jump to navigation

So, my life should be forfeit? May 20, 2017

Posted by lawrencemerithew in anti-totalitarianism, Opinion, politics.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

A few days ago in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a police officer was acquitted of killing an unarmed citizen. He was shot by the officer as he walked away from her, his hands held above his head.

Let that sink in a moment. Walking AWAY from the officer, hands in the air. The officer was concerned he was reaching into his vehicle, for what, she didn’t know. Through a CLOSED vehicle window. With a SECOND officer assisting at the scene.

Yesterday (19 May 2017), she was cleared to return to the force, in a non-patrol position.

One account of the incident and acquittal can be found at the CNN website.

Here’s why I titled this blog post as I did.

I have been told I have a very intimidating appearance. Standing just under 6′ and weighing roughly 290 pounds, it’s easy to understand that belief. Further, I’ve been asked on more than one occasion whether I was under the influence of narcotics. No, I’ve never done anything like cocaine, heroine, meth, PCP, nothing like that. Hell, I don’t even want to take prescription painkillers if I can help it.

I do, however, tend to behave erratically at times, which I will explain at the end of this post.

Based on the general information giving in the Betty Shelby case, and the similarity to my own history, should my life be forfeit?

One justification she gives for firing is Mr. Crutcher’s refusal to follow orders. Is ignoring a police officer a sufficient reason for the officer to act as judge, jury, and executioner, if that is his only verifiable crime at the time?

If so, what does that say about American society, where disobeying your government masters is punishable by death?

Are police officers still public servants, or not?

While I’m sure the majority of officers would take a more measured response, can we still ignore the small minority that believe they are in the force to “BE served (by the citizens) and (BE) protected (by the “justice” system)” FROM those same citizens?

In short, when did America become a nation where those in government, in whatever capacity, are exempt from accepting personal responsibility for their actions?

To return to the issue of whether my life is forfeit:

So far, all you know is what any person on the street, or police officer, would be aware of when meeting me in public. What you, or they, would NOT be aware of, is that my erratic behavior can be the result of weak response to stressful situations, combined with being a diabetic.

So, I ask again:

Should my life be forfeit, simply because a chronic disease happens to manifest its symptoms at an inopportune time?

Advertisements

Republicans to America: Screw You June 23, 2016

Posted by lawrencemerithew in non-fiction, Opinion, politics.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

A short post, shooting from the lip.

Yesterday, members of the Democratic party staged a sit-in in an effort to force votes on gun-control legislation. House Speaker Paul Ryan twice gavelled the House into session to deal with totally unrelated business. One was a failed attempt to override a presidential veto.

In the second case, a Democratic representative tried to ask a question regarding procedure, namely whether opposition to a bill would have its customary right to control 30 minutes of debate on the measure. The acting chair refused to answer that inquiry, asking only if the representative wished to record the yays and nays on said issue passed by voice vote. Not only that, the acting chair claimed “in the chair’s opinion, the ayes have it” BEFORE the Democrats even had an opportunity to express their side of the voice vote.

In other words, the Republican majority chose to ramrod legislation with no allowance for discussion.

The same thing they claim President Obama has been doing for 7 years.

Today, cries are becoming louder for the delegates to be free to vote their “conscience” at the Republican convention. Forget the fact their presumptive nominee was awarded the majority of delegates. Forget the fact the presumptive nominee won more popular votes than all other candidates combined, and more than any other candidate in primary history.

Their reasoning? “We must allow the delegates to vote in the best interests of the party.” No mention whatsoever of the PEOPLE.

I’m sorry, I was brought up to believe political parties and their candidates were selected to work the will of the PEOPLE.

The Republicans have revealed their true colors. They have only one agenda: control the country, and by extension the world, AT ALL COSTS.

Republicans want to screw the people? My response: Republicans, SCREW YOU.

Disclosure statement June 17, 2016

Posted by lawrencemerithew in disclosure, libertarianism, non-fiction, politics.
add a comment

For those in the US following this blog, and those that stumble across it by accident:

I have recently chosen to volunteer time and effort to the presidential campaign of former New Mexico Gary Johnson. Some, but hopefully not all, of my posts in the next 5 months will deal with events from my own understanding of libertarian principles.

There are also some things in that vein that I feel are important to understand.

One of the things to keep in mind is that views of libertarians are not locked into one narrow set, just as Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives have varying viewpoints.

Some libertarians believe in virtually no government at all, that governments serve no legitimate purposes. These are often called “Anarcho-Capitalists.”

Others, such as presidential candidate Gary Johnson, describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” There are those that claim this view is not true libertarianism.

In my case, I fall into the category described as “a bleeding-heart” libertarian. My description of my libertarian views is that people deserve freedom, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the exercise of freedoms by another person. I also feel that economic issues need to be periodically monitored, if not lightly limited, to ensure the rights of a collective entity does not overwhelm the rights of the individual. Thus I see myself as “socially liberal and fiscally moderate.”

And now, a word on decorum:

For those that wish to claim that their version of libertarianism is the only “pure” one, I will tolerate such claims as long as they are presented civilly.

If you then attempt to resort to name-calling, questioning my parentage/upbringing/whatever, understand this:

My personality is such that I abide by the Golden Rule. “Do to others as you would wish them to do to you.” In other words, engage in name-calling, and I’ll assume that’s how you yourself wish to be treated in return. If the mood strikes, I’d be happy to oblige.

Remain civil, and I will do everything I can to remain civil as well.

I only issue this warning once.

 

%d bloggers like this: