Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Criminal, Not Stupid (Part 3)

Today is Wednesday, 29 July 2009.

My thanks to “disappointed” and “reader” for your comments.

I did not write that “officers of the law are gangs”. I wrote that often some officers, and in many instances even majorities of departments, act as Blue Gang members serving masters other than the people.

It’s quite simple: when officers break the law, they have repudiated and dishonoured their oaths as officers, and have by their own evil will chosen not to be officers, but merely common criminals.

Having known honest officers, believe you me: they know all too well who in their departments are the “rotten apples”, and despise them. The honest officers know that the dishonest officers increase the threat of harm to all officers.

The Black officer on the scene. By supporting Crowley, who had refused to obey the law and properly identify himself, the Black officer had sided with Blue Gang values and against the people, his employers, and the very ones he has sworn to serve.

Again, I was at pains to note that not all officers “are just legalized thugs”, only the law-breakers who are therefore, inevitably and objectively, legalized thugs.

Yes, I’ve had unpleasant encounters with lawless officers. I’m not particularly angry with them as individuals: I am outraged at the crimes committed by lawless officers against anyone.

I’m not “cynical”, but rather extremely critical of injustice. Unlike many, perhaps most, I refuse to sweep officialized illegality under the rug, because such behaviour is a cancer on attempts to create a free and just society.

As to “sad”. I don’t judge myself as pathetic, but I’m certainly distressed and sorrowful.

There is and will be no “Pigs Are Thugs” sign in the yard; I prefer "Eschew Obfuscation". Also, I don’t believe in insulting animals.

As to anyone breaking in: if the dogs and cat didn’t finish them, Mrs. HH would.

I don't assume that “the conflict was solely due to racial differences between the participants”. I would assume that there is a great likelihood that Crowley, cavalierly breaking the law in this instance, would break the law and disrespect any citizen, regardless of “race”.

Some persons with certain class prejudices would consider Prof. Gates’ job more “elite” than Crowley’s job. Personally, I evaluate people by their intentions, values, and actions, not by hierarchical rankings or bankrolls. As to the “race” of the Cambridge mayor or the Massachusetts governor, I don’t perceive the relevance.
(I personally repudiate the validity of “race” based on skin colour. I recognize the existence of races such as foot, auto, rat, space, and human.)

One of the lessons every mom and dad should teach: always argue with injustice, whether it comes clothed in police uniforms, Armani suits, or buck naked.

As to “respect for authority”. “Authority” is an abstract concept, and “respect”, in terms of obedience, is therefore meaningless. There are only particular, concrete authorities. I repudiate obeying authorities simply because they are described with that term. I believe in obedience to justice, and opposition to injustice.

On this date in 1890, Vincent Van Gogh died.


Post a Comment

<< Home