Sandra Bland was in the news this week when video of a traffic stop gone wrong surfaced after she had been found dead in her cell after having spent three days in jail.
This has been a theme far too prevalent in the news for the past year or so, ever since the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police in Ferguson, Missouri last August. The death sparked outrage, protests, and shed new light on the state of police brutality in our nation. Since then many other stories have surfaced of police killing unarmed people and dogs with seemingly no provocation.
The Sandra Bland story is, thus, just the latest salvo in an ongoing war against police brutality in our nation. Now, if you've seen the video, or simply read the story, you probably agree with me that the officer had absolutely no reason for arresting Ms. Bland, putting her in a jail cell, and requesting a $5,000 bail bond against her simply for refusing to signal when changing lanes. This is the kind of garbage that people like Ayn Rand have been warning against when they say things like, "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." That kind of insight is why libertarians have always fought for fewer laws and less government to allow people to be free to live their own lives.
What's the point here? I happened to be listening to Glen Beck's program from Thursday of this week and I heard the three fill ins (I'm sorry, I don't know their names) talking about the Bland case. Now, whether she killed herself or not is a story all unto itself, and at this point the evidence is not in Ms. Bland's favor, but I'm not going to get into that today. I am far more concerned about the fact that she was in prison in the first place. The way they discussed the situation, though, bothered me because it seemed like they were blaming Ms. Bland for being arrested. Yes, she failed to signal as she was changing lanes. That's usually cause for, at worst, a minor fine. I can say from personal experience that plenty of people fail to signal when they're changing lanes every time I'm on the road, and I've never actually seen someone get pulled over for it.
The point of contention in the confrontation seems to be Ms. Bland's cigarette. She was smoking (probably because she was stressed out for being pulled over for such a minor offence), and the officer asked her to put out her cigarette. Now, I'm given to understand that this is a fairly regular procedure because the smoke can cover the scent of alcohol on a person who has been drinking. I understand that, but the officer didn't explain that; he ordered Ms. Bland to put out her cigarette, then got combative with her when she refused. This is probably my biggest issue with police lately: whenever you refuse to follow their orders, they get combative. Police treat failing to follow their orders as a crime, even though that's not the case. Does that mean that you shouldn't follow police orders? Not necessarily, but it does mean that the police are not the ultimate authority and everything they say is not law.
What happened to Sandra Bland? She was pulled over for a minor offence, then a petty police officer ordered her to put out her cigarette. When she failed to comply, instead of telling Ms. Bland his reason for wanting her to put out her cigarette, he ordered her from the vehicle and pointed his taser at her. He threatened to "light her ass up" if she continued to fail to comply with his orders. He then arrested her and put her in prison for "assaulting an officer," which he claims happened off camera. As an aside, there is video evidence from a bystander that the officer assaulted Ms. Bland, but there is no evidence that she assaulted him.
In the end, Sandra ended up in prison with a ridiculous bail bond set for her release, and three days later she was found dead. Even if she had committed suicide, is she to blame? When a person is in prison, they're in the state's care. She was not being monitored, even though the prison had evidence that she may be depressed. How is this different from a person whose medical care is mismanaged so badly by the prison they end up dying?
I've been bothered by the growing police state in our country for years. We've seen massive police maneuvers like the one in Boston after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. We saw the ridiculous response to Christopher Dorner in southern California (where I'm currently living but was not living at the time). They both showed just how much force the police are willing to use when they want to "catch a criminal." These are just the most well known cases. Has anyone heard of the police response to Erin Frein shooting a police officer in Pennsylvania last year? Officers were flooding in from all over to hunt for this man. Federal Agents were searching for him. It's incredible.
The point is, we're living in a police state. If one does something "illegal," no matter how minor, one is subject to any amount of police force the officer on duty deems necessary. Until recently, officers were free to beat suspects without remorse and without any expectation of back-lash. An officer's word was held as more important than video evidence, and often an officer's use of force was written off as justified because a suspect was being "non-cooperative and combative." I don't know about you, but if I was being arrested for something that I felt was unjustified, I'd probably be non-cooperative at the least, and likely combative as well if officers were hitting me, shoving me, and handcuffing me without cause.
What can we do about it? We can know our rights, and we can report police abuse. Remember, the point of any law is to make someone a criminal for not following it. If we continue to learn what rights people actually should have and promoting politicians who support these rights, we might be able to make a change and reduce the scope of the government, thereby reducing the police state.
Sandra was recorded on a voicemail as having said, "How this switching lanes with no signal turned into all this...I don't even know." That's what I want to know, too. #whathappenedtosandrabland?
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
7/19/15 - Freedom and Liberty vs Death and Taxes
I was listening to Friday's Tom Woods' show, and I heard Scott Horton say something curious. I actually decided to make an entire post about the idea: What is Libertarianism, and how can I apply that to my life?
I can't remember Scott's exact words or how he came to say this, but I do remember very specifically that he said "Freedom and liberty versus death and taxes." For the full episode to hear it yourself, you can find it here. Personally, though, this line resonated with my so much that I had to stop walking my dog and write it down immediately.
Why is this important? I guess this requires a bit of my back story. I grew up in an old steel town in Western Pennsylvania whose population has been on the decline since the fall of the steel industry in the area. Most people in the area vote Democrat, if only because that's how they've always voted, or that's how their parents voted. Most of them spoke and seemed to agree with modern Republicans, but would never vote for a Republican. My father, being from a more rural background, was a registered Republican. He was my biggest influence. After a few years of learning libertarian ideas, I now understand that he's a lot closer to a Constitutional Minarchist than anything the Republican party stands for now, and he has always been an outspoken critic of government over-reach.
In high school I was required to read Atlas Shrugged, where my journey into Libertarianism really began. I read the book three times before I graduated, and once since. I've already read most of Rand's other works of fiction and a few of her non-fiction works. For a while I was a devout Objectivist, but for some reason I could never seem to reconcile this with my upbringing and this caused some internal struggles. I don't know if this is the only reason, but between this and the fact that I was 18-23 years old, I was not particularly politically involved during that time period.
The first time I heard the word "libertarian" was from my Government/Economics teacher in my senior year of high school. He was just bright enough that most of us knew he had no business teaching at our crap little school (though a little time attempting to become a teacher leads me to believe he may have been there in an attempt to not have to pay back some grants the government gave him). He had little time or patience for the disengaged students that mainly populated our school, and it was obvious. For those few of us (we pretty much all hung out) who actually gave a crap about learning anything, he treated us like gods among men. He acted like my older brother, directed me to look into certain things and read different books, and he's the first person who told me I might be a libertarian.
I bring this up because, unlike most people my age in the libertarian movement, I had honestly never heard much at all about Ron Paul until recently. Being in PA, and given that our primary is one of the last, his name wasn't on the ballot by the time I was ready to vote, so I didn't know about him. I didn't even vote in the primary for the 2008 or 2012 election because it was basically decided by the time it came around to my state. I then spent my college years almost completely disengaged with politics except that I was deeply distraught that Obama had won the white house. I spent a year or so after school listening to Rush and Hannity, but I wasn't happy with what I was hearing and I couldn't seem to find a reason to really care about politics. I even skipped the midterms in 2010 because, well, why bother?
2013 changed my views more than any other year. That was the first time I really had cause to fear my government and their over-reach. When Edward Snowden leaked to the nation just how far from freedom and liberty we've allowed our government to get, I realized that this does affect me and I need to care. That was also the time I first heard of Rand Paul. I knew nothing of his father at the time; remember, I had probably never even heard his name before that. Rand drew me with his filibuster and his stance against the NSA. I followed him on Twitter. I signed up for his newsletter. I even donated money to his campaign and hoped against hope that he would run for president in 2016.
Now, before I get into that, I need to define what I alluded to at the beginning. Libertarianism is different for every libertarian, but for me, it's the last bastion of Freedom and Liberty in the fight against Death and Taxes, and Scott Horton summed that up perfectly with those words.
So, back to Mr. Paul: On which side of the battle does he stand? Lately I find myself every day questioning why I wanted for him to run for president in 2016. He's now running, and I almost wish he wasn't. Whose side is Rand Paul fighting for? Does he fight for Freedom and Liberty? Many would tell me he does. Now that I've learned about his father, I could understand why they would think that. My father was a huge influence on my political leanings, and though I edge closer to anarchy daily, I still find myself clinging to the last vestiges of minarchy that my father taught me growing up. My father's views, though, are not exactly the same as mine. Rand's views do not appear to mirror his father's, either.
The real problem I have is that I have no idea where Rand even stands. His namesake, Ayn, would roll in her grave to hear him flip flopping so much while still trying to throw out how he stands for Freedom and Liberty. Can't he take a principled stand on anything? Could he at least tell us what his principles are? I honestly don't know.
Here I am, a young libertarian of a mind to vote for Mr. Paul if he would only tell me that he stands for even a portion of what I stand for, and yet I feel as if I will be voting for a Libertarian come November. At least Gary Johnson, or whoever the nominee for the Libertarian Party ends up being, will certainly have no problem telling me that they stand for Freedom and Liberty, not Death and Taxes.
In the mean time, I will keep searching for ways to forward the cause on my own front, however small my contributions may be. I hope you all do the same.
I can't remember Scott's exact words or how he came to say this, but I do remember very specifically that he said "Freedom and liberty versus death and taxes." For the full episode to hear it yourself, you can find it here. Personally, though, this line resonated with my so much that I had to stop walking my dog and write it down immediately.
Why is this important? I guess this requires a bit of my back story. I grew up in an old steel town in Western Pennsylvania whose population has been on the decline since the fall of the steel industry in the area. Most people in the area vote Democrat, if only because that's how they've always voted, or that's how their parents voted. Most of them spoke and seemed to agree with modern Republicans, but would never vote for a Republican. My father, being from a more rural background, was a registered Republican. He was my biggest influence. After a few years of learning libertarian ideas, I now understand that he's a lot closer to a Constitutional Minarchist than anything the Republican party stands for now, and he has always been an outspoken critic of government over-reach.
In high school I was required to read Atlas Shrugged, where my journey into Libertarianism really began. I read the book three times before I graduated, and once since. I've already read most of Rand's other works of fiction and a few of her non-fiction works. For a while I was a devout Objectivist, but for some reason I could never seem to reconcile this with my upbringing and this caused some internal struggles. I don't know if this is the only reason, but between this and the fact that I was 18-23 years old, I was not particularly politically involved during that time period.
The first time I heard the word "libertarian" was from my Government/Economics teacher in my senior year of high school. He was just bright enough that most of us knew he had no business teaching at our crap little school (though a little time attempting to become a teacher leads me to believe he may have been there in an attempt to not have to pay back some grants the government gave him). He had little time or patience for the disengaged students that mainly populated our school, and it was obvious. For those few of us (we pretty much all hung out) who actually gave a crap about learning anything, he treated us like gods among men. He acted like my older brother, directed me to look into certain things and read different books, and he's the first person who told me I might be a libertarian.
I bring this up because, unlike most people my age in the libertarian movement, I had honestly never heard much at all about Ron Paul until recently. Being in PA, and given that our primary is one of the last, his name wasn't on the ballot by the time I was ready to vote, so I didn't know about him. I didn't even vote in the primary for the 2008 or 2012 election because it was basically decided by the time it came around to my state. I then spent my college years almost completely disengaged with politics except that I was deeply distraught that Obama had won the white house. I spent a year or so after school listening to Rush and Hannity, but I wasn't happy with what I was hearing and I couldn't seem to find a reason to really care about politics. I even skipped the midterms in 2010 because, well, why bother?
2013 changed my views more than any other year. That was the first time I really had cause to fear my government and their over-reach. When Edward Snowden leaked to the nation just how far from freedom and liberty we've allowed our government to get, I realized that this does affect me and I need to care. That was also the time I first heard of Rand Paul. I knew nothing of his father at the time; remember, I had probably never even heard his name before that. Rand drew me with his filibuster and his stance against the NSA. I followed him on Twitter. I signed up for his newsletter. I even donated money to his campaign and hoped against hope that he would run for president in 2016.
Now, before I get into that, I need to define what I alluded to at the beginning. Libertarianism is different for every libertarian, but for me, it's the last bastion of Freedom and Liberty in the fight against Death and Taxes, and Scott Horton summed that up perfectly with those words.
So, back to Mr. Paul: On which side of the battle does he stand? Lately I find myself every day questioning why I wanted for him to run for president in 2016. He's now running, and I almost wish he wasn't. Whose side is Rand Paul fighting for? Does he fight for Freedom and Liberty? Many would tell me he does. Now that I've learned about his father, I could understand why they would think that. My father was a huge influence on my political leanings, and though I edge closer to anarchy daily, I still find myself clinging to the last vestiges of minarchy that my father taught me growing up. My father's views, though, are not exactly the same as mine. Rand's views do not appear to mirror his father's, either.
The real problem I have is that I have no idea where Rand even stands. His namesake, Ayn, would roll in her grave to hear him flip flopping so much while still trying to throw out how he stands for Freedom and Liberty. Can't he take a principled stand on anything? Could he at least tell us what his principles are? I honestly don't know.
Here I am, a young libertarian of a mind to vote for Mr. Paul if he would only tell me that he stands for even a portion of what I stand for, and yet I feel as if I will be voting for a Libertarian come November. At least Gary Johnson, or whoever the nominee for the Libertarian Party ends up being, will certainly have no problem telling me that they stand for Freedom and Liberty, not Death and Taxes.
In the mean time, I will keep searching for ways to forward the cause on my own front, however small my contributions may be. I hope you all do the same.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
7/11/15 - Is California the Next Greece?
Greece is broke. They missed their payment to the IMF earlier this month, and news of this has spread globally as its implications are profound.
I won't spend much time talking about Greece as there are plenty of other places where information on their failed policies and pending default can be found that will be much more informed than I am capable of being. However, I do find myself as a resident of the State of California, which may find itself in a similar situation if serious changes are not made, and soon.
I've been living in California for nearly two years now, and I've noticed some striking tax differences between California and my native state, Pennsylvania. Unlike in California, though, I never heard people discussing how much debt Pennsylvania carried and how broke the state was. Now, don't get me wrong, PA does actually have a substantial debt of upwards of $121 billion, but that pales in comparison to the wall of debt that CA has to overcome, estimated at $433 billion.
What I find striking, though, is the amount of revenue the CA state government should be able to rely on yearly. Granted, through some accounting gimmicks, the government has been able to pass "balanced budgets" these past three years, but they don't seem to be chipping away at the massive debt, like the pension funds that are eating California.
On an anecdotal level, I'd like to compare living in PA and paying taxes to living in CA and paying taxes. First, I'll start with the most obvious tax, the income tax. In PA, every individual pays a flat tax rate to the state of 3.07% of their wage, right off the top. They are also required to pay their locality, usually 1-2%. In my case, my locality took 1%. In CA, there's no locality income tax, only the state, but the state income tax is not flat. The tax rate is progressive, much like the Federal Income tax, and one can expect to pay between 7-12.3% as an individual. Right out of the box I'm already paying probably double in taxes to CA than I was to PA and my locality. I also pay an Unemployment Insurance tax and State Disability tax to CA that I also paid in PA. However, in PA, this tax was never more than a couple of dollars at .09% of my wages. Here in CA, I pay a much higher .9%, which is a full ten times more.
Now that the CA state government has wreaked havoc on my paycheck, you'd think my tax burden would decrease compared to PA elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's wrong. I'll start with the easiest, namely, property taxes. I don't own property (mainly because the government taxes me far too much and I can't save any money to make a down payment on a house), but if I did, I could expect to pay between 1-1.75% of the property's value straight to the government of CA and San Bernardino County. The average tax rate in my native Beaver County was actually a bit higher than the average in San Bernardino at 1.7%. I would celebrate CA on this lower tax rate if it weren't for the fact that house values in Southern California make most of the rest of the country look like a cheap place to live. In San Bernardino alone, the median house value sits at $263,400, which is more than double Beaver County's $120,800. Add to that the huge difference in populations (170k in Beaver County vs 2.088 million in San Bernardino), and you're set to expect a windfall in extra property tax revenue here in San Bernardino that Beaver County could only dream of ever having.
This post is getting a little long, so I'm going to run through the rest. Want to get your vehicle registered in CA? Prepare to pay upwards of $200 a years instead of the measly $35 PA charges. Need to purchase something that's not food related? I hope you're happy with the 8-12% sales tax rate as compared to the 6-7% rate from PA. Find yourself pulled over for speeding or some other traffic violation? Expect to pay at least $300, which is about the lowest figure I've heard from anyone I've met who's been given a fine for a traffic violation around here. In PA, where my father-in-law always complained of how expensive speeding tickets were, I never heard anyone tell me about a fine above $200. Anecdotal, I know, but it gets my point across. Buying gas? I hope you don't mind paying 50 cents to a dollar more than most other places in the country.
The list goes on, but I believe I've made my point. Between the literally millions of people living in California and the much higher tax rates on nearly everything, California should be bringing in plenty enough revenue to avoid budget deficits and debt. What we see, however, is completely irresponsible spending and complete refusal to admit this to their constituents. Just look at the claimed percentage of the budget devoted to payroll and benefits of government employees vs the actual percentage, where we see government officials outright lying to us. I mean, 10% and 67% are a little different. And, yes, CA government employees may have relatively lower salaries compared to private employees, but they still see an effective wage jump of 30% over private employees when you count all of the benefits of being a state employee. Tie that to the fact that nearly 15% of all employed individuals in California work directly for the state (and I don't believe that number counts any teachers or medical professionals paid by the state), and you see why the government's payroll is just out of control. During the recession, CA private employers cut 6.22% of their labor force. I'm impressed to see the government's labor force actually dropped, too, but only by 1.17%. To make things worse, I haven't even touched on social welfare programs, of which California is the number one state in the country in terms of caseloads.
Oh, and did I mention the famous high speed rail that the governor keeps pushing for?
So, how does this relate to Greece? I am sure that the reason Greece is broke is similar to the reason California is broke. Out of control spending, burgeoning pension and welfare programs, and a complete departure from reality in terms of taxation and regulation.
Businesses are not flourishing in California, where tax rates are high and tax codes are convoluted. I've personally met businessmen who have moved from California to neighboring Nevada to avoid some of the convoluted regulations and expensive tax burdens of California. Add to that crushing regulations about "employee protection" and I find myself driving past hundreds of empty buildings every week that may never be filled in my lifetime. Again, I'm going anecdotal, but my point is clear: California is driving away business with its horrible and expensive policies, which, in the end, will only make government spending increase as more and more people find it difficult to find work outside the government. Already California's unemployment rate is over a full percentage point higher than the national average at 6.4%.
Being the world's 8th largest economy will not help California from becoming Greece if we don't learn some lessons from Greece and start making serious changes to the state's spending and regulations. Let's hope our leaders can start making the difficult choices, or that we can elect some new ones that will.
I've been living in California for nearly two years now, and I've noticed some striking tax differences between California and my native state, Pennsylvania. Unlike in California, though, I never heard people discussing how much debt Pennsylvania carried and how broke the state was. Now, don't get me wrong, PA does actually have a substantial debt of upwards of $121 billion, but that pales in comparison to the wall of debt that CA has to overcome, estimated at $433 billion.
What I find striking, though, is the amount of revenue the CA state government should be able to rely on yearly. Granted, through some accounting gimmicks, the government has been able to pass "balanced budgets" these past three years, but they don't seem to be chipping away at the massive debt, like the pension funds that are eating California.
On an anecdotal level, I'd like to compare living in PA and paying taxes to living in CA and paying taxes. First, I'll start with the most obvious tax, the income tax. In PA, every individual pays a flat tax rate to the state of 3.07% of their wage, right off the top. They are also required to pay their locality, usually 1-2%. In my case, my locality took 1%. In CA, there's no locality income tax, only the state, but the state income tax is not flat. The tax rate is progressive, much like the Federal Income tax, and one can expect to pay between 7-12.3% as an individual. Right out of the box I'm already paying probably double in taxes to CA than I was to PA and my locality. I also pay an Unemployment Insurance tax and State Disability tax to CA that I also paid in PA. However, in PA, this tax was never more than a couple of dollars at .09% of my wages. Here in CA, I pay a much higher .9%, which is a full ten times more.
Now that the CA state government has wreaked havoc on my paycheck, you'd think my tax burden would decrease compared to PA elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's wrong. I'll start with the easiest, namely, property taxes. I don't own property (mainly because the government taxes me far too much and I can't save any money to make a down payment on a house), but if I did, I could expect to pay between 1-1.75% of the property's value straight to the government of CA and San Bernardino County. The average tax rate in my native Beaver County was actually a bit higher than the average in San Bernardino at 1.7%. I would celebrate CA on this lower tax rate if it weren't for the fact that house values in Southern California make most of the rest of the country look like a cheap place to live. In San Bernardino alone, the median house value sits at $263,400, which is more than double Beaver County's $120,800. Add to that the huge difference in populations (170k in Beaver County vs 2.088 million in San Bernardino), and you're set to expect a windfall in extra property tax revenue here in San Bernardino that Beaver County could only dream of ever having.
This post is getting a little long, so I'm going to run through the rest. Want to get your vehicle registered in CA? Prepare to pay upwards of $200 a years instead of the measly $35 PA charges. Need to purchase something that's not food related? I hope you're happy with the 8-12% sales tax rate as compared to the 6-7% rate from PA. Find yourself pulled over for speeding or some other traffic violation? Expect to pay at least $300, which is about the lowest figure I've heard from anyone I've met who's been given a fine for a traffic violation around here. In PA, where my father-in-law always complained of how expensive speeding tickets were, I never heard anyone tell me about a fine above $200. Anecdotal, I know, but it gets my point across. Buying gas? I hope you don't mind paying 50 cents to a dollar more than most other places in the country.
The list goes on, but I believe I've made my point. Between the literally millions of people living in California and the much higher tax rates on nearly everything, California should be bringing in plenty enough revenue to avoid budget deficits and debt. What we see, however, is completely irresponsible spending and complete refusal to admit this to their constituents. Just look at the claimed percentage of the budget devoted to payroll and benefits of government employees vs the actual percentage, where we see government officials outright lying to us. I mean, 10% and 67% are a little different. And, yes, CA government employees may have relatively lower salaries compared to private employees, but they still see an effective wage jump of 30% over private employees when you count all of the benefits of being a state employee. Tie that to the fact that nearly 15% of all employed individuals in California work directly for the state (and I don't believe that number counts any teachers or medical professionals paid by the state), and you see why the government's payroll is just out of control. During the recession, CA private employers cut 6.22% of their labor force. I'm impressed to see the government's labor force actually dropped, too, but only by 1.17%. To make things worse, I haven't even touched on social welfare programs, of which California is the number one state in the country in terms of caseloads.
Oh, and did I mention the famous high speed rail that the governor keeps pushing for?
So, how does this relate to Greece? I am sure that the reason Greece is broke is similar to the reason California is broke. Out of control spending, burgeoning pension and welfare programs, and a complete departure from reality in terms of taxation and regulation.
Businesses are not flourishing in California, where tax rates are high and tax codes are convoluted. I've personally met businessmen who have moved from California to neighboring Nevada to avoid some of the convoluted regulations and expensive tax burdens of California. Add to that crushing regulations about "employee protection" and I find myself driving past hundreds of empty buildings every week that may never be filled in my lifetime. Again, I'm going anecdotal, but my point is clear: California is driving away business with its horrible and expensive policies, which, in the end, will only make government spending increase as more and more people find it difficult to find work outside the government. Already California's unemployment rate is over a full percentage point higher than the national average at 6.4%.
Being the world's 8th largest economy will not help California from becoming Greece if we don't learn some lessons from Greece and start making serious changes to the state's spending and regulations. Let's hope our leaders can start making the difficult choices, or that we can elect some new ones that will.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
7/4/2015 - Orange is the New Black
Today is Independence Day, but I'm sure everyone has had their fill of that by now and frankly I don't want to talk about it.
I've decided to start anew. Once upon a time I fancied myself a writer, but as my life became both more busy and less interesting, I found myself less and less able to put words to the page. I attempted to talk about myself on a blog, but I quickly became bored with myself, and frankly, who really cares about me, anyhow?
The focus of this blog, therefore, will be less about me and more about the world around me.
I'd like to start with a topic I've been pondering for a few weeks now and would really like to share.
Sometime in the middle of June the newest season of Orange is the New Black was released on Netflix, and my wife and I watched all 13 episodes in about 4 days. It took us that long mainly because this season was more difficult for me to watch. Part of that is because of all the flaws that I'm sure you can read about on other sites where plenty of reviews exist, but the main reason I found this season so difficult was because of how much it illustrated the absolutely failed ideas of the federal government's criminal justice policies.
For starters, if you remember back to episode 1, Piper was imprisoned because she was involved in trafficking drugs across international lines...10 or so years prior. During this time, Piper did not actually hurt anyone or transgress against any other individual's rights. Since that event occurred, Piper had found herself "reformed" in society and was on her way to becoming a good taxpayer. Instead of allowing Piper to remain free and productive in society, our government instead chose to imprison her and send the bill to the taxpayers for her housing, food, and healthcare over the next 18 or so months of her sentence,
In season 3, Piper finds herself at the head of an illegal organization within the prison. We've progressed less than 18 months and suddenly Piper, who before was on the path to being a responsible adult, is now learning how to run a criminal enterprise. Now, don't get me wrong: I think it's also ridiculous that her selling used panties is considered a criminal activity. Frankly, I generally applaud the idea of a market that exists in defiance of the state's apparatus against such, but the point is whether what she was doing should be illegal, but simply that it was. We now find Piper willing to do things like commit a woman to solitary confinement for betraying her trust when just two seasons prior Piper was incapable of standing up for herself and ensuring that she be fed properly. The prison system has corrupted this otherwise reasonable individual and taught her how to be a better criminal. This is the sort of problem that advocates against stupid drug policies have been discussing for years, and there it is for all to see perfectly illustrated by a Netflix Original Series. Let's just send people to prison for non-violent activities and see if we can't make violent offenders out of them...
As I moved through this season, I saw all sorts of examples of how stupid the United States drug policies are. There was the quip when Nicky's mother was "Glad they didn't find any drugs on her" when she was caught burglarizing a house because then it would be "impossible to avoid jail time." You're telling me that breaking into another person's private property and stealing from them is considered less of a crime than the simple act of having drugs in one's possession?! What kind of idiotic law would make it more criminal to possess drugs that are completely non-harmful to any non-consenting adult than to break into another person's home and steal from them?
Then there was Leanne, who, like Piper, had decided that the path she was on was self-destructive and wanted to find her way back into the society that she had grown up in. She was reforming and moving on from her days as a drug addled youth, only to be thrown into prison because of a bag found with her ID and drugs. On top of that, she was asked to help imprison those people in her old community on similar charges in order to attempt to reduce her ridiculous sentence.
If we move on to Sophia, we see a complete mismanagement of her personal care from the beginning of the series. In season 1, the prison system reduces her hormones because the cost of them is "too much for the prison to bear" and they are deemed as non-essential. Finally, in season 3, Sophia is put into solitary confinement "for her own safety." This kind of garbage happens all the time in privately run prison systems. Sometimes a person's care is mismanaged so badly that they can die because of it. The prisons don't face any consequences for these mismanaged situations, either.
I'd like to wrap up with something from Taystee's story earlier on in the series. If you really want to see how prison destroys lives, look at what happens to Taystee when she is released. She has a very heart-wrenching soliloquy when she is returned to Litchfield in which see decides that prison is better for her than the world outside. If there is a better indictment of how awful our prison policies are, I've not seen it.
I've decided to start anew. Once upon a time I fancied myself a writer, but as my life became both more busy and less interesting, I found myself less and less able to put words to the page. I attempted to talk about myself on a blog, but I quickly became bored with myself, and frankly, who really cares about me, anyhow?
The focus of this blog, therefore, will be less about me and more about the world around me.
I'd like to start with a topic I've been pondering for a few weeks now and would really like to share.
Sometime in the middle of June the newest season of Orange is the New Black was released on Netflix, and my wife and I watched all 13 episodes in about 4 days. It took us that long mainly because this season was more difficult for me to watch. Part of that is because of all the flaws that I'm sure you can read about on other sites where plenty of reviews exist, but the main reason I found this season so difficult was because of how much it illustrated the absolutely failed ideas of the federal government's criminal justice policies.
For starters, if you remember back to episode 1, Piper was imprisoned because she was involved in trafficking drugs across international lines...10 or so years prior. During this time, Piper did not actually hurt anyone or transgress against any other individual's rights. Since that event occurred, Piper had found herself "reformed" in society and was on her way to becoming a good taxpayer. Instead of allowing Piper to remain free and productive in society, our government instead chose to imprison her and send the bill to the taxpayers for her housing, food, and healthcare over the next 18 or so months of her sentence,
In season 3, Piper finds herself at the head of an illegal organization within the prison. We've progressed less than 18 months and suddenly Piper, who before was on the path to being a responsible adult, is now learning how to run a criminal enterprise. Now, don't get me wrong: I think it's also ridiculous that her selling used panties is considered a criminal activity. Frankly, I generally applaud the idea of a market that exists in defiance of the state's apparatus against such, but the point is whether what she was doing should be illegal, but simply that it was. We now find Piper willing to do things like commit a woman to solitary confinement for betraying her trust when just two seasons prior Piper was incapable of standing up for herself and ensuring that she be fed properly. The prison system has corrupted this otherwise reasonable individual and taught her how to be a better criminal. This is the sort of problem that advocates against stupid drug policies have been discussing for years, and there it is for all to see perfectly illustrated by a Netflix Original Series. Let's just send people to prison for non-violent activities and see if we can't make violent offenders out of them...
As I moved through this season, I saw all sorts of examples of how stupid the United States drug policies are. There was the quip when Nicky's mother was "Glad they didn't find any drugs on her" when she was caught burglarizing a house because then it would be "impossible to avoid jail time." You're telling me that breaking into another person's private property and stealing from them is considered less of a crime than the simple act of having drugs in one's possession?! What kind of idiotic law would make it more criminal to possess drugs that are completely non-harmful to any non-consenting adult than to break into another person's home and steal from them?
Then there was Leanne, who, like Piper, had decided that the path she was on was self-destructive and wanted to find her way back into the society that she had grown up in. She was reforming and moving on from her days as a drug addled youth, only to be thrown into prison because of a bag found with her ID and drugs. On top of that, she was asked to help imprison those people in her old community on similar charges in order to attempt to reduce her ridiculous sentence.
If we move on to Sophia, we see a complete mismanagement of her personal care from the beginning of the series. In season 1, the prison system reduces her hormones because the cost of them is "too much for the prison to bear" and they are deemed as non-essential. Finally, in season 3, Sophia is put into solitary confinement "for her own safety." This kind of garbage happens all the time in privately run prison systems. Sometimes a person's care is mismanaged so badly that they can die because of it. The prisons don't face any consequences for these mismanaged situations, either.
I'd like to wrap up with something from Taystee's story earlier on in the series. If you really want to see how prison destroys lives, look at what happens to Taystee when she is released. She has a very heart-wrenching soliloquy when she is returned to Litchfield in which see decides that prison is better for her than the world outside. If there is a better indictment of how awful our prison policies are, I've not seen it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)