A few folks harrumphing on a blog comment board is easily dismissed as paranoid libertarian-hippy-paramilitants quacking about government conspiracy along with their UFO delusions.
(I get this because that's what I sound like when I rant at my friends about DoJ abuses or the police state or mass surveillance or the continuing torture program or GUYS, THIS IS ALL TRUE! THIS IS LIKE REAL WORLD CRAP!)
Maybe I want Mr. Oliver to do a Last Week Tonight bit on how fucked up our justice system is and that it might be a bad idea to rely on it for actual justice.
Yeah, a LWT bit would be the bare minimum amount of outrage I would find satisfactory.
I mean at this point we know that the department of justice is corrupt from the bottommost clerk to the SCOTUS Jurists. The only reason that we continue to let them arbitrate is because they have guns pointed at our respective heads.
Maybe it's not public enough for waiting rooms full of jurors to simply say they have no confidence in the system, and therefore they will willfully cause trouble, including hanging or nullifying juries. As is their legal right and duty to a nation gone wrong.
Once upon a time I'd ask how can this happen that one side gets access to evidence that the other side does not. Now it has happened I have to ask why is there no outrage?
That's also a legend started by Bill McDonald when he showed to stop a prize fight. (Plenty of rangers were already there to spectate the fight if they weren't going to stop it).
Though there was a period in which a Texas Ranger could knock on a door (say, to serve a high-risk warrant) knowing that only a damn fool would shoot at him. Even if you killed the ranger, the division would be after you for the rest of your (very brief) life.
Similarly, the FBI had doorknockers who would serve warrants or ask questions. It was a bad idea to shoot or hurt him because a whole bunch of big officers with guns were usually nearby to help out.
Further, police aren't armed like they're in war zones. That's just baseless, borderline libellous, unscientific, alarmist lies and drivel.
Maybe you missed the Ferguson protests in which the police showed up in their mineproof transports. You probably missed the officers that arbitrarily closed down the McDonalds and arrested Wesley Lowery and Ryan J. Reilly for "tresspassing" (taking too long to pack their things). They were in full combat armor.
Maybe you missed the rundown of all the gear that was being used by the officers in Ferguson, continuously leveling their rifles at the protesters. Granted, it was tear gas and rubber bullets. Maybe you missed the tear gas victims and the rubber bullet wounds and the photos of what a "rubber bullet" really is.
Those weren't the national guard. Even when they sent the Guard in, they were used for a very limited post. Those were the local precincts.
And BTW why would Law Enforcement Officers ever need to be in camo or olive drab? Police officers are there to make a presence, not to hide in the brush. You don't need subdued colors. You need clear print.
The precincts are clearly armed like the military, partially due to the fact that the program providing them with this stuff started as a hand-me-down program to supply the police with military surplus, rather than dumping it to the civilian population for cheap. Somewhere along the line it function-crept into a program to turn law enforement into Imperial Stormtroopers.
Whether we're discussing Kaczynski or Bundy or Oswald or Harris or even Hitler, it is commonplace but oversimplifying to credit a single incident or factor to a person's personality and ultimate choices. It's convenient for stories of fiction meant to be relatable to the laity, but even then, the notion of a single issue fails to explain Hannibal Lecter, or Batman. (Heck even the Phantom of the Opera serves as a deconstruction)
This is also to say that no single factor can be excluded as insignificant or even minor. In the case of Kaczynski's MKULTRA experience, even if it was a single experience, it could have triggered an epiphany or just another brick in the wall.
Figuring out retroactively why people do crazy things is like trying to trace from a hurricane back to the butterflies that were pivotal in its inception. We can determine common risk factors which increase probability, but not to a useful degree.
And yes, that is terrifying because it means we don't know who will spark off.
But getting back to the original point, if you're looking to raise a wise king, a stable environment with consistent routine and conscious caregivers can go a long way.
I'm reminded of a friend of mine who, when considering getting a dog wanted a smart dog. She got a Labradoodle (Labrador-Poodle mix, in this case an accidental one) who was very bright, but also willful. When we think of smart dogs we think of ones who recognize commands and remember a lot of tricks but are otherwise obedient. We don't think they're going to figure out how to open refrigerators and childproof cupboards and eat all our food.
Kids are this to the next magnitude. We can expect our children are going to outsmart us and try to get away with stuff. We can only attempt to prepare them so that by the time they do, their better judgement goes with them (e.g. to find a safe environment to experiment with drugs, or a safe partner and protection when getting sexual). Add someone who is bright and talented to that, and their adventures might get ambitious, especially once they figure out that the schools and society hate our young people and regard them as a subversive factor intent on disrupting the status quo.
Also from Family Snapshot:
All turned quiet-I have been here before A Lonely boy hiding behind the front door My friends have all gone home There's my toy gun on the floor Come back Mum and Dad You're growing apart You know that I'm growing up sad I need some attention I shoot into the light -- Peter Gabriel
I was okay with the once-a-year placement tests (and SATs) where the spots were circular, but the ones with dash-shaped rectangles always gave me trouble.
That's a technical issue.
But so far we've already seen that all standardized tests do is compel school districts to value test scores over the welfare of the students. We've seen all sorts of shenanigans to expel students because their test scores affect negatively the school average, which in turn affects funding.
This is the end result of No Child Left Behind: children left out.
So I have no qualms about kids cheating like fire to pass those tests, since the alternative is them getting kicked out of school for costing the district money. Frankly, those kids should be bribing / blackmailing / extorting maybe even murdering their way through school. Since the administrators seem so eager to ruin the lives of young people, it's only appropriate that reprisal is in order.
Maybe when this level of desperation surfaces, it will drive us to change our school policies to actually prepare children for adult life.
It's not parents wanting to prevent birth-defects or create a being that excels that is our greatest concern. It's a state that wants kids that can't think well, love to work and don't complain much.
Pro tip: High-performance human beings tend to be open-architecture and also require a high-performance childhood. If you aren't looking to devote a substantial amount of time actually raising the kid, he may grow up to be a high-performance disaster.
If you and your partner are working separate jobs and come home tired day after day, you might want to consider an economy package...say, not breeding at all.
I think of the last refuge of social misfits amd crime-on-crime or crime-on-superdiskish-business practices (a la the predation on the Spanish Silver Train, or oyster pirates selling fish outside the licensed cartels).
This is before we get to Robert Newton's captivating interpretation of Long John Silver in classic cinema.
Funny how media piracy falls into the same category, given that the predation is less on artists and more on the gatekeepers who are renowned for mistreating artists anyway.
Which is that if they provide certain kinds of games, they'll get enough of a following that they can rule their customers with an iron fist (in some cases permabanning accounts without explanation) and that following will stay loyal.
Kinda like Zynga.
It does make EA look like a total turd, but so far a golden turd.