ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 2.

Rights, when we are discussing the Public Sector, generally fall into two categories;

1)  HUMAN RIGHTS-  These are Protections, Freedoms and Guarantees that are bestowed upon individuals by virtue of their being part of the Human Race.  To a certain degree some of these may be applied to all living things, but only to a certain extent and varies depending on specific situations.

2) CITIZENS RIGHTS-  Are granted by a governing body with the legal authority over a specified jurisdiction, to individuals identified as part of the recognized civil population.  These Rights can vary greatly, depending on the source of Authority.  i.e (Constitutional Republic, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dictatorial etc.)

This brings us to the concept of CIVIL RIGHTS, which is basically a sub-category

of CITIZENS RIGHTS. The main difference is;

     -  Rights given to all Citizens may include the ability to chose a System of Morality and/or Faith that is constructed by the individual, and is not interfered with by the State.  Further, that one cannot be held either Criminally or Civilly for Behavior or Speech that others consider offensive.

      -  Civil Rights are guarantees set up by the State/Government, that protect individuals from Malicious, Discriminatory, Arbitrary and Hateful acts that target them specifically as a single person or as part of a group. These Rights apply to both the Public and Private sectors.  Civil Rights are basically set up to"Level the Playing Field", in which no single person or group has an unfair advantage over other parts of society.

However they are applied, not all Rights are created equal.  Some can never be taken away, Some are Valid only in certain cases and others may be given up voluntarily.

There is one main rule that applies to all Rights:  NO ONE CAN EXERCISE A RIGHT, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

End of PT 2.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN. 2/27/2015.

As we have seen during the Last Week, much of the opposition to President Obamas Immigration plan is Juvenile and Petty.  

Whether or not it's Rudy Giulianis claim that the President "Doesn't Love America,"  or John Boehners and other Republicans refusal to Fund Homeland Security unless they get Their way, it is an Immaturity that Belongs on a School Playground, not the Halls of Congress.

Insults and a Refusal to Compromise, are the Weapons of the Desperate and the Delusional, who can't believe that everyone else Doesn't Follow Their Lead. (Even Members of the same party.)

These are Things Progressives should be Pointing Out on A Regular Basis.  When These Types of Tactics are used, the Response Should Not be Deliberately Provocative or on the Same Intellectual Level, for it Blurs the Actual Reason Behind the Inability to come to a Reasonable Solution.

In other Words, Don't let Them pull you down, because They have already Started to Sink.  If Both Sides Resort to Identical Means in getting Their Point Across and to Gain the Support of the Majority, there is Little to Differentiate One From the Other. So what should the Progressive Response be in such a case? What Could Convince the Voters, ( Both Supporters and Opponents), of Their Sincerity, and Desire to do the Right Thing?

Date-  2/27/2015.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. ORGANIZED CRIME- WHAT IS IT, AND CAN IT BE STOPPED? PT 8.

The Rapid Growth OF ORGANIZED CRIME, FROM THE NUMERICALLY SMALL SHOOT 'EM UP BANK ROBBERS of the '20s and '30s, and the INNER CITY ETHNIC GANGS That Were the Product OF CULTURAL ISOLATION AND POVERTY, Was the REALIZATION BY A FEW HIGH PLACED CRIMINAL LEADERS THAT BIG MONEY AND INFLUENCE COULD BE OBTAINED BY PROVIDING AMERICANS WITH SPECIFIC GOODS, LUXURIES, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN  CERTAIN PERSONAL "ACTIVITIES."

To put it Bluntly, it is a lot easier to get people to give you Money Voluntarily,

then figuring new ways to take it from them.  LEGALITY WAS NOT A 

MAJOR CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS TO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE. 

SIMPLY ROBBING, BLACKMAILING, AND KILLING etc.,  WERE CRIMINAL 

ACTS THAT OFFERED LIMITED RETURNS, AND JUST CREATED MORE 

ENEMIES FROM THE VICTIMIZED AND THE POWERS THAT BE.  

However,

what if PEOPLE CAME TO THEM WITHOUT COERCION, AND OF THEIR 

OWN FREE WILL?

 This "GREAT AWAKENING" OCCURRED MAINLY AS A PRODUCT OF TWO EVENTS:

-  THE 18TH AMENDMENT, "PROHIBITION."

-  CASTELLAMMARESE WAR OF 1930-1931.

While certain CRIMINAL ACTS THAT ARE THOUGHT OF AS TRADITIONALLY

"MOB OR GANG RELATED" AND "THUG LIKE,"  STILL EXIST, THEY ARE NOT 

AS LUCRATIVE AND WIDESPREAD AS THEY ONCE WERE.

THESE INCLUDE:

-  LOANSHARKING.

-  PROTECTION RACKETS.

-  UNION INFILTRATION

OR UNION BUSTING.

-  EXTORTION.

...AND CRIMES THAT BRING IN 

THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT, SUCH AS;

-  COUNTERFEITING.

-  KIDNAPPING.

THESE CRIMES ATTRACTED TO MUCH 

ATTENTION, AN UNDESIRABLE RESULT.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. ORGANIZED CRIME- WHAT IS IT, AND CAN IT BE STOPPED? PT 7.

Contrary to what Many People Think, some of the Most Well Known Criminals from Different Periods of American History were NOT THE MOST SUCCESSFUL, OR THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE.  

In some Cases They Were Portrayed that Way by ZEALOUS NEWS OUTLETS, WHO CARED FOR LITTLE MORE THEN EYE GRABBING HEADLINES. Truth was Considered to be a NEGOTIABLE PRODUCT OF DOING BUSINESS.

This is Especially True when we look at Prohibition\Depression years, ( 1920s- 1930s).  Gangs, like those Frequently Portrayed in Melodramatic Hollywood Movies which Glamorized Criminals like John Dillinger, Bonny and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, Alvin Karpis, Doc Barker etc., were Definitely Murderous and Cold Blooded, and Their Criminal Activities Captured the Publics Imagination, with some considering Them "Robin Hoods" of the Time. ( Just like Those who Thought the JAMES GANG OF THE OLD WEST were Benefactors of the Poor.  Yes, People could be just as Clueless and Ignorant about Reality back Then, as They are now.)

However, Their Heyday, (Late 1920s- Mid 1930s), never came close to having a Significant or Lasting Impact on Society.  Bank Robberies, the Crime They became most noted for, usually resulted in Amounts that Rarely Exceeded a few Thousand Dollars. ( Kidnapping, although far less Publicized, was much more Lucrative.)

Amounts like These would be Considered Chump Change, in comparison to Organized Criminal Activities in Large Cities. (Ironically Enough, the Immense Growth of Organized Crime in Urban Areas, Basically Coincided with the Era of the Most Notable Criminal Acts of the Better Known Bank Robbers.)

So why did the Dillingers, Barkers and Others of Their Ilk Disappear, while at the Same Time Organized Crime began to Spread into Fresh New Areas of Business and Commerce?

Look for Part 8.