Sly Eugenics

Consider the definition:
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Now, if you substitute "beliefs" for "genetic defects" and usefulness for "undesirable traits", we arrive at a meaning very close to today's trends.

For example, Obama stated the he isw offering "the American people" a health care plan "LARGELY" on a par with what he and Congress have. There are more sick implications to that statement than I can address. The most glaring is the idea that they are they, and the rest of the nobodies constitute the American people. In a way that is a relief. I'd hate to think that American people by and large were so lacking in conscience and integrity. But what is the deal with this separation? We are being controlled by people who consider themselves something other than American people?

What is "broke", to quote the mfwics, is the law and the government, not the health care system per se. Had not slimy, yet smart people figured out how to twist legality into huge lawsuits, a la John Edwards, based on junk science or merely class envy, some of the problem would be gone. There are many other factors, very few not generated by the same body that now pretends they'll make it better.

Who has lived such a short time that they haven't witnessed a decrease in individual freedom, and a corresponding increase in instances of politicians claiming there is no choice but for them to step in and fix things not really covered constitutionally? The result is then a worse problem at best, or several more, typically.

This same pattern is obvious when you look at the misuse of our military for purposes not defensive or even productive. They figured out how to never stop having war, and how to never quite lose, and never quite win. That is because, no matter how die hard a person is, he doesn't truly know why we are there, wherever we are. Angrily shouting that they fight so we can be free, may have validity from the standpoint that this is what most American soldiers want, and hope. Those sending them spout off about spreading democracy. Yet they enrich dictators and lunatics daily. Besides, why are we spreading democracy? Unchecked by extreme constitutional limits democracy is death to liberty. We are a democratic republic which was supposed to be under wraps as far as its involvement in private life.

The helth care costs may suck, and there are reasons which do not so much fall on private business, except when they are willing to be on the government dole in one form or another.

This initiative is not to make care more accessible to all. It is an effort to control the care, how it is given, and to whom. That brings me to the police situation.

Recently a guy who must be thrilled to have his day in the sun, was in a confrontation which resulted in arrest, and dropped charges. I wasn't there. Obama wasn't there. Neither of us can reasonably render judgement on the matter. However the sensationalized version we are hearing with the question being asked, "What does this say about race relations in America?" What is says is nothing. Reverse races---no issue. I had as much call to raise hell as that guy, but I'm one of the "American people", a nobody.

The real problem this highlights is the fact that some time ago the tone, training, and dirctives controlling police work moved from protect and serve to control the masses. I doubt this had squat to do with race and everything to do with someone not being under control. The thing is, people don't always have to be under control. Are others being threatened? Then hell with it, walk away. So what if you don't get the respect you feel you desrve. Next time a burglary is reported at that address, send Al Sharpton. Or no one.

Like I said, I wasn't there. I might have just shot the guy if I'd been that cop, or I might have yelled and talked trash like the Harvard demagogue. I don't know. I do know that minorities often think that whites are treated nice by police and that they trust them and aren't bothered. I had that discussion with a couple of Mexican women yesterday. I can tell you, that is simply not true.

What is true, from my observation, and I think it makes sense, is that besides being of a metal fix to control people, police don't tend to want to bother people with power. It so happens a lot of powerful people are white. There are a lot of them in this country, white people. Police will more likely abuse someone they think can't sue them successfully and who has no connections which might pose a threat to the job or promotion. Not all cops are bullies, but that trade attracts more than its share.

If the laws were not so plentiful and so many of them unnecessary, and the goal was to protect rather than control, there would be a different mindset instilled in Johnny Law, and you'd have fewer of these issues. But then they'd have to seriously deal with gangs and others who bother normal people. That is not being done, no matter what they say. It's much easier to go write tickets because someone did not turn the wheels to curb, or to collar a guy for growing pot. There are many ways to solve certain problems, like drunk driving for example. It is no coincidence that the favorite one is to stop everyone at a roadblock then require them to prove their innocence. Why not just hit the bar parking lots?

I know, there are many people who find no issue with the jackboot tactic of a roadblock requiring you to show credentials. I don't even drink, so I have nothing to hide. But what if I look at some cop wrong or don't show enough obeisance? Scary struff. We are headed to Stalin and Hitler's dream state, through the back door, and a lot of smart people are encouraging it.

Being smart is not a virtue unless it is used to good purpose. Controlling and stealing from others is not good. I've heard the argument against the views which goes, "So what do you suggest--just let everyone run amok?"

Just because I don't believe in punishing the good people because there are bad or irresponsible people does not mean I support the activities of the damned. Just because you can't think of a better way doesn't mean I can't, or that there is no better way. ============




=======================
So today was a highly productive day and I kept out of trouble. Forgive me though, for I fear I may have had an impure thought or two. Mostly I had pure positive thoughts and felt grateful. The former thinking was more a would be grateful if sort of thing.