Damian M. Schloming ideas and information

Naomi Wolf on rape: "...ours is increasingly an age of geopolitics by blackmail."

This website is to allow me to present intelligibly my thoughts and insights on various social, political, historical and even scientific issues I've been studying in the past two years. 

Some of which I have background knowledge of due to having been involved with and interested in various political movements many years ago. 

My political viewpoint leans towards libertarian, except that I am not completely happy with the way some of them think. Libertarians want limited government and civil liberties. As a matter of principle, that is excellent. But then libertarians seem to suffer from this ingrained bias of Western Culture that you can somehow intellectually decide that government "should be" a certain way and then the perfect society can then be achieved by some legislative body sitting down and crafting some written rule decreeing that that is how society is to be from now on.

 

Actually, I think government and the larger society it is embedded in is more like some kind of living beast that you can train or that can morph in one direction or another, but it can't be so easily manipulated or changed as we think. Written rules don't have the exact effect they literally intend, but instead enforcement of the rules and all sorts of other considerations regarding government bureaucracies results in all sorts of ripple effects or unintended consequences. As a result, the most free society does not necessarily result from the one with the nicest and most free sounding written constitution or constitutional rights guaranteeing liberty. A very good example of this issue is the liberal Warren Court expanding all sorts of fifth amendment procedural and technical criminal protections for defendants. Liberals saying they want to do this might be arguing this is to help the poor. The opposite is the truth. This is to help defense attorneys, and why is that a bad thing? Because criminal procedures and technicalities of the liberal Warren Court only resulted in defendants having protection IF they could hire an expensive enough attorney to do a good enough job PRESSING them. Public defenders are part of the corrupt court system, they deliberately do a bad job so as to make sure well heeled defendants find it worth their while to pay extra. Huge sentences ALSO give well heeled defendants more incentive to pay extra. Thus, defense attorneys representing rich criminal defendants have a vested interest in maintaining the strict sentencing policies responsible for Mass Incarceration. Furthermore, there was a law school bubble which burst, and now law schools are doing poorly because lawyers are not finding it worth their while to spend so much money on a law degree. Fact of the matter is, those liberal Warren Court protections indirectly increased legal fees for defense attorneys, thereby contributing to the upward pressure on college tuition and law school tuition, simply because the amount of money attorneys could make from a law degree made it more worthwhile. 

It also is true that the regulatory state increased in many other ways, increasing demand for attorneys in other spheres besides the criminal justice system. But I am going to talk about the criminal justice system here for now to use it as an example.

This is just one example showing how a policy that, examined in the most superficial way you think it's designed to help criminal defendants overall in the long run has the exact opposite effect. Because these protections are ones that only can be accessed by those with the money to pay for top dollar attorneys. And, it isn't always necessarily related to the facts of the case. The attorney usually has an incestuous relationship with everyone else in the court system, so much so that basically if you pay the right attorney enough money, you will get off because he is friends with all the judges and prosecutors, and parole officers, etc.

And for me to say that could lead to others thinking it is rather awful to have a court system so incestuously corrupt. Except, these are all nice people who know each other and court systems have ALWAYS been like this, more or less. And they always will be this way. Government is incapable of being perfect. Understanding its inherent imperfections such as this are necessary when it comes to avoiding passing laws which interact with such a culture in a way to produce very bad outcomes.

 

After all, we have always had government and, for some reason, it would appear if we always have had it, that is because we need it. The inner workings of government are so awful, you discover after you observe it, it can easily lead many to think we should just abolish it. But, given that that is impossible, the best alternative is to understand it as inherently flawed, and realistically think of how to make things "the least bad."

This is what I have thought for a long time, yet only recently have I stumbled across some law professors who subscribe to a movement called "legal realism." It turns out they think exactly the way I do, and see the same flaws in our society (or in the thinking of popular culture which leads to wrong-headed policies in our legal system) that I see.

Oddly enough, they seem to describe themselves as leftists yet they are not the kind of ordinary mainstream leftist most people would understand to be "of the left." Which is strange because I never would have thought of myself as a liberal -- but not a conservative either. But maybe this is because of certain strands of liberalism I have been exposed to which are quite awful. 

In any case, why categorize oneself? As I study and learn more about society, I like to share various insights and not limit myself to any one "box" or "category" that I pigeonhole myself into.

Female rape victims bullied by female cops and subjected to Politically Correct censorship

February 25, 2015  /  Damian Schloming

One thing I have discovered from having some interactions with other rape victims online who are women is, apparently my experiences are not so unusual as I think. It's just that, when it comes to women, our mainstream media has a habit of selectively reporting on these women's experiences, and covering up any and all politically incorrect details that make the police look bad or that fail to fit the feminist narrative holding all mishandling of rape to be a result of misogynist insensitivity by male louts rather than due to such gender neutral phenomena as corruption, crooked cops, and bribes. 

The end result of this political correctness is, police quickly realize that, if they want to get away with dismissing rape victims, or handling rape corruptly, they need to delegate all of the worst dirty work of bullying rape victims to female cops, specifically to feminist female cops who have clout, connections to academia, and thus a whole lot of protection from criticism and all the impunity that accompanies it. 

Anyway, I know I ought to have a long involved presentation that explains things better, and maybe I will do that, but for now I will just post the conversations so others can read. 

First notice in my Pbase account. Meghan Ybos. The first four pictures show my conversation with her (and friends) where they confirm my perspective as being essentially correct. What's interesting is, if you go look at the New York Times article on her, you would have had no clue that she was badly mistreated by female cops or even that any female cops were assigned to her case. It's clear, the NYT censored any aspect of her story that would show female cops acting badly, and quoted only male cops with respect to her story. 

In the next several pictures, you see me confronting Nicolas Kristoff of the New York Times on their censorship of the true story, and then in the last four pictures, you see that Meaghan Ybos has removed the post I originally commented on where she shared info that the NY Times covered up, and replaced it with a "clown" post. 

I am guessing that, because she is suing the city, she has a lawyer who understands the system and doesn't want to offend the city too badly, or else they'll retaliate by dragging out the suit and refusing to settle. And that's why. Whereas Heather Marlowe, though she is doing a show and has mentioned that she has been told she has to be careful of offending the wrong people or she could lose funding, she has much more ability to be independent given that this is the art world, and she isn't in the midst of a law suit and having to do what a lawyer compels. And, yes, lawyers essentially work for the system and they are corrupt and will often bully clients on behalf of the system.

 

So, here goes:

http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/new_york_times_rape_nicholas_kristof_censorship_of_female_cop_bu

 

 

Share
Comment