ordinary peace at odds in extraordinary times.

When conditions for the majority of the average citizens of a supposedly orderly society become painfully unjust, the paradigm of what is ordinarily acceptable public behavior shifts such that it calls into question the application of concepts of order, and highlights the refractory nature of activism as it is caught between between perspectives of conduct, and the definition of what is "ordinary" in any case; and here, in other words, we find ourselves perplexed by civility v civil disobedience and what must be considered a rightful and ordinary response to extraordinary conditions as opposed to ordinary situations.

     It also becomes a special quandary for individuals whose "profession" ordinarily sets them apart from the citizenry. Police officers, for example, sometimes find themselves in this predicament, while soldiers are fairly programmed to shed the passivity of the civilian altogether. In the case of this "peace officer", what shall he or she do if because of personal preference or ethical leanings they sympathize with protestors they must control at all cost? They are employed to scrutinize in the least in this case and must refrain from natural involvement and even perhaps humane impulses for the sake of augmenting their own aggressive means of persuasion or ultimately the use of lethal force on behalf of property and the happy routine of business and employed or otherwise by-standing others.  It cannot be a happy resolve in which the officer resides. As much as they are required to keep their emotions in check they still must answer to their own sense humanity at the end of each work day. 

     A soldier on the other hand likely finds him- or herself isolated for days, months, years of extraordinary circumstances such that to return to civilian life after combat for too many is lengthy and painful yet always surreal for them. Regardless the duration or frequency, for both the soldier and the officer, this is a morally shattering event that calls into question finally whether humans can indeed call themselves social beings, but rather, the species appears to be rife with lone, parasitic, rogue entities. Such are the greater organizations called corporations that claim to be "persons". The question for the officers and soldiers now becomes: which "persons" do they purport to represent versus who do they really protect. Every one of these hired "protecters" must eventually ask themselves this question. An officer maces a peaceful protester, a soldier kills a civilian... and yet too many are lulled into believing that such is the cost of democracy, that "free enterprise" benefits a society, that to obstruct traffic is only definable as unruly and unlawful, when by comparison to the rampant aggregation of wealth and power is more truly uncivil and even anti-American given our false promises amongst the community of nations.

     Whose order and routine must not be interfered with? Or rather how do we determine a provisional protocol for such upending events as popular protest in the streets whether in commercial or residential zones?
     The above paragraphs are not to suggest that officers of the law are wrongfully motivated to protect property. Nor should they be unfairly blamed for the weighty influence of wealth that has been strangling the economy.  Being employed by the state they naturally inherit the first blows of a growingly unhappy public domain.
     In recent months, this eventuality sadly has revealed that racism continues to contaminate the state of our union. We are not unified, and worse, those of color are especially violated and lately murdered for the sake of an order prescribed by non other than predominately white business leaders. I find this incomprehensible, inexcusable, and most of all immoral and criminal no matter how we define ordinary or the conduct of the police force versus the citizens. Perhaps this is less about defining the parameters of professional protocol and more about the spectrum human nature. Are we still infused with an animal lust to control our surroundings, or are we rationally motivated to maintain an overall prosperity. When poverty becomes ordinary, it must be recognized that something fundamental must be shifted if not discontinued.