He surprises you.
Vetoing a program designed to use a tax on cigarettes to provide health care for poor children? With reasoning that prioritizes the needs of huge health care companies over helping sick children?
Does he remotely think that ANYONE is going to be fooled into thinking that his motivations come from anything other than protecting big business interests over the interests of the most helpless sections of the population?
Yes…it’s a new low. And if Congress can’t override this veto, they’re fricking useless.
PAD
• 
“How about you take your head out of your assumption ridden left wing propaganda sites and reading materials for a while and join us in the real world of facts.”
First Mike Weber accuses me of being a Bushie and then you accuse me of being left wing.
“It was those set ups in the past that lead to graft, bribery and abuses of power where the wealthy or the crafty screwed the poor or the innocent into the ground.”
They would not be susceptible to bribery as they would not be permanently in office. There would be neighborhood watches and militias. Organized crime wouldn’t have a chance to thrive as long as we didn’t outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime.
“But only a handful of them are legit and they’re not representative of the majority of police officers out there. And even then, many of those are actually based more on the press and the public having no understanding of adrenalin & reflexive firing and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about a tazer or how it really works.”
Here is one of the latest stories; admittedly he is off duty, but it shows that these are not made up or “misunderstandings.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/09/2007-10-09_wisconsin_cop_snapped_after_being_called-1.html
Micha is right, I am a libertarian. Small “l,” I don’t have any party affiliations.
Bill, unlike your hippy friends I am in favor of concealed carry.
I didn’t use anything as a springboard. I was asked a question and answered it, and gave my reason why.
Den, that is nonsense. You said things wouldn’t work and I replied that your argument is horrible. I have also given an explanation of how it would work. I am not going to write a whole paper on the matter though. If you want to know more about how it would work, read a history book.
Micha,
It could be argued that Ben is a rabid ideologue rather then a troll, but I’m leaning more towards idiot with trollish leanings. Ben tends to declare his points in broad, sweeping and insulting ways while claiming that no insults were made by him. My first post in response to Ben in this thread may have been a little on the harsher side because I still have a bad taste in my mouth in regards to him from the religious bigotry and insulting nature of his post from the ” LIFE IMITATES ART” thread from earlier this year.
He did much the same there that he’s now repeating here. He threw out insulting statements and often declared even his most nonsensical points the height of logic while claiming everyone else was wrong, arguing from emotion, etc. Like I said, he’s an idiot with trollish leanings. He’s not skilled enough to be a good troll and he seems to genuinely believe what he’s saying. Mores the pity there.
Bobb, did you not read what I said about Blackwater before? They are hired by the government. A public-private partnership which is not libertarian at all. Not to mention that they are not doing anything by the Iraqi people’s consent at all.
Other than the absence of pay, how is what you say different than what we have now?
Is that your point, that receiving money reduces the quality of one’s work? Doesn’t that simply mean you are unqualified for anything you accept compensation for?
Blackwater are not police, and they would kick the ášš of any assembly of volunteers. You only provide evidence of the disadvantages of dismantling the police as we know them.
My post requires no response, Craig. Why would I ask you to do anything with balls you’ve given me the privilege of telling you are absent?
As something of a Revolutionary War buff(lapsed, unfortunatley) another reason I’ve long thought that crime was lower was the convenience factor. I could see someone right now knocking over a convenience store and then speeding off in whatever wheeled vehicle they choose. (BTW, the fact that I’m talking about the olden times’ crimes being inconvenient by comparing it to knocking over a convenience store is completely unintentional. It was just convenient.) Now, look at back then. Knock over the general store in some towns, end up with a bunch of eggs and maybe a little cash. Have you ever tried carrying eggs while running or on a horse? Hëll, I have trouble sometimes carrying them in a shopping cart. Anyway, Bobb, Den, everybody, what’s your thinking on this?
“”We are living in a post-9/11 world. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11…””
I really expected either “all the livelong day” or “Its fleece was white as snow” at the end of that.
“Do you get news stories these days about what you’re talking about? Sure.”
Part of the reason stories like this stick in people’s heads is because of the juxtaposition of they who enforce the law breaking the law.
“is ideoloigized a word?)”
Well, it is now, Micha. Don’t know if it was before and I’m too darn tired to check right now.
Jerry, how do you define “insulting?” Anything you disagree with? How can something be broad, sweeping and insulting?
“Blackwater are not police, and they would kick the ášš of any assembly of volunteers. You only provide evidence of the disadvantages of dismantling the police as we know them.”
Many militias in the United States are made up of former military, just like Blackwater. Many possible volunteers might be more capable in this regard than police.
They would not be susceptible to bribery as they would not be permanently in office.
If a cop stops me for a crime and I offer him a bribe to let me go, how does the length of time he will be a cop in any way prevent this bribery from occurring?
How long will they serve? Is it likely that there will be a long enough line of people willing to take their place to make this work? Since a majority–I will go so far as to guess that a vast majority–of the public would not go along with this idea, where are these people going to come from?
There would be neighborhood watches and militias. Organized crime wouldn’t have a chance to thrive as long as we didn’t outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime.
Hey, I’ll agree with the idea of decriminalizing many of our current laws. Waste of time, better spent elsewhere.
But organized crime can find other means of support–organized robbery, organized extortion, murder for hire, etc.
I rather expect many would find the atmosphere of this new world of yours quite inviting, actually. Were I a crook I think I’d much rather go up against the amatures.
Actually, Ben, your example goes more toward backing our argument rather then yours. A sheriff’s deputy is actually closer to what you propose then it is an officer. Sheriffs are elected, not hired. The people put them in place and the people can vote them out of a job every couple of years. The Sherriff’s deputies can, and quite often are in smaller departments, fired and replaced by friends and cronies of the new Sheriff when the new Sheriff takes office.
Most Sheriffs can terminate a deputy just because he doesn’t like the way he looks and there’s not a lot that the now ex-deputy can do about it. That can sometimes mean that a crooked Sheriff can remove honest deputies with nothing more then a wave of a hand and replace them with less then honest cronies. Many sheriffs departments also have less stringent training and hiring requirements the most police departments. There are exceptions of course and things are changing, but they are the exceptions.
Now, you take a dishonest Sheriff who caters to the majority white/wealthy/urban/whatever community to the detriment and damage of the minority groups in a community and there’s almost no chance of justice for the minority in the community. And there doesn’t even have to be malice on the part of the majority either. If the Sheriff serves the majority well, then he looks like he’s doing a good job to a majority of the voters who give him his power.
Your dismissal of the Blackwater example fails to actually dismiss the points we’ve made. The military, while having a few screw ups in it, is actually doing well over there as far as not doing reprehensible things. There are even American police officers working over there as police officers or training the locals to be police officers without managing to go nuts. They, like many of the soldiers, are professionals.
Blackwater is run by a private individual and composed mostly of amateur “soldiers” and “cops” with no real authority to answer to. The group that did the Iraq freeway shootings and video was set up much the same way. It’s what, whether you like it or not, you’re basically advocating for.
Now, if you want to have community groups that work with the police… That’s an all together different thing. But that’s not what you’ve been advocating. You’ve been advocating a system that is outdated and would fly apart at the seems in today’s world.
Ben Lesar: “If you want to know more about how it would work, read a history book.”
Thus the problem. That system is in history books for a reason. It stopped working effectively and was replaced long ago. And, if you actually read up on those systems, you’d see that there was a lot more graft and incompetence back then then you seem to want to admit. Selective reading I suppose.
Ben, you’ve explained nothing about how it would work. I asked a very detailed question about how it would work in even a medium-sized city and your reply was that you didn’t care.
Now you say to “read history” rather than actually make an articulate argument. Well, nearly everyone here has already explained to you that what worked in an 18th century rural community would never work in the 21st century suburban world that most Americans live in today. And you have said nothing to counter any of those points.
You’re idea of an argument amounts to “It will work because I say so”. Seriously, if you want to convince people that your ideas will work, you have to give reasons other than your smug attitude that you’re somehow smarter than everyone else, because, guess what? No one here believes that. You are without a doubt, the worst debater I have ever encountered. And given that this is an internet forum, that’s saying something.
Ben Lesar: “Jerry, how do you define “insulting?” Anything you disagree with? How can something be broad, sweeping and insulting?”
Gee, I don’t know… How about the statement that everybody else has already pointed out to you.
“Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.”
Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless.
“”On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?”” —Based on poll data, they’re Republicans. Poor people who have no clue, but still think the Dems are after their guns and want to turn everybody homo… The GOP needs to take better care of this group…if they don’t want to become a permanent minority.
Den: “You’re idea of an argument amounts to “It will work because I say so”.
Eh, him and George Bush
I believe in the free market when it works. But with health care, it absolutely DOES NOT WORK. Oh sure, it’s a marvel if you’re rich. But for the vast majority of us, it’s an exclusive engagement and we’re stuck outside in the rain. Everybody in my family has insurance and we’re still SCARED TO DEATH to go to the doctor. The deductibles are often more than we can pay, let alone the whole bill. I’d much rather have what Canada has. Increase my taxes and eliminate my worry. Now THAT’s a product worth paying for.
And the medical industry is hardly independent from the gov’t anyway. They get billions in gov’t aid for R&D (taxes, grants), so we’re already paying for the part that GOP/cons say makes our system so great. So why shouldn’t we ensure that we get our money’s worth by actually receiving the services for a reasonable cost? But no, GOP/cons only want the gov’t out when it comes to guaranteeing service for everybody; they want the gov’t in-in-in when it comes to budget handouts…
So, Mulligan, who’s your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?
I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he’s doing a good job in a new TV show that’s getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn’t even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.
So, Mulligan, who’s your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?
I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he’s doing a good job in a new TV show that’s getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn’t even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.
So, Mulligan, who’s your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?
I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he’s doing a good job in a new TV show that’s getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn’t even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.
So, Mulligan, who’s your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?
I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he’s doing a good job in a new TV show that’s getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn’t even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.
Micha: “I have to say this. I don’t think Ben is a troll, nor that he meant to insult anybody. Nor is he ignorant. What he is is deeply entrenched in an ideology, in his case I suspect its Liberterianism.”
I must disagree with you, Micha. Ben advances stereotypes, which is a clear sign of ignorance. If he doesn’t mean to insult, he needs to choose his words with infinitely more care. Finally, ideology and trollishness are not mutually exclusive.
But the less said about this latest troll to rear his ugly head, the better.
Bill Mulligan: “I think the idea of an all volunteer and/or charity force replacing government is unworkable and undesirable but there could be a good discussion on it. I think that’s been lost.”
Why has anything been lost? Ben doesn’t have any power over this forum other than that which we give him. Watch me take it away from him.
I believe most people would agree that providing emergency services including firefighters and police, civil infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and a national defense are legitimate roles for government to play in society. If someone is too poor to pay for these things, we don’t deny the benefits to them. The majority of us pay taxes with the understanding that these services are for the common good.
On the other hand, I think most of us would bristle at the idea of paying higher taxes so that the government can provide lower-income people with porsches and expensive Italian suits. After all, these things are luxuries, whereas police and fire protection are not.
Where does health care fall along this spectrum? Increasingly, I’m hearing more and more people opine that health care is similar to police protection: it is a basic service that ought to be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay. Even my girlfriend, a card-carrying member of the NRA, a former Republican (she is now equally disgusted with both major parties), and an undeniable conservative, believes that universal health care makes as much sense as “universal police protection.”
While this issue has been touched upon in this thread, it hasn’t been discussed in depth. Should health care occupy the same “space” as civil defense and infrastructure? If so, how should the government administer health care? Are we ready for universal health insurance? If health care should remain privatized, what do we do about the costs society incurs when those who cannot afford basic health care end up in the ER for problems that could have been prevented by a trip to a primary care physician?
Discuss.
Ben, you haven’t denied you’ve given me the privilege to get off your computer, you haven’t denied that dissolving police as a public service would remove accountability from peace-keeping, and you haven’t given anyone anything else to imagine other than that you are saying that receiving a wage reduces the quality of one’s work, from which it may be reasonably inferred that you are unqualified for any paid labor. By the standard you tried to hold to others cited at the top of this post, you lose.
“”On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?”” —Based on poll data, they’re Republicans. Poor people who have no clue, but still think the Dems are after their guns and want to turn everybody homo… The GOP needs to take better care of this group…if they don’t want to become a permanent minority.
Really? I’ve always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source? (I’m not doubting you, it’s just the opposite of what I thought so I’d like to see some evidence).
So, Mulligan, who’s your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?
I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he’s doing a good job in a new TV show that’s getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn’t even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.
I’m terrible at the casting game but anyone in Dog Soldiers is A-ok by me. Good call.
Now, who fills Caroline Munro’s, um, shoes?
Bill Myers– good points all.
One factor I kind of dread is that there will come a point where the only way to make a Universal system work is to exert a great deal of control over the health choices made by people. We can’t allow folks to smoke, drink to excess, consume fatty food, take recreational drugs, drive fast cars, etc, etc, if we also expect to make every single medical procedure available to all for free (and if we don’t, tell me who is going to be the one who tells the kid with cancer that his experimental treatment is too expensive. Or the guy who’s 80 year old mom needs a new heart that she’s lived long enough. Or the family with the 11 ounce preemie that there isn’t enough money to take care of their kid and the 100 kids who actually have a chance to live.
You say that the HMOs and insurance companies do that now? Yes. Yes they do.
When the government is in control they won’t. They can’t. Who’s gonna be the bad guy willing to kill the old lady, the baby, the kid with cancer? So the cost will go up. Big time. If there is one rule it’s that benefits can never go down because the politicians will get fired if they try.
I’d like to think that savings can be made in efficiency and streamlining and stuff like that. I don’t see the government as having a terrific history of pulling that off. Am I being cynical?
Ok, so we have an expensive system that keeps getting more expensive. taxes can only go so high before they begin to hurt the economy and reduce revenues, making the situation worse. You can only cut doctors salaries so far before they go into other, better jobs. They’re smart, hard working people, capable of success in other fields, so we’d better be careful about treating them too badly.
What’s left? You keep people from getting sick and costing us money. That’s a noble goal. It’s cost effective. You may have to give up a few choices you have now…but there ain’t no free lunch. Certainly not one with trans fats.
At some point this may cross the line into something that may be unacceptable for us but that line will vary from person to person and there may well be enough people who will accept anything as long as they get free medical care that the protests of a few won;t matter. The question becomes then what you do with the malcontents who won’t play along.
If it sounds like I’m painting a deliberately dire picture, keep in mind that this won’t affect me much. I don’t drink, smoke or do recreational drugs. I could lose a few pounds and exercise more but it wouldn’t take boot camp to get me into good shape. I actually enjoy healthy food more than McDonalds toad burgers. This situation has way more ups for me than downs. The part about the government having so much say in our lives sticks in my craw but I’m just not seeing much alternative.
Personally, I’d like to see some experimentation with this. We have the advantage of a federal system, let’s use it. Let some states try some kind of Universal system, if only on a limited scale, see how the savings and costs balance out.
Really? I’ve always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source? (I’m not doubting you, it’s just the opposite of what I thought so I’d like to see some evidence).
Well, statistically, republicans have more children than democrats and redstaters have more kids than bluestaters (I live for the day when these two indicators are retired, BTW). Since the south also has a lower per capita income than the north, that may be where Dan was going. As with a lot of things, however, it’s never that cut and dried. Poor city dwellers do vote overwhelmingly democratic, but poor rural folk vote mostly republican. Now, there are more poor in the cities than in the country simply because there are more people overall. So, it appears on balance that the poor vote mostly for the dems. But, I think Dan was primarily talking about poor rural voters.
You’re describing people who don’t go to doctors. As socialized medicine has demonstrated, when people visit doctors with any regularity, over-indulgence dries up substantially. As far as I know, none of the industrialized nations with socialized medicine coerces its citizenry to visit doctors, and none of the presidential candidates’ proposals seem to make it a requirement either.
“Now, who fills Caroline Munro’s, um, shoes?”
NOT Kate Beckinsale or Keira Knightley. That’s becoming too much of a cliché these days. Now that I know who not to see in it… Hmmm. I’m not sure you would need to fill her cu.. shoes… as you might not need to actually remake the film in order to relaunch the series. But if you had to go that route, then I’d say Carla could be perfectly played by Jemima Rooper (with a good voice coach.) She’s not the traditional looking female lead,…
http://www.talentedbritishactors.co.uk/jemima.html
… but she’s a great character actress and was the only reason to bother watching Hex for a while. She would definitely add something to the role. But I would only cast her because I wouldn’t want to extend the character beyond one movie. Kronos shouldn’t have too many ties created in any given story. It wouldn’t really work for the nature of the character and it would be more fun in general without them.
“Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless.”
If facts offend you… I don’t know what to say.
“If he doesn’t mean to insult, he needs to choose his words with infinitely more care.”
There is a difference between not meaning to insult and going out of one’s way not to insult.
Bill Myers, for someone who seems to spend a good deal of time on the internet, why don’t you know what a troll is? I did not bring up police, but merely responded to a question about them. Ergo I am not a troll. A better case could be made that you are one.
Mike, while as I said in that post a few months ago, something does stand when not refuted, not everything needs to be refuted. In a formal debate it is a time issue, now it is an issue of me having a life outside of answering your idiotic questions, Mike. Some points have to left to the audience to determine, and your nonsense about getting off my computer clearly qualifies as one any rational person can figure out for themselves.
With point two in that last paragraph you are simply lying. I have indeed denied that accountability issue. Even if you think my response is inadequate, that doesn’t mean I didn’t respond at all. In fact, I am so sure of this that I’ll ask anyone else here who has read all my posts if they agree with you on this matter. No one who wants to maintain any sort of intellectual integrity will.
Point three, you are extrapolating wildly, if not once again outright lying. The money issue has nothing to do with quality of work; just that I am opposed to taxation. The part, as I said before, that is important is the power of a community to depose volunteers. They have no official authority and, therefore, as per the Milgram Experiment, opposition to them would be immediately forthcoming in the event of an abuse of power.
Anyway, back to the health care debate (of which I was not the one to derail): Dan, I wonder on what basis you say that free market health care does not work? We don’t have free health care now, so you can’t use that as a metric to judge it by.
As to the other topic…
I think that the government has its place in our society. Police, rescue and fire are definitely three places for government to have a hand, but I have no problem at all with volunteer organizations working with their local governmental bodies to assist in those functions. Actually, many areas do have volunteer fire and rescue divisions and some areas even have volunteer police units (unarmed and unsworn in most cases) that work with the local police as eyes, ears and the occasional voice.
Likewise, I see no problem with government addressing health care or health insurance so long as it is strictly acting as insurance. I wouldn’t want the government taking my options from me or getting into the chair next to my doctor, but I think there is a place in our society for a safety net. If I were to lose my job tomorrow, it would be a huge load off of my mind to know that, should anything happen to Jenn or Ian while I was without income or insurance coverage, my wife and child would be covered and taken care of in an emergency and we wouldn’t all be financially screwed for the next five years due to medical costs.
Likewise, there should be no reason that any child in this country should suffer because their parents are either dirt poor or just plain stupid. Why harm a child for the sins of the parent?
Sure, I see the need for checks and balances and there should be oversight done on the local level to insure that abuse is kept to a minimum (you’ll never be rid of it entirely) and that people aren’t hanging onto the coverage once they’ve actually gotten themselves back up and running. It should also never be used by the governing bodies to forcibly substitute itself for someone’s private insurance or to snoop. It should just be there for emergencies.
My thing is, as I said way back above, that no one should be dieing in the streets or going without proper care in a country that likes to bill itself as the greatest in the world or as blessed by God himself. Absolutely strive to provide for yourself and for your families and do whatever you can to be independent of the government teet. Absolutely help out with any volunteer or charity organizations in your area. Those things matter and those things go a long way toward helping yourself and others. But there’s no excuse for a country with the riches of America to tell hard working families that they’re screwed and on their own in the event of job loss/cutbacks and a medical emergency.
Ben “I’m Not A Troll, But I play One On The Internet” Lesar: “If facts offend you… I don’t know what to say.”
Wow.
So…
“Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.”
… are facts in your surreal little world? What a sad and miserable place you must live in. Thankfully, for those of us that live in the real world, the facts aren’t what you insist they are. Time for your meds now, Ben.
Do you disagree with the first two sentences? I will assume you don’t for now and move on. I have already repudiated my use of the term “many,” so we can ignore that also. So the question is whether or not the fact that a certain number of police are authoritarians is a good reason for police in general to be hated enough by a not insignificant portion of the populace to be targeted. Remember, “good” is not referring to morality here. Substitute “sufficient” or “explainable*” for best results. Begin.
*You may wish to use police lingo as a synonym. “Probable cause” is a good one. For extra fun come up with your own phrases!
I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up. One of us brought up “medical” expenses like plastic surgery, liposuction, (brace yourselves)abortion, and other “elective” procedures. Where under the public medical system would these fall? My first response was, they wouldn’t. By my thinking, even with universal health care, a nose job generally isn’t medically necessary except for those pathologically terrified of being mistaken for either Ms. Striesand or Mr. Stewart. One of the ideas we came up with was leave those services private, but they have to contribute a percentage of their fee to the public medical services.
Jerry, your last paragraph really bugs the crap out of me. You’re absolutely right, no one SHOULD be dying or living in the streets. Unfortunately, those people generally go by the wayside, whether because they in power just don’t like to be faced with unpleasantness(then they shouldn’t really wanna be in power…) or because something else has their priority.
Posted by: Ben Lesar
Wait a minute – are you proposing allowing the so-called “militia” movement to be the volunteer police?
If so, now i know you’re either definitely a troll or bog-ignorant or completely and totally insane.
Or possibly all three.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler
But, see, it’s not an insult accos he wasn’t not hardly speaking about you personally.
[later post]
How’s about Scarlett Johansen?
Posted by: Ben Lesar
Except, of course, that the “facts” you allege exist mostly inside your fevered mind. Certainly they don’t seem to be a part of the Real World that the rest of us live in and experience every day.
(And you might care to identify the author of material you quote so that we can sorta see whose profession you are disingenuously [i’ll wait here while you look that up]claiming you didn’t insult or whose rational statement you are “refuting” with some more black-helicopter-tinfoil-hat “facts”)
And there is also apparently not caring if you insult, which making an across-the-board derogatory remark about a common profession in the presence of a wide range of people, some of whom may well follow that profession, certainly seems to be.
Or perhaps it’s just thoughtlessness.
You certainly don’t seem to actually think before you spout one of your canned rants, so it probably is.
It would appear that the audience has, in fact, determined tham, and your side lost.
You have denied it? Where? Perhaps my eyes just glazed over in self-defense. Would you mind repeating your denial? I’m sure we can all use a good laugh.
Just who is going to hold your “volunteer” police force accountable? I mean, George Bush is theoretically “accountable” for his actions, but no-one seems to be making that stick.
Since “volunteer” includes the concept “self-selected” of necessity, the Bad Guys are likely to outnumber the Good Guys pretty dámņëd quickly. Because, let’s face it – being a cop is a pretty dámņëd hard, boring, unpleasant and thankless job. It mostly attracts two types of person – those who genuinely want to serve the public and those who want the power.
And, just as most people who want to be President probably shouldn’t be allowed to be (and that includes the least-of-several-evils candidate that i currently think i’ll likely vote for), a huge proportion of the people who want to be cops shouldn’t be (and, under the current system in *most* places, aren’t allowed to or are weeded out), because they are exactly the sort of person who you {mistakenly} describe cops as being.
An example:
Jesse Jewell was, indeed, mistakenly suspected/wrongly accused as the Olympic Park bomber. But there is no doubt that he was a cop wannabe who couldn’t pass the psych screening and thus was working as a security guard, because it was the closest he could come to satisfying his fetish. I encountered him a few times, back in the day – he shopped at the same comics shop i did, just up Buford Highway from his apartment – and on the basis of those encounters he was not the person i’d want carrying a gun and “enforcing the law” in any community that i lived in.
But he is exactly the sort that a large proportion of people joining your “volunteer” police would be.
Bye Bye.
Have a nice life.
Elsewhere.
Well, i was responding to some of Ben‘s later luicrousities, but the computer seems to have eaten my homework, and life’s to short to go through actually, like, trying to discern what the hëll he’s babbling about twice, so…
Ben – if you want to think that your incredibly well-reasoned and persuasively-stated arguments have convinced me when i don’t reply any more, you just go right ahead.
It’ll be just about as specious as your other beliefs.
Jerry,
Just curious. I take it you’re a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car? Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that’s not already the case)?
Myself, I think it makes sense to at least have officers on foot or bikes in certain neighborhoods. I think it benefits both the cops and people in the neighborhood if they know each other’s names.
For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I’d think that two officers would be twice as alert than one.
Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I’ve seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal “heroes” of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um… “leeway” in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who’d think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?
On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn’t make police work look glamorous or “sexy”; but on the other hand it also didn’t address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?
In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?
Thanks.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of the Hammer horror (and occasional other genres) films, there’s a book out now about the history of the studio. I’m not sure of the exact title, but it’s probably something simple like Hammer Films or some such. I saw it at Borders.
Jerry,
Just curious. I take it you’re a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car? Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that’s not already the case)?
Myself, I think it makes sense to at least have officers on foot or bikes in certain neighborhoods. I think it benefits both the cops and people in the neighborhood if they know each other’s names.
For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I’d think that two officers would be twice as alert than one.
Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I’ve seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal “heroes” of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um… “leeway” in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who’d think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?
On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn’t make police work look glamorous or “sexy”; but on the other hand it also didn’t address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?
In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?
Thanks.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of the Hammer horror (and occasional other genres) films, there’s a book out now about the history of the studio. I’m not sure of the exact title, but it’s probably something simple like Hammer Films or some such. I saw it at Borders.
“Organized crime wouldn’t have a chance to thrive as long as we didn’t outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime.”
The most heinous organized crime of this century seems to be not drug trafficking but the trafficking in people.
“I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up.”
What were you drinking?
“I believe most people would agree that providing emergency services including firefighters and police, civil infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and a national defense are legitimate roles for government to play in society.”
The only value in talking with someone like Ben is that he questions such assumptions, which can lead some interesting ideas. However Bill’s right, ideology and trollinng are not mutually exclusive. I just wary of overusing the term. Ben uses stereoptypes not because he’s ignorant but because he’s very knowledgeable in the framework of an ideology that provides him with very clear stereotypes and ‘logical’ generalizations. But that’s certainly no excuse.
I’m certainly not going to interfere in the Mike v. Ben discussion.
The discussion about healthcare here by people who are not ideologically indoctrinated, like Bill, Bill and Jerry shows how complex an issue it is, with no simple answers. Each choice leadsa to it’s own problems, and trying to balance between the advantages of each system is not a perfect solution either, although it’s probably the only available solution. I think putting it in terms of a safety net is good, but I don’t know what the right balance is. I think Jerry is right — it should be viewed in terms of a safety net.
The problem of welfare states in Europe and Japan seems to be that they’ve strained the system too much. Ironically, part of the problem is that they don’t have enough children to carry the system through to the next generation.
Did anybody watch Deadwood? It depicted a society that in many respects was liberterian.
Bill Mulligan: “One factor I kind of dread is that there will come a point where the only way to make a Universal system work is to exert a great deal of control over the health choices made by people.”
HMOs and insurance companies already do that, to a much larger degree than you may realize. People with prior medical conditions are often denied applications for new health insurance. Doctors choices about how to treat patients are limited by what the insurance providers will pay for.
Bill Mulligan: “…and if we don’t, tell me who is going to be the one who tells the kid with cancer that his experimental treatment is too expensive.”
Right now, that would be the insurance companies. A co-worker of mine died of cancer a few years ago, and even though her family had insurance they were left with crushing amounts of debt.
Bill, I get what you’re saying, but I’m forced to wonder why surveys show the majority of Canadians are far more satisfied with their health care system than are their U.S. neighbors. At a party, I met a Canadian psychiatrist who was visiting my area. He told me he was soon going to have to move to another city if he wanted to keep practicing, because the agency that manages the health care system determined there were more than enough psychiatrists where he was and not enough elsewhere. I asked him how he felt about it. He told me it was a sacrifice, yes, but one he was happy to make in the interests of keeping the entire populace covered.
On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes.
Still, I think a system that covers everyone, and where sane decisions are made about coverage, would drive down costs. Right now, too many people can’t afford preventive medicine and as a result end up in the ER, which is far more expensive than a trip to the primary care doctor.
I seem to recall that the Clinton plan was to “outsource” health insurance to a number of regional providers to create “managed competition.” No one provider would have a monopoly, and the government would ensure that payers on the federal dime wouldn’t get away with telling someone, “No, you don’t need a liver transplant because we don’t want to spend the money you’ve been paying us in premiums.” Moreover, he government would ensure that anyone who lost their job or couldn’t buy insurance through their employer would be covered. The plan was shot down for political and personal reasons (if Hillary said up was up, the Hillary-haters would deny it because, well, their hatred of her overrode all rational thinking). In a sane world, I think it would be worth re-examining.
But this is not a sane world.
Kronos shouldn’t have too many ties created in any given story. It wouldn’t really work for the nature of the character and it would be more fun in general without them.
Yeah, he should be leaving a trail of dead ex-girlfriends behind him like Little Joe on Bonanza. Romancing loner vampire hunters makes about as much sense, survival wise, as wearing a red shirt and telling Captain Kirk you are getting married next week right before you beam down to The Planet Of Unhappy Lava Men.
How’s about Scarlett Johansen?
The answer to that question is almost always yes.
Bill, I think it might be possible to make a Universal health care system work…I just don’t have faith in the government to do it. And since once it’s put in place it will be as sacred as social security, with even the suggestion of tinkering becoming a third rail of politics we’d better make dámņ sure we get it right the first time.
It’s funny how your selective application of a principle isn’t a case of your hypocrisy but someone else’s idiocy. Not a laughing with you funny, but a laughing at you funny.
You are simply wrong. Intent is required to qualify lying. If you had access to a healthy intuition, or if you weren’t desperate to attribute to me such an intent, you would have realized it’s plausible I simply wrote casually, and although you failed to cite anything demonstrating how I was wrong, I have no reservation against rephrasing to accommodate you.
Your denial that dissolving police as a public service would remove accountability from peace-keeping is based only on the insistence of your own damaged word.
When you don’t say what’s missing now that will be present with an unpaid police force, the absence of pay is literally the only plausible inference as to what your problem with the current system is. It ain’t Rocket Surgery, Ben.
You seem to be under the impression that the privileged shouldn’t be required to participate in maintaining the infrastructure that nurtures their accumulation of privilege and wealth in anything resembling a proportion in which they benefit from it. You’re gonna have to do better than saying you want to enable a level of privilege carried on the backs of the lower and middle classes.
You might be attributing a malevolent influence on dollars collected in such a fashion. To that I can only respond: it’s the same money handed over by the tax payer in the first place. And so we may return to the reasonable inference you are unqualified for any paid labor.
“Just curious. I take it you’re a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car?”
A relatively small area of the city, but one that’s densely packed due to high rise buildings, a public library, tourist attractions, a major hospital, two or three (one is always closing while another is always opening) homeless shelters, several major bus stops, one of the 24/48 hour holding facilities (drunk tank) and magistrates offices, vital state office buildings/centers, the Capitol building itself, City Hall and lots of politicians & VIPs. We patrol by foot, bike and car as well as acting as security or VIP protection where needed.
“Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that’s not already the case)?”
I think every agency should do that in some way or another. Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now. Plus, it’s a lot harder to know what’s going on around you while doing 35 to 45 through an area with the windows rolled up and the A/C and radio on.
“For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I’d think that two officers would be twice as alert than one.”
For most the agencies around here, it depends on how well staffed you are. Some agencies like the two man unit. Some are so short right now that you have one officer or deputy covering 20 to 30 square miles on their own with a back-up unit 30 minutes away if things go wrong. We usually patrol solo, but then we can reach each other in five minutes or less.
The idea of one officer being more alert then two is based on the fact that two people that start getting in a really animated discussion about something that they both enjoy may become more focused on the discussion then looking around them and actually seeing their surroundings. It happens. I think that one officer can become just as oblivious due to boredom or thousand yard stare at times, so it evens out in my mind.
“Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I’ve seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal “heroes” of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um… “leeway” in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who’d think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?
On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn’t make police work look glamorous or “sexy”; but on the other hand it also didn’t address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?
In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?”
Actually Dragnet, at least in the radio form, addressed crooked cops at least once. I wasn’t as big on the TV show so I can’t remember if it did or not.
The Shield, CSI, Hill Street Blues, The Streets of San Francisco, Dragnet, etc have all had as much effect as anybody lets it have on them. There’s a chunk of the general population that, if they see it in a movie or TV show, fiction trumps reality. You get used to it. Either people will correct their mistaken beliefs when confronted with reality or they won’t. The only place it really seems to be having a noticeable effect is in the courts. I’m sure you’ve seen the news reports before about “The CSI Effect” and how it clouds juries views about real forensic testimony. But on the job? You tend to laugh it off.
But, addressing your last question in the overall question, yeah, it can create problems, but it mostly doesn’t. People will react one way or another based more on their upbringing then on their viewing habits. But it does effect the courts and it does effect staffing.
In the area of staffing, dovetailing nicely with something Mike Weber posted about the Jewel case, you get lots of gung ho idiots that apply for the job because they know zip all about the job, but they think that (fill in the blank) is a cool character on TV. Well, if the character isn’t nuts, that’s not always bad. It’s a bit like the NASA workers who all started out as Trek fans. Well, if the character they thing is cool and want to emulate is from The Shield, then we really like to weed them out before they even get to the “your hired” part of the process.
If anything is unclear or didn’t address what you wanted to know, let me know. I’m literally typing this as fast as I can think it up as I have some family stuff to do this evening and I really want to get my workout in before I lose the chance to do so.
Sean: “I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up.”
Micha: “What were you drinking?”
It wasn’t the drinks, Micha. The problem was that they let Sean cook the food.
“Here you go guys. Haggis! and from my family’s secret recipe no less”
I’d heard that the rescue squad was less then amused.
Bill Mulligan: “Yeah, he should be leaving a trail of dead ex-girlfriends behind him like Little Joe on Bonanza.”
No, he shouldn’t. On the other side of that argument, he shouldn’t have to have a romantic lead in every story either. It’s become so annoyingly formulaic in Hollywood these days that you have to have a lead male and a lead female who will end up doing each by the third act that it sometimes gets both clumsily portrayed and irritatingly distracting to the story’s pacing. You don’t have to have that storyline in every film. It gets worth when they have sequels films where the female leads don’t always come back and they seem to feel that they have to redo the entire “one true love of the hero’s life” plot for every film until the franchise dies. Kronos could easily go a story or two on pure swashbuckling adventure and vampire slaying (with maybe a few other creature sparingly thrown into the mix) without that subplot just fine.
“Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now.”
I think that’s the kernel of truth in what Ben said — you probably want the police to be perceived as part of the community and accountable to it, instead of some external force, as much as you can in an urban society.
Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?
“On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes.”
There is a fundemental difference in the internal logic between a system based on taxation and the one based on a transaction with an insurance company. In the first case indivuals members of society are obligated to give money to the society so that every member of society will have adequate medical care. In the second the image is of individuals taking care of themselves by paying to a private insurance company, but if they lack the money they depend on the voluntary charity of others. This difference affects the attitudes of people — especially ideologically motivated people — for or against each system. Although nowadays people are less interested in ideological arguments and more about utility. Does the average Canadian family pay more in taxes for their health carethan an American family for insurance, and what kind of service do they get? How does each method affect society?
“Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now.”
I think that’s the kernel of truth in what Ben said — you probably want the police to be perceived as part of the community and accountable to it, instead of some external force, as much as you can in an urban society.
Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?
“On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes.”
There is a fundemental difference in the internal logic between a system based on taxation and the one based on a transaction with an insurance company. In the first case indivuals members of society are obligated to give money to the society so that every member of society will have adequate medical care. In the second the image is of individuals taking care of themselves by paying to a private insurance company, but if they lack the money they depend on the voluntary charity of others. This difference affects the attitudes of people — especially ideologically motivated people — for or against each system. Although nowadays people are less interested in ideological arguments and more about utility. Does the average Canadian family pay more in taxes for their health carethan an American family for insurance, and what kind of service do they get? How does each method affect society?
Jerry,
Thanks for your kinsights into community policework. It was very interesting to read. I’m going to ask a question that I shocked the Bill Mulligan hasn’t. If he has asked this at some time, sorry:
What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?
Would zombies even be a law enforcement issue? It isn’t like they’re illegal or anything. I’m thinking the halting the destruction from a zombie outbreak would be the province of the state or national guards.
“I think that’s the kernel of truth in what Ben said”
Not really.
“Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?”
I don’t know. I work 4 to Mid, so I really only see programs that I can DVR and I don’t add much to that unless the ads really hook me. Plus, I’m not a “normal” cop in that sense. I like COPs and I like some of the classics like Barney Miller and Hill Street, but I’m not really into watching every cop drama out there. But I made dámņëd sure to catch Hot Fuzz.
“Thanks for your kinsights into community policework.”
That wasn’t insight. That was the header on an entire chapter. When I have more then five minutes, unlike now, I’ll go into detail about it and my first answer to Micha about Ben’s non-kernel of truth.
“What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?”
Duh!!!! They hired me.
“Would zombies even be a law enforcement issue?”
Murder. Makes it a law enforcement issue.
What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?
I think it’s clear that within a very short time after the zombie outbreak we would rapidly lose all medical, police, and firefighter resources. in about that order. In fact, I’d guess that after a few hours the only cops you’ll see will be the ones shambling toward you with arms outstretched and crooked grins. The thin blue-skinned line.
That’s one of the advantages the Zeds have–without any thought on their part they quickly take out some of our most important social elements. I note that lawyers and politicians will be largely spared the initial culling. There’s a lesson there somewhere.
Jerry Chandler is a known Zombie sympathizer. And Bill Mulligan’s movies? Cinema verite.
That said, I have a secret weapon against which the zombies are powerless: squirrels. The zombies can’t catch ’em. And like the Ewoks proved, enough little furry creatures can bring down an Empire… or a mass of zombies.
Murder would be the justification for arresting zombies, whom I believe you have the slack to simply dispose of at your discretion. However, I wouldn’t think having the slack to dispose of any immediate threats actually gives you jurisdiction.
In other words, I don’t think it’s a good idea to make the police any more responsible for preparing against the zombie outbreak than for making sure bridges don’t collapse. The sense of security will be justified unevenly, if at all.
“I’ve always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source?” —My source is simple election results from my region. Where I live (and surrounding areas) are overwhelmingly poor, some of the poorest rural areas in the country. And…they have been voting Republican for many years. “Don’t take my guns! Stop abortion!” These are their voting issues. I tell them to be careful what they vote for (GOP), because they just might get it (end to social safety net). —-There’s a good book that discusses this peculiar phenomenon called “What’s The Matter With Kansas.” It applies to a lot of places in the U.S.
“”Dan, I wonder on what basis you say that free market health care does not work? We don’t have free health care now, so you can’t use that as a metric to judge it by.””
I say it doesn’t work because it does not provide care for everybody. Health care isn’t digital cable, it’s not an optional good. It’s on the level of food, education, and access to courts. If people are left out (wholly or partly) then the system is failing those people.
The U.S. health care industry is run like any entertainment industry (money, not the public good, is the primary concern). This helps maximize their profits, but it is counterproductive to society’s needs. For health care to be a part of our basic values (instead of just another commodity), we MUST intervene. We can either take control of the industry, or fill in the gaps with public funds.
I argue that we already have the right to intervene and control the industry (to some degree). Public tax dollars already pay for much of the R&D for these companies (grants, tax cuts). That’s OUR money they get to play with. Ergo, we have a RIGHT to access to those new technologies and discoveries.
It’s abhorrent we pay for Big Pharma to develop new medicines, only to see the Gov’t give them exclusive ownership so that they can charge US through the nose to get it. WE paid for it ALREADY. So it should either be reasonably priced (by regulation) or immediately become public domain so that competition can bring the price down. I say that the principle of patents does not apply in these cases. They shouldn’t be treated as singular creators if the rest of us are (partly) footing the bill.
With that in mind, the free market has again failed us. We keep cutting corporate taxes so that they’ll have the money to invest in these new medicines/technologies on their own and we STILL have to subsidize development with public money.
Moreover, Big Pharma has abandoned the “free” market already. They use the power of the federal gov’t to hold us all hostage to their outrageous pricing. They abhor competition, and disallow us–using purchased federal officials- from buying products at the lowest possible price (such as from Canada).
As for “free” health care, that doesn’t exist anywhere. Other countries use their tax system to provide for themselves health care in a similar fashion to how we provide ourselves roads and schools. Because of my morals and values, I believe essential (non-elective) health care would be better provided through a similar system. It would also liberate our employers from an albatross they are obviously not well equipped to deal with.
From my current vantage point, it seems that socialized health care would not only extend coverage and reduce stress, but would be a “jobs creation” program. Companies could use the freed up money to expand, and perhaps keep more jobs here in the U.S.
Micha talking about the differences between taxation-based medical versus private insurance-based reminds me of my insurance job. Now, while insurance companies can be invaluable when you need them, no matter what their PR departments tell you, they’re in business to make money. That’s it. No big secret. They want to make money off people and have as few claims as possible. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious, but in the whole debate about it all, that fact is never brought up.
It wasn’t the drinks, Micha. The problem was that they let Sean cook the food.
“Here you go guys. Haggis! and from my family’s secret recipe no less”
I’d heard that the rescue squad was less then amused.
In my defense, I thought the salsa and the Frank’s Hot Sauce would’ve killed those things. Who knew they’d like ’em? Micha, seriously, we’ve been talking a long time. Do you really wanna see me with booze in me? Not a pretty picture, man!
“Duh!!! They hired me.”
So, their plan is to, what? Have you go down and quote Hammer films and other odd minutiae at them until they become so bored they’re happy to return to the grave?