San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 12, 2014

Everyone Is In Denial

The global warming propagandists love to tell me that I am in denial.  Others tell me that I am in denial about my obvious homophobia.  Still others tell me that I am in denial about my latent racist tendencies.  Mental health professionals assure me that my assertion that mental illness is a fiction is nothing more than a classic case of denial.  In fact, it seems as if every single person I disagree with believes that I am suffering from the psychological malady of denial in regards to whatever it is they want me to believe in.  I was thinking about this the other day and a thought came to me that I have never had before.  That is a rare occurrence for a Welshman.  Welshmen have only a couple dozen or so thoughts running about in our heads over our lifetimes.  By the time we are 10 or 11 years old we are pretty familiar with those thoughts and very little surprises us from that point onward.  Don't ask me to tell you about those thoughts.  They are too scary and way too difficult for anyone to understand who is not at least 75% Welsh.  That was generally true for me until the other day when a new thought popped into my head.  It was a bit spooky at first but I allowed myself to pursue the new thought. Then I suddenly realized that every single human being on the face of the earth is in denial.  Earthshaking, eh?  Please allow me to explain.
As many of you are aware, I live amoung a subcategory of humans known as Yuppies.  I have been among the Yuppies for three years now and I continue to learn new things about them on a regular basis.  One thing, however, that I immediately learned upon my arrival in their community is that they are all obsessive compulsive people.  Obsessive compulsive behavior is behavior that is manifested by human agents which is motivated by a powerful desire to exercise control over everything around them.  Those who practice it tend to become very good at the things they are obsessing upon.  Mental health professionals claim that obsessive compulsive disorder is a mental illness that turns its practitioners into victims of that illness but I have never seen any evidence of that.  Most Yuppies are OC and proud of it.  Being OC defines who they are and makes them the successful, wealthy, healthy, good smelling and extreme people they believe themselves to be.
Being extreme is important for Yuppies.  All of them practice some sort of extreme activity.  I know this because they tell me about their various extreme activities via the bumper stickers plastered all over their SUVs.  It took me a while to discern the code but now I realize that a round sticker with a "26.2" in the middle is telling me that the Yuppie driving the car engages in the extreme practice of marathon running.  Other Yuppies are OC about their work.  Many Yuppie moms are OC about their kids, making sure they go to the right schools and get into the right Yuppie colleges.   I have a Yuppie who lives on the corner who is OC about raising funds for government schools.  Two Yuppies up the street, who live across from each other, are OC about getting their respective, and opposite, political candidates elected each year.  That always makes for some exciting front yard signage wars.  Yuppie men are OC about their pectoral muscles and Yuppie women are OC about having stick-like upper arms with nary a trace of flab to be found.  Simply put, OC behavior is everywhere in Yuppiedom.
But Yuppies are not the only people who are OC.  Everyone tells me that drug addicts are also OC, and I believe they are right.  The only difference between drug addicts and Yuppies is the fact that drug addicts engage in a behavior the government says is wrong whereas Yuppies engage in a behavior the government says is praiseworthy.  There are grey areas of course.  The government is not quite sure if caffeine addiction is a good thing or a bad thing.  A consensus seems to be forming that sugar addiction is bad and, of course, we all know that people who are addicted to nicotine should be lined up and shot at dawn.  Still, I don't see much difference between the OC behavior of the drunk who drinks until he passes out and the Yuppie who works out for four hours a day on the treadmill.  Indeed, both are accomplishing the exact thing only via different pathways.  Do you know what they are accomplishing? I will tell you.  It is the new idea that popped into my head the other day.
But first I need to tell you about something else.  Human beings have a problem.  Nobody believes what I am about to write is true because human beings are all in denial of the truth, but all human beings have a serious problem.  Everyone of us is sinful.  Not only that, everyone of us knows that God, who is morally perfect,  has a moral claim on our life.  Combine those two truths and a horrific reality is the result.  All human beings who have ever lived are fully aware that they are totally depraved and utterly incapable of doing anything that would ever be considered morally good from the perspective of God's moral standard.  Even worse, all human beings in their natural state really and truly despise the God of the Bible (the only real God, by the way). On the other hand, all human beings know that God is going to judge them for their behavior.  This creates a real tension for humanity.  Each and every person who is alive today is fully aware of the fact that he hates God and is utterly incapable of doing anything about the fact that God will send him to hell for his sins.  Talk about a powerful motivation for denial...this truth gets to the very heart of the nature of denial and the absolute necessity of OC behavior to anesthetize ourselves in order to avoid comprehension of the truth.
The reason the drunk drinks is to escape reality.  The reason the Yuppie obsesses on whatever he is obsessing on today is to escape reality.  The reason people obsess on politics is to escape reality.  The reason people obsess on sports and sporting events is to escape reality.  The reason people obsess on money, women, pharmaceuticals, food and drink is to occupy their time so they do not have to consider their futures.  We are a world full of OC people, each doing his own peculiar form of OC behavior but all in agreement that the truth about God and ourselves must be suppressed at all costs.  Some become anorexic.  Some become bulimic.  Some become gossipers.  Some live for the weekend football game.  Some hop from garage sale to garage sale, searching for more meaningless items to buy and take home.  Some shop and others play golf.  The one thing all of these activities have in common is they are a means by which the individual may anesthetize himself to the truth about the real world.  Some are approved of by society and others are frowned upon but they all accomplish the same goal.....denial.
I have climbed a couple of mountains during my lifetime and on several occasions I have found myself in a difficult situation.  Sometimes I was prepared for the difficulties of the route with a rope and some protective devices.  On other occasions, however, I encountered tough sections on my selected route to the top for which I was not adequately prepared.  Do you know what I did each time that happened?  Each time I found myself in that predicament I did exactly the same thing.  The first thing I did was realize that I was about to make a move, or series of moves, that if not executed flawlessly would likely result in my death.  That created fear in me.  As I realized how afraid I was about the fact that I could possibly die I made the conscious decision to suppress all thoughts except what was immediately in front of me.  Each handhold, each footstep was carefully calculated and executed.  I was a model of concentration.  In fact, you could accurately describe me as extremely obsessive and compulsive about what I was doing for that particular pitch.  While I worked my way through the dangerous section there was nothing on my mind but the next move.  My OC attitude always created an amazing clarity about what I was doing.  An atomic bomb could have gone off in the valley below me and I probably would not have noticed it.  That is what OC behavior does.  It suppresses every thought about everything but itself. 
Being OC for a couple of minutes in order to get through a potentially life threatening section of a mountain climbing route is not a bad thing.  Being OC all the time about everything and anything in order to suppress the certain reality of hell in your future is a bad thing.  But you know what?  There is not a thing you can do about it.  Unless God changes your heart that is your future.  That is why God told us to "give strong drink to him who is perishing."  God knows that you know there is nothing you can do about it if He does not act to save you.  He tells hell-bound men to anesthetize themselves to ease the transition from this life to the next.  Meanwhile, you will obsess and engage in compulsive behavior every minute of your life in order to suppress the truth about your sin and God's judgement.  You will live in perpetual denial.  If you are a successful Yuppie those around you will praise you and reward you for your OC behavior.  If you are a stinking drunk those around you will despise you and punish you for your OC behavior.  But in the end it really does not matter very much if you are a Yuppie or a drunk.  All OC highways create the same state of denial and lead to the same hell. 

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Government Regulations Are Killing Me

Are you one of those fools who believes that government regulations make life better?  If you were, you would probably not be reading this blog.  People who worship government, career politicians and life long bureaucrats all believe that government regulations are always good.  They should.  They make their living from them.  But does anyone who does not make his living from the regulatory machine believe that they are good?   Sadly, many people do. 
Although I believe I can make the case that the goal of every single government regulation could have been attained via the free market more efficiently and less expensively, there are some who believe that "sensible regulation" is a good thing.  Telling people what size cup they can drink a Coke out of or not allowing little kids to set up lemonade stands on the sidewalk without a food sales license are common examples of what most people believe to be ridiculous regulations.  On the other hand, most people believe that regulating when and where smokers can practice their craft is a very good idea.  Most people also believe that mandatory safety equipment on automobiles is a great idea because it can be proven to save lives. Still others believe that home builders need to be regulated to keep them from ripping off the consumers.
Nobody understands just how pervasive government regulations have become.  Let's restrict ourselves just to the federal government.  The Code of Federal Regulations is now 169,301 pages long.  Check it out yourself here.  Go to that link and browse around for a while.  You will be astounded. You will soon realize that you break the law dozens of times every single day.  Allow yourself to just imagine how much money it costs to administer all of those regulations.  Just contemplate how many career bureaucrats, all of whom likely earn more money than you and who also have a much larger retirement pension than you, are required to write and then enforce all of those rules.  Try to think about how much it costs the government to regulate us.  Are you having any success?  If you are not, I have good news.  Two economists have done the work for us and what they have to say is very disturbing.
According to an article at Reason.com (available here), "The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now."  Did you get that?  Two economists went back to 1949 and calculated precisely how much less money we earn today as a result of the federal government's regulatory burden.  Here is something else they reported: "Overall, they calculate, if regulation had remained at the same level as in 1949, current GDP would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 in 2011. In other words, current U.S. GDP in 2011 was $38.8 trillion less than it might have been."  That is astounding, don't you think?
Ponder this for a moment.  The Gross Domestic Product of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika could have been three times what it is today if the federal government had not decided to regulate our every move.  Your household income would be six times what it is today if the government had minded its own business and allowed the free market to regulate our interactions with each other.  What would you do if your income was six times what it is today?  Do you still believe that "sensible regulation" is a good idea?  I hope not.
Rich Karlgaard, a columnist for Forbes magazine, wrote a similar report in the October 20, 2014 issue of the magazine.  Rich took a far more conservative approach and estimated that federal government regulations only reduce output by 1%/year, half of what the economists said reflects reality.  Rich did so to allow for some "sensible regulations."  According to Karlgaard, "The 2014 GDP would be $32 trillion, not $17 trillion, per capital income would be $101,000, not $54,000 and per capita wealth would be $480,000, not $260,000."  Karlgaard also pointed out that the absence of federal regulations would have allowed the economy to grow so that, "the US would have no federal, state or municipal debts or deficits."  Sounds like a dream world, doesn't it?  Recognize that all that is being suggested here is that the federal government get out of the regulation business.  The feds could continue to administer all of their welfare and warfare programs.  They could continue to tax and spend at their current levels.  All that needed to be done to create this amazing rate of economic growth was to cut or reduce the regulatory burden.
Given these truths, what do you think the odds are that the federal government will rollback some of the regulations that are presently strangling us?  Right!  Zero.  And what do you think that the odds are that the federal government will dramatically reduce future regulations?  Right!  Zero.  Why is this the case?  How can any rational political leader make the conscious decision to deprive those under his rule the amazing benefits of higher economic growth?  The answer is quite simple.  Regulations benefit politicians and bureaucrats.  Whatever benefits politicians and bureaucrats is what we are going to get,even though it is killing us.  

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The Sand Creek Massacre...Get Over It!

The Sand Creek massacre, for those of you who do not know, was a military action taken against a combined Cheyenne and Arapaho Indian village domiciled in southeastern Colorado.  It took place on November 29, 1864.  For those of you who can't count, that was 151 years ago.  Nobody who was alive at the time, whether on the giving or receiving end of the battle, is alive today.  The territorial governor of Colorado, John Evans, ordered the attack as retaliation for a previous attack upon white settlers under his political domain.  The attack is called a massacre because the 160 people who were killed did not resist the soldiers who killed them and most of the 160 people were women, children and the elderly.  Since history is written from the perspective of the victors, the Sand Creek massacre was downplayed for years.  In recent years, however, with the rise of historical revisionism, the Sand Creek massacre has been up-played as an example of everything that is wrong with Amerikans.  Let's think about that for a while.
Present day governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, delivered a speech on the anniversary of the massacre last month.  Here is part of what he had to say, "We should not be afraid to criticize and condemn that which is inexcusable.  On behalf of the State of Colorado, I want to apologize.  We will not run from history." A newspaper story on the speech stated that, "tears fell and heads bowed as Cheyenne and Arapaho tribe members sat on the steps of the Capitol, listening to Gov. John Hickenlooper apologize for the atrocities of the Sand Creek massacre."  All of this has left me terribly confused.
Hickenlooper delivered his apology on "behalf of the State of Colorado."  How can a geo-political entity have moral culpability for a historical event that transpired over 150 years ago?  The good governor did not explain his apology nor, it appeared, did anyone ask him to clarify what he meant.  Apparently everyone understood that a geo-political entity can apologize for something it could not possibly have done.  Furthermore, I am a citizen of Colorado.  Do I share in the moral culpability for the massacre?  Do I need to apologize?  And if I do, who do I apologize to?  Who have I harmed and how have I harmed him?  All of this is so very confusing, especially when I consider the history of massacres.  Here are just a handful of them.
In the year 390 Emperor Theodosius ordered the execution of 7000 citizens of Thessalonika.  Many Christians were numbered among the 7000 that were killed.  In 782 the Christian Emperor Charlemagne ordered the execution of 4,500 imprisoned pagan Saxons.  He was angry the war wasn't going his way so they died.  In 1182 the Massacre of the Latins took place in Constantinople.  80,000 people, mostly Latin Christians were killed by violent mobs who believed they were doing God's work in stamping out Latin Christianity.  In 1570 Ottoman forces capturing Cyprus massacred 50,000 inhabitants, most Greek and Armenian Christians.  The St. Bartholomeo's Day Massacre of 1572 is a day that lives in infamy. Estimates vary on the number that were killed but tens of thousands of French Calvinists were murdered by mob violence in Paris instigated by the Catholic Church.  In 1641 an enraged mob of Irishmen killed one fourth of the 40,000 Protestant settlers in what is now known as the Ulster massacre.  In 1833 the Osage tribe of Amerikan Indians attacked and massacred 150 members of the Kiowa tribe.  As far as I am aware, the Osage have never apologized for that massacre.  Neither has their geo-political entity, if one exists.  Lastly, in 1854 a group of Cheyenne Indians attacked and killed 18 of the 20 members of the Alexander Ward party.  They were traveling on the Oregon Trail, in western Idaho, at the time.
What is the point of reciting such a long list of massacres?  I hope my point is clear.  Everyone massacres everyone else. Massacre is a time honored human tradition.  If we were to do a statistical analysis of all massacres that have taken place throughout recorded human history I suspect we would find that everyone is pretty much even when it comes to being on the giving and on the receiving side of massacres.  No group is immune from massacre and no group is innocent of delivering a massacre or two.  That being the case, why do we make such a fuss about a select few? 
I think we all know the answer to that question.  Career politicians and political agitators make a fuss about particular massacres in an attempt to garner political favor and receive transfer payments from the top 49% of the income population in their respective political districts.  Achieving "most preferred victim status" is important to envy-filled groups of people who desire to get something for nothing.  Painting themselves as victims of the people that are presently in power is a superb way to elicit false feelings of guilt that can only be assuaged by cash transfers and political prominence. 
I find it quite disturbing that we are all required to issue apologies to various people whom we have not harmed.  Why should I apologize to you simply because my grandfather punched your grandmother in the nose?  That was their business, not ours. Where does it logically end?  If we are individually and personally responsible for the immoral actions of our ancestors, how far back do we have to go to make amends?  Adam and Eve?  I have a suggestion.  Why don't we all get together for a group hug and issue one blanket apology to each other?  Then we can also issue one blanket statement of forgiveness to each other and we can move on with our lives and put all of this nonsense behind us. 

TABOR Illustrates What Is Wrong With Amerika

TABOR stands for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  According to Wikipedia, "In 1992, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a measure which amended Article X of the Colorado Constitution that restricts revenues for all levels of government (state, local, and schools).  Under TABOR, state and local governments cannot raise tax rates without voter approval and cannot spend revenues collected under existing tax rates without voter approval if revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation and population growth.  Revenue in excess of the TABOR limit, commonly referred to as the 'TABOR surplus', must be refunded to taxpayers, unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset in a referendum."  That all seems clear enough, doesn't it?  The voters have spoken.  That should be the end of the matter.  Unless, of course, the voters have had a change of heart.  What if 51% of the citizens of Colorado no longer want TABOR?  Should it be removed from the Colorado Constitution? 
I don't know what 51% of the citizens of Colorado believe about TABOR.  I would hope that the majority of the subjects of this state would care enough about their own personal property to protect it from the depredations of the state government.  But I also realize that is hoping for a lot.  Who knows?  Maybe the winds have changed and TABOR is no longer moral.  We all know that whatever the 51% believes to be right is what is moral.  Maybe the 51% no longer believes in TABOR?  Maybe it will be changed.  Time will tell.  Until then TABOR is the law and there are various special interest groups who are clamoring for its abolition.
Emily Martin of Broomfield wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post that was entitled, "Proof that TABOR must go."  Emily has a problem.  Actually, Emily has many problems, not the least of which is her sinful emotion of envy.  But we will come back to that later.  For now Emily is upset because Colorado state government has manged to run a surplus in 2014.  In fact, the state of Colorado is about $200 million in the black this year.  According to TABOR, which is the law of Colorado, the state government must return that $200 million surplus to the taxpayers who paid it.  It is here we can see the wisdom of TABOR.  If there were no requirement to refund surplus revenues do you know what would happen?  Of course you do.  You have seen it many times.  All of the various state bureaus would dramatically expand their budgets and request as much of that $200 million surplus as they could get their grubby little hands on.  Each branch of government would declare how essential it is for the existence of peace and prosperity in Colorado.  And, lo and behold, that $200 million would quickly vanish into the coffers of career bureaucrats and state government lobbyists.  TABOR was created to change that process.
The State of Colorado started the year with a budget that it considered to be sufficient.  Now, at the end of the year, all of those budget items have been fully funded and there is a surplus.  Only government, worshipers of government and career politicians would consider that to be a bad thing.  The surplus revenue does not belong to the politicians, it belongs to the taxpayers.  When the budget has been fully funded and there is money left over that money should be given back to whom it belongs.  That means the taxpayers should each get a refund.  And that is precisely what Governor John Hickenlooper has promised to do.  The governor's promise to return the taxpayers money has driven Emily into a rage.
Emily writes, "How many more articles and letters do we need to prove that TABOR needs to be overturned?  Here are three recent headlines in the Denver Post:  'If we had a monorail on I-70,' 'Eliminate corporate giveaways' and 'Leadville to close St. Vincent Hospital.'"  I think we can all see where Emily is going with this.  Emily begins by asking the rhetorical question, how many more newspaper articles describing various government welfare programs and spending boondoogles do we need to see going unfunded before we, whoever that might be, decide to raise taxes and government spending?  I can answer that question.   I need to seen millions more, and even that would not make me change my mind about the tax refunds.  I still want my money back.
Emily is so very predictable.  She hates profit seeking corporations.  Who doesn't these days?  She wants to eliminate "corporate giveaways" even though she does not list any examples of corporate giveaways nor does she define what the phrase means.  I have seen corporations giving things to people for free all the time.  Does she want a law forcing them to stop?  Emily also wants the state to build a monorail from Denver to Vail.  Those of you who are fans of the Simpsons might be recalling the episode in which the good citizens of Springfield decide to build a monorail.  I can't help but think of that episode when I read Emily's ravings.  Emily also wants the state government to subsidize hospitals throughout the state.  How kind of her.  She has no problem giving away other people's money, does she?
As it turns out, Emily is not quite as disinterested as she would have us believe.  She confesses that, "I grew up in Leadville, and all of my family was cared for on occasion at St. Vincent."  So let me get this straight.  Simply because Emily grew up in Leadville, and used the services of the local hospital in Leadville, I should be required to give up my tax refund to pay for the continuing operations of a money losing hospital?  I have a hard time understanding that argument.
Apparently Emily has anticipated that I might not be quite so enthusiastic about giving up my tax refund.  She goes on to say this about my refund, "Spread among approximately 4 million citizens, that about $200 apiece, not enough to make a house payment."  I don't understand why it is the case that the amount I overpaid to the state government needs to be equal to my house payment before I have the moral right to get it back.  In fact, I don't see how the amount matters in the slightest.  It is my money and I want it back.
At the end of her letter Emily shows her true colors. She asks, in regards to spending the excess revenues that are scheduled to be returned to the taxpayers, "How about some funding for all that mental health care that we need..."  I don't know who the "we" is that Emily is speaking about.  I don't need any mental health care and I certainly do not want the money I have overpaid the state government to be given to you for your mental health care bills, whatever they are.  You pay your bills and I will pay mine.  That seems fair to me.  The last sentence of Emily's letter gets to the bottom line for her. She writes, "My husband is severely mentally ill."  At last we have arrived at the true motivation for her letter.  Emily wants everyone in the State of Colorado to pay the bills for her husband's mental health care.  If I don't' want to do that it is because I am evil.  It never even occurs to Emily that I am innocent and she is shot through with the sin of envy. 
Emily is a perfect example of what is wrong with Amerika.  Emily wants the government to take the financial resources of the top 49% of the income population and use them to pay her bills.  She is angry that TABOR returns some of the money that belongs to the top 49% so she lashes out, declares herself to be a victim in need of state support and declares anyone who disagrees with her to be a greedy monster.  Emily, like most of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, needs to take a long look in the mirror.  There is a hypocrite in there, I assure you.  Keep looking and you might find her. 

Monday, December 8, 2014

Cops Do Not Pursue The Truth

There are many things that citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika believe about the militarized police forces that subjugate them and most of those beliefs are in error.  Many people believe the cops are public servants, paid via taxpayer dollars, dedicated to actually serving and protecting the public.  It is always a surprising revelation to people who believe that idiotic concept to discover that, when the chips are down and there is rioting in the streets, the police protect each other and the career politicians they serve.  Cops do not serve the public, they serve the politicians.  This truth was most recently confirmed in Ferguson.  The National Guard was called in not to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Ferguson.  On the contrary, the National Guard did exactly what it was expected to do.  It protected the lives of the cops and it defended government property from attack.  Property owners in Ferguson quickly learned that their lives and their property were irrelevant to the concerns of their taxpayer financed police forces as they watched their businesses go up in flames.
Rehashing the misadventures of Ferguson is not the point of today's blog post.  Today I would like to bust another myth about those gun toting, costume wearing thugs who enforce myriad immoral government rules and regulations upon us.  I believe it is fair to assert that most citizens of the SDA believe that the police are on the side of law abiding citizens.  It therefore follows that whenever law abiding citizens get involved in some sort of criminal situation they can rest assured that the police investigating the crime will have the best interests of the citizens in mind.  There seems to be near universal agreement that the police are objective pursuers of the truth, and nothing but the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am a fan of Dateline, I will admit it.  I am not proud of this fact.  I admit it because it is true and necessary to make my case here today.   For those of you who are not aware, Dateline is a television show that carries a weekly story about some criminal investigation, usually a murder.  The tale is told in a form of historic real time (can there be such a thing?) in which the narrator takes the viewers through the process step by step from the beginning.  I have watched many episodes over the past several years and several important truths have emerged from what is portrayed in the show. I have written about several of these truths in previous blog posts and I will not repeat them here.  Today I want to focus on what is the most disturbing truth about police investigations.  Brace yourselves...here it is.....the cops do not care about you!
Cops are just like all other sinful human beings.  Cops are also just like all other government employees.  Combine sinful human nature and government employment and we have a sure prescription for immoral behavior.  Cops are lazy and, therefore, want to solve all of their criminal investigations as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Cops are oftentimes stupid and incompetent.  That means that when they screw up an investigation they will lie about it.  It also means they will never admit that they are wrong.  Even when it is crystal clear that the cops have arrested the wrong person they will persist in their belief that the man in custody is truly guilty of the crime.  Cops are rewarded by solving as many cases as they can as quickly as they can.  Cops are also held in high regard by the District Attorneys they serve when they can present as many cases as possible that will result in quick convictions.  Like cops, District Attorneys are interested in just one thing.  They all want a fast and easy criminal conviction.  The fact that the case is built upon nothing but circumstantial evidence is irrelevant.  If they believe they can convince twelve incompetent jurors that a person is guilt of the crime, they will proceed to trial.  But the tale of the District Attorneys is fodder for another day.
Cops are allowed to lie to you as much as they want.  You are not permitted to lie to them unless you want to spend time in prison.  Cops are permitted to intimidate, harass and verbally abuse anyone they consider to be a suspect, and anyone can be deemed a suspect at any time and for any reason.  If you have the unfortunate distinction of being deemed a suspect, you are not permitted to attempt to intimidate, harass or verbally abuse your oppressor.  Clearly the playing field is not level.  Clearly cops have the advantage in any confrontation.  These are simply the rules of the game and if you do not like them, tough for you.
The most disturbing truth revealed by Dateline is the fact that cops do not pursue criminal investigations in the fashion they would like to have us believe.  I believe it is fair to say that cops want us to believe that they investigate crimes by going wherever the evidence leads them.  The plethora of television shows designed to convince us that our brave men in blue are dedicated to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth has done a great job of convincing us of a situation that does not exist in the real world.  In the real world the cops will rush to judgment in any particular criminal event and then immediately set about trying to prove what they have already concluded.  Since spouses tend to murder each other, cops immediately assume the living spouse is guilty when someone turns up dead.  They then expend tremendous amounts of time and energy trying to prove the surviving spouse guilty, whether the evidence leads them in that direction or not.  Even the most specious circumstantial evidence is considered to be of high value and quality for obtaining a conviction.  The belief that cops follow wherever the evidence leads is patently false.
In this sense the cops are just like any other person who draws a paycheck from the government.  Meteorologists who get paid with taxpayer dollars inevitably discover that global warming is true.  Biologists who get a monthly check from the federal government inevitably write papers about the importance of preventing economic development in order to protect some obscure biological species that nobody has ever seen and nobody has ever cared about.  All government employees will somehow manage to find precisely what it is they are expected to find, all the time.  This is further confirmation of the Mad Welshman's rule of human behavior that states one should never expect a person receiving a government paycheck to be objective about that very issue for which he is getting paid. 
In light of the fact that cops will first determine who it is they want to arrest and will then embark upon a process to conjure up enough evidence to perform the arrest of that person, what should you do when you find yourself in a confrontation with the cops?  The first thing you should do is disregard and suppress your mistaken belief that, "since I have done nothing wrong I have nothing to fear."  You have much to fear, especially if you have done nothing wrong and you agree to cooperate with the cops.  Cops love cooperative witnesses because they are easier to pin guilt upon.  The second thing you should steadfastly do is assert your Fifth Amendment right to refuse to cooperate with the police in any way.  I recognize this sounds harsh to those who believe that the cops are good men and women who do nothing but seek objective truth.  But the cops are not good men and women.  They are immoral government employees who are trying to pin a crime on you that you did not commit.  Don't help them.  Keep your mouth shut.  Keep telling yourself, over and over if necessary, that the cops never pursue the truth.  The quicker you learn that lesson the better off you will be if you one day find yourself under the scrutiny of a gang of costume clad, gun carrying mercenaries called the police.