The Standard Review

The People's Choice

 

Of course bussiness as usual in the U.S. must be disrupted because it's corrupted and the stagnation that has resulted is stinking.

The folks at Pennsylvania Ave. don't need to hear more from U.S. citizens or from more of U.S. citizens in order for needed change to happen. We can't make them care. Our society is trapped by some kind of pathological belief that we can and should change politicians, and that is accompanied by a co-dependent slave mentality that makes us fear challenging the status quo.

This combination glorifies bullies and gang wars, which are politely described in terms of identity politics. It encourages everyone to micro manage each other based on standards dictated to us by corporations (mainly the psychiatric industry which coordinates efforts with our judicial system) and be disgusted by the diversity we're taught is a weakness while apathetically awaiting a miraculous savior to grace the oval office.

The method of operation in our current government is such that the corporations in command of our political system have a responsibility to their stock holders to  oppose caring when it interferes with profits.

The people who care are the people who can change things, and they don't have those financial and political limitations. They are the ones that need to hear our voice and the disenfranchised need to be empowered with something as old-fashioned and trite as kindness at every opportunity. That kind of change doesn't come from Washington.

If you don't see how you've been held hostage, pimped out, or otherwise exploited by the Democratic party based on Republicans being worse then you are either part of the problem, or you aren't paying close attention.

Change happens in the minds and hearts of people. When people are empowered to think they change what they believe, how they feel, and ultimately how they act. When enough of that happens the government will have no choice  but listen but until then they have nothing to listen to.

The Significance of the Walls (changes in the institutionalization practices of the United States)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IKL005tzBsU/SVT7HL1p89I/AAAAAAAAADw/MMkv74Jp-cc/S1600-R/unheard.JPG

It seems that political advocacy groups have been successful in persuading President Obama to follow the proposed practice of closing more mental institutions.

This article describes how this is occurring in the state of Georgia. The first thing that I recognize about this article is the terms that are used, which provide the reader with an understanding of how advocates traditionally explain public policy.

Unfortunately, the terms are very narrow and appeal, mainly to those who are involved in the political process. Among the population of persons diagnosed with mental illness and developmental disabilities those who have an interest in politics make up the smallest population of people whom the policies affect worst. This is truer of this group than any other discriminated group that has some type of political representation.

 

http://www.yorku.ca/ycpe/images/free_speech.jpg 

What the efforts of deinstitutionalization will do within the current political environment is tagging and parole a much larger group of people and at the same time provide fewer opportunities for people who need the basic essentials to survive and put them in more situations where abuse is likely.

The people who are affected worst by these policies and laws have practically no interest in politics, don't vote, have a great deal of difficulty with managing their finances, and are blamed and bullied more than anyone else in our culture.

This group is seen as irresponsible, blaming them is very comfortable, and public policy makes this convenient.

Advocate groups which encourage what is described as "the recovery model"  (and often disability advocates as well) has no time or interest in this group and will not take them into consideration when accepting the compromises the political system demands.

The truth of this matter will never be heard. Nothing has changed in the way this group is treated. Restraint and seclusion are encouraged within the very policies which claim to discourage them, and there are fewer opportunities for reporting abuse than ever before.

In a very practical sense mental institutions are haunted by the generations of souls that have perished (sentenced to a life without hope) pursuant to the common attitudes behind these walls. Unfortunately, those ghosts are not confined and the current efforts for decreasing institutionalization will encourage more places where the cursed attitudes promote abuse.

http://www.contrastcreative.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/unheard-voices_t1.jpg

As with most policies the way this promotes supposed liberties  for one group of people will be advertised and the group affected worst by it, which is traditionally forgotten will not be heard from or considered. The only reason that such compromises are seen as necessary is due to the way that some victims in our society are seen as the necessary waste.

Quotes such as these;

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Tyranny anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere."
— Alex Storozynski (The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution)

 are now being used more for promoting the sustainability of the United States' mythical middle class. The rest of the public with fewer resources is seen as disposable. Many people who think they have escaped being part of this population will eventually discover otherwise.

The Outside Advantage

The highest-ranking government officials in the United States seem to believe they can no longer effectively rule against the special-interest. The executive branch is continuing to provide more rights to these groups at the expense of the majority of citizens.

The voters in the U.S.are often taking the liberty of claiming that policies they encourage are considering the majority of the citizens. The policies can't be that broad that at this point. Instead, the elite is being catered to at the expense of others. There are people who want change but if the position of the inside advantage isn't used for challenging boundaries the advantage is instead on the side of those  who would make the boundaries even more unreasonable and strict.

Autism advocacy is a reflection of the compromising trend because mainstream advocates are so harshly criticized for encouraging any ideas that contradict the industry-driven medical model.

The main excuse I've always heard (in all types of political compromise) is that change can only occur once you get involved where the changes get made. Individual ideas too often are seen as a threat rather than an aid to what this group calls advocacy.

The people who set up the form of government in the U.S. that we are supposedly still following didn't believe that such compromise was necessary. They warned against the type of compromise that government officials and all types of mainstream advocates are making today. The liberties which are being lost at the expense of catering to the mainstream and the compromises which are often harshly demanded are not something we can continue to afford.

The way autism is mainly being described in the media practically never deviates from the medical model which is overwhelmingly influenced by the industry rather than by the continual observation of the people the industry labels. For people to describe an alternative way to see the people who are labeled in this way is highly offensive to medical practitioners as well as the mainstream society that has adopted their views.

All disability advocacy continues to be radical but the confines of this radical approach is increasingly narrowing the options provided. Advocacy from anyone who's thought pattern is discriminated against in any way (which can accompany physical barriers) has traditionally been devalued in the worst way. This means that as autistics are being more recognized we have the least voice in matters that concern us.

We are described as un-empathetic so that we can be categorized and not be seen as having an understanding of another clinically defined subset of autistics. Of course course this also provides justification for bullies looking for vulnerable targets. Our lack of understanding of how the more-catered-to-population in society communicates is described as nothing more than social deficit disorder that prevents us from understanding and or accepting reality.

I recently saw where someone had claimed that Jenny McCarthy was fighting against the media hype. I was astounded that such an expression could be made, which described the hype about autism as the opposition rather than the agreement of Jenny McCarthy view. This is how identity politics is used to isolate and polarize discussions so that the industry's views are protected.

Radical advocacy is not safe. It never was. However, extreme measures are now being taken so that fewer people who are vulnerable to the mainstream demands by special interest can be effectively challenging those demands without being harshly criticized and even penalized using  unjust laws. There is a high price to pay for the complacency which comes from what is described as the necessary political compromise (the inside advantage). Criticism of injustice must challenge the boundaries (both real and imagined) in order for the needed changes to occur.

The Creation of Public Enemies and Medical Models

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39723000/jpg/_39723849_slaves_story_ap.jpg

The behavior modification specialists who design mainstream education do so in a similar (if not same) way as the ones who design marketing campaigns. This makes education be based more on art than on science with the goal of all practical decisions affecting how it's run being based on the appeal of the  designer's artistic expression rather than the reflection of logical conclusions. Little effort goes into understanding how people in the general population think and what creative ability they have and a great deal goes into teaching conformity. This conformity of course aids the designers rather than the people being educated.

I'm not describing so much a conspiracy as I am a system of government where the corporations that fund it are protected by unearned power. In the U.S., the resource used is still called capitol but in as much as that even exists I doubt it will still be being called that for much longer.

This chart shows:

"Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."

I don't believe the fraudulent description of the US dollar's worth will be necessary to promote much longer as the means for determining what people are entitled to.

This shows:

"About 250,000 - 300,000 people die per day."


This says:

"On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the

problem Half the world now has fewer than the "replacement level" of children. That includes Europe, North America, and the Caribbean, most of the Far East from Japan to Thailand, and much of the Middle East from Algeria to Iran." 

He goes on to say:

"The granddaddy of demographic doomsters was Bob Malthus, an English clergyman who got famous by warning 200 years ago about population growth. He believed that the world's

population would keep increasing till it was cut down by

disease or famine. Back in the ferment of the Industrial

Revolution, he was a favorite of the evil mill owners and a

scourge on anyone with a social conscience.

Malthus hated Victorian charities because he said they were

keeping poor people alive to breed. Better that they die,

he said. He believed the workhouses, where the destitute

ended up, were too lenient, and he successfully campaigned

for a get-tough law known at the time as Malthus's Law. 

The novelist Charles Dickens, a social reformer, attacked

Malthus in several of his books. When Oliver Twist asked

for more gruel in the workhouse, that was a satire on

Malthus's Law. In A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge was a

caricature of Malthus. In Hard Times, Thomas Gradgrind, the

unfeeling headmaster of Coketown, had a son called Malthus."



The U.S. has always based its laws and social agenda on the encouragement of racial segregation.

Wikipedia says of Racial segregation in the United States:

"Racialism was also fueled by the ideology of Social

Darwinism, which broadly asserted that because of a natural

competition among humans and the social evolution driven by

the survival of the fittest, the white man not only should

but deserved to retain political and economic power. Thus

the behavior exhibited towards Negros was not perceived as

racism but rather action that was sanctioned by the

‘science’ of Euro-centric racialism.[5]:118"

http://shakashawshow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nm_lincoln_slavery_081103_ssv.jpg

and it says here:  THE INHERENT RACISM OF POPULATION CONTROL

 Malthus said:

"We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But, above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.30"

so:

"Remarkably, Malthus was encouraging an active repression and abuse of the poor based on what he believed was their natural inferiority. In doing so he essentially had created and was advocating a new type of racism, a “scientific” racism by which whole segments of the population were to be discriminated against based on their socioeconomic status. The term “pauperism” came to mean a racial classification of those who were “naturally” and incurably poor. Allan Chase explains the outlook of the new “scientific” racism created by Malthus saying:

"The poor and the near poor of all nations were–and still are–held to be a race apart, ‘a definite race of pauper stocks.’ In the countinghouse philosophy of scientific racism, the physiological, cultural, and economic woes of the poor and the nonaffluent ‘middling classes’ were scientifically ordained by Nature, and therefore neither preventable nor reversible.31"

According to this view the poor owned nothing–not even the right to live. If a man is born poor, explained Malthus, “and if the society does not want his labour, [he] has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no cover for him.” (Emphasis added).32 Thus, Malthus became the father of a “scientific” racism much more encompassing and more dangerous than the ethnic racisms of the past."

As this shows :

Eugenics and Environmentalism: From quality control to quantity control

Racial hygiene is now being disguised, promoted, and funded, with the idea that we are preserving our planet.

http://pollypartisan.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/global-warming-myth_65.jpg

What Malthus was saying is that not only do we need to get rid of inferior races, but we need to expose their bad habits and even encourage those habits so that the superior humans will have all the resources they need and a "clean" environment.

He claims that one of the ways to encourage this hygiene (as it's so ruthlessly described) is to promote the good and best humans and advertise how the worst deserve to be eliminated.

One of the ways I see this most often used in today's society is by claiming that economics is the scale by which to judge a persons character.

The way that law enforcement and the judicial system does this is by encouraging violence within communities that are more economically depressed, preventing these people from having a legal defense, and encouraging the media to cover stories, which claim economic challenges and the defects of the economically challenged are the reason for their violent acts.

The way they sell this as a humanitarian act is by claiming that this will encourage more aid to these groups. However, those that fund the lawmakers, the enforcers, the judicial system, AND mainstream journalism are more interested in the elimination of people than they are in their empowerment.

As we saw in the Katrina storm response, there is an overwhelming attitude that directs many law enforcers to believe that if they leave the impoverished alone they will kill each other and eliminate "their kind". When law enforcement officials do show when violence has been committed within an unpopular region, their actions are more offensive because the few people who even feel empowered enough to speak up about how they were abused don't have enough money to defend themselves in a court of law.

As I explained earlier this week, the response from the mainstream media (which was  also shown on some of the Internet sites I've visited) to the recent story of a mother who had murdered her children was socially irresponsible. The claim was that this murder was indicative of the needs for more and better supports for both autistic children and the mentally ill (based on the mother's state of mind).

Both groups have been unjustly described as violent with little or no evidence to substantiate the claim. Traditionally, if people are interested in getting support for either of these groups,  they are more inclined to be successful with legislation that provides evidence that the aid which the law provides them will reduce their violent actions. Unfortunately, too many in the general public have accepted the false claim that these groups are violent and denied the inherent problem that these claims have traditionally caused.

The small portion of people who have the resources to be seen as proper citizens get drunk, abuse drugs, get diagnosed with mental illness, take pharmaceuticals, and are violent. While these things may influence a state that statistics show is associated with violence, their resources will protect their class from being seen as violent. The rest of the population must be much more careful. We should never fool ourselves into believing we have this luxury.

We are given more subtle messages that our lives are worth less and that violence against ourselves is a natural product of the lack of self-respect we deserve. We must never accept this false projection.

Violence is an evil act. It is an act of will. However uncontrollable the state of the persons brain and central nervous system may be, we as a part of the population which is meant to be eliminated for our bad habits cannot afford to excuse being violent under any circumstance.

The popular theories of Malthus and Darwin which have been used to promote the agenda of population control are directed towards eliminating people who are thought to be from inferior races and creating the illusion that an inferior and disabled race has been created from our own ignorance and unwillingness to be civil.

It's important for understanding the point I'm trying to make to remember two things about American history:

The history of psychiatry and it's affect on cultural values

1.Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of

Independence is considered the "Father of American

Psychiatry", published the first textbook on the subject

in the United States, Medical Inquiries and Observations

upon the Diseases of the Mind (1812).

Wikipedia says this about him:


"In 1792 Dr Benjamin Rush, one of the 'Founding Fathers' of

the USA, presented a paper before the American

Philosophical Society which argued that the 'color' and

'figure' of blacks were derived from a form of leprosy. He

was convinced that with proper treatment, blacks could be

cured (i.e. become white) and eventually... assimilated

into the general population" (Omi & Winant 1986: 148). Omi,

M. and H. Winant (1986). Racial formation in the United

States : from the 1960s to the 1980s. New York ; London,

Routledge & Kegan Paul."

AND:
"He proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease,

which he called "negroidism," and that it might be cured.

Rush drew the conclusion that "Whites should not tyrannize

over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a

double portion of humanity. However, by the same token,

whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend

to infect posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be

made to cure the disease."

Mad-In-AmericaJun03c[1]


2. One of the men who studied under Dr. Rush was Dr.Samuel Cartwright.

His contribution to psychiatry was, drapetomania,

"a mental disorder akin to alienation. He  said that slaves should

be kept in a submissive state and treated like children, with

"care, kindness, attention, and humanity to prevent and cure

them from running away." If they nonetheless became dissatisfied

with their condition,they should be whipped as a prevention

against running away.[2] In describing his theory and cure for

drapetomania, Cartwright relied on passages of scripture

dealing with slavery.

Cartwright also described another disorder, "Dysaethesia

aethiopica", a disease "affecting both mind and body."

Cartwright used his theory to explain the apparent lack of

work ethic among slaves.[3] Dysaethesia aethiopica, "called

by overseers 'rascality'," was characterized by partial

insensitivity of the skin and "so great a hebetude of the

intellectual faculties, as to be like a person half

asleep." Other symptoms included "lesions of the body

discoverable to the medical observer, which are always

present and sufficient to account for the symptoms."[4][5]

According to Cartwright, dysaethesia aethiopica was "much

more prevalent among free negroes living in clusters by

themselves, than among slaves on our plantations, and

attacks only such slaves as live like free negroes in

regard to diet, drinks, exercise, etc." — indeed, according

to Cartwright, "nearly all [free negroes] are more or less

afflicted with it, that have not got some white person to

direct and to take care of them."

3.  In this article :Will Obama End 'War on Drugs'?

Sherwood Ross says:

"Drug offenses account for about half the 200,000 Federal prison inmates behind bars, compared to just 15 percent of prisoners convicted of violent crimes involving weapons, explosives, or arson. If America leads the world with 2.3 million prisoners in all its prisons, jails, and assorted lock-ups, it is largely because we have criminalized drug addiction, not treated it." 

I see the obvious intent here as being not only to provide certain portions of the population with drugs that kill them but also to use this as a source for encouraging violence within this group (much the way identity politics does), incarcerating them, and attacking their character.

Attacking the character of minorities is always sensationally used by the mainstream media. As much as it is wrong to claim that people with economic challenges are more prone to violence due to any genetic flaw or ingested substance it's much more important to realize that the victims of this violence are not outside this group but are instead in it.

They are the women and children who were less likely to be able to  defend themselves. They are all the most vulnerable people within our own community. Their attackers have been oppressed and learned to oppress and be violent from how they've been treated rather than seeing how they can act more civilly than those who are automatically claimed to be better due to their social status. The violence unfortunately aids in our own destruction.

We need to teach people within our own communities not to follow in the footsteps of our oppressors and not to accept the degrading evaluation of our worth, which is falsely advertised in all our media and entertainment. We need to teach the more dominant and resourceful groups in our society that we are peacefully resisting injustice rather than looking for ways to excuse it when it's done to us or when we do it to each other.
 

From the Circus to the Zoo

One of the worst results of an irresponsible society is the number of animals we have that are neglected and abused. It shows that our appetites are so out of control that life is only viewed by what is practical and convenient for any given time or place. We pay a big price for that attitude of objectifying animals and it is how too many view humans as well.

Behaviorism is based on how human nature is related to that of less sophisticated animals. It explores our motivations from the viewpoint that we are either effectively providing for ourselves, or we are using ineffective methods for doing that. However, animals other than humans are not as conflicted in the ways they treat each other. Humans are the only animals who kill each other for no practical reason.

Complicated mental manipulation is also only used among humans. This is part of the reason that behaviorism being applied to large groups of people provides some people the opportunity to be abusively controlling. Rules are never enforced without some attitude so the attitude of the enforcer plays a major role in what gets enforced and taught by the enforcement.

While physical walls and closed doors provide more of an opportunity for someone in authority to use physical force to demean others, the lack of them often allows for more subtle abuse that leads to the most destructive forms of it due to people's mental conditioning (or what may otherwise be called behavior modification). It's important to focus on attitudes and the environment those attitudes create when fighting to protect the rights of the most vulnerable part of the population. Abuse begins in the mind and most of the physical scars that result from abuse don't last nearly as long.

It's also in the mind where the vulnerability from emotions that result from having been abused become the catalyst for viewing the world in strict terms of survival i.e. control or be controlled, kill or be killed.

I accept that some people are born with a more aggressive nature. However, I don't believe that the inability to find methods for controlling that aggression and finding more assertive means is due to heredity or genetics. I believe that it's dangerous to believe that it is.

There are people who are confined to public institutions who were not bound by an institutional mentality. There are also people who are not confined to them who are. At its root, the institutional mentality is a means of control and manipulation based on instilling in people from a position of authority a false sense of guilt, shame, and fear.

The main reason for violence is people feeling that they need to protect themselves because no one else will. The way that the United States encourages an institutional mentality is due to how the elite in authority is unwilling to face the vulnerability that comes with trying to understand and empathize with diverse cultures. It promotes an attitude in law enforcement whereby people will either create adversity within an area that is more financially impoverished (and therefore, has a higher crime rate) or even accepts the murders which happen there as a means for population control and less enforcement needed.

The worst thing that can happen to the compulsory education system in the United States is to encourage an institutional mentality there. I see this is now being introduced to the school system by the type of Applied Behavioral Analysis known as Positive Behavioral Support. If a child is vulnerable either due to inherent sensitivities or abusive home environments having their behavior evaluated in such a way will encourage rather than discourage a heightened sense of being unprotected.

Feeling unprotected leads to people feeling anxious and depressed, but most of all it leads to an unhealthy dependence on authority and discourages creativity and self worth.

The Katrina storm that hit New Orleans several years ago was a natural occurrence. Of course the residents felt vulnerable pursuant to the storm's effect, but it was the mistrust the government had of the residents that led to the way the victims of that storm were mistreated. The way that we would have known that all cultures and all classes could feel safe that their government trusted them would have been shown by a completely different attitude than the one which was displayed.

Not only did the situation prompt President Bush at the time to assume more executive power and demand martial law in that area, but it also provided him and future presidents the means for that unlimited authority. FEMA who acted so poorly in that situation is now building camps that can potentially be used in similar unethical ways as were used in that response. HR 645 which is now being endorsed by President Obama will again give the government more authority and ultimately give more people reasons to feel unsafe and unprotected. This is what leads to institutional mentality which I have described.

People who are statistically at the highest risk for being unfairly treated and subjected to punishment based on arbitrary rules and regulations are feared by the elite who has the most authority to create them. The last thing that is needed to provide a more trusting atmosphere is the addition of behavioral standards, which are used to normalize diverse populations.

If we are a society that does nothing more than react to each others basic animal instincts we will continue to send the animals who don't perform well enough in the Circus to the zoo. Typically, when people no longer believe they can afford to maintain zoos the animals with the least market value are euthanized.

It's not the lack of rules and regulations that encourages rebellion and uncompromising behavior. It is instead the absence of people being in an environment where they are trusted and can trust others. Trust is very contagious but so is distrust. It's important to everyone's survival that we are all careful of which one we encourage.

The Management of Servants and the Maintenance of Dungeons

Safety is very important to everyone and much of the time that government officials spend on creating laws and regulations is dedicated to the promotion of safety. It is unreasonable however, to believe that any government is dedicated to keep everyone safe.

The United States government creates laws that give the most elite part of the population a sense of security, which is based on their tradition of accepting falsehoods about how that is created.

Our constitution was not written so that all or even most people would have an opportunity for liberty, freedom, and justice. It was written as a set of guidelines for how much power government officials would be given over the public. It has been used mainly to protect the government by limiting the public's education and thereby keeping us vulnerable and dependent.

The best kept secret that the government has always been able to keep from the public is how personal lack of discipline over our appetites can be used as a weapon that ensures our dependence and enslavement.  To truly be interested in our welfare would include finding ways to discourage that vulnerability.

Without the ethics being applied to our economic system the competitive marketing campaigns that are presented to us by the large corporations who control our government keep us fearful and suspicious of our neighbors. Our culture is designed by those who profit from our oppression so that we won't trust in our own decisions.

Unregulated servitude always creates an environment for undue punishment. Unfairness of how people are treated in regard to how they serve others always leads to unfair punishment. It's all part of an institutional mentality which plays a key role in the US government.

Our government has always depended on some type of slavery to demand compliance from the public. Several of the current methods of enforcing the laws that maintain economic slavery are branded psychology, compulsory education, and federally standardized evaluations of intellect and behavior.

Slavery defined in a very limited way often prevents people from seeing how intense and effective subtle forms of oppression are maintained by the regulations of the Federal government.

When the Constitution was written the smallest part of the population, a narrowly defined particular type of white male, made all the decisions about public policies and their goal was to protect that power. The continuation of this oppression throughout the nation's history is not due to the ability of this minority but instead due to their encouragement of identity politics and the absurd notion that we should focus on trying to get along with each other.

Lysander Spooner was an American abolitionist who wrote The Unconstitutionality of Slavery


In A Letter to Congressman Thomas F. Bayard from Lysander Spooner in 1882 he writes:

(This is a portion of that letter)

"In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been "ordained and established" by "We, the people of the United States," it has never been submitted to them, as individuals, for their voluntary acceptance or rejection. They have never been asked to sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver it, as their free act and deed. They have never signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered it, or promised, or laid themselves under any kind of obligation, to obey it. Very few of them have ever read, or even seen it; or ever will read or see it. Of its legal meaning (if it can be said to have any) they really know nothing; and never did, nor ever will, know anything.

Why is it, Sir, that such an instrument as the Constitution, for which nobody has been responsible, and of which few persons have ever known anything, has been suffered to stand, for the last ninety years, and to be used for such audacious and criminal purposes? It is solely because it has been sustained by the same kind of conspiracy as that by which it was established; that is, by the wealth and the power of those few who were to profit by the arbitrary dominion it was assumed to give them over others. While the poor, the weak, and the ignorant, who were to be cheated, plundered, and enslaved by it, have been told, and some of them doubtless made to believe, that it is a sacred instrument, designed for the preservation of their rights.

These cheated, plundered, and enslaved persons have been made to feel, if not to believe, that the Constitution had such miraculous power, that it could authorize the majority (or even a plurality) of the male adults, for the time being - a majority numbering at this time, say, five millions in all - to exercise, through their agents, secretly appointed, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the properties, liberties, and lives of the whole fifty millions; and that these fifty millions have no rightful alternative but to submit all their rights to this arbitrary dominion, or suffer such confiscation, imprisonment, or death as this secretly appointed, irresponsible cabal, of so-called legislators, should see fit to resort to for the maintenance of its power.

As might have been expected, and as was, to a large degree, at least, intended, this Constitution has been used from the beginning by ambitious, rapacious, and unprincipled men, to enable them to maintain, at the point of the bayonet, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over those who were too ignorant and too weak to protect themselves against the conspirators who had thus combined to deceive, plunder, and enslave them."

Slavery has continued throughout the history of the United States in many different forms.

In this book review of : 'Slavery by another name'
By Janet Maslin it says:

(part of this reveiw)

"In "Slavery by Another Name" Douglas A. Blackmon eviscerates one of our schoolchildren's most basic assumptions: that slavery in America ended with the Civil War. Blackmon unearths shocking evidence that the practice persisted well into the 20th century. And he is not simply referring to the virtual bondage of black sharecroppers unable to extricate themselves economically from farming.

He describes free men and women forced into industrial servitude, bound by chains, faced with subhuman living conditions and subject to physical torture. That plight was horrific. But until 1951, it was not outside the law.

All it took was anything remotely resembling a crime. Bastardy, gambling, changing employers without permission, false pretense, "selling cotton after sunset": these were all grounds for arrest in rural Alabama by 1890. And as Blackmon explains in describing incident after incident, an arrest could mean a steep fine. If the accused could not pay this debt, he or she might be imprisoned.

Alabama was among the Southern states that profitably leased convicts to private businesses. As the book illustrates, arrest rates and the labor needs of local businesses could conveniently be made to dovetail.

For the coal, lumber, turpentine, brick, steel and other interests described here, a steady stream of workers amounted to a cheap source of fuel. And the welfare of such workers was not the companies' concern."

While today there is much more sophisticated technology used for exposing injustice, that technology is also used to prevent people from having an understanding of how they are discouraged and oppressed by their government.

Many of the of the New Deal policies from the FDR presidency are similar to what Obama is now proposing. As I said in my last several posts, the federal government is seeking to expand the bureaucracy and become even more powerful through the imposing of more standardized behavioral standards with the disguise of protecting children. The legislation that is proposed is the HR 4247.

While many have complained about the problems involved with the No Child Left Behind act, the Obama administration is reluctant to give up the federal power that provides the government as well.

The effect of the standards imposed by these regulations is most apparent in what the ACLU calls the school to prison pipeline.

As the trend toward more federal regulations on public institutions increases, regulations will become more ambiguous, more corruption will be justified, and the exclusion this promotes will serve to incarcerate and ultimately narrow the population who is seen by the elite to be a burden on society.

Intellect and behavior are both expected to be modified by federal regulations more than they are being improved. Improvement in these areas can only come through commitment and involvement of individuals who are now instead seeking ways to become less personally involved and therefore, using punishment as a means to detach themselves and ignore the problems this has caused in the past.

Disability advocacy, mental illness advocacy, and certainly autistic advocacy are all very new concepts and the goals of advocates are becoming over politicized and diluted at an alarming rate. Abusive control is an attitude supported by law. Until there is an attitude that discourages stigma and tends to involve more people who are now being excluded and punished by the compromises of mainstream political advocacy, our future won't be much different than our past.

Interdependence

All corporations, businesses, and governments, like the people they serve, are interdependent on one another. The way a person or group of people gains independence is often by the claim or illusion of power rather than earned authority.

This politics plays a role in all commercial enterprises and can condition society to assume the role of nothing more than individual commercial entities or sets and subsets of consumers.

When our role which determines our validity as people is reduced to nothing more than what we consume and produce, much of our humanity is lost.

The things that make us human such as creativity, empathy, and determination need to play a role in all our interactions so that who we are is distinguishable from what we have to offer to the highest bidder.

There are already too many associations of corporations and governments who are dependent on one another in unethical ways for anyone to claim that the ideal of a free society of people exists anywhere.

We may however choose to teach dignity, self-determination, and the encouragement of each other's attributes as a standard of ethics to strive for so that who we are as the human race is not annihilated due to our ugly self-serving appetites.

Today more than ever there are more sets and subsets of people being defined by different physical and neurological limitations. There seem to be two distinct methods of adjusting to this growing population which are being considered.

The one I feel is most disturbing is based on the ideal of purity as a means for our success. The one I subscribe to is based on the ideal of accommodation which encourages us to allow ethics to be more important, and I believe this will in turn be the only true opportunity for ultimate success.

Recently, the president of the United States displayed an attitude of social Darwinism. His remark which compared his bowling scores in a joking way to that of someone with a physical or mental impairment was one that displayed an all too common attitude.

We live in an age where decisions will be made about our worth as producers before and often instead of our worth as humans deserving of respect and dignity (until, or unless we choose to take that from someone else).

We can't allow our limitations and impairments to indicate that a more closed society with stricter societal cleansing should be our method for striving to be better. We have too many natural inclinations for serving each other in compassionate ways which would suffer by such a choice.

Our greatest weakness is in how we hurt each other and how we value the sharp skills we use to attack each other more than the caring skills we use to help each other.