The 4th Amendment- Is This the Ignored and Boring Civil Right? Are We Unsure of this Right?

It could just be me, but as a truck driver negotiating the country's highways, I am continually traveling along the Interstates almost every single day, for hours a day, and I have been seeing a lot, I mean a lot, of roadside searches of private cars and automobiles. I mean, just recently I witnessed what had to be nearly a dozen car searches along I-95 in the Florence, South Carolina area, and that was just in a few minutes of driving. One would suppose every working police officer in that county was parked alongside the highway rifling their paws through some citizen's personal automobile and their belongings in that car.

Now, one might suppose the occasional car will arouse the suspicion of an officer and a search may be warranted. The driver and passengers might put up a red flag in the mind of the officer, causing the officer to suspect criminal activity. But I must be honest and state I sincerely doubt there are this many vehicles arousing genuine suspicion. I mean, what's prompting the suspicion? Rubber tires and shiny paint?

I have no idea how many of these searches I have witnessed, particularly along the highways of Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia, but I feel as though if I closed my eyes and swung a cat by the tail, I would likely hit a roadside search within a few minutes. I feel confident in saying I very much doubt these officers are truly suspicious of anything other than witnessing an American citizen driving along, and that's really getting their dander up. I do not believe all these searches are truly for the purpose of tracking a suspected crime; rather, I believe these officers are seeking valuables and cash to confiscate.

I think they're acting as little more than common thieves dressed as the law. We've all heard the reports on the radio and TV of certain precincts taking on the cause of confiscating valuables from people driving through, running on the legal cliff edge and claiming these people must be up to criminal activity. After all, why would they be traveling with money and valuables?

I believe this is the 4th Amendment being completely ignored and bypassed with cat-hair-thin excuses and claims of impropriety. If it was occasional and truly valid, I would applaud their ambition. But common sense struggles with the assumption that all of these searches I'm witnessing are truly for law enforcement. I believe and will claim they're for police harassment and intimidation.

If I was seeing thugs and gangsters standing aside while officers do their thing, it would be one thing. But I am seeing who appear to be everyday people, with Mom and Dad and Grandma along with a couple of confused children being forced to stand well away while six cops brilliantly illuminated by as many cruisers with flashing lights run their paws through these people's personal property. I refuse to believe these people prompted anything more than a potential for something to steal.

I tried a preliminary search through Google to see if there were any reports of wrongful activity, but I'm not finding a lot. I have found some 4th Amendment violation claims along with information of one's rights, but it seems to me these aren't much of a threat to the offenders. After all, who's claim is going to carry further? The ordinary citizen (under constant scrutiny and suspicion within the arrogant police state of today) or the police officer who's allowed tremendous leeway due to some notion of professional recognition?

It seems to me anyone driving the roads of this (so-called) free nation had better be mindful of their 4th Amendment rights. Plenty of people are on top of their 2nd Amendment rights, but they are more colorful and romantic compared to the droll issue of police searches. People seem ready to stand and take charge of their gun rights, but come across as too shy and unsure when it comes to illegal searches and seizures. That should change.

Now, it might just be Roddy, but I say with honesty that I am seeing this a lot. I mean, a lot and more than just often. We've been forced to submit to thugs fingering our wives and daughters in order to board a plane, but now we have to endure these goons giggling about our most private personal property being displayed for mockery while these same goons personally decide if we're allowed to have money?

This is yet another reason to stand as Americans against the traitors in authority and uniform. Further, it is time for Americans in authority and uniform to call out the BS.

An Affinity for the Morbid and Bizarre- There are Really Three Very Popular Shows Featuring Serial Killers

Our love for Hannibal Lecter (Hannibal the Cannibal) goes all the way back to the days when Thomas Harris wrote and published The Red Dragon. For those of you who read this work (I enjoyed it quite a bit), you'll know that Hannibal had but a bit part in this story. Now, because of the popularity of Silence of the Lambs, the movie of The Red Dragon harbored more of Lecter than the original book, but this is because WE JUST LOVE OUR SERIAL KILLERS! This is particularly true of the gruesome ones with a hearty affinity for the baroque era.

Our most recent installment of the charismatic serial killer is Joe Carroll, who is the main antagonist in the TV show, The Following. Joe Carroll was once a literature professor and possesses a wondrously attractive personality. But, as he puts it, he has a monomaniacal need to kill and it's only going to intensify, so he chooses to embrace it. But what makes Joe more fun for the TV viewer is he is the leader of a bizarre cult of followers who will (until recently) do his bidding. Recent episodes have demonstrated some dissension in the ranks, but this just adds to the drama.

But there's no doubting that those overseeing such programming coming and going bit right into the idea of a TV show featuring such characters. If the show is well written and the characters are enjoyable, there is every reason to assume such a show could enjoy some lasting power. The Following is coming up on the first season finale with no clue to a possible cancellation (the fact that these heathens cancel good programming is why there are such things as serial killers), so it seems we might have something to, well, follow.

Dexter has been out there for years, enjoying a wonderful time in hunting down, killing and then dismembering other killers (there can be only one!) while trying to adhere to a code of ethics. Dexter only goes after the bad guys, although recently he's found it easier to simply dispose of those who threaten his way of life. But one of the major things we like about Dexter is his uncanny ability to negotiate his dark world. If he could turn these abilities towards a life of, say, real estate, Donald Trump would report to him with questions akin to how does he like his coffee. Yes, Dexter is good at what he does, which is admirable to most viewers. This translates to clever characters and good writing, which should claim responsibility to Dexter making it this far. Further, the show harbors a myriad of distinct and believable characters. This includes Dexter's foul-mouthed sister played by the very talented Jennifer Carpenter. Like a good sister, she took care of some of Dexter's dirtiest work for him during the last season finale.

But, one has to wonder how much further they can go with this show. It is getting repetitive, but then, with Dexter's anonymity unraveling, there might be some spice.

The new Hannibal TV show is demonstrating some imaginative writing and some gruesome murders, along with a twist of characters surrounding the good doctor. Much of what is going on is reminiscent of the CSI series of shows, which makes it easy to guess it might do well with its unique twist on a successful formula. We'll just have to see if the viewers will allow for this new Hannibal which seems a bit different from what Anthony Hopkins would present.

I just cannot help but to imagine what might occur should these three go after one another. We saw this silliness in Alien vs. Predator and Jason Vs. Freddy, so I cannot help but to amuse myself with the thought of how far it could go should these three fun and exciting serial killers decide there really can be only one.

I think that if J.J. Abrams is truly worth his salt, he would give this a thought.

Arrogance

So, in a tractor/trailer and many other vehicles, I'm sure, there is what's known as a governor.  It's a regulator, often working by controlling the amount of fuel  going towards the engine. This keeps the driver from being able to torque the thing out and have it barreling down the road at the speed of sound. It saves fuel and makes for some cost-effective means of controlling what cannot be controlled from afar. 

Some computer systems within the work environment are often programmed with some sort of 'governor'. This prevents workers in the office environment from surfing the web, spending the day on Facebook, downloading porn, and IMing the hot chick in accounting all day. The systems in place help ensure the work expected to be done is really done. 

Well, it seems humanity also has some sort of 'governor' in place. It works like a sort of kill switch in the event things start getting too heady and rushed. It seems this governor is an emotional response programmed into the human emotional spectrum, primarily in place to ensure either, A: Humanity does not get too far, too fast, and accomplish too much without some sort of check and balance, or B: Should humanity reach a point of uncontrollable danger to its environment, it can take itself down and out. 

Are you with me so far? 

I know this can be rather unusual to ponder and certainly uncomfortable to confront, but it seems fair to assume the emotional response of Arrogance is there for a good reason, but humanity wouldn't like to accept it for what it is. 

Much of what humanity does, feels, and experiences is for the benefit of the species, but it is the purpose of this treatise to claim the emotion of Arrogance is in place to take us down, or out, if necessary. Arrogance is there to ensure humanity does not overrun the planet (and eventually, anywhere else) without some proper and solid preparation and a complete assessment of the potential future. Further, Arrogance is in place in the event Nature takes the notion that this humanity thing has gone too far. 

Allow me to explain. Arrogance is what ensures our financial and economic systems only serve well a small percentage. If the typical blue collar worker was taking in a discretionary income allowing for plenty of toys and material possessions as well as a secure future for him and his children, allowing for vacations, retirement and plenty more children, then the world's resources would be placed in a  state of shock. Therefore, Arrogance ensures only a top minor percentage of people attain such luxury and that those below that percentage squander with what's left. It seems predatory, and it is, but this arrogant stance prevents humanity from overrunning the planet. 

It's Arrogance that ensures the common man cannot speak up and out when there are those like the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Eun, to speak on their behalf. The complete Arrogance of those in lofty positions of power and influence ensures there's always the possibility we can see to the demise of humanity before it threatens all else. In fact, the study of the human condition allowing for such conditions is intriguing at the least. Most recognize North Korea as a dictatorial state wherein the population is under the complete control of the state authority. Well, how this is not seen as a pure hostage situation is difficult to imagine, but what's even more fascinating is how the world's freest countries look at the situation as little more than sad and unfortunate for those there. But would there be some action taken to free an entire country's population from the megalomaniacal actions of one arrogant lunatic whose been convinced these people exist for the sake of his existence? Nope. Not even a blink of concern. 

Furthermore, the freest of countries experience their level of this dynamic. It simply amazes some to watch the actions and behavior of others when they're in proximity of high-level politicians (they're just politicians, but there they go), celebrities, artists, and even the weather man, for the love of Pete. If the person in question is one recognized widely, there must simply be something amazing about them. While it could be true that there just might be something amazing about them, it's common for them to develop a level of Arrogance, and this facilitates their insulation from being overwhelmed by their admirers. But the high-level Arrogance on a national level could very well be the key to all of human history. This could be so because Arrogance, which joins with territoriality, forces continual borders between lands and an inherent distrust between them. This fosters the open potential to continual conflict and therefore potential war, and this dynamic assists in the management of the human population. 

So, if humanity was not harboring a high level of Arrogance, there would be too many amongst our far-reaching population consuming far too much in resource, and the level of camaraderie amongst the world's peoples would facilitate a vast potential for population growth, inundating the world's resources even further. 

So, if you're ever bothered by some arrogant asshole who comes across as one of the most irritating people you've met, take a moment to recognize their uncomfortable emotional attitude is actually good for the universe as a whole as well as the overall quality of life for this planet's nonhuman residences. 

The Time for War

My reasons for this treatise are not to indicate we're again approaching the threat of war, mainly since we're always at the threat of war. 

Instead, I want to approach the subject from as detached and and a distant point as possible. I want to view it from a perspective of, why does it exist at all? One who believes in the power and rule of nature, regardless of their religious perspective, must concede that war is a significant aspect of the human condition. Therefore, rather than view war as a tragic occurrence within the human situation (since such conclusions would appear redundant), it seems fair to seek why it is there at all. 

It won't be the purpose of this post to trace through historical record, deeply examine the mechanics of war, or quest for the magical moment that started any particular conflict. Rather, the goal is to explore the natural entity or consequence bringing this behavioral phenomenon to pass.

It is entirely fair to see it as a purely natural consequence, just from a philosophical perspective. After all, how could something exist (particularly something that is clearly not rare or a fluke) outside of the parameters of Nature? Pursuing this with the filter seeing that nothing unnatural exists, we must concede that war is a function of Nature. 

First, we can assume war assists Nature with the function of population control for a species obviously near the top of the food chain as well as being in control of any potential predators. Just walk through that scenario for a moment- if there was no war, what would our population issues be? How about the resource issues? 

After all, the beginning the nineteenth century prompted a new paradigm within the human condition, which is humanity's ability to conquer much of which checks the population from outside the species. Disease, weather, resource availability, famine and other issues forcing susceptibility on humanity have been fought well. These things are all still issues, of course, but humanity has put up a great fight. Infant mortality rates are way down, while life expectancy continues to climb. Medications are what they are and simple things like antibiotics save so many lives. 

As a result, the human population, which was thought to have reached a population plateau right near a billion in number for ages, suddenly started rising and is continuing to do so. Yet, we saw war and the effectiveness of war escalate equally. We have to concede there is a correlation, since the very technologies and discoveries saving lives are also from the same minds seeking spectacular new ways to destroy lives. 

So it seems these two natural consequences are trying to keep in pace with one another. The two indicated are: humanity seeking the future successfully and with a goal of sentience and civilization, and humanity adhering to old instincts dictating we must annihilate one another, mainly because nothing else helps with the culling. But we don't pursue a conscious culling, do we? No, we fight to protect what is threatened or in order to support a greater assurance of survival. Or, so we convince ourselves. We fight to protect that first goal, right?

So, we desire sentience but we have a long way to go. It's clear we're more resistant of war than in times passed, which could be a promising sign, but war preparation still seems to be among our finest employers. And the reasons are still prehistoric; they are not us so they must be evil in intent, or could be at any time (even when we know better). But being resistant of war is an intriguing sign...but of what? Are we recognizing the insanity or is a higher situation preparing our kind for something incredible? 

It stands to reason war began as a means of population control (and the simple equation of the survival of the fittest) but evolved to this dramatic state along with us rather than dissipating. So now, rather than dealing with issues sensibly, we still fall prey to the issues prompting the old instinctual response. This is fascinating because our thirst to engage in war as necessary prompted incredible weaponry of immense power and destructive force, blending the two instincts of ensuring survival (because technological advancement is equally natural and a proper course for our species' development).

To make it fun, I must point out that part of the instinct, or rather a facet of it, is to foster political instability and polarity. 

After all, there must be a catalyst that makes sense to us, right on the ground. It cannot be a seasonal thing or according to some astronomical cycle (this is an assumption) but must be something we perceive as reasonable and worthy of blood. But we also must notice how, when the time since war goes long, tolerances fade and then extremes become all too common. 

The observations of human behavior during times of peace compared to tumultuous times preceding war is intriguing. During peaceful, easy times, people can be tolerant, understanding and forgiving. But it should be noted they're mostly of a very similar demographic, although different demos will often leave one another peaceful space. But when times get tough, it seems as though every little issue is one of the utmost importance. 

Why? In order to foster anger and a passion for blood. Mentioned just before is how the political dynamic fits in, and it fits in all too well. During times of peace and ease, our political body fosters a continuation of progress and growth (often due to recent recovery from war), but it never fails for politicians and such leaders of immense influence to seek greater and greater control, pursue trivial matters as subjects of grand importance, and to lose focus of genuine priority as a result of spinning bureaucracy. We've seen these cycles over and over through history, yet are more than happy to repeat the scenario. Why? Because it causes discord, discontent, a loss of tolerance, and then a perceived need for conflict. 

It appears war helps with our evolutionary process because war and survival prompt us to do what we can to survive against the enemy, all the while this so-called enemy is working hard to achieve survival skills. War is a tremendous motivator to do better in virtually all aspects of common affairs. 

I have a theory as to why war is not as wanton as it once was, years ago, and it has to do with the sudden push in evolutionary development. Up until the end of the nineteenth century, fighting and war was incessant everywhere, but then we started to see it. 

WWI brought us dramatic images of war, and then WWII brought far more. In fact, Holocaust footage is heinous. Combat footage has only improved at a geometric rate ever since. So, our natural tendency to wage war only because we have no real-world picture of its consequence has been affected. Or, the fantastic picture of the outcome (being of incredible peace and tranquility) lying within the subconscious is checked by reality and therefore the fantasy never comes to pass. Thus, war seems too tragic and must be an absolute last resort. 

Sure, the twentieth century has seen horrifying war, but the fact is that it has not measured correctly with the heavy losses. Or, we have populated at a disproportionate rate compared to the annihilation rate. So much so that the average population of today is more than seven times what it was less than two hundred years ago. In fact, it has doubled in just the last fifty years. 

Yes, the global population has doubled in the last fifty years. 

The dynamic is likely to combust. One pictures a tectonic condition in that when tectonic plates run normally, quakes are small and common. But when they bind and build up pressure before finally breaking loose with violence, the outcome is historic in nature as well as catastrophic. My concern is the conflicts we've seen since after Vietnam are little more than minor quakes portending a monster to shake us to our core. My concern is that once the present pressure breaks loose, our kind will see war and chaos unlike we've ever seen before. It will be akin to what has been prophesied by soothsayers for ever. 

Some have said the End Times are marked by major and horrible global conflicts replete with unimaginable death and horror. But virtually all of these prophecies state there will be a great time of lasting peace thereafter. 

So, for what do we root? Do we claim a desire to get the show on the road, or do we strive to relax and avoid such heinous conflict, slowing our forward evolution while seeking peace. Unfortunately, we're not at true peace anywhere. Most are polarized over the silliest of issues and the value of human life has been reduced to how many times can one trick out a captive eleven-year-old girl before she gets so unappealing that she requires disposal and then replacement. If we take a look at what our society as a whole has become, we have dropped many notches in the compassionate and moral standards. It seems logical to assume these are natural catalysts to spur the natural consequences into action. But, our resistance is equally as natural, of course. Thus, a dramatic paradigm shift in evolutionary progress. 

War is not always between countries, and it being so is a relatively recent situation. Once, Chinese provinces and states fought continually, as did the Europeans. Insurrections and conquests were once the norm, really a part of daily life. Look at what occurs throughout African villages even today. Once upon a time, powerful societies were constantly taking over their weaker and less resilient neighbors. Today, war is not just between nations. Look at the propensity of gang violence and organized crime. Further, war is not always an armed conflict fought with weapons and won over blood. Such conflict is often seen in the courtroom, the business meeting, and the world of sport. 

Overall, it seems we're a creature requiring constant conflict and, sadly, brutal conquest. But could these dynamics be leading us towards a greater and better humanity? War and the threat of war brought us to a level of technology better than most would have imagined just a century ago. Technology based on military research and development is all around us. War and the threat of war has shaped the way our cultures work in so many ways, particularly in regards to the methods in how borders and boundaries work. But could we ever find our way to an evolutionary point where such bloody and vulgar methods to learn are no longer necessary? 

Sure. We could only hope so. But we're going to have to spill a lot of blood before that time comes. Could we end up spilling so much blood that our kind will not recover and that humanity's opportunity for success will be gone? Sadly, that seems the most likely situation.