“Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”
There you go, simple and clear and obvious. Nose on your face clarity from a bygone Supreme Court that would likely never get appointed in this modern age of the Rich owning Government.
When we have an event like Charlie Hebdo, the immediate Government response (from their Very Rich Masters) is to have more surveillance and police powers, of precisely the type that didn’t stop the attack in the first place and never will, because it’s not there to stop terrorism, it’s there to stop the PUBLIC, who are the real threat to the Rich’s power and control.
An intelligent person wonders about the potential for corrosive collusion between “enemies” who have goals that are in common in some areas, and the ignorance of a Public that has been led astray…..has it never crossed anyone’s minds why it is that there are no terrorists attacks against the people that even or ESPECIALLY terrorists know are behind the choices to meddle in their world?
Instead they go and shoot a buncha cartoon artists, knowing full well that it won’t change a whit of what drives the choices of the West, but instead will only further animate the Public to allow infringement of their OWN rights, on an ever more massive scale?
C’mon, does that make sense? From people allegedly sophisticated enough to fly beneath the radar of the most pervasive global surveillance system the world has ever known…?
How is it that NO ONE seems to be able to pinpoint HOW this got into the spending bill, yet it’s consequences are enormous..!?!?!?!
Is the system for tracking developmental and incremental changes and access to the final draft so convoluted and arcane that truly it’s not trackable? If so, are we SURE it’s not Russian spies…??!?!
C’MON, this is ludicrous!!!
WHO PUT THIS SHIT INTO THE BILL, AND HOW?!?!?!?
I think this conversation needs to have this part, where there is light being shed on the fact that the provision was added and what it means, BUT, there needs to be a through explanation of HOW it was inserted without debate and/or opposition, and the people who put it in need to be exposed, and all of their ties to ANY kind of beneficiaries of it need to be described in clear detail.
Yes this speech is important, but why aren’t we hearing about HOW THIS WAS DONE?!?!?!
So for the last few days we’ve all been inundated with the (mostly) right-wanger cries of vindication of their views having to do with the “left-wing” media portraying what happened the Ferguson events as “inciting” and “hyperbole” and “infotainment” and “sensationalizing” etc etc etc…
Which is of course, all true.
(Don’t even get me started on what I think is happening with the media, tho I vehemently disagree with the right-wang on *what* is wrong with the media, I definitely DO agree that *something* damn sure is.)
But not on this.
Now we have a pretty stark situation where the state of Missouri has systematically and for 29 years allowed to let stand a definition of how, why, and what circumstances allow the police to use deadly force, that has been struck down by the Supreme Court, 29 years ago!!!
So…if this is true, (and it definitely appears to be), then in order to believe that this isn’t a systematic and deliberate strategy to allow the police to be more “lax” with their freedom to kill, we would have to believe that for 29 YEARS, every single Attorney General and every legislator and every governor and in fact every single person involved on the prosecutorial side of the entire Missouri Judicial System just kindaMISSED THAT LITTLE ITEM!!!
For 29 years.
That’s an awful lot of people at least smart enough to cheat their way through law school and/or get a job that pays way more than MINE to miss something THAT FUCKING HUGE!!
It’s my contention that when something like that happens, it’s no “accident” or “slipup”. (It’s like Facebook and their “Privacy Settings”. When a company has billions of dollars and some of the best legal and computer tech minds available in the world on their staff, it’s no damn accident that you can’t make heads or tails of what the hell to do with all that garbage they throw at you to protect yourself on Facebook, it’s because they WANT it that way, it’s EXACTLY how they want it to be, incomprehensible.)
It’s also my contention that if that is INDEED that case, then there needs to be kinda a whole SHITLOAD OF JOB OPENINGS IN MISSOURI, COMING RIGHT UP!! That kind of FUCK-UPPERY is historic……and anyone involved in it should be replaced and fined…retroactively.
Now, one immediately has the thought that “well, at least the defense side of the equation here should have been able to effect some sort of change”, but remember, the ACCUSED in these cases would be COPS, not your average person. Someone who is part of that same Judicial System, being charged by that system. Not a single entity in that “contest” has any benefit in the law being upgraded to “non-prehistoric” status.
A reasonable person might think that this is the reason why it was never changed.
I’m a reasonable person.
I don’t know the stats, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess that not only are there very few to no convictions of police for shooting people in Missouri, but that any convictions of cops for such a thing were when the shootee was white, and UN-poor. UN-poor being WAY more important than skin color.