Cynicism has been on my mind lately because (1) it's a hallmark of fascism, (2) it's a characteristic of those with authoritarian personalities, and (3) I've seen it lately on left-leaning Twitter.
How?
Like this: "Nothing will happen to X because the system sucks and is unfair and rich people never face consequences."
There are people who have dedicated their lives to reforming the criminal justice system.
The system is better than it was 30 years ago. . .
. . .and a heck of a lot better than 100 years ago.
If enough people put in the effort, it can improve more.
Will it ever be perfect? No, because democratic institutions are run by human beings and there are too many forces working against people who striving for fairness.
I did not realize until it happened that I was about to have a rant 🤣
I have another bone to pick. This kind of statement: If X doesn't happen it means rule of law is meaningless and doesn't exist.
Rule of law will never be perfect . . .
Rule of law is a system of government that relies on law as the source of authority (instead of the whim of a king or the rule of oligarchs).
As long as law is the source of authority, there is rule of law.
If rule of law is not applied perfectly . . . .
. . . it doesn't mean rule of law doesn't exist, it means that it is not applied perfectly because perfection is an ideal we strive toward.
I'll take a screenshot so I don't pick on anyone (I love you all, even if I pick on you)
If you think the last 4 years were bad, let me tell you about the 1930s when police routinely beat confessions out of innocent Black men.
How about the 1950s. . .
. . . when you could, under the law, be denied a public education because of the color of your skin?
How about the 1960s when a woman could be fired for getting pregnant?
I'm not saying the last 4 years were a picnic.
They were hell.
I'm saying that for the past . . .
. . . 40 years, I think fair-minded and people have been lulled into a kind of complacency.
I just recorded under-6 minute videos on this subject today.
One goal of Russian active measures was to undermine confidence in American institutions because when enough people lose confidence in them, they fail.
I put up another video in the series I'm calling "How we got here and How we Get Out"
Why the heck am I doing this? 🤷♀️
I feel a need (and a value) to going back over what I've written about (including in my books) and summing things up
1/
My natural inclination is to put it all in a book (but I have two books in press and a third in progress) ENOUGH BOOKS!
This is way easier than writing a book, anyway.
And it's allowing me to synthesize my thoughts and put it all together.
2/
They are supposed to be viewed in order, but as I said once, if you go out of order the GO IN ORDER police will not come knocking on your door (so don't worry).
3/
. . . how do they keep their constituents happy as they rob from them and keep them poor? (Things like give tax cuts to the rich and eliminate health care for all?)
They create a show. They do battle with enemies.
(Snyder quotes fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin who explains)
2/
Made-up enemies are safest.
The next best are powerless enemies. That's why Trump picked homeless migrants as enemies.
That way the ruling oligarchs don't get hurt and their property doesn't get damaged.
It's also why Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
3/
He accuses Defendants of violating the KKK act, which outlaws (among other things) preventing an official from discharging duties. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42…
Fittingly, the Act was passed after the Civil War when White supremacists violently interfered with lawful processes.
2/
Facts: When Trump, Proud Boys, and pals incited the insurrection, they hindered Thompson in the discharge of his official duties and deprived him of his right to be free from intimidation and threats in the discharge of his duties.
The idea that Trump got off on a technicality is not only false (he got off on a made-up technicality) it's also a slur on "technicalities" which are procedures put in place in the interests of fairness.
1/
If the police screw up, you go free.
If you are guilty, but the only evidence is that the police beat your confession out of you, you get off because we decided that making sure police don't beat confessions out of people is more important than jailing every guilty person.
2/
I understand "getting off on a technicality" means you're guilty but you get off for a reason other than your factual guilt.
Well, one job of a defense lawyer is to check to make sure procedures were followed. Did the police violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights?
3/
Rep Neguse now debunks Trump's "First Amendment defense."
Trump's defense is based on
🔹misreading the law
🔹distorting the Constitution, and
🔹misconstruing the facts.
First: the "fact" Trump asserts is that he was an ordinary guy giving a politically unpopular speech.
1/
The First Amendment doesn't allow a president to incite an insurrection based on the lie that the election was rigged against him. (Duh, right?)
The Defense doesn't actually claim the president can do that.
They say Trump didn't do any of this.
2/
From Rep. Raskin: In addition to Trump's First Amendment defense having nothing to do with the facts, the First Amendment can't be a defense to impeachment.
First problem: He was a public official with lots of power.
3/