Michigan Abuse of female prisoners [When and Why did America Abandon Decency?]

Frank, those weren't people, those were Jews (implicitly deserving of whatever they got).
Like we have here. These aren't people, they are prisoners (again, implicitly deserving of whatever they get).

That's indeed the mentality of many people in this country. Disturbingly many.

It wasn't just Jews, they were merely the majority of those disposed of.

No not suspended more like removed from the gene pool or permanently locked in a padded room with no outside contact. As far as im concerned chew toy can kiss my grits. If i ever met the dolt I would have to restrain myself from giving a verbal lashing at minimum chew toy needs so badly.

As Hayek pointed out, in authoritarian systems this is exactly the type of person drawn to populate the structure of it, and it is from these people that the top dogs are drawn from--the worst of the worst. Because in a system built on subjugating the legitimate desires/aspirations (ends) of other people, so that the desires of the those controlling power are met, only a person willing to dominate everyone else can rise to the top.

His point that once you depart from a system of free interactions and free pursuit of ends, you always get here. It is no accident that totalitarian systems always eventually get monsters at the top. We are here now in this country. The control structure is in place. The power to run it is there, waiting for the right person and the right time for that person to seize it.

We have more people in prison that the Soviet Gulags had at the height of Stalins reign of terror. All of us operate in the knowledge that if we step out of line one little bit, we are destined to go there. It can happen to us because of a tax mistake, either on our part or the government's, or because we object too strenuously when state agents start manipulating our genitals at some public venue, or because we evince some contempt for a cop's churlish behavior when stopped for any reason, including no valid reason, such as border patrol checkpoints INSIDE our own country.

When you look at the video Elizabeth posted, you should be shocked by this. These things are done to people who are in prison largely for non violent crimes, who pose a threat to no one, and some of whom are undoubtedly innocent of the charges for which they are incarcerated. Stripping persons of their sexual dignity like this, violating them sexually, is taking away the core of who they are in a permanent way. It is as absolute as a bullet to the head.

Yet so-called intelligent people, so-called educated people, so-called privileged people, ignore it. Here's what one of them told me the other day, and I quote: "You never, ever see the glass half full!"

Ah, yes. When you can't make an argument based on the merits, resort to motivational poster cliches. Poor Lisa! If only she could see the glass as half-full, she wouldn't notice all these things happening around us! It's not so bad. She just chooses to see it that way.

This woman is well-read, informed -- well, she reads tons of mainstream media, let's put it that way -- highly paid, privileged, blah blah blah, but pooh-poohs concerns about civil liberties (though she didn't when Bush was in office). And she's an Obamabot. One of many I have to deal with on an almost daily basis. Hey, I voted for him, too, I tell her; that was my fault. I'm trying to make amends. And I'm not going to defend the indefensible. You can't claim to be opposed to Bush's abuses without acknowledging and being opposed to Obama's.

Doesn't make a dent.

I'm convinced now that partisan affiliation is some kind of brain disease that's thus far eluded the medical community.

I was semi-hopeful when Obama took office as well - hell, how could ANYONE be worse than that monkey idiot Dubya? Now, though, seeing what he's done - and right out in the open, no less - he's every bit as bad if not worse. At least Dubya made some pretense of not-really-what-we're-doing when he committed civil-rights abuses. Obama? Sure, I'll sign NDAA. Sure, I'll turn a blind eye to Occupy and the police's disproportionate response to them. Sure, I'll appoint a child-molesting psychopath as head of the TSA and then crack wise about it in the SOTU address. LULZ!

I think the problem is "pet issues." Obama's been really, really good with what are commonly regarded by political commentators as liberal pet issues - LGBT equality, Don't Ask Don't Tell, environmentalist pursuits, etc. Of course, being a "pet issue" does not negate the significance of the issue - au contraire, I'm glad he's been good with those issues, because GWB was abysmally bad about them and it's about damn time major strides were made. At the same time, though, we have a more severe problem that needs addressing - an encroaching police state, driven forward by (D) and (R) alike, that threatens to render that progress meaningless - and it's being glossed over for matters that make for juicier debates to keep public attention away from it. We're again seeing the playing-up of partisan pet issues as the election season gets into full swing - abortion, immigration, the economy, more bullshit wars in the Middle East, all things that make it easy to throw talking points and soundbites back and forth. "Is OWS justified or are they lazy, shiftless slobs who should shut up and get a job?" Gee, how about "who cares, they have a Constitutional right to do what they're doing and yet armed militarized police thugs are treating them with unabashed brutality." And, of course, our "dear friends" in the fuck-ugly blue uniforms at the airport.

But partisan pundits will do anything to reframe the debate along divisive lines, because anything that unites the people across party lines would be disastrous for their ability to game the system, leech contribution money, and keep the people squabbling so as to keep the donations flowing. Civil rights, especially stuff like TSA that really does affect you, me, and the average Joe Sixpack, are a unifying issue and they'll be given faint lip service at best. Why wouldn't they, when really highlighting the problem would spark the people to push back and take the would-be dictators' precious enforcement toys away?

As I said in another thread - reproductive freedom, LGBT equality, secular rights, freedom to run a business, a stable and export-rich economy - what good are any of these things when we're only enjoying them under the looming possibility that they could be capriciously, unilaterally and arbitrarily taken away at the whim of some faceless politico with their hands on the levers of society?

And Lisa, the reason you can't see the glass as being half-full is because a few microdroplets around the bottom rim do not, in ANY sane universe, constitute anything remotely resembling "half-full." We don't see the glass as half-full because it bloody well isn't.

Hope is a powerful motivator - I think you and I have both seen that as we struggle to maintain the will to fight against the apparent futility of making the TUG perspective known on news articles, arguing with AFSers on forums, and generally trying to steer the ship of public mentality onto a collision course with the TSA junk barge's structural weak points. I must grudgingly admit that there is some ephemeral value in "glass-half-full" for the sole purpose of maintaining the drive to keep fighting this fight. The self-delusional sort of blind optimism they're talking about, though...that's walking happily and obliviously toward a cliff. Feeling hopeful to keep the will to fight can be useful. Feeling like everything's alright just for the sake of being happy and thinking everything's alright, well, that means two things: Jack and shit. And Jack left town.

CW, bravo! About 50 thumbs-up.

Here's how my friend Deborah Newell Tornello put it, comparing all those other issues you mention to food and drink, but civil liberties to oxygen:
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/tsa-detains-rand-paul.1999/page-4#post-21364