Hi Ryan, as you were just saying about Re: choices in amerikka....
RB> RT> Excuse me??  The police can only affect the law makers as individuals 
RB> RT> by voting and as a group by lobbying.  That is no different than any 
RB> RT> other group.
RB> 
RB> Don't pretend like it is "equal" in any sense of the word. 
RB> Two things give you 
RB> influence over law-making: money and political power. The cops and
RB> their  lobbyist groups have both behind them, as well as the
RB> assumption that law  enforcement is as benevolent as it can be. 
As do many of the other lobbyist groups such as the oil industry,
tobacco, unions, the NRA, HCI, vaious conservation groups,  the ACLU,
the Southern Poverty Law Center....the list goes on.....
RB> RT> Why should there be?  Do you understand what landlords go through on 
RB> RT> a month to month basis without leases?   You end up with tenants who 
RB> 
RB> Again, we were not arguing about whether or not it is a good thing
RB> that there  aren't a lot of leaseless apartments, we were just
RB> arguing  whether or not there
OK
RB> WERE a lot of leaseless apartments. Your continued assertion that
RB> I am  "whining" rather than just making an observation is justified
RB> by this -  primarily - as an example. We have just finally resolved
RB> that what I said in  the first place is right - you would have to be
RB> an idiot to think that there  are a bunch of lease-less apartments
RB> waiting to be rented.
A claim which I have never made.
RB> RT> It's not mine either, but if I decide to do drugs, I need to be 
RB> RT> prepared to face the consequences of that choice.
RB> 
RB> ... okay, now what if your daughter or nephew or sister or 
RB> whoever decides that
RB> *they* want to smoke pot some time, will you be so 
RB> forgiving of the law? It is 
RB> easy for you to say that *you* will never do them, 
Another claim, I have never made.  If you will scratch your memory
just a tad, you should recall that I was one of the folks in here on
the side of de-criminalization.
RB> easily 
RB> maneuvering away from
RB> having to answer for the injustice of American law enforcement;
RB> but what if  someone you loved was arrested?
People need to assume their responsibility for their actions.  The
fact that they may be relatives of mine does not change that.
RB> RT> If you just do it in your own home, you probably will not be bothered 
RB> RT> unless you call attention to yourself in some way.
RB> 
RB> Hm, and where do you think people in the city get 
RB> marijuana? More than likely, 
RB> they don't have an in-house drug dealer. Consequently, 
RB> people are entering into
RB> a criminal situation, whether they think it is criminal, or
RB> dangerous, or  whatever.
You don't have to smoke it in public. 
RB> RT> So do I, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to make my own 
RB> RT> decisions and be prepared to face the results of those decisions.
RB> 
RB> Of course, that only takes you so far. Let me ask you this - if a
RB> woman is  walking in a bad part of town because she has no car and 
RB> must take the bus home
RB> from work, and she is assaulted and raped, is it her fault? 
RB> Hopefully, you will
RB> say 'no.' Now, *why* isn't it her fault? Because the rapist was
RB> acting in the  wrong. The woman *knew* that the area was known for a
RB> lot of attacks, yet she  still went there. She didn't HAVE to take
RB> the bus home, she  could have taken a  taxi everyday. 
You said it above.  The rapist is the one who was wrong.  There is
nothing illegal about walking in the wrong part of town or taking a
bus.  It is illegal to rape.  That is the person who needs to assume
responsibility for their actions.
RB> So, what is being said here is that if one person commits a wrong
RB> against  another person, it is categorically the person doing the
RB> wrong's fault. In  other words, bad judgment or being put into a
RB> volatile situation because of  one's job, or transportation, or
RB> whatever cannot be intepreted as blame when  compared to somone who
RB> is actively pursuing a wrong. 
Correct.
RB> Now, what I am saying is that a system or social condition can
RB> also be like  this. When it occurs in other countries, we call it
RB> 'oppression.' When it  occurs here, we blame the person. 
Use your example above. Do you feel that the social conditions in this
country dispense with the rapist's responsibility?  Or do you feel that
the rapist is still wrong and that the social conditions may have
helped put the woman in the wrong place at the wrong time?
RB> The
RB> dominant power in our  country is held by  multinational
RB> corporations, some of which have more money  and growth than Third
RB> World Nations. And since companies do not have to adhere to the
RB> same  constitutional standards that a government agency would, it  is
RB> easier for them  to get away with more. This is what I'm saying... 
What does this have to do with someone not having to assume
responsibility for their actions?  Or the police having some kind of a
edge in deciding policies? 
RD 
sandman@azstarnet.com 
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
A well-educated Congress being necessary for the governing of a free
state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be
infringed.
___
 X KWQ/2 1.2i X Can you imagine conning eight cats into pulling a sled?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------