HUMILIATION TELEVISION; REALITY TV AND "JUSTICE FOR ALL."

 When you are watching Reality Television that is filmed in a courtroom setting, remember one thing;  In no way, shape or form is this a legitimate and true to life depiction of civil proceedings that are part of the U.S. Legal System.

To begin with, the presiding individual has no legal authority, they are playing the role of  judge.

( Yes, they may have been a legitimate court official in the past, but not in this setting.)  Many times their manner, vocabulary and rulings are so outrageous, that if it had been done while sitting on the bench, it could have been grounds for censure or removal from office.  Their tough love search for truth is a sham, that often borders on the ludicrous.  Dialogue that includes name calling, ridicule and personal insults puts this make believe setting on the same intellectual level with a grade school playground. 

Oh, by the way, the Bailiffs are also fake.  No real authority, just window dressing. (Although, in the past, they may have held such a position in an official capacity.)

The cases are researched by staffers, and include suggestions sent in by viewers who may be involved in an actual civil case currently pending.

Here are a few more things that differentiate Reality Court T.V., from an actual court of law;

-  The Plaintiff and Defendant must sign an ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. This binds them both to accept the judgment, and to not litigate it further. ( Except in the rare case where it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.)   

-  Both sides are usually paid an appearance fee.  In addition,  travel expenses are paid, and a daily stipend may be given to both sides.

-  Any judgments are paid from a fund set up by the producers, not from either party involved in the lawsuit. 

-  There have been accusations of contrived and scripted cases, that were either partially or totally made up fiction.  Care to guess what would happen if this was attempted in a true court of law, where both sides are trying to DEFRAUD THE COURT?  In the U.S. it is called a FELONY.

In the end, Reality Courtroom Television is just another example of  mind numbing and tasteless programming, from a genre that constantly looks for new ideas to pollute the airways.  All in the name of entertainment.

Look for PT 11.

FEATURE ARTICLES. A TRUMP VISION OF THE U.S.?

WHAT ARE THE TRUE GOALS OF A DONALD TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND WHAT WILL SUCH POLICIES MEAN TO ALL AMERICANS, NOW, AND IN THE FUTURE?

HERE IS A SHORT LIST TO CONSIDER:

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS                                      REPUBLICANS.

            SUPPORT.

                                                                                        

                                                                                         

-  UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.                                         OPPOSE ALL

-  RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.                                           OF

-  LEGALIZING SAME- SEX MARRIAGE.                              THESE.

-  RESTRICTIONS AND DISCLOSURE LAWS,                       

   ON CONTROLLING  CAMPAIGN SPENDING.

-  PROVIDING SANCTUARY FOR WAR REFUGEES 

   FROM SYRIA.

... AND STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS.

WHAT CAN WE TAKE FROM THIS?

It is a List that gives us a snapshot OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON A NATIONAL LEVEL. ( OR ISN'T IMPORTANT, TAKE YOUR PICK.)

It can also give us INSIGHT INTO WHY THEY ARE ANXIOUS TO DEMONIZE ENTIRE GROUPS OF HUMAN BEINGS, WHICH INCLUDES FELLOW AMERICANS, WHO ARE GUILTY OF NOTHING.

HOW SO?

REPUBLICANS DO NOT SUPPORT

ANYTHING ON THE LIST, EVEN THOUGH IT...

-  Gives different groups of AMERICAN CITIZENS 

RELIEF FROM SPECIFIC CAUSES OF ECONOMIC 

DISTRESS. ( UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, RAISING

THE MINIMUM WAGE.)

-  Offers an OPPORTUNITY FOR COUPLES OF THE 

SAME GENDER, TO ENTER INTO A LEGAL AND MORAL

MARRIAGE CONTRACT. 

-  Expands or Creates Laws that Limit Campaign Spending, and

Discloses Lists of Prominent Donors.

-  Expands Gun Control Laws To:  REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS,

LIMIT PRIVATE GUN SALES, RESTRICT THE SALE OF

AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. 

-  OFFERS REFUGE TO WAR VICTIMS, WHO ALREADY

HAVE TO PASS A COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK, AND

HAVE NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF HARMING ANYONE.

WITH THE ABOVE IN MIND, LET US ASK THE FOLLOWING:

QUESTION #1.

WHICH PART OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS

HARMED BY ANY OF THESE?

IF SO, HOW, AND IS THE HARM ENOUGH TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT

THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ANY CITIZEN?

QUESTION #2.

DO ANY OF THESE ALLEVIATE HARDSHIP, OR CAUSE IT?

QUESTION #3.

WHO BENEFITS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS LIST,

AND WHO SUFFERS?

QUESTION #4.

DOES THIS LIST VIOLATE ANY PORTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,

IF SO, HOW?

QUESTION #5-  DO ANY OF THESE REMEDY PAST INJUSTICES,

OR ELIMINATE ANY INEQUALITIES FOUND IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, OR IN CIVIL LAW.

??????

Date- 12/10/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

QUICK HITTERS. A QUESTION OF RIGHTS?- HERE WE GO AGAIN. PT 2.

RIGHTS ARE BASICALLY GUARANTEES OF PROTECTION, WHICH ARE ADMINISTERED BY A SPECIFIC AUTHORITY THAT SETS AND DEFINES THEM ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC GUIDELINES, USUALLY AS PART OF A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WISHES TO CREATE A LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF MORAL ABSOLUTES.

IN CIVIL LAW, RIGHTS MAY SHIELD INDIVIDUAL(S) AGAINST MALICIOUS ACTIONS, PUNISHMENTS, JUDGMENTS, OR REPRISALS AGAINST THEM FOR:

-  PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT IDENTIFY THEM AS BEING PART OF A SPECIFIC AND IDENTIFIABLE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES; GENDER, RACE, NATIONALITY, AND DISABILITY.

-  BEHAVIORS, BOTH PRIVATE AND PERSONAL, THAT CANNOT BE USED TO DENY THEM EQUAL STATUS AND STANDING BEFORE THE LAW.

-  BELIEFS AND/OR OPINIONS THAT ARE RELIGIOUS, SPIRITUAL, OR METAPHYSICAL IN NATURE.

ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROTECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY THAT CREATED THEM.

IN ETHICS AND RELIGION, RIGHTS ALLOW EACH INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS ABOUT MORALITY,  FREE OF OUTSIDE INFLUENCE, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS, TO LIVE A MORAL, OR "GOOD LIFE", ONE MUST BE FREE TO CHOOSE THE OPPOSITE.

QUICK HITTERS. HAS IT REALLY COME DOWN TO THIS? PT 2.

So Why Does a Certain Portion of the Electorate Stand behind Elected

Officials Who Advocate Economic Policies that seem to Favor the

Wealthy, and Ignore the needs of the Very Voters who Continue to Re-elect 

Them to Office?

Could it be One, or More, OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS; WHERE

FAULTY LOGIC, INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS, HYPOCRISY, AND RACIAL

STEREOTYPES ARE OFTEN THE FOUNDATIONS THAT UNDERLINE

THE CAMPAIGNS OF PARTICULAR POLITICIANS.

-  SOME ARE CONVINCED That Those who have "MADE IT", Deserve to be Left Alone. 

THE REASON: THEIR "WEALTH", AUTOMATICALLY MAKES THEM 

"MONEY EXPERTS", SO THEY MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

-  THEY ARE ENCOURAGED TO FOCUS ON CANDIDATES WHO DELIBERATELY Concentrate on Campaign Issues that have little to do with Addressing the Economic Concerns of the Average American, and FOCUS INSTEAD ON SOCIAL ISSUES SUCH AS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, GUN CONTROL, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, etc.

-  BEING CONVINCED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES WHO CRITICIZE FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS CREATED AND ADMINISTERED FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A MINIMAL STANDARD OF LIVING FOR EVERY AMERICAN. 

However, at the same time, THESE CANDIDATES SUPPORT MONETARY BAILOUTS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS THAT RESCUE FAULTY, DUBIOUS, OR EVEN ILLEGAL FINANCIAL DEALINGS, WHICH INCLUDES INVESTMENTS AND OTHER RISKY VENTURES.

IT'S A BIZARRE SITUATION...THAT SEEMS TO MAKE LITTLE SENSE...