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2001 Report Share Posted June 28, 2001 You say it so much better than I could. Ditto Bravo Encore Right ON What Devin said! lisak Re: AA-Nazi- upon request It should be deemed religious regardless of any justice's political ideology, because it manifestly is. However, to cover all possible bases in terms of judicial bias, the perfect plaintiff should be religious, perhaps an observant Jew such as Rita, whose religion of choice is irreconcilable with AA theology. In such a situation, it is all but impossible to deny that there are TWO religious views at issue in the plaintiff's life, and that the State is coercing her to attend religious " services " that run contrary to her freely chosen religious views. Much better plaintiff that one of those libertine and vile atheists. --Mona-- --------------------------- From a more ideological than pragmatic veiw, I come at the issue from the opposite angle. I fully agree that reardless of political ideology xA is what it is - manifestly religious. XA's defense has always been something to the effect that; it is nothing more than a set of " spiritual pricipals " which are " suggestions, " open to interpretation, and not incompatable with any particular belief structure. Though it is a blatant fallacy, for the sake of argument, let them have it. With the religious issue isolated and put aside, we can then concentrate on the existential issues of the controversy. First of all it needs to be calrified as to exactly WHY are certian lawbreakers mandated to participate in the xA programs. If it is for the specific intent of rehabilitation, which in this case entails succesfully abstaining from drugs, the primary issue becomes efficacy. The research that has been done has reveiled a success rate of xA to be no better than no treatment (two studies using control groups forgot -the names and dates.) I have yet to see any results of mandated xA. The point is that if the court system is to be considered efftive in rehabilitation, naturally they would want to compare scientific results. The analogy that I think of is the tobbacco industry, using lies and manipulation tactics to present " evidence " that cigarette smoking is harmless, non-addictive, and a really groovy thing to do. This lead to bantering between scientists and paid proffessional liars, calling themselves " scientists " disputing the " evidence. " The sientists, and court systems were letting them get away with this, in effect validating them. In the case of cigarette smoking, just look at what smoking is; directly inhaling the smoke frome a burning substance. A molecule of common sense, and two funtioning brain cells is all it takes to conclude that smoking is a pshycally destructive activity. Research and evidence are entirely unnessesary to convince the GP. XA does exactly the same thing with liars presenting false evidence, manipulated results, pseudo-science bullshit, etc. Just look at what xA is, use common sense, and the lack of credibility is obvious. AA is a program developed on the basis personal experiences and beliefs in 1935. AA has never subjected itself to critical analysis, verifiable research, or allowed the inroduction of any new evidence since it's origin. Scientific credibility is absolute zero. Since AA is stricly non-proffessional the groups themselves are not reqired to uphold any standard. It is entirely unregulated. Professional credibility is absolute zero. If we focus on the scientific and profesional ethics of the issue and illiminate the religious part of it, we can set very specific guidelines that must be adheared to, in order to determine if the court system is using resouces that that are condusive to effective rehabilitation. I believe the point is to set a higher ethical standard for society, in the cooperation of the fields of medicine, psychology and criminal justice, with the intent of upholding the basic human rights of the individual, improving the efficacy of the procces, and upholding a moral obligation to respect societal diversity. This can done by using religion, as well as you can brush your teeth using a crowbar. Somehow the rediculous idea that the right to practice one's religious beliefs supercedes all other individual rights has been forced into the mentality of the American public. This only serves the purposes of dogmatic fundemetalists who viciosly and violently oppose the idea of religious freedom. If a religion is based on the idea that it must violate the rights of people that are not a member of that religion we, as a society have a moral obligation to discredit that religion. In the case of the libertine and vile fundementalist xtians, their dogma neccesitates prosylitizing. The idiology has no legitimate credibility, therefore, it can only be promoted by use of manipulation, lies, threats and violence. In other words, practice of fundementalist xtianity mandates the violation of the basic human rights of those that are not a member of that religion. The result is that I live in a society where dogmatic propaganda that blatently promotes ideological bigotry an violence is more protected and respected than legitimate information that critisizes their idiotic dogma. Devin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 I worked in a state prison, and in New Jersey they will even let incarcerated prisoners travel to another prison to see their incarcerated children under some circumstances. The individual warden has to approve an ex-con or probationer to be admitted to the prison, but they do it routinely. Mike. Re: AA-Nazi- upon request > > > > Hi > > > > Dont worry about losin' it. Y'know, I've even been known to do that > > myself occasionally. > > > > Tell me, if you dont mind me asking, is your stepson's conviction in > > any way drug or alcohol related? If not, what the hell does what your > > hubby does matter as h=far as his son is concerned? Alsom surely Mr > > Pooh' sole areas of responsibility is with hubby himself, not nursing > > hubby's son. Whether his father is a suitable visitor is surely a > > matter for the prison Governor or someone associated with the son, not > > Mr Pooh. I gues youre gonna tell me that the Governor checks your > > hubby out by asking Mr Pooh and hence that's the handle Winnie has. > > > > Best of luck to all of you. God/Whatever/Nothing Bless. > > > > P. > > > > > > > Nazi seems harsh, but then again... not. > > > > > > The last time we met w/ the PO (I pronounce it " POOH " !-- haha) we > > asked about alternatives to AA and 12 step treatment. He informed us > > there is none. ( I of course had done some homework so called him on > > it). He backpeddled a bit by saying, WEELLLLLL, here in Washington > > State the WAC (Washington Adminsitrative Code) does not allow non-12 > > step treatment or any other groups other than AA, so you won't be > > successful with the judge. (I have read a lot of the WAC but have yet > > to find where 12step/AA is mandated by law. It could be, but I just > > have not found it...) And anyways, even if you did find an alternative > > like REBT, or SMART (he obviously has done HIS homework... NOT) all > > they talk about in meetings is football or other non-alcohol related > > topics, then they sign your slip and call it a meeting. You will not > > find help in those meetings, you will always come back to AA. AA is > > the only thing that works. > > > > > > Okay, so I love it when gov't employees give themselves rope to hang > > themselves with. My hubby and I let him ramble on and on. All the > > while I was taking mental notes. He went on further to tell my huband > > that the reason he (my hubby) can not visit his son in prison is cuz > > my hubby had not worked the steps hard enough and my husband is a bad > > influence on his own son. The kid's in prison for 10 years and my > > HUSBAND with the 4 year old DUI is a bad influence on him.? OH MY GOD! > > > > > > SO, this morning, after a long nite of helping my husband pen the > > letter stating his alternative treatment plan (which I'll post parts > > of if anyone is interested but won't without being solicited to do so) > > we met with Pooh-head. Pooh asked, " so what's new? " . My husband > > responded... " nothing " . Then handed the letter to Poo-head and said > > " this is my treatment plan " . > > > Poo says, " you mean the COURTS treatment plan " . > > > Hubby: " no, my alternative treatment plan. AA doesn't work for me, > > like we talked about last time " . > > > Poo: " Just tell me what the letter says " . > > > Hubby: " that I won't go to AA and...... it's all in the letter " . > > > > > > Poo: Do you have AA slips for me? > > > Hub: No (it is not court mandated yet). > > > Poo, acting tickled pink that he's " GOT " my husband: " oooooo---- k, > > but it IS court mandated " > > > Hub: No it's not. I was released on my own PR with no conditions. > > > Poo: No you weren't. (He throws us an old court paper that has > > been superceded. ) He continues: The judge ordered you to AA. > > > Hub: No he didn't. (hubby points to copy of the newer order that > > is in effect) THAT's my release order and it has NO conditions. > > > Poo, snidely chuckles: oooooo-k, just trying to clarify things for > > you here. You know I'll have to report this to the judge. > > > lisak gets pissed off here and grabs the old paper and points and > > reads the statement that says that the AA is imposed ONLY if my > > husband is released into INPATIENT treatment. Which he was NOT. The > > NEW release has NO conditions. The LETTER states he will NOT attend > > AA. ( I hate it when I lose it like that... I'm supposed to be better > > than this nurt) > > > Poo: I'm just the middle man. By the way, we need to talk about our > > last meeting and the letter you wrote me afterwards (we send him > > registered letters which restate what was said to ensure agreement and > > cover our asses). I somehow mislead you and did not intend to tell > > you that AA is the ONLY thing that works. > > > Hub: Well, I recall that that is what you said > > > Poo: No that is not what I said. I said AA works. > > > Hub: No it doesn't. > > > Poo: AA WORKS. > > > Hub: No it doesn't. > > > Poo: We can have our opinions on this, but AA works if you work it. > > > Hub: Yes we can have our opinions on this, but... It didn't work > > for ME. > > > Poo: You didn't work it. Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. > > I did not say it's the ONLY thing that works. > > > lisak: that's what I recall, and anyway, that is why my husband > > wrote you the letter to ensure we all understand what is being stated > > here. > > > Poo: Ok Craig, ready to submit a urine sample? > > > Hub: OK. (this was not court mandated either, but hubby accepted > > UA's as his alternative treatment plan, plus he does not have anything > > to hide, thus he submitted) > > > > > > End of chapter. He is trying hard to force my husband to attend AA, > > to threaten my husband that by not attending he is going against the > > judges orders, which so far there are no orders in effect. he's such > > a jerk. He was all nicey-nice last appt. when he still thought my > > husband was going to go to the meetings. But as SOON as my husband > > stated he would not be going and would rather try an alternative or > > face jail, poo-head showed his true colors. He's an AA-Nazi. He's > > two-hatting, as Mr. Trimpey would say. He's a representative of the > > state of Washington and he's pushing AA on my husband so hard it's not > > funny. He's admitted to being in AA and insists that AA is the only > > way. I'm sure he showed the judge our registered letter and the judge > > told him he better not be saying that AA is the ONLY way. Too late. > > And, he's holding AA over my husbands head so that he can not visit > > his son in prison. We are writing the city mayor now to tell him we > > are taking legal action if the PO doesn't knock off the AA or no visit > > garbage. Should be interesting. I'm sure poo will tell the judge > > that my husband is being resistent to treatment, is uncooperative, > > will not follow the PO's recommendations and therefore should NOT be > > considered to do the alternative treatment and either be FORCED to > > attend AA and 12 step inpatient/outpatient or go back to jail. I hope > > that is what happens cuz that's exactly where we want him. He should > > not be doing this. It's plain wrong. He should be caught. He should > > be punished. IMHO. > > > > > > sorry it was so long. > > > lisak > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 Your first paragraph tells why I have total contempt for courts judges and lawyers(contempt of court, LOL) the fact that it depends who is the judge and the idea that a " more left wing " court impacts on what shall be called truth and justice. in math, it doesn't matter who is doing the adding, isaac newton will get the same answer as a dockworker, provided they both do not make mistakes. there is nothing to argue about. people here think AA is full of shit? How about judges and lawyers and courts? Now there is some real crap. Mike. Re: AA-Nazi- upon request > > > > > > It is exactly BECAUSE people are more open to 'spirituality' than > > to 'religion' that the idea of 'spirituality' should be attacked. If > > you insist AA is a religion, but then potential recruits go there and > > find practicing Jews, Catholics, New Agers, and so on, what you have > > done is hurt your own cause. People see that AA is not a SPECIFIC > > creed, but a general movement advocating spiritual doctrines in > > general. > > > > Hence, it is important to point out that SPIRITUALITY itself is > > the problem. This evil, but general, concept needs to be exposed. > > Just because exposing it is hard to do this, doesn't mean it doesn't > > need doing. > > > > The legal question is a different issue. There are two > > interpretations here. The Religious Right insists that the > > establishment clause only was meant to give us freedom OF religion, > > not freedom FROM religion. The Secular Left claims that precedent > > gurantees us freedom FROM religion, ie, in public schools. > > > > This is a political fight. It is not going to be decided by legal > > argument. In the end, it will be settled by who wins the power > > struggle and the culture war. Put 9 Clarence -types on the > > Supreme Court, and the decision may be that pubic hairs are god. > > > > Law, in the end, is about raw power. Only when power is balanced > > do fine arguments matter. When power shifts, all the legalese goes > > right out the window. The Spiritual Revolution in this country is > > about who will have power over whom, in a rapidly escalating > > revolutionary climate. People need to be realists here. > > Your 'legal' rights are only as good as the guys with the guns say > > they are. If the wrong guys have the guns, you have NO rights. Laws > > can't protect you from tyrants or fascists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good god! Everytime I read one of these stories, it seems > > worse > > > > than the last one. Nazi is not far off, really. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > One of the reasons that I truly prefer " religious " to " spiritual " > > is > > > that unlike you, most people are much more " open " to spiritual > > beliefs > > > than religious ones. And, even withall, there *are* laws on the > > books > > > regarding the separation of church and state. (But not necessarily > > > spirituality and state???!) ((Help!)) > > > > > > I am not trying to obscure the facts. I really think AA is a > > > religion. > > > > > > Regarding your fruit analogy...what I see is people saying " We > > don't > > > care what kind of fruit you eat. But you must eat fruit. Further, > > > the skin of the fruit must be yellow. You peel it vertically to > > get > > > to the inside. Never mind the rotton spots, they are all the same > > in > > > your stomach. You'll never know the difference. This fruit is of > > an > > > oblong shape. In fact, this fruit is called a banana! Do you have > > a > > > problem with that? Maybe you just aren't honest enough to know > > that > > > you must eat *BANANAS* every day! Even insane people eat bananas > > and > > > get healthy that way!! " (And on and on). > > > > > > TTYL, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 I can tell you that working predominantly with the worst examples of a particular ethnic group makes your attitude tend towards racism. I can also tell you that listening to liars lie to you every day gives you a disbelieving, mistrusting mentality. Mike. Re: Re: AA-Nazi- upon request I am now totally flip flopped and think that in general, they are as crooked as those they rule so superior over. (In GENERAL, OKAY? I know there are some cops out there who care... but few and far between if ya ask me... Imagine having to counsel a client in a criminal matter that it will be his word against a coupla cops, and the odds of the jury believing him over the lying sacks of shit in blue are pretty much zero. (And for a misdemeanor matter, it just isn't worth the money it would take to chip away at their bullshit, in many instances.) Mind you, I'm not one of those lefty "I think all cops suck" people; my contempt for cops is born of practicing law, and coming to learn that in major metropolitan areas the poh-leeece themselves refer to what they do in court as "testilying." Had a brief career as a municpal prosecutor, too. I was *unable to prosecute a few cases because one cop's reports were absolutely unintelligible, and he wasn't much help in reconstructing what happened. The level of stupidity and illiteracy among cops is frequently higher than their honesty. --Mona-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mona/All I had a feeling I'd be opening up a small can of worms (snakes?) with my generalization about Police Officers. But in having spent my entire life growing up with cops, having had cops come over to our house for parties, attending other social get togethers with other cop families, and in general listening to all the "cop-talk" that went on in my and other cop households, I can say that what Mona experienced must be true. I agree with too that the power thing inherent in the job plays on officers minds and character not just on the job, but in all other aspects of their lives. FWIW,aren't there stats that show cops to have a higher than the norm divorce rate, and higher than the norm rate of alcohol abuse? (not to mention Domestic Violence tendencies..) As my family put it, "dealing with criminals all day long will get to ya". Is it any coincidence that my family of cops (all divorced and heavy drinkers by the way) are all Rush Limbaugh fans, HATED Clinton, and have NO compassion at all for people in general? They are bigoted to the extreme. I remember having many heated debates with them about non-whites and non-catholic/christians. The absolute consenus was that if you were not white or catholic/christian you were a criminal and sub-human. My family supported their ideas and beliefs by saying that the prisons are full of non-white and non-catholic/christians. A bunch of crap and I never "won" in any of those debates. I was laughed at and told I was naive to the world. The fact that I married a Jew and his oldest son is doing time in the state pen doesn't exactly hold me in their highest esteem, but they tolerate me and I'm sure they think this is all a passing fancy. And to account for the non-white non-catholic/christian cops in the ranks they would just hold that up as being proof that they (my family) were not bigoted because they associated (more like tolerated) with these folks. In fact, a favorite saying around the house used to describe what they called a "bad cop", was "s/he is a nigger with a badge". This statement is so gross and abhorrent, yet this was typical and spouted often to describe the "occasional bad cop". Testalying. Cute. Doesn't surprise me a bit. One other tidbit: I've noticed that the smaller the organization (say small town cops vs. big City or State Cops) the worse the cops seem to be. My brother has a theory that these small towners are cops who could not make it on the "big force" and thus are relegated to the less glamorous jobs and smaller precincts. My experience holds this up. Our problems are not with the larger City of Seattle Police Officers (although they and say, LA or NY cops don't get good press) but with our local municipal cops. All food for thought. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 big city police forces often have a lower intelligence level among average officers on their staff, and often have corruption running rampant because there is no 'chief' authority who knows all the cops on his force. New York City and Newark , NJ are examples as are Los Angeles and New Orleans. In New Jersey most suburban forces are staffed with highly competent cops, from patrolmen to detectives, while the over 100, 000 cities are usually pretty fucked up forces-more violent as far as killing suspects, too. Mike. Re: Re: AA-Nazi- upon request I am now totally flip flopped and think that in general, they are as crooked as those they rule so superior over. (In GENERAL, OKAY? I know there are some cops out there who care... but few and far between if ya ask me... Imagine having to counsel a client in a criminal matter that it will be his word against a coupla cops, and the odds of the jury believing him over the lying sacks of shit in blue are pretty much zero. (And for a misdemeanor matter, it just isn't worth the money it would take to chip away at their bullshit, in many instances.) Mind you, I'm not one of those lefty "I think all cops suck" people; my contempt for cops is born of practicing law, and coming to learn that in major metropolitan areas the poh-leeece themselves refer to what they do in court as "testilying." Had a brief career as a municpal prosecutor, too. I was *unable to prosecute a few cases because one cop's reports were absolutely unintelligible, and he wasn't much help in reconstructing what happened. The level of stupidity and illiteracy among cops is frequently higher than their honesty. --Mona-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mona/All I had a feeling I'd be opening up a small can of worms (snakes?) with my generalization about Police Officers. But in having spent my entire life growing up with cops, having had cops come over to our house for parties, attending other social get togethers with other cop families, and in general listening to all the "cop-talk" that went on in my and other cop households, I can say that what Mona experienced must be true. I agree with too that the power thing inherent in the job plays on officers minds and character not just on the job, but in all other aspects of their lives. FWIW,aren't there stats that show cops to have a higher than the norm divorce rate, and higher than the norm rate of alcohol abuse? (not to mention Domestic Violence tendencies..) As my family put it, "dealing with criminals all day long will get to ya". Is it any coincidence that my family of cops (all divorced and heavy drinkers by the way) are all Rush Limbaugh fans, HATED Clinton, and have NO compassion at all for people in general? They are bigoted to the extreme. I remember having many heated debates with them about non-whites and non-catholic/christians. The absolute consenus was that if you were not white or catholic/christian you were a criminal and sub-human. My family supported their ideas and beliefs by saying that the prisons are full of non-white and non-catholic/christians. A bunch of crap and I never "won" in any of those debates. I was laughed at and told I was naive to the world. The fact that I married a Jew and his oldest son is doing time in the state pen doesn't exactly hold me in their highest esteem, but they tolerate me and I'm sure they think this is all a passing fancy. And to account for the non-white non-catholic/christian cops in the ranks they would just hold that up as being proof that they (my family) were not bigoted because they associated (more like tolerated) with these folks. In fact, a favorite saying around the house used to describe what they called a "bad cop", was "s/he is a nigger with a badge". This statement is so gross and abhorrent, yet this was typical and spouted often to describe the "occasional bad cop". Testalying. Cute. Doesn't surprise me a bit. One other tidbit: I've noticed that the smaller the organization (say small town cops vs. big City or State Cops) the worse the cops seem to be. My brother has a theory that these small towners are cops who could not make it on the "big force" and thus are relegated to the less glamorous jobs and smaller precincts. My experience holds this up. Our problems are not with the larger City of Seattle Police Officers (although they and say, LA or NY cops don't get good press) but with our local municipal cops. All food for thought. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 I didn't say or mean to imply it was right, I just was saying it is , and why /how it gets that way. Mike. Re: Re: AA-Nazi- upon request I am now totally flip flopped and think that in general, they are as crooked as those they rule so superior over. (In GENERAL, OKAY? I know there are some cops out there who care... but few and far between if ya ask me... Imagine having to counsel a client in a criminal matter that it will be his word against a coupla cops, and the odds of the jury believing him over the lying sacks of shit in blue are pretty much zero. (And for a misdemeanor matter, it just isn't worth the money it would take to chip away at their bullshit, in many instances.) Mind you, I'm not one of those lefty "I think all cops suck" people; my contempt for cops is born of practicing law, and coming to learn that in major metropolitan areas the poh-leeece themselves refer to what they do in court as "testilying." Had a brief career as a municpal prosecutor, too. I was *unable to prosecute a few cases because one cop's reports were absolutely unintelligible, and he wasn't much help in reconstructing what happened. The level of stupidity and illiteracy among cops is frequently higher than their honesty. --Mona-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mona/All I had a feeling I'd be opening up a small can of worms (snakes?) with my generalization about Police Officers. But in having spent my entire life growing up with cops, having had cops come over to our house for parties, attending other social get togethers with other cop families, and in general listening to all the "cop-talk" that went on in my and other cop households, I can say that what Mona experienced must be true. I agree with too that the power thing inherent in the job plays on officers minds and character not just on the job, but in all other aspects of their lives. FWIW,aren't there stats that show cops to have a higher than the norm divorce rate, and higher than the norm rate of alcohol abuse? (not to mention Domestic Violence tendencies..) As my family put it, "dealing with criminals all day long will get to ya". Is it any coincidence that my family of cops (all divorced and heavy drinkers by the way) are all Rush Limbaugh fans, HATED Clinton, and have NO compassion at all for people in general? They are bigoted to the extreme. I remember having many heated debates with them about non-whites and non-catholic/christians. The absolute consenus was that if you were not white or catholic/christian you were a criminal and sub-human. My family supported their ideas and beliefs by saying that the prisons are full of non-white and non-catholic/christians. A bunch of crap and I never "won" in any of those debates. I was laughed at and told I was naive to the world. The fact that I married a Jew and his oldest son is doing time in the state pen doesn't exactly hold me in their highest esteem, but they tolerate me and I'm sure they think this is all a passing fancy. And to account for the non-white non-catholic/christian cops in the ranks they would just hold that up as being proof that they (my family) were not bigoted because they associated (more like tolerated) with these folks. In fact, a favorite saying around the house used to describe what they called a "bad cop", was "s/he is a nigger with a badge". This statement is so gross and abhorrent, yet this was typical and spouted often to describe the "occasional bad cop". Testalying. Cute. Doesn't surprise me a bit. One other tidbit: I've noticed that the smaller the organization (say small town cops vs. big City or State Cops) the worse the cops seem to be. My brother has a theory that these small towners are cops who could not make it on the "big force" and thus are relegated to the less glamorous jobs and smaller precincts. My experience holds this up. Our problems are not with the larger City of Seattle Police Officers (although they and say, LA or NY cops don't get good press) but with our local municipal cops. All food for thought. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2001 Report Share Posted June 29, 2001 Who is ? Were you addressing Ernst as ? Is Ernst Diener? Thank you for your help. Mike. Re: AA-Nazi- upon request > > > > It is very naive to put responsibility for the criminal justice > > system on police. The cops merely enforce policies made by others. > > I simply cannot believe any adult human being actually thinks cops > " merely enforce " the law. > There are many cops who don't understand the " policies made by > others " (like the US Supreme Court, the framers of the Constitution, the > legislature, the heads of their own departments...), others who understand > but don't give a damn because they think they're the good guys no matter how > bad, dishonest or illegal their actions. > That's where motions to suppress evidence and confessions come in. > Unfortunately, many people spend months in jail and spend large amounts of > money before a case based on illegally obtained evidence gets dismissed. > For all of your rants about class based bias, , you seem > woefully uneducated about the way cops really treat minorities and the poor. > > -- Bob Marshall > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 Is it possible to explain to me in less than 6 or 12 paragraphs why it is impossible for a step-working person to have the God of Judaism as a higher power and stay in accordance with the AA doctrine? Mike. Re: AA-Nazi- upon request > > > It should be deemed religious regardless of any justice's > political ideology, > because it manifestly is. However, to cover all possible bases in > terms of > judicial bias, the perfect plaintiff should be religious, perhaps an > observant Jew such as Rita, whose religion of choice is > irreconcilable with > AA theology. In such a situation, it is all but impossible to deny > that > there are TWO religious views at issue in the plaintiff's life, and > that the > State is coercing her to attend religious " services " that run > contrary to her > freely chosen religious views. Much better plaintiff that one of > those > libertine and vile atheists. > > --Mona-- > --------------------------- > > From a more ideological than pragmatic veiw, I come at the > issue from the opposite angle. I fully agree that reardless of > political ideology xA is what it is - manifestly religious. XA's > defense has always been something to the effect that; it is > nothing more than a set of " spiritual pricipals " which are > " suggestions, " open to interpretation, and not incompatable with > any particular belief structure. Though it is a blatant fallacy, for > the sake of argument, let them have it. With the religious issue > isolated and put aside, we can then concentrate on the > existential issues of the controversy. > > First of all it needs to be calrified as to exactly WHY are certian > lawbreakers mandated to participate in the xA programs. If it is > for the specific intent of rehabilitation, which in this case entails > succesfully abstaining from drugs, the primary issue becomes > efficacy. The research that has been done has reveiled a > success rate of xA to be no better than no treatment (two studies > using control groups forgot -the names and dates.) I have yet to > see any results of mandated xA. The point is that if the court > system is to be considered efftive in rehabilitation, naturally they > would want to compare scientific results. > > The analogy that I think of is the tobbacco industry, using lies > and manipulation tactics to present " evidence " that cigarette > smoking is harmless, non-addictive, and a really groovy thing to > do. This lead to bantering between scientists and paid > proffessional liars, calling themselves " scientists " disputing the > " evidence. " The sientists, and court systems were letting them > get away with this, in effect validating them. In the case of > cigarette smoking, just look at what smoking is; directly inhaling > the smoke frome a burning substance. A molecule of common > sense, and two funtioning brain cells is all it takes to conclude > that smoking is a pshycally destructive activity. Research and > evidence are entirely unnessesary to convince the GP. > > XA does exactly the same thing with liars presenting false > evidence, manipulated results, pseudo-science bullshit, etc. > Just look at what xA is, use common sense, and the lack of > credibility is obvious. AA is a program developed on the basis > personal experiences and beliefs in 1935. AA has never > subjected itself to critical analysis, verifiable research, or allowed > the inroduction of any new evidence since it's origin. Scientific > credibility is absolute zero. Since AA is stricly non-proffessional > the groups themselves are not reqired to uphold any standard. It > is entirely unregulated. Professional credibility is absolute zero. > > If we focus on the scientific and profesional ethics of the issue > and illiminate the religious part of it, we can set very specific > guidelines that must be adheared to, in order to determine if the > court system is using resouces that that are condusive to > effective rehabilitation. > > I believe the point is to set a higher ethical standard for society, > in the cooperation of the fields of medicine, psychology and > criminal justice, with the intent of upholding the basic human > rights of the individual, improving the efficacy of the procces, and > upholding a moral obligation to respect societal diversity. This > can done by using religion, as well as you can brush your teeth > using a crowbar. > > Somehow the rediculous idea that the right to practice one's > religious beliefs supercedes all other individual rights has been > forced into the mentality of the American public. This only serves > the purposes of dogmatic fundemetalists who viciosly and > violently oppose the idea of religious freedom. If a religion is > based on the idea that it must violate the rights of people that are > not a member of that religion we, as a society have a moral > obligation to discredit that religion. In the case of the libertine > and vile fundementalist xtians, their dogma neccesitates > prosylitizing. The idiology has no legitimate credibility, therefore, > it can only be promoted by use of manipulation, lies, threats and > violence. In other words, practice of fundementalist xtianity > mandates the violation of the basic human rights of those that > are not a member of that religion. The result is that I live in a > society where dogmatic propaganda that blatently promotes > ideological bigotry an violence is more protected and respected > than legitimate information that critisizes their idiotic dogma. > > Devin Devin, Thank you for an insightful and well, brilliant, post. You are absolutely correct and have stated things extremely well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.