Watch the dramas closely sometime and catch the subtle messages that become less and less subtle as time and society goes on. When the police either kill him or get him put into prison, everyone’s sympathy goes out to the wife and children who had to suffer the deceit of the criminal who posed as husband and father to the unsuspecting innocent members of the family.

It’s pretty cut-and-dried as far as Hollywood is concerned. Pure propaganda bombards the American public to loathe and despise the criminal. The utopian ideal is that if we get rid of all the criminals, we will have only good, decent and peaceful people left, and what a wonderful world it would be.

However, I have a theory which should resist most arguments, and that is that if every existing law we have on the books today were obeyed to the letter, some group would lobby legislation creating more laws which would define even more human behaviors as criminal.

Think about it. The Puritans were probably a healthy example of this phenomenon. If every existing law were obeyed, some influential person would exercise their talent to decide that wearing hair on your head longer than 1 inch in length was an abomination against all of humanity and should be defined through legislation as criminal. Sounds preposterous? Of course it does. That’s one of the strongest reasons that it could happen.

England, in the seventeenth century, I believe, had over 400 crimes which were punishable by "hanging by the neck until dead." The most atrocious of the incidents of executions was that of a ten-year—old boy, who was hung for a second offense of petty theft. I guess they taught him a lesson, as well as all the other ten—year-olds not to commit petty thefts more than once! Preposterous? Who knows?

The point I am trying to make is that in the classic endeavor of mankind to impose order on chaos, such societies invariably become reactive and eventually over-react to issues with focused energy generated out of classic "righteous indignation," which usually evolves into some form of "self—righteous indignation," Even the concept "chaos" is subject to definition of those in power.

Is this a new concept? Is this the first time things were viewed in this light? No way! It’s just that the problem defined by me or people like me is not a problem to the people who have the power to change things for our benefit. Gambling isn’t a bad thing, if I am winning; drinking booze isn’t a bad thing, if I’m having fun; whore mongering isn’t a bad thing, if I am getting to screw the whores; robberies aren’t bad if you get away with them. The same of rapes, murders, adultery, etc.

Only when we are the victims, losers, or hapless targets of such enterprises do we think of how terrible such behaviors are. I know there are people who are good and decent and would abhor such behaviors whether they were directed at them or not. But these kind of people very seldom gain power in the social structure. These good qualities usually burn out in the necessities of ambitious politics. Innocence has no place in the character of the ruling elite. When politicians attempt to awaken their conscience, their career is usually over; no colleague will trust them.

This may account for the occasional "whistle-blower" who is usually discredited immediately before he or she can usurp the status quo with their "rantings." Seriously, I believe that on occasion there have been such incidents staged to inoculate the public against future genuine expose. This kind of event occurs when some woman may come forward and make allegations against some prominent public figure, and then, through vigorous, intelligent investigatory work, the allegations are proven false or are recanted by the thoroughly discredited woman who initially made the complaint. Then, when and if another complaint--which is genuine——is made, there lingers the remembrance to create an instant bias toward disbelief. This isn’t even a conscious process for most people; it just falls under the auspices of people acting on what they think is their "gut" feelings.

I was just looking around in here where I’m trying to write. I’m at the end of a hallway that is littered with other inmate bodies other than my own. It is smoky and dimly lighted. There are rag-tag tables in need of repair with metal—frame chairs which are also in various stages of disrepair. There is no working ventilation system other than leaky framework around the windows. The air is stale and there is always the smell of unwashed bodies in the air. It stays noisy with inmates lounging around the tables occupied with card players. Most of the inmates habitually seem to speak at the top of their voices.

I have made the observation that if an inmate isn’t quite sure what he is talking about, he will get loud so that no one really knows the difference. Sometimes it seems that if these loud mouths keep repeating something over and over that it will somehow make it be true.