WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM- WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU ON T.V. PT 2.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Court, be it Civil or Criminal, can say one thing with certainty;  The Majority of time a Courtroom in session is a boring and tedious venue, that most people outside the practice of law would find hard to comprehend.

Naturally, this does not translate well for attracting viewers to programs offered on Network or Cable Television, that focus on Trials currently being adjudicated.  The Answer?  Bring in Personable Hosts that "Mediate" debates conducted with "Special Guests" brought in to lend their expertise about the proceedings being broadcast over the air.  Since a Courtroom in session spends a great deal of time upon matters of proper procedure, which involves only the Attorneys and Presiding Judge, these interactions between Host and Guests must engage the viewer enough to prevent them from changing the Channel.

So, what do they choose to discuss, this panel of experts?  Many times it is the Conduct and Manner of the Counsel representing both sides.  Since most these shows focus on Criminal proceedings, it leads us to the next point;

- THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ADVOCACY BASED, OR, "MAY THE BEST LAWYER WIN."  TRUTH, JUSTICE AND EXPEDIENCY ARE PREFERRED, BUT NOT NECESSARY.

When you listen to the commentary from the Host and Guests, you may notice that the criticisms seem to be less about the Law, and more about such things as Physical Appearance, Courtroom Behavior and the Ability to capture and hold the attention of the Judge, Jury and the attending Media.

This mirrors a concept that many Americans refuse to accept or acknowledge; ENTERTAINMENT OFTEN TRUMPS INTELLECT. 

Look for PT 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- A DANGER ALL AROUND US. PT 19.

As I said in part 18, the FAILED SOCIOPATH is the Easiest to Identify, but those who are in Crisis and Vulnerable may not see Their TRUE NATURE UNTIL IT IS TO LATE.

By To Late, I mean Allowing  the Failed Sociopath Access to Intimate Parts of Their Lives.  It could be Financial, Social, Sexual, or the Most Personal and Devastating Category: FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

In Many of These Cases, perhaps even the Majority, it is others who see the Danger First, seeing this New Part of Someones Life for what they really are; AMORAL OPPORTUNISTS WHO SENSE WEAKNESS AND VULNERABILITY MOVING INTO THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ATTEMPTING TO CONTROL THIS NEW VICTIM SO THEY CAN GAIN THE FINANCIAL, EMOTIONAL OR SPIRITUAL UPPER- HAND.

Unfortunately,  Although the Failed Sociopath is Fairly Easy to spot, especially if your the One in the Relationship, IT TAKES INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL DISCIPLINE TO ADMIT THAT YOUR BEING VICTIMIZED.  This is Something Many are Unwilling to Consider, at Least in the Beginning.

Nobody likes to Admit They have been Fooled.  It is even more TRAUMATIC WHEN IT IS SOMEONE THE VICTIM THOUGHT CARED ABOUT THEM, EVEN TO THE POINT OF CREATING A FACADE OF LOVE AND DEVOTION.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1)  BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, AND SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE.

Nothing can Really be Accomplished in Removing the SOCIOPATH FROM YOUR LIFE, IF YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. The Failed Sociopath, or for that Matter any Category of Sociopath, Counts on Wishful Thinking and the Fear of Public Exposure about the Truth of the Relationship, to Work in Their Behavior.

Perhaps the First Test in Measuring the Odds that you are Dealing with a Sociopath, Particularly if it is Close  Personal Relationship, should be something like the following:

REVERSE THE ROLES, AND ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION;  IF I TREATED THIS PERSON IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER, WOULD I CONSIDER MY BEHAVIOR APPROPRIATE?  FURTHER, WOULD I EXPECT THIS PERSON TO STAY WITH ME, OR PERMANENTLY LEAVE THE RELATIONSHIP?

In other Words, if you wouldn't Treat Someone in such a HEINOUS MANNER, why would you allow them to GET AWAY WITH SUCH BEHAVIOR BEING DIRECTED AT YOU?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN- A SENSE OF DUTY TO HIS COUNTRY... NOW AND THEN. UPDATED...12/2/2017.

THIS IS WHAT HONOR SOUNDS LIKE.
"I cannot in good conscience vote for Graham-Cassidy. A bill impacting so many lives deserves a bipartisan approach." SENATOR JOHN McCAIN.

UPDATED...12/2/2017...MY MISTAKE, I GUESS HONOR IS FOR SALE. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. HOW MANY RELATIVES AND ANCESTORS OF THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY, WILL NO LONGER HAVE AFFORDABLE MEDICAL INS. HOW "PROUD" NIMITZ WOULD BE.

LOGIC. A LOGICAL FALLACY FROM THE "ANIMAL KINGDOM?" PT 2.

The RED HERRING is a common Logical Fallacy.  Unfortunately, sometimes it is hard to pick up on, because of its Flagrant Absurdity.

It is the Literal, "COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD", type of response.  It catches many Debaters off guard, who try to find the Reasoning behind it, but cannot because it is Essentially Nonsensical. 

It is used for many different reasons, and with a little practice can be a Formidable Weapon to create Doubt and Dissension among Opponents and Casual Observers. 

It can be a Developed Skill, used to confuse the Issue at Hand, and directed at those unfamiliar with the Rules of Deductive Reasoning. 

Naturally, there are certain Professions that can turn this Fallacy into an Effective Tool.  It can be used to gain support, or influence others to make decisions that are not considered carefully, and without an eye towards possible Deception.

Here is an example;

Politicians-  There are many issues that a Constituency might consider important, but for those Voters voicing opinions that might come across as Narrow Minded, Prejudicial, or Self- Centered, when viewed by the Opposition or the Undecided, an Unscrupulous Politician can provide a "RED HERRING" that creates a Scapegoat or Phantom Enemy, to justify the opinions put forth by that part of the Electorate. 

Remember, the RED HERRING HAS NOTHING TO WITH TRUTH, FACTS, AND THE REALITY OF A GIVEN SITUATION.  ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO HIDE THE ACTUAL REASONING BEHIND THE OPINIONS BEING EXPRESSED.

IT IS A FALLACY THAT LOOKS FOR EXCUSES TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN ISSUES, OR THE JUDGMENT THAT IS BEING EXPRESSED ON GIVEN SUBJECTS.