More  Soon...

IF we're here because we're being tested, it's obvious that the test is about power.

If you think about it, pretty much every human gets the chance to be tested on how they will handle power. In one way or another, we will each have power over another person or people at some point during our lifetime. And vice versa. How will we handle it?

The most obvious power scenario is with parents and children. Parents always have power over children. They can be thoughtful and mindful about this power. Or they can be tyrannical. Men have physical and political power over women and children. Women have power over children and, in some ways potentially, men as well. Bosses have a certain amount of power over employees. Employees have the power to sabotage their bosses if they want to. Governments have power over citizens. The police clearly have power over people because they have both weapons and the sanctioned, long arm of the law. Sometimes larger groups of people have had power over smaller groups of people or minorities. And historically, they've abused it, as we all know. There are all kinds of scenarios where, for one reason or the other, a person is in a position of power over another. They don't need to have done anything wrong to get the power, although sometimes they do. But it is a huge responsibility.

One problem related to power, is the fact that humans - as a whole - are still very small minded at this time. Based on their behavior, I'd say people are challenged by very dumb things. What I mean is that people freak out over the tiniest differences in others - almost as if their psyche views all differences in others as challenges to themselves or their own way of doing things. This would seem to indicate an underlying insecurity - which is exactly what I think it is.

Since it can be observed that people get offended by even the tiniest differences - even when a person may have done nothing intentionally to be different - it's no wonder race and gender have been such a problem for so many. Probably not for most of us regular people who interact with each other on a daily basis in America now. But historically, it's clearly caused a lot of problems and confusion for some and continues to be an issue for some.

For another example, why do certain people, who claim to be Christian, behave like the most judgemental people alive? "Christian" is defined as following the example of Christ. I do know one or two who fill that bill and are conscientious, rational, kind people. But most of the people whom I've witnessed claiming to be Christian, are actually the farthest thing from it and nothing like how Christ is described in the Bible. So why do so many Christians get so upset by people who don't agree with them? If they're secure in their own beliefs, then they should have at least some tolerance of others' lack of entirely identical beliefs. But I'll get more into that later.

Today I want to talk about Renee Good and Jonathan Ross. What Mr. Ross did two days ago is shameful. It was arrogant, entitled, and evil. Yes, a thorough investigation is required. But thank goodness for phone cameras. Just like when George Floyd was murdered in the street in the same town of Minneapolis, the by-standers captured enough video for anyone with a single brain cell to see with their own eyes that this was murder. Mr. Ross should be feeling shame over what happened but it doesn't appear at this point, like that's going to be the case. I've seen the videos and there doesn't appear to be one single thing to remotely justify this cold-blooded murder by the ICE official. The assertion that Ms. Good was a member of a "left-wing" group of radicals? Ridiculous! But, just for argument's sake... what if she had been a member of some sort of objectionable group? So what? She would still be a human being. This is where people get tripped up. They are very ethno-centric, meaning they have an entire "us against them" mentality towards life in general. So they see things as very black and white. No grey areas, so definitely no room for any differences. To that type of person, accusing someone of having something wrong with their world view sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to justify shooting them for no imminent reason!

But here is the thing: Anyone acting as any kind of law enforcement should necessarily be extremely careful with rules of engagement. There should be clear, potential consequences for making the decision to fire your gun, but frequently there aren't. Did you know that the most frequent and likely way any person ever gets killed by a gun...

is at the hands of the police? That's a general problem our society has, which has never been addressed and which seems to be as bad as ever.

As a side note, although police have a tremendous responsibility to be careful towards us, it doesn't mean they should be the targets of citizens who want to assault them. Several police officers were intensely, physically attacked while guarding our Capitol on January 6, 2021. Officer Fanone was dragged away, tazed (an extremely painful thing) until he had a heart attack, and beaten unconscious. There is no justification for that. This officer was just there, trying to do his job of protecting the area. He'd done nothing to them. Another officer (Sicknick) died the next day after being assaulted. How was he to know that a mob of lunatics was coming who saw him as the enemy? Both of these men had been Republican supporters - at least at first, from what we know.

Fast forward to 2026. Certain people are trying to say that Ms. Good tried to run over Mr. Ross even though the videos don't sbow that. Presumably, all the videos will be scrutinized in an official investigation. But the fact that they're already saying she was the aggressor, looks highly politically motivated when, conversely, Republican pundits won't even defend the life and civil rights of Officer Fanone. In real life, there IS NO black and white (or red and blue) separation of political parties in which one is made up of all the reasonable people and the other of all the evil people. In fact, I don't like either of the parties much. But if I defend the civil rights of both a citizen trying to leave a scene (Ms. Good) and and also the rights of a Republican-leaning police officer trying to do his job by standing guard at the Capitol while rioters vandalized it - some wack jobs out there will say I am politically motivated, even though I do not identify with either party. I identify with fairness and NO ONE BEING ASSAULTED - EVER. None of these people, Ms. Good or the Capitol police, should have been assaulted or killed by anyone, regardless of their political affiliations.

Anyway, it isn't only Mr. Ross' shooting actions that are a problem. One of the recordings indicates that he proclaimed Ms. Good a "f*cking b*tch" right AFTER he had shot at her three times! People don't realize how powerful language is, or the fact that language is weaponized all the time. Assuming this recording is proven, in fact, to be of Mr. Ross' voice, it perfectly showcases his mindset and attitude of superiority. The "B" word continues to be used against women in ways that no one would tolerate the "N" word being used on anyone. That's because sexism is SO deeply ingrained in our society that people don't even notice it at all. Kind of like when the laws changed so that blacks could supposedly vote. But actually, that only applied to black men because people were so completely blind that it never occurred to them for one split second that women were also human beings in their own right, separate from their husbands. Similarly, demonstrative sexism continues to be an accepted practice today.

The "B" word rolled off Mr. Ross' tongue so easily, because our society condones this type of hatred. While the "N" word was taken back by its victims many years ago and cannot even be uttered - and rightly so - at the same time, the "B" word got more and more popular. Starting in the 80's, rappers began to memorialize the "B" word in their songs for all of posterity. Can you imagine if the same thing were done with the "N" word by the very perpetrators who routinely use it to express their hostility? Of course not, because THAT wouldn't happen now. One extreme example of how the "B" word is used against women, is manifest in the popular curse "Son of a b*tch" by which - instead of coining a word to insult a man - our sexist culture coined a phrase to insult and blame the nearest woman instead - a man's mother. This is regular old bigotry. Could you imagine the same bigots getting away with calling someone a "Son of a [N Word]"? Of course not! But men continue to perpetrate calling women the "B" word, almost as if it were a synonym for "woman" in some instances, and calling men "Sons of [B 's]".

I don't like that there is a separate, specific word which is supposed to define hatred towards women, so I'm not going to say it because, somehow, that validates it as something different from regular old, stupid hatred, hostility, and bigotry. The officer is a bigot who has revealed his motivation. A victim's identity should not increase or decrease the significance of any particular assault, but - at the same time - with Mr. Ross' motivtion apparently revealed, this falls under the category of what is currently called a hate crime.

​

​

- Crystal

© 2026. CrystalCleary.com.

All rights reserved.

Terms & Disclaimer

Privacy

All Articles

Contact