"Single" seems to thrive on feelings he denies. In this case, feelings about "liberals." He sets up a "straw man" and then crows about knocking him down. (http://eyeonoregon.blogspot.com/2007/01/protect-and-serve.html)
Let's try this in language more plain: We did NOT say cops should not do anything when they feel threatened.
What we did say was that there needs to be greater scrutiny of the "I felt threatened!" defense, better training, possibly a change of culture in the union hall and squad room. Because there seems to be a pattern of behavior.
The other difference between bad cops and good liberals, “Single,” is that a bad cop carries a gun and a badge that allows him/her to victimize others with impunity. And those that do so damage all those good cops, the vast majority, we agree, as well as the rest of our social fabric.
That’s what we said.
The idea that "Single" may favor a society that, without much concern, allows police to batter a man because he didn't do "what the cops ask," even though the man was autistic and barely able to speak and follow directions, is a repugnant but possibly accurate representation of his whole philosophy.
There, a straw man of my very own.
We LIKE it when "Single" takes the opportunity to prove his "conservative manliness" over the "weak liberal" writer by saying there are only a few bad cops and a few good liberals.
It tugs at our “Wobblie” heart strings when “conservatives” do that sort of thing. Gives us a glow right from the 1940s and 1950s, not only a time of “Leave It to Beaver and “Father Knows Best,” but of Eric Hoffer and Alan Ginsberg and Jack Keouac and a vibrant left that was made up of working men and women who fought for these liberties on the battlefield and in the steel yard and ship yard and in the forests. Who bought bonds and made guns and sent their own children off to war.
Liberals are not “weak” by definition. They just misplaced their vitality, a few vital organs, too. Many of them from the past would not even be considered "liberal" today, but great confusion occurred after the 60s, with the boomers ascendant. It was the mushrooms, I just know it.
The left is ignorant about many things, like the effects of global free trade, and that all teachers are of value and should have equal access to the minds of our children, that good intentions are the equivalent of good action. The left can be quite confused about the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal quality (equality) of life.”
But the left is not inherently weak, unless they choose not to fight.
And the best thing to fight for is liberty, and against those who think that a “police state” is a liberty-enhancing, safer place to live.
Democracy is a funny thing. It is not the bed of liberty, as many suppose. In fact, one of the most important warnings we’ve been given about democracy are the dangers inherent in “Tyranny of the Majority.” And if the last two presidential elections didn't convince you, nothing will.
Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, which is why our founding fathers designed a government that was INTENDED to be slow and awkward and noisy and inefficient.
"Single" my friend, "warm and fuzzy?" The only thing fuzzy here is your thinking. Like you, many of those today who believe they are "conservative" are not, they are actually statists, corporatists, Fascists or theocrats, or some foul amalgam of all of those. Like Cheney’s puppet in the “W”hite House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Amazing - you write well, but your lack of facts to back up your statements hurt (see my response to your response back on your universal health care posting).
However, you did point out something to me that DID make sense. How the liberals of old wouldn't be considered liberals today - bingo, that's me!!! In my youth I was a liberal but a combination of the left moving too far left and the maturity that seeing society throughout the years has made me a conservative.
Dude - both your postings regarding police want a touchy-feely type of cop. I equate that with a dead cop. Do you know any cops? I do, I also use to know some who made the mistake of not acting as they were trained but tried to 'reach out' instead. You ought to go to the funeral of one or more cops to understand why a cop gets training to react, no time for thinking in many situations you just have to react.
Do I dislike liberals? The ones that I see today, with a passion. The 'values' that they espouse aren't really values at all. It's all become a 'don't judge me' scenario and that will make for one hell of a nasty society (I kill someone, don't judge me ...).
We hire police to protect us, protect us from people who look to do bad things to us be that steal our belongings or cause us bodily harm. To hamstring the police is to say to the criminal, "Do what you will, we will keep trying to 'talk' to you." Again, you don't answer my argument. I said if a cop over steps his bounds we have lawyers, you didn't respond. Lawyers and judges are one of the checks and balances to a cop. I don't want a police society, I want a safe society. For a safe society you need rules and laws and you need people to enforce them, not touchy-feely them.
Nice try though :)
"I said if a cop over steps his bounds we have lawyers, you didn't respond. Lawyers and judges are one of the checks and balances to a cop."
Okay...how much of a check and balance are the lawyers on the cop who killed the homeless guy who was urinating in public in Portland? You know, the guy who got his ribs crushed, and was put into the back of a police cruiser to go to jail, while he had massive internal bleeding. There was no danger to the cop, chasing down a homeless dude, who ran from being arrested for taking a leak in public. We will see how much of a check and balance that cop gets, but mostly just a slap on the wrist.
"I don't want a police society, I want a safe society. For a safe society you need rules and laws and you need people to enforce them, not touchy-feely them."
I agree, people should obey the laws. And we need the police to enforce the laws for people who would rather not obey them. I agree with that completely.
But *some* police (and evidently *some* firemen also) can and do take advantage of their badge. Saying that they felt "threatened", especially by what they *thought* was a knife or gun, or *couldv'e* been a knife or gun is not sufficient for a police man or woman to get away with what they seem to be able to get away with these days.
Also, I don't think that this is a liberal or conservative thing, but then again, I am neither.
Two issues here. First, cops: All of this discussion so far has missed a critical point. Different departments have different cultures. In a large department, there are often different cultures across precincts. Cultures that develop a siege mind-set, an us-against-them perspective are headed for trouble.
A good friend of mine — current cop, former Special Forces _ is an ardent subscriber to the use of "Verbal Judo," a program that is taught in the more innovative (I'd say progressive, but that might have a political overtone here) departments. Verbal Judo is based around the undeniable fact that almost all police encounters begin with verbal interaction. If that goes south, the situation gets sticky. Verbal confrontation slides into physical confrontation.
If verbal contact is handled well, a situation can often (not always) be defused before it becomes dangerous.
This is not touchy-feely; it is one more tool in the tool kit to help officers do their jobs with safe outcomes for themselves and for the public.
Departments (cultures) that train their police with a variety of techniques get themselves into less trouble and better serve the public.
It's not a choice between hamstringing the cops or over-empowering them.
Re; Liberals. The demonizing of liberals is the most successful propaganda coup of right-wing talk radio. To call someone a liberal is to dismiss them, whether their position is truly a "liberal" one or not.
I don't see universal health care as a "liberal" program. I see it as an investment and a way of diminishing the hidden (and not so hidden) costs of, for example, poor childhood health which is a drag on our creaky public school system, or emeregency room primary care, which is expensive and threatens the very existance of emergency rooms in rural areas.
We have a problem in that social issues which should not be the purview of government at all (a libertatrian perspective) become jumixed up with legitimate policy issues such as health care, law enforcement, education and it distorits the argument.
Most folks can agree on the importance of health care and education. A liberal may believe in more public investment in education or health care or education; a conservative may seek more market-driven solutions.
That's a discussion we should have. Unfortunately it's drowned out by the cynical ginning (left and right) of hot-button cultural issues designed to drive people away from common ground to the political poles.
It's ugly, it's false and it's destructive.
Post a Comment