ù Quoting Rd Thompson from a message to Ryan Bagueros  ù 
RT> Excuse me??  The police can only affect the law makers as individuals 
RT> by voting and as a group by lobbying.  That is no different than any 
RT> other group.
Don't pretend like it is "equal" in any sense of the word. Two things give 
you 
influence over law-making: money and political power. The cops and their 
lobbyist groups have both behind them, as well as the assumption that law 
enforcement is as benevolent as it can be. 
RT> Why should there be?  Do you understand what landlords go through on 
RT> a month to month basis without leases?   You end up with tenants who 
Again, we were not arguing about whether or not it is a good thing that there 
aren't a lot of leaseless apartments, we were just arguing whether or not 
there
WERE a lot of leaseless apartments. Your continued assertion that I am 
"whining" rather than just making an observation is justified by this - 
primarily - as an example. We have just finally resolved that what I said in 
the first place is right - you would have to be an idiot to think that there 
are a bunch of lease-less apartments waiting to be rented.
RT> It's not mine either, but if I decide to do drugs, I need to be 
RT> prepared to face the consequences of that choice.
... okay, now what if your daughter or nephew or sister or whoever decides 
that
*they* want to smoke pot some time, will you be so forgiving of the law? It 
is 
easy for you to say that *you* will never do them, easily maneuvering away 
from
having to answer for the injustice of American law enforcement; but what if 
someone you loved was arrested?
RT> If you just do it in your own home, you probably will not be bothered 
RT> unless you call attention to yourself in some way.
Hm, and where do you think people in the city get marijuana? More than 
likely, 
they don't have an in-house drug dealer. Consequently, people are entering 
into
a criminal situation, whether they think it is criminal, or dangerous, or 
whatever.
RT> So do I, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to make my own 
RT> decisions and be prepared to face the results of those decisions.
Of course, that only takes you so far. Let me ask you this - if a woman is 
walking in a bad part of town because she has no car and must take the bus 
home
from work, and she is assaulted and raped, is it her fault? Hopefully, you 
will
say 'no.' Now, *why* isn't it her fault? Because the rapist was acting in the 
wrong. The woman *knew* that the area was known for a lot of attacks, yet she 
still went there. She didn't HAVE to take the bus home, she could have taken 
a 
taxi everyday. 
So, what is being said here is that if one person commits a wrong against 
another person, it is categorically the person doing the wrong's fault. In 
other words, bad judgment or being put into a volatile situation because of 
one's job, or transportation, or whatever cannot be intepreted as blame when 
compared to somone who is actively pursuing a wrong. 
Now, what I am saying is that a system or social condition can also be like 
this. When it occurs in other countries, we call it 'oppression.' When it 
occurs here, we blame the person. The dominant power in our country is held 
by 
multinational corporations, some of which have more money and growth than 
Third
World Nations. And since companies do not have to adhere to the same 
constitutional standards that a government agency would, it is easier for 
them 
to get away with more. This is what I'm saying...
--- FMail 1.22
---------------