Floyd Lee Corkins II, who pleaded guilty in federal court on Wednesday to the Aug. 15 shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC), identified the FRC as a target by using the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which includes what it calls a “Hate Map” that features the FRC's Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Can you follow any of that shit ? Neither can I. There's more :
OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association.
Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:
- a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
- specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and
- the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.
This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.
These are the two ends of this problem, and in between those two ends there's an abundance of diverse subproblems. On one hand, there's groups of idiots who, under the guise of "protecting" some worthy or worthless cause, organise hate troopers to target rival groups of idiots pursuing some other worthy or worthless cause. The causes may come in conflict themselves or the muppets might simply have been involved in a case of roadrage or alienation of affection some time ago. Or it may just be something they've all read (on the Internet). It all makes scarce difference in the end.
On another hand, the rules of the game have become longer than life itself. A new bill that's not a few thousands of pages long seems barely worth considering anymore. An attempt at writing the definitive book on current law is doomed to failure : it just can't be done. In such a context, where nobody alive can safely state that he knows the whole of the law, when therefore ignorance of the law is not only widespread but outright universal and pointedly unavoidable, how do I distinguish between J.D. Rooke, allegedly an associate justice, and Random Joe Blow, allegedly a THIS FEDERAL-JUDGE, whatever that may mean ? And what does either of these styles, pretentions and fancies mean, in the end ?
Sure, I suppose I should pick one rather than the other. What shall I pick on ? They both make an abrupt claim to holding the definitive truth, and the only holy algorithms which enact the will of divinity into the very ground we walk upon. Much akin to any religion, they both, they all think the world of themselves. One is slightly cleverer than the other (but in spite of what Mr. Rooke may think, he's not that impressively clever, at least not to my eye), which in turn is simpler than the first. What'd you prefer, the complex and on occasion amusing or the simple and in general mindnumbingly stolid ? O, it's not a matter of preference, right ? You have to!!!! pick the only right one (ie, each one's thing in their own estimation). Woe unto the thinking mind among so many idiots telling it what it has to!!!! pick.
On yet another hand, states have very little to offer as an unifying factor. National sentiment has been unwisely relegated to the poo-poo corner. Attempts to unite the horde around Santa's sack of gifts only work to a point. What do you do the other 364 days of the year ? What do you do with the kids older than about 6, who understand precious well that all they have to do is claim dissatisfaction in order to get more ? Not that the point matters any, the state is bankrupt anyway, as the rich see little point in continuing the charade.
So explain to me how is this supposed to work. People should stick to one particular text describing reality rather than all the other countless alternatives because... What goes in that blank space ? Not because of fascist notions such as the flag, queen, country etc, for sure. Not because of their own economic self interest. Not because the stuff makes sense. Why then, exactly ?
It would seem everyone proceeds with the completely unwarranted expectation that things will stick together just because. Meanwhile, the whole system is breaking down.