Kansas Shoppers Step Over Dying Woman

[Ninja]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/kansas...n/20070704052209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

::

Kansas Shoppers Step Over Dying Woman
By ROXANA HEGEMAN,

AP
Filed Under: Crime News, Nation
WICHITA, Kan. (July 4) - As stabbing victim LaShanda Calloway lay dying on the floor of a convenience store, five shoppers, including one who stopped to take a picture of her with a cell phone, stepped over the woman, police said.

The June 23 situation, captured on the store's surveillance video, got scant news coverage until a columnist for The Wichita Eagle disclosed the existence of the video and its contents Tuesday.

Police have refused to release the video, saying it is part of their investigation.

"It was tragic to watch," police spokesman Gordon Bassham said Tuesday. "The fact that people were more interested in taking a picture with a cell phone and shopping for snacks rather than helping this innocent young woman is, frankly, revolting."

The woman was stabbed during an altercation that was not part of a robbery, Bassham said. It took about two minutes for someone to call 911, he said.

Calloway, 27, died later at a hospital.

Two suspects have been arrested. A 19-year-old woman was charged with first-degree murder. Another suspect who turned himself in had not been charged as of Tuesday, the Sedgwick County prosecutor's office said.

The district attorney's office will have to decide whether any of the shoppers could be charged, Bassham said.

It was uncertain what law, if any, would be applicable. A state statute for failure to render aid refers only to victims of a car accident.

Eagle columnist Mark McCormick told The Associated Press he learned about the video when he called Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams to inquire about a phone call he had received from a reader complaining about a Police Department policy that requires emergency medical personnel to wait until police secure a crime scene before rendering aid. McCormick said Williams then unloaded on him about the shoppers in the stabbing case.

"This is just appalling," Williams told the newspaper. "I could continue shopping and not render aid and then take time out to take a picture? That's crazy. What happened to our respect for life?"

::

 

[Gunny]

Wow.

 

[Edward]

This isn't shocking at all. What can you expect from people in a society such as ours. When you have a twisted form of government such as ours there will be people who refuse to help others. I am sure many people were thinking, "if I help this woman will she vote in the next election" and "will her vote affect my family?" If she was a conservative I would not have helped her. It would mean one less bitch who would violate my rights and the rights of my loved ones. On the other hand, if she was a liberal I would have reached out to my sister in Christ and try to save her life and if I had to choose between helping a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ or a conservative I would choose to help the liberal.

 

[Ninja]

It's a shame your mother couldn't afford that coat hanger.

 

[Shattered]

This isn't shocking at all. What can you expect from people in a society such as ours. When you have a twisted form of government such as ours there will be people who refuse to help others. I am sure many people were thinking, "if I help this woman will she vote in the next election" and "will her vote affect my family?" If she was a conservative I would not have helped her. It would mean one less bitch who would violate my rights and the rights of my loved ones. On the other hand, if she was a liberal I would have reached out to my sister in Christ and try to save her life and if I had to choose between helping a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ or a conservative I would choose to help the liberal.

Man, you suck.

People like YOU are what's wrong with our society...

 

[Edward]

Man, you suck.

People like YOU are what's wrong with our society...

What's wrong with our society is that there is no liberty, or freedom and that we do not live in a democratic-republic. It is because of this that people will choose not to help their enemies when faced with a decision between self-preservation and helping those who will go on to vote for their enemies. If we had a society where self-government and representative government actually existed instead of a form of government modeled after the British one we had to rebel against than people would be far more likely to help people because they would have that feeling of community that is essential to a democratic-republic but since we are a consolidated empire the only thing left for us to do is to make sure that our enemies lose the war on election day.

 

[Edward]

It's a shame your mother couldn't afford that coat hanger.

It's a shame that you were not run over by a school bus when you were a kid.

 

[jillian]

I am sure many people were thinking, "if I help this woman will she vote in the next election" and "will her vote affect my family?"

I'm pretty sure that thought didn't go through the head of a single person who walked over her.

What I am sure is some of those people thought "s**t! I'm gonna be here all day if I do something to help".... and then ran their butts out of the door.

I'm also fairly certain that the other predominant thought was "I'm not getting involved".... nothing new about that... but wait, Phil Ochs said it much better than I could...

Outside Of A Small Circle Of Friends
By Phil Ochs
Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Riding down the highway, yes, my back is getting stiff
Thirteen cars are piled up, they're hanging on a cliff.
Maybe we should pull them back with our towing chain
But we gotta move and we might get sued and it looks like it's gonna rain
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Sweating in the ghetto with the colored and the poor
The rats have joined the babies who are sleeping on the floor
Now wouldn't it be a riot if they really blew their tops?
But they got too much already and besides we got the cops
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Oh there's a dirty paper using sex to make a sale
The Supreme Court was so upset, they sent him off to jail.
Maybe we should help the fiend and take away his fine.
But we're busy reading Playboy and the Sunday New York Times
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

Smoking marihuana is more fun than drinking beer,
But a friend of ours was captured and they gave him thirty years
Maybe we should raise our voices, ask somebody why
But demonstrations are a drag, besides we're much too high
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

Oh look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

http://www.ocap.ca/songs/smalcirc.html

 

[hjmick]

I'm caling for a ban on knives. Clearly this is the fault of the weapon. No knives, no murder. We need knife control and we need it right now!

You know, as often as I hear about this kind of thing, it never ceases to amaze and sadden me. ANd my wife wonders why I don't like most people, present company excluded.

 

[mattskramer]

What's wrong with our society is that there is no liberty, or freedom and that we do not live in a democratic-republic. It is because of this that people will choose not to help their enemies when faced with a decision between self-preservation and helping those who will go on to vote for their enemies. If we had a society where self-government and representative government actually existed instead of a form of government modeled after the British one we had to rebel against than people would be far more likely to help people because they would have that feeling of community that is essential to a democratic-republic but since we are a consolidated empire the only thing left for us to do is to make sure that our enemies lose the war on election day.

Of course we live in a representative democracy. We have elections every 2 years. Sometimes Democrats win and sometimes Republicans win. People do not first ask for the name of one’s political party before helping that person. Even when the economy is tight, people contribute to charities and help individuals. I volunteered at Caritas. I did not ask each person that came in for his or her party affiliation. I gave a chair to Goodwill. I did not ask for the party affiliation of employees at Goodwill.

You must be trying to be the liberal equivalent of RSR. Similar to his, your rhetoric is as easily refuted.

 

[Gunny]

I'm pretty sure that thought didn't go through the head of a single person who walked over her.

What I am sure is some of those people thought "s**t! I'm gonna be here all day if I do something to help".... and then ran their butts out of the door.

I'm also fairly certain that the other predominant thought was "I'm not getting involved".... nothing new about that... but wait, Phil Ochs said it much better than I could...



http://www.ocap.ca/songs/smalcirc.html

I agree, and it's a damned shame that it's what we have come to as a society. I sure as Hell wasn't raised that way.

 

[Edward]

Of course we live in a representative democracy. We have elections every 2 years. Sometimes Democrats win and sometimes Republicans win. People do not first ask for the name of one’s political party before helping that person. Even when the economy is tight, people contribute to charities and help individuals. I volunteered at Caritas. I did not ask each person that came in for his or her party affiliation. I gave a chair to Goodwill. I did not ask for the party affiliation of employees at Goodwill.

You must be trying to be the liberal equivalent of RSR. Similar to his, your rhetoric is as easily refuted.

What I have to say is not rhetoric nor is it up for refutation. You can call something representative democracy all you want but it doesn't make it so just like the British calling themselves a republic before the Revolution didn't make it so. Nor does it have as much to do with political parties as it does with a person's ideology. It is whether you are conservative or liberal and whether you in a democratic-republic or whether you will continue to support a system that was founded by those who were opposed to such a system of government and instead chose to model our current government after the British one that liberals were forced to rebel against in 1776. I do not ask people what political party they belong to but instead I base my willingness to help them on whether they are counted among the likes of Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison or whether they are counted among the likes of George Mason, John Lansing, Jr., Patrick Henry, Wilson and others. Those who find themselves aligning with the likes of Alexander Hamilton will get no help from me and that happens to include everyone who is Republican simply because he is the ideological founder of the Republican Party.

 

[Edward]

I agree, and it's a damned shame that it's what we have come to as a society. I sure as Hell wasn't raised that way.

Again, what can you expect from a society such as ours. We were warned by those who opposed the Constitution of the end result of the actions of those who drafted it and ratified it over the objection of the people and we allowed them to do it because we didn't want to fight another war since we had just won a war against them and were not up for another. Had we stood firm we would not be in the situation we are now in. We would have a democratic-republic instead of a consolidated empire and we would not have the system of government that we were forced to overthrow in the American Revolution but which was foisted upon us by those who met at Philadelphia to conspire to undo what we had achieved. Since we do not have self-government or representative government it is necessary for us to do whatever is necessary to win so that we can have a say in our government and that drives us to make sure that someone else loses and it is their spirit of contention and competition that ultimately makes is possible for us to ignore the deaths of our enemies because it means "one less of them to vote our voice in our government away."

 

[mattskramer]

What I have to say is not rhetoric nor is it up for refutation. You can call something representative democracy all you want but it doesn't make it so just like the British calling themselves a republic before the Revolution didn't make it so. Nor does it have as much to do with political parties as it does with a person's ideology. It is whether you are conservative or liberal and whether you in a democratic-republic or whether you will continue to support a system that was founded by those who were opposed to such a system of government and instead chose to model our current government after the British one that liberals were forced to rebel against in 1776. I do not ask people what political party they belong to but instead I base my willingness to help them on whether they are counted among the likes of Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison or whether they are counted among the likes of George Mason, John Lansing, Jr., Patrick Henry, Wilson and others. Those who find themselves aligning with the likes of Alexander Hamilton will get no help from me and that happens to include everyone who is Republican simply because he is the ideological founder of the Republican Party.

Of course you comment is up for refutation. I am not the only one that calls America a representative democracy. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias call it a Republic. We are allowed to vote for members of a variety of parties: Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Green, and Libertarian. There are probably some smaller parties. You are even free to run for political office, yourself. That is the way that it works in this Republic. Vote for people who best support your particular ideology. Wow. You base helping people on what their ideology is. Would you help a family member who does not share your view? I guess that you do not contribute to the United Way or any other such organization. I never met someone like you. I hope that there are very few in number who shares your view on being charitable.

 

[mattskramer]

Since we do not have self-government or representative government it is necessary for us to do whatever is necessary to win so that we can have a say in our government and that drives us to make sure that someone else loses and it is their spirit of contention and competition that ultimately makes is possible for us to ignore the deaths of our enemies because it means "one less of them to vote our voice in our government away."

Of course we have representative government. Less than a week ago our representatives were going to bass the “amnesty” bill. Enough people called the Senate and practically jammed the switchboard. Our Senators, probably out of fear of being voted out of office, voted to kill the bill. That is an example of our Republic at work. If enough of the citizens become active and involved, things get done. We do not kill our political opponents. We simply vote them out of office.

 

[jillian]

I agree, and it's a damned shame that it's what we have come to as a society. I sure as Hell wasn't raised that way.

Me neither.

 

[Edward]

Of course you comment is up for refutation. I am not the only one that calls America a representative democracy.

It was more than one person who called the British government a republic but it didn't make it so anymore than you calling us a republic makes it so. I don't care that you think my comment is up for refutation because I have already made it clear that I do not consider it to be so. I do not consider my liberty or my rights up for debate by you and the faction that supports our current system of government. My right to be represented cannot be voted away by my enemies. My right to have a voice in the conduct of my government can't be denied simply because I did not win an election. I don't submit to such a system of government where all the decisions where I do not have a voice or a vote in the making of the laws. It seems simple enough, but when you ask yourself the question of "do I deserve representation" or is it "okay for others to vote away that representation." Do I not have the same right to a say in my government as they do? They believe I don't but I do not concur but will they listen? No, instead they respond by saying retarded shit like: "Of course you comment is up for refutation. I am not the only one that calls America a representative democracy." This may well be true, but it does not make it so. That others share your view only means that other individuals agree with you.

de Tocqueville described your attitude in the following words, "In the United States, political questions cannot be taken up in so general and absolute a manner; and all parties are willing to recognize the rights of the majority, because they all hope at some time to be able to exercise them to their own advantage. The majority in that country, therefore, exercise a prodigious actual authority, and a power of opinion which is nearly as great; no obstacles exist which can impede or even retard its progress, so as to make it heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of things is harmful in itself and dangerous for the future."

Getting away from that a moment the ideal system of government would be based on the following. Every neighborhood is made up of 100 families (single, married or otherwise) and each of these neighborhoods has a representative whose responsiblities would include conducting all their affairs. The residents of that neighborhood would get to vote on all matters before the community and for the Mayor of that neighborhood. The Mayor would also be responsible for the execution of the laws, and ordinances passed by the qualified voters of the neighborhood council which would consist of every resident. Then the actual neighborhood would be further divided up into streets or geographic areas of ten families who have their own council and mayor. The decisions of this council would have the force of law for that community just like the neighborhood council would have the force of law for the neighborhood. The mayor of the street or community councils would work with one another to develop plans and make proposals to the council as a whole and generally act as Executive Officers who are presided over by the Neighborhood Mayor. The function of this body of mayors would be executive in nature. Not legislative as that function would be carried out by the community council.

Another responsibility of the neighborhood mayor would be to represent the neighborhood in a county council. Each county would be divided into neighborhoods no larger then 100 families, and the county council would be open to all yet the only people who would vote on the actions of the council would be the mayors of the individual neighborhoods including selecting someone to represent the county in the State and federal Legislature. The Mayors could be recalled by the a simple vote of the neighborhood and the state legislator and federal legislators could be recalled by a vote of the county council or the neighborhood councils. The county would also elect a representative to the federal legislature who could be recalled by a simple vote of the county or neighborhood councils. This would give us 3,141 representatives to the Congress who are directly responsible to the people.

By virtue, a representative democracy consists of the people conducting the affairs of their government by civic and community discussion, and arriving at a conclusion as friends, family and neigbhors. It requires that the people who represent the people are accessible to them, and are required to be part of their councils and stand on an equal footing with them. It requires that each man, and woman be required to go before their family, friends and neighbors and speak their minds and then to discuss their common concerns and when the discussion is ended to vote openly before all so that everyone would know how everyone else voted. You seem to think that being able to cast a vote is enough but the problem with that is that the vote is diluted and means nothing. Think about it this way. The King, decides to allow everyone to vote on who will represent them but after the vote he and his faction carries the majority of the votes and say, "Now, that I have allowed you to vote you can all go home and allow us to govern." This is unacceptable. This is not the spirit of democracy as demonstrated by those who vocally opposed the Constitution.

You also seem to think that simply because other people agree with you that this somehow supports your claim that we are a representative democracy. That the characteristic of the various forms of governments are even under your authority. That by virtue of the perceived majority thinking that this is an representative democracy that it must be so and that it is so because those who write dictionaries and encyclopedias today extol the virtues of our system of government even though it is repugnant to the free mind. I reject that for what it is. A subtle but artful form of tyranny. Editors of dictionaries and enclyopedia's are not going to point out that we aren't a representative democracy for doing so would surely lose them their jobs for they would be driven from their positions and would no longer find favor with those whose asses (i.e., you) they had been kissing prior to pointing out that we are not a representative democracy.

You may want America to be a republic as I am sure everyone who belongs to your faction does but that does not change the fact that it isn't a representative-democracy or a republic. It is a system of government based on the idea that people are not to be represented in their government and that only one faction or the majority faction will be represented. Where there was an equality of voices before the election. After, that equality ceases and those who voted for the winner now have a vote while those who did not do not have a vote. Now, these people go on to make the laws of the country, state or community they represent while those who did not prevail in that election are essentially left without a voice. The decision is now being made by people who do not represent them and their voices are not represented in government. The worst problem with this is that there is no power of the people who voted for the representative to recall them because the districts they represent are contrived and do not represent real geographical interests and it becomes impossible for people to articulate their concerns and to act upon them. Again, a recall vote would be no different then a electoral vote instead there must be something else which is missing and that is the actual discussion. Simply voting someone out of office isn't anymore right then simply voting them into office is right instead a community discussion must preceed the vote and a vote must only occur after everyone has had the opportunity to speak.

Our current form of government is a consolidated empire. Where all authority is vested in the hands of a specific faction. In this instance, it is the faction that is the majority which is not the problem because that is where the authority should rest but instead it is in how people are represented. In our current system those who are not a part of the majority aren't to receive any representation instead these minorities are forced to accept the decisions of people who do not represent them (i.e., they must accept taxation without representation) in the hope that in the next election they will prevail. And we know what Jefferson, de Tocqueville, Lansing, Wilson and others had to say about that. Of course we also know what James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had to say.

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias call it a Republic.

Translation, "people like me who are editors of Dictionaries and Enclyclopedias call it a republic." The British government was also referred to as a republic by the dictionaries, encylcopedia and scholars of their time but it didn't prove that it was a republic instead all it proved was that certain people thought of the British government as a republic. Your attempt to appeal to the authority of dictionaries falls flat because this is an issue where they do not define the terms of the discussion. The spirit of government is not based on a dictionary definition or what someone wrote for an encylopedia anymore than it is based on the words of a scholar, or an individual. Instead, it is the spirit that drives a man to cry out for liberty and freedom against tryanny that must and will prevail even if you and those who oppose freedom and liberty get upset and try to appeal to those who agree with you. The British also appealed to scholars, to current legal treatises and the the opinions of others in trying to convince the American people that they were a republic and there was no need to revolt but that spirit of good government did not die under the boot of tyrants and their elected representatives and it won't die today.

We are allowed to vote for members of a variety of parties: Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Green, and Libertarian. There are probably some smaller parties. You are even free to run for political office, yourself. That is the way that it works in this Republic. Vote for people who best support your particular ideology.

de Tocqueville, described your position best as "It is in the examination of the exercise of thought in the United States that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny. At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe cannot prevent certain opinions hostile to their authority from circulating in secret through their dominions and even in their courts. It is not so in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason for this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in his own hands and to conquer all opposition, as a majority is able to do, which has the right both of making and of executing the laws." This was best demonstrated by the strong opposition to the Constitution by people who believed in liberty and self-government. It wasn't until the force of our system of government began to bear down that these people found that they could not and would not stand up against the form of tyranny practiced by our government because the malignancy of our system is in that no one actually knows what the majority believes but that majority can control even when its opinions are not known on a given subject.

You say that we are allowed to vote!!! This means nothing when you are not to be represented in the affairs of your government and are denied the right to self-government. The problem with your position is that you assume that being able to vote is a virtue in itself when it is not. Being able to vote does not suffice. We often acquiesce to this form of tyranny because we hope to some day exercise the power of the majority and thus to be represented. It becomes a battle so fierce and bitter that it drives us to hatred of those who denied us a voice. This spirit has so debased us that the Vice President will tell members of Congress to fuck off and Legislators will swear at one another and physically attack one another. During the Civil War it caused brother to kill brother. Why? Was it slavery? No, it was that the north had taxed the south unfairly and the south did not wish to tolerate it any longer and it didn't matter to them that they could vote and that they could send people to Congress to represent them when in the end those votes were not equal.

Wow. You base helping people on what their ideology is. Would you help a family member who does not share your view? I guess that you do not contribute to the United Way or any other such organization. I never met someone like you. I hope that there are very few in number who shares your view on being charitable.

My response to you is that I hope there aren't as many tryants like you in this country. I help people based on whether they are my friends or my enemies and that is what you fail to understand. It's not only a matter of ideology but also of helping those who will harm your interests. So, let's cut the bullshit. I also suspect that you have met someone like me but they are to afraid to speak up and to say what needs to be said. There are many people who recognize the problem and wish for it to be corrected but they simply have to witness the reaction of twisted tryants like you on here for them to be less likely to say what needs to be said. This is true of those who have tried before. I heard this exact same thing from someone who finally gave up after I had attacked them so vicously for not supporting the Constitution and for believing the way I now believe. I am ashamed to say that I was wrong for doing so but I now understand where they were coming from more so then I did at the time.

 

[mattskramer]

It was more than one person who called the British government a republic but it didn't make it so anymore than you calling us a republic makes it so. I don't care that you think my comment is up for refutation because I have already made it clear that I do not consider it to be so.

By using the same logic, I declare that the moon is made of green cheese. My claim is not up for refutation.

I do not consider my liberty or my rights up for debate by you and the faction that supports our current system of government. My right to be represented cannot be voted away by my enemies. My right to have a voice in the conduct of my government can't be denied simply because I did not win an election.

Even in a pure democracy, there are votes. People vote on policies that will result in more freedom or less freedom. People win and other people lose. That is reality and it is as simple as that. I doubt that there would be issues up for a vote that would deny your right to vote or voice your opinion to any significant degree, but even if that were to occur, it follows the rules of our republic. What other system of government do you want – anarchy?

I don't submit to such a system of government where all the decisions where I do not have a voice or a vote in the making of the laws. It seems simple enough, but when you ask yourself the question of "do I deserve representation" or is it "okay for others to vote away that representation." Do I not have the same right to a say in my government as they do? They believe I don't but I do not concur but will they listen? No, instead they respond by saying retarded shit like: "Of course you comment is up for refutation.

Of course you have the right to speak and to vote. If you do not like what the representatives are doing, talk to other voters and try to convince them to vote people out of office.

Getting away from that a moment the ideal system of government would be based on the following. Every neighborhood is made up of 100 families (single, married or otherwise) and each of these neighborhoods has a representative whose responsiblities would include conducting all their affairs. The residents of that neighborhood would get to vote on all matters before the community and for the Mayor of that neighborhood. The Mayor would also be responsible for the execution of the laws, and ordinances passed by the qualified voters of the neighborhood council which would consist of every resident. Then the actual neighborhood would be further divided up into streets or geographic areas of ten families who have their own council and mayor. The decisions of this council would have the force of law for that community just like the neighborhood council would have the force of law for the neighborhood. The mayor of the street or community councils would work with one another to develop plans and make proposals to the council as a whole and generally act as Executive Officers who are presided over by the Neighborhood Mayor. The function of this body of mayors would be executive in nature. Not legislative as that function would be carried out by the community council.

You are still speaking of votes. What if most people vote for a mayor that I do not like?
What if they vote for a mayor who would silence dissent? This is merely a democracy on a smaller scale.

Think about it this way. The King, decides to allow everyone to vote on who will represent them but after the vote he and his faction carries the majority of the votes and say, "Now, that I have allowed you to vote you can all go home and allow us to govern."

This would only work if the people re-elect the same king.

You also seem to think that simply because other people agree with you that this somehow supports your claim that we are a representative democracy. That the characteristic of the various forms of governments are even under your authority. That by virtue of the perceived majority thinking that this is an representative democracy that it must be so and that it is so because those who write dictionaries and encyclopedias today extol the virtues of our system of government even though it is repugnant to the free mind. I reject that for what it is. A subtle but artful form of tyranny. Editors of dictionaries and enclyopedia's are not going to point out that we aren't a representative democracy for doing so would surely lose them their jobs for they would be driven from their positions and would no longer find favor with those whose asses (i.e., you) they had been kissing prior to pointing out that we are not a representative democracy.

Most people believe that the USA is a representative democracy. Dictionaries and encyclopedias say that it is a representative democracy. We do not live in a tyranny. If people think that we have a tyrant, they can vote the tyrant out of office. People are free to criticize our form of government without losing their jobs. The “Dixie Chicks” criticize Bush and they still sell song. There are many books that criticize our Republic. The authors of those books are doing well. I don’t kiss any asses and no one kisses mine. I am simply giving you the facts.

You may want America to be a republic as I am sure everyone who belongs to your faction does but that does not change the fact that it isn't a representative-democracy or a republic. It is a system of government based on the idea that people are not to be represented in their government and that only one faction or the majority faction will be represented. Where there was an equality of voices before the election. After, that equality ceases and those who voted for the winner now have a vote while those who did not do not have a vote.

Now, these people go on to make the laws of the country, state or community they represent while those who did not prevail in that election are essentially left without a voice. The decision is now being made by people who do not represent them and their voices are not represented in government. The worst problem with this is that there is no power of the people who voted for the representative to recall them because the districts they represent are contrived and do not represent real geographical interests and it becomes impossible for people to articulate their concerns and to act upon them.

America is a Republic. There are votes at least every two years. If you don’t get the representation you want this time around, you can vote again soon. There are local, state, and national elections. There are even ballot initiatives where you can vote directly for policies. If you do not like the gerrymandering of the districts, then when election time comes, you can call your buddies together and vote for those who will change the landscape.

Again, a recall vote would be no different then a electoral vote instead there must be something else which is missing and that is the actual discussion. Simply voting someone out of office isn't anymore right then simply voting them into office is right instead a community discussion must preceed the vote and a vote must only occur after everyone has had the opportunity to speak.

People do speak with each other before an election is done. People send flyers and letters, people write to their newspaper editor, people send phone calls, people create web sites, people have meetings, and special interest groups are created. Many things are done to raise awareness to different issues.

Our current form of government is a consolidated empire. Where all authority is vested in the hands of a specific faction. In this instance, it is the faction that is the majority which is not the problem because that is where the authority should rest but instead it is in how people are represented. In our current system those who are not a part of the majority aren't to receive any representation instead these minorities are forced to accept the decisions of people who do not represent them (i.e., they must accept taxation without representation) in the hope that in the next election they will prevail.

If the leaders of the majority (the winning team) become too abusive, then they will lose support. The opposition will gain support until it becomes the new majority.

Translation, "people like me who are editors of Dictionaries and Enclyclopedias call it a republic." The British government was also referred to as a republic by the dictionaries, encylcopedia and scholars of their time but it didn't prove that it was a republic instead all it proved was that certain people thought of the British government as a republic. Your attempt to appeal to the authority of dictionaries falls flat because this is an issue where they do not define the terms of the discussion.

What do you recommend – that each person have his own dictionary. What a mess that would be! “Well, according to my book, The Universe According to Edward the moon is made of green cheese.” “The moon is not made of green cheese. My authority MattSKramer’s Unabridged Dictionary says that the moon is made of rock”.

The spirit of government is not based on a dictionary definition or what someone wrote for an encylopedia anymore than it is based on the words of a scholar, or an individual. Instead, it is the spirit that drives a man to cry out for liberty and freedom against tryanny that must and will prevail even if you and those who oppose freedom and liberty get upset and try to appeal to those who agree with you. The British also appealed to scholars, to current legal treatises and the the opinions of others in trying to convince the American people that they were a republic and there was no need to revolt but that spirit of good government did not die under the boot of tyrants and their elected representatives and it won't die today.

Oh please. I do not oppose freedom and liberty any more than you oppose liberty. We simply have different beliefs on how best to have a free nation. There must be some structure and system. Even your idea for government limits freedom for those in the minority (the losers) who do not like the mayor that people elect. You have your views and have likely tried to find people (Jefferson, de Tocqueville, Lansing, Wilson and others) who agree with you.

You say that we are allowed to vote!!! This means nothing when you are not to be represented in the affairs of your government and are denied the right to self-government. The problem with your position is that you assume that being able to vote is a virtue in itself when it is not. Being able to vote does not suffice. We often acquiesce to this form of tyranny because we hope to some day exercise the power of the majority and thus to be represented. It becomes a battle so fierce and bitter that it drives us to hatred of those who denied us a voice.

No one has denied you a voice. As I said before in this post, people are given all sorts of chances to voice their opinions in all sorts of ways. Find people who think as you do and buy advertising space in a newspaper, crate a web site, and write letters to everyone in your phone book. (I received a letter from an anti-gay-union group. I guess that the author did not know me very well. I glanced at it for a minute or two and threw it away. Such items might sway some undecided people). There are many possibilities.

This spirit has so debased us that the Vice President will tell members of Congress to fuck off and Legislators will swear at one another and physically attack one another. During the Civil War it caused brother to kill brother. Why? Was it slavery? No, it was that the north had taxed the south unfairly and the south did not wish to tolerate it any longer and it didn't matter to them that they could vote and that they could send people to Congress to represent them when in the end those votes were not equal.

When has this happened in recent history? There might be one or two people who have lost their temper. Granted, we had a Civil War when the South decided to break away. Today, we have more of a checks-and-balance system with a bicameral Congress: the House and the Senate.

My response to you is that I hope there aren't as many tryants like you in this country. I help people based on whether they are my friends or my enemies and that is what you fail to understand. It's not only a matter of ideology but also of helping those who will harm your interests. So, let's cut the bullshit. I also suspect that you have met someone like me but they are too afraid to speak up and to say what needs to be said.

I do not consider us to be enemies. I am no more of a tyrant than are you. Your mayor of your small area might be my political enemy in your world. We merely disagree with the best political system for America. I strongly doubt that my vote will, in any way harm your interests.

There are many people who recognize the problem and wish for it to be corrected but they simply have to witness the reaction of twisted tryants like you on here for them to be less likely to say what needs to be said.

People are free to read, speak, and vote. No one is going to physically assault them if they voice a different opinion. Get real.

 

[Toro]

I thought stuff like this was only supposed to happen in New York or LA.

 

[Annie]

From the onset this story reminded me of the Kitty Genovese murder in 1964. I think I was in 4th grade when we read about it in a literature class. The nuns never missed an opportunity to hit us with responsibility lessons. I threw up when I read the story. I vividly remember all these years later the nun telling our class that the witnesses, that failed to act, were every bit as guilty as the one who stabbed her:

http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs818a,0,7944135.story

The Killing of Kitty Genovese
Her public slaying in Queens becomes a symbol of Americans' failure to get involved
By Michael Dorman

It was just after 3 a.m.

A red Fiat rolled slowly through the darkness into a parking space adjacent to the Long Island Rail Road station in Kew Gardens. The young woman behind the wheel emerged from the car and locked it. She began the 100-foot walk toward her apartment house at 82-70 Austin St.

But then she spotted a man standing along her route. Apparently afraid, she changed direction and headed toward the intersection of Austin and Lefferts Boulevard -- where there was a police call box.

Suddenly, the man overtook her and grabbed her. She screamed. Residents of nearby apartment houses turned on their lights and threw open their windows. The woman screamed again: ``Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me!''

A man in a window shouted: ``Let that girl alone.'' The attacker walked away. Apartment lights went out and windows slammed shut. The victim staggered toward her apartment. But the attacker returned and stabbed her again.

``I'm dying!'' she cried.

Windows opened again. The attacker entered a car and drove away. Windows closed, but the attacker soon came back again. His victim had crawled inside the front door of an apartment house at 82-62 Austin St. He found her sprawled on the floor and stabbed her still again. This time he killed her.

It was not until 3:50 that morning -- March 13, 1964 -- that a neighbor of the victim called police. Officers arrived two minutes later and found the body. They identified the victim as Catherine Genovese, 28, who had been returning from her job as manager of a bar in Hollis. Neighbors knew her not as Catherine but as Kitty.

Kitty Genovese: It was a name that would become symbolic in the public mind for a dark side of the national character. It would stand for Americans who were too indifferent or too frightened or too alienated or too self-absorbed to ``get involved'' in helping a fellow human being in dire trouble. A term ``the Genovese syndrome'' would be coined to describe the attitude.

Detectives investigating Genovese's murder discovered that no fewer than 38 of her neighbors had witnessed at least one of her killer's three attacks but had neither come to her aid nor called the police. The one call made to the police came after Genovese was already dead.

Assistant Chief Insp. Frederick Lussen, commander of Queens detectives, said that nothing in his 25 years of police work had shocked him so much as the apathy encountered on the Genovese murder. ``As we have reconstructed the crime, the assailant had three chances to kill this woman during a 35-minute period,'' Lussen said. ``If we had been called when he first attacked, this woman might not be dead now.''

...