It prevents any investigation, federal or state, from introducing politically motivated outcomes.
It prevents any investigation, federal or state, from introducing politically motivated outcomes.
An Ohio lawyer hypnotized six female clients and then molested them. Now he’s going to prison.
The use of hypnotism, or any other outside method, to influence another person to have sex with you is wrong, and criminal. If you didn’t know that, then there is something wrong with your moral compass. The unsuspecting women this individual preyed on will never be the same and this selfish, obviously desperate and psychopathic person could not tell the difference between right and wrong. Does anyone feel that using any method, other than your personality and what the lord or evolution bestowed on you, to start a romantic relationship, is right, especially on an unsuspecting person? These individuals did not know what was happening to them or why it was happening, but he did. Michael Fine was well aware of what he was doing, even if his victims did not. Now this individual is going to jail for 12 years, I don’t think that is enough, but one of his victims said that they were serving a life sentence, so why shouldn’t he.
When a person is that pathetic that they must resort to extreme methods to control their unwitting victims just for sex, then that person is capable of doing anything to anyone at anytime. Michael is an extremely flawed human being, given the opportunity to hypnotize someone and say or do anything, he chose to have or make the person have sex with him instead of putting the person at ease or imbeding some kind of wisdom or kind thought.
The problem is that Michael Fine, and people like him, don’t think they are doing anything wrong. They think it is, well, ironically and apropos, perfectly fine. It makes me think of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution. There is a reason why people like Michael can’t procreate and no woman would sleep with him, I’m sure the same reason why he had to resort to such methods in the first place, it’s because either evolution or God wants him gone and his demonic (if you believe in God) or defective genes (if you are an evolutionist) were meant to disappear from the planet so it won’t infect another human being.
The problem with Michael and every person like him is that they reason that the woman wants it or that they are promiscuous or that something in their past warrants this happening to them or that they liked it because they feel themselves some kind of blessing that must share it with every woman. This is the common tale of every person that rapes another. They are the same tired excuses that are given repeatedly in their defense prior to be sentenced to jail. They say it like it excuses their actions.
The true test of a person is when you have the ability to do anything to a person and you seemingly won’t face any consequences, what will you do?
So, what will you do?
Slavery is an anchor on the legacy of this country. I understand that reparations in the form of money might be difficult to achieve. I opine that the worst part of slavery now is what it has done to the ability to create equality around the country. While money might not be available, there are other things that might be available. To the relatives of people that were slaves in this country there might be services that could make up for the horrendous treatment of their relatives. Free tuition to colleges that they qualify for would be my favorite. That’s just an idea. Another would be interest free Small Business Loans to legitimate business plans with the possibility of loan forgiveness if the business was an earnest attempt at opening a business that employs people. I know some people might mock my ideas but unless you throw some different solutions you may never get the answer the relatives of people that were in bondage deserve. These two ideas, which I’m sure smarter people will have better solutions, would bring empowerment and equality. I’m sure I’ll have critics.
With the Justice Department embarking on a Religious freedom initiative, you kind of wonder what they mean by that. Does it mean that they stand with the baker from Colorado that refused service to a gay couple, that wanted a wedding cake, on religious grounds or do they mean that they stand with the gay couple’s right to be treated equally under the law? What we have to realize is that some of these religions don’t allow you to recognize any other God but the God of that religion. Does that mean that the baker can now refuse service to non-believers or people that believe in other religions? The slippery slope of exclusion based on religion is one thing that we should avoid.
First, there is no religion that says that people should be discriminated for any reason. All religions say that you must be tolerant and show compassion. To refuse to treat a person like a person and claim it on religious grounds is contradictory to what the religion is all about. All people sin and in if you choose to discriminate on only one particular sin, which I don’t really know if it is or is not, then your being biased. When you start adopting rules on religion and how you can treat each other because of it then you might as well head back to the days of the crusades. Another reason to truly eliminate your wrong beliefs of religion as an excuse of proper or legal behavior is because you will then excuse people that commit horrendous crimes because of their misinterpretations of religion, 9/11, and since this country has a freedom of religion, their argument is going to be as crazy as the bakers. There is a very good reason to separate state and religion, it’s so people don’t act out and then point to obscure, misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in a religious book and use it as an excuse to be crazy.
By the way, the baker was wrong.
And, I believe that’s there only one God and that he came down six different times or however many true religions there are, in the form that the people that he was preaching to could accept and acknowledge. It’s crazy to think that an all powerful and omnipotent God couldn’t foresee the dangers of making one true messiah that only looks like one portion of the population. All religions basically teach the same things, in the core of that religion, so why would you think that Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha and whoever else would be different people but not the same person as an image that is acceptable to pass his message on to the people he /she is preaching to? Well, I’m not a religion major and I’m sure that there are arguments to debunk my belief but I’ll wait to hear them, again my Religion Degree comes from Crayola, who by the way all share the same box peacefully.
I never understood why a Supreme Court Justice is selected the way they are. They are the head of a separate part of government but are effectively kept out of the selection process. I always thought that the nine Supreme Court Justices should be the ones to select a suitable member, those that they unanimously agree on, nominate those three to five names and then have the other parts of government confirm one. This would promote continuity, non-partisanship, and legitimacy within the highest court of the land. Plus, it’s nice to work where everyone agreed on you. It would also end partisan bickering as now it wouldn’t matter who heads the Executive branch, a Dem or a Repub. Plus the way it is done right now is unconstitutional. How can you have a separate branch of government when the Judicial branch is dependent on the other branches for employment? The way it should work is 1) Have the Judicial Branch select qualified people, 2) Have the Executive branch nominate one 3) Have the Legislative branch confirm them. This ensures a separate and fair government. That scenario would be acceptable as it still meets the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and maintains the separation of government. But what do I know, I still haven’t figured out my VCR, which my son says is a cable box. Damn things are tricky.
This is just an opinion piece. I could be wrong about the whole premise. This is just my opinion. Everyone should form their own.
With legalizing marijuana becoming the movement of today, the New York Times wrote an in-depth review of what happens when people do drugs, attached below. What becomes apparent to me, my first thought, is how can legislators complain about these people if they are allowing the legalization of hallucinogenic drugs, (report from the National Institute of Health) into our society. The double edged sword of wanting to legalize drugs but then complaining about the what that legislation will lead to is nothing short of ironic. These people, that no doubt a majority started with marijuana, graduated to opioids. Very rarely do people start with hard drugs, the usual pattern, whether you want to admit it or not, starts with cannabis. My thoughts are if you don’t want your child to end up lying on the street with the possibility of overdosing on drugs, then applying stricter laws on mind altering drug should the more common sense approach. Revenue should not serve as a guide to decision making because in the end it will cost more than you will earn from these products to clean up the mess. If marijuana had a possibility of only having positive side effects, like alcohol, then I would be all for it. Alcohol, wine in particular, if taken in moderation and responsibly, will actually prolong your life, make you healthier. Marijuana has negative side effects from the the first puff as it damages lungs right away, albeit minimally, in prolonged use, even in moderation, it will shorten your life.
I love my son so it killed me when a grown man on his cellphone starts flirting with him at a Las Americas, restaurant in Roselle, NJ, until I intervened. That individual looking at my son like he was a colombian meal until I looked at him and questioned what the fuck he was doing. That individual spooked and left without his food but didn’t forget that cellphone of his. These individuals are the reptiles of the planet. They are cold blooded predators that don’t give a shit.