CDP The continuing turmoil following the murder of five Dallas police officers, close on the heels of supposedly racially motivated killings of two suspects by police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota, has led to much blaming, questioning, and even some introspection. Does America have a race problem, a cop problem, a gun problem, or some combination thereof? Or is it really something else all together?
News that a new study from Harvard found little to no evidence that racial bias plays a role in instances of the use of deadly force by police officers seems to throw cold water on the theory that America is swarming with racist cops just looking for excuses to shoot black suspects. Gun control proponents would like to be able to say that America is awash in gun violence because she is awash in guns, but that argument doesn’t hold up, either. This leaves the palpable racial anger in the black community, or at least in those members of that community the media chooses to profile and amplify. Much of this anger is no doubt genuine, but is it really about perceived animus from the police, or something else? Is what we are seeing really based more on the fact that certain members of the black community, particularly on the far, radical left, are none too happy with what eight years of the Chosen One has meant to their lives? How much of the rage and frustration is due to their lives being unimproved by an Obama administration which rode into office on a wave of “he’s the One we’ve been waiting for” type rhetoric? How many of their lives are actually palpably worse after eight years of Obama’s policies? But none of that really explains the problem of violence between cops and citizens. It doesn’t explain why the issue of violence by police and violence against police has seemed to divide the country in two (again). But that division actually leads us to the real cause of our problems: you. Well, probably not you, per se. You’re reading this, so you’re obviously a person of great intellectual sophistication. By “you,” I mean “us,” the American voter. By that I mean that these problems, cop vs. citizen, white vs. black, can be mainly traced to the American voter, both Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative, Red and Blue. The American Left has long viewed law enforcement as the enemy. The irony of this is that the Left loves government as a rule and continually elects politicians to expand it. Apparently lost on them is the fact that the police are literally the enforcement arm of domestic government. David Brown, the Dallas Police Chief, pointed out the pressure put on police departments (particularly departments in large, urban, heavily minority areas) by local governments a few days after the ambush attack on his officers. His point that “policing was never meant to solve” the problems of people with mental health issues or loose dogs is entirely correct. When local governments, liberal and conservative alike, burden the police with these sorts of responsibilities or makes the police department a de facto revenue raising arm of city government, it not only taxes law enforcement resources but increases distrust among the citizens, leading to the likelihood of more negative encounters between citizens and officers. The Right’s problem is almost a mirror image. Conservatives and Republicans tend to lionize law enforcement, often reflexively defending the police when accused of wrongdoing before any facts are known (the exact opposite of the Left’s reflexive blame). Police officers are people, which means that the vast majority of officers are good people doing a tough job. But that also means that every once in awhile there will be a bad apple, and the Right loses credibility when they refuse to recognize that fact by at least waiting until they know what happened on a case by case basis. The irony of the Right’s position is that law enforcement is unique in being the one government institution conservatives and Republicans actually want to increase in size and scope. Red state governments are also far from immune to the siren’s song of revenue from tickets and citations. Republicans, being the party of Law and Order, often run on a platform of increased numbers of officers and department budgets, and voters who would balk at increasing any other government agency forget that for all their good works, the police are still government officials. America’s real problem is a government problem. We have too many laws, too many regulations. We have professional politicians stumbling over each other to pass more laws and regulations to “solve problems” largely created by some previous law they passed. We have a ridiculously vast number of people tasked with enforcing these often ludicrous and pointless things. Obviously, the shooting of a suspect or the ambush killing of five law enforcement officers are serious, terrible things. But how much of the animus between citizens and law enforcement would be avoided if the police weren’t the local face of a government constantly attempting to control the lives of citizens? A smaller, smarter policing footprint should be the goal of anyone who seeks to lessen the size and scope of all levels of government. It’s easy for the Right to say “well you shouldn’t be breaking the law” without asking if those laws are necessary and just, and then voting for politicians who pressure police to make the politicians look good to the voters by “decreasing crime.” It’s easy for the Left to say “cops are racist, the System is racist” instead of asking themselves why they keep voting for politicians who expand the power of the government and then naturally use the enforcement arm of the government to enforce that expansion. It’s easy for the black community to believe white cops oppress them instead of questioning whether or not their community leaders really have their best interests at heart, and aren’t actually invested in retaining black anger at the “white establishment” as an election issue. What apparently isn’t easy is recognizing that wherever you fall politically, Left or Right, the answer to none of our problems as a country is more restrictive domestic government, at any level. What isn’t easy is recognizing that yes, liberty will always entail a certain amount of risk, but the risk is worth it. But that should be easy. It should be the easiest thing in the world.
1 Comment
Rex 21 January 2017. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States yesterday on a Bible she's never read, taking an oath she's taken twice before and never honored. She has no intention of honoring it this time, either. Oaths mean nothing to a Clinton; they are simply a formality, a tradition they are expected to follow as part of the charade involved in gaining more influence, power, and money. The ultimate goal is now as it has always been for a Clinton: To occupy positions of power in order to enrich themselves and consolidate the dynastic influence of the Clinton crime family.
On 5 July 2016, when Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democrat nominee for the office, FBI Director James Comey announced that his bureau would not recommend Attorney General Loretta Lynch indict Clinton. This, even as he spelled out with extreme clarity the multiple offenses she had clearly committed against the United States in her 4-year term as the nation's top diplomat. I will leave Mr. Comey's cowardly failure to fulfill the responsibilities of his office for others to address as and if they choose. Law enforcement is not my bailiwick. I will also assume you, dear reader, are familiar with the myriad transgressions Secretary Clinton allegedly committed on behalf of her family's 'charitable' Foundation while serving in the office once occupied by Thomas Jefferson and the primary department responsible for shaping and carrying out U.S. foreign policy. The purview of Director Comey's investigation included Secretary Clinton's use of an unauthorized and illegal computer system physically residing at her place of residence in Chappaqua, New York and administered in part by a private-sector company in Denver, Colorado. Clinton conducted all of her official business while occupying the office of Secretary of State using this unsecure and privately administered system. She has insisted on multiple occasions that since there were U.S. Secret Service personnel watching over her residence, no one could possibly have gained access to the information stored on or transferred via her unauthorized home computer. Apparently she believes that physical access is required to intercept data from a networked computer system connected to the open World Wide Web. I'll leave any thoughts on that to your judgment. Hillary Clinton is also a primary stakeholder in the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Foundation is ostensibly a charitable activity operated by or on behalf of Hillary, her husband (former U.S. president William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton), and their daughter Chelsea Clinton. This Foundation became far more well endowed during Mrs. Clinton's term as Secretary of State, apparently in large part due to the Secretary acting in her official capacity to grant or withhold the favor of the United States based on the donations of foreign government activities. Essentially, Clinton sold the country out for the basest of reasons: Remuneration. That's right. Mere money. In spring of 2017, the notional government of Libya, one of Secretary Clinton's main policy failures back in 2011-2012, insists via diplomatic channels (and reported by interested media, though not the typical mainstream media channels) that the United States provide military and intelligence resources to assist in consolidating its power over the country. President Clinton balks, as it would point up her failures in that region even more glaringly than history already has. Days later, the president is informed via back channels that if she refuses to provide the materials and personnel needed to help Libyan oligarchs to consolidate their power over the important north African state, information concerning the Foundation's dubious activities in Haiti, where the Clintons committed fraudulent activities and added an estimated $200 million to the family coffers will be released to the international media and allies' foreign offices. The president announces in a press conference the next afternoon that the United States will send 2,000 Army Special Forces troops to Libya to 'advise' the Libyans and help the government consolidate its control and authority in the country. Also, AFRICOM will dedicate a 40-person unit in its J2 (Intel) division to assisting with the effort to help the Libyans gain control. Two Air Force Reserve units are activated to help man up AFRICOM's intelligence activity. Later in summer 2017, China announces it intends to defend the entire western Pacific out to 500 nautical miles from her coasts as her own waters. An ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) will be established to protect this vast area as well. President Clinton, via her ambassador, tells the United Nations that this is unacceptable and the United States will not accept such an unprecedented encroachment on unincorporated territory (and several sovereign nations who are US allies) by the increasingly aggressive communist state. Clinton sends her Secretary of State, Sidney Blumenthal, to Beijing to negotiate a compromise on the outrageous demands. Blumenthal has his diplomatic visa revoked upon disembarking from his conveyance, and the Chinese premier announces he will be held until further notice on obscure charges of espionage. Meanwhile, the Chinese ambassador in Washington D.C. sends a secret missive to the White House: Acquiesce to the 500-mile zone or Blumenthal will never see U.S. soil again. Oh, and take all U.S. forces off the Korean peninsula, too. Of course, Clinton again refuses. At first. But after receiving word that China intends to expose the illicit contributions Mrs. Clinton's family Foundation accepted from Vladimir Putin's Russia in exchange for 20 percent of America's uranium resources, she again concedes. All troops are to be removed from the Peninsula by the end of 2018, and America agrees not to patrol the western Pacific Ocean with 'air-breathing' resources. Then Vladimir Putin called... The embattled, humiliated, and utterly ineffective president has woven many webs in her quest for vast riches and unprecedented power. How that web unraveling might affect her presidency and whether the United States can survive such a disastrous series of events are issues I will leave for another time. If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, none of this may happen. But I wouldn't bet against it, were I a betting man. For what it might be worth, Chelsea Clinton turned 36 in 2016. And the beat goes on. CDP Hey, buddy. Could you come in here and sit down for a minute? We need to have a talk. There’s something your mother and I have been putting off discussing with you for a few months now. We think it’s reached the point where we need to go ahead and get it out in the open. You probably aren’t going to like or believe everything we have to say but it’s important for us to talk to you so please pay attention.
First of all, we aren’t angry with you. We want you to know that you aren’t in any trouble and that we’re only trying to protect you. We realize you’ve been through a lot lately, and that a lot of things you were wanting to happen for you haven’t panned out. We know you had a lot of effort and hope wrapped up in those things, and the way you’re feeling is perfectly natural. Hell, we get disappointed sometimes, too. You may not believe this, but we really do know exactly how you feel. It’s like this: we think your new friend is a bad influence. We think he’s leading you down a path that isn’t healthy for you and will only end in a GED, legal trouble, and a knocked up girlfriend. You’ve only known this kid for a year and you’ve stopped hanging out with all your old friends. You used to be industrious and positive; now if you aren’t running around with him getting in trouble you just mope around here and insult my television programs and your mother’s cooking. What? No, we don’t hate him. We know you think he’s this cool rebel who does what he wants and says what he wants and doesn’t respect authority, but believe me we know trouble when we see it. What did you just call me? Where did you even learn that word? Oh. Yeah, I had to read The Canterbury Tales in high school, too. Look, we’re getting off track here. Be quiet and let me finish and we’ll both be out of here quicker. Your new friend isn’t your friend. He’s using you. We know the stuff he’s talking you into doing might actually seem like fun, but trust us, the fun won’t last. Eventually he’ll talk you into robbing a 7-11 and you’ll get caught because he’s actually not very bright and will lock the keys in your getaway car or some shit. Know what happens then? He’ll skate because of his daddy’s lawyers and you’ll wind up doing 4 years in the pen. Even if by some stroke of dumb luck you don’t actually get caught, eventually he’s going to go back to hanging out with his other friends. You know, the ones he won’t ever actually take you to hang out with when he goes? I’ve heard you talking to that girlfriend of yours on facepost or skyppe or whatever the hell it is, that’s how I know. My point is he isn’t like you. You two have nothing in common. When the excrement hits the fan he won’t be there for you. The point I’m trying to convey is that in life, we all have to make choices. A lot of those choices are really pretty inconsequential. But every once in awhile we’re faced with an important choice, one that will affect the course of our lives. This new friend is leading you to make the wrong choices, and your mother and I are afraid he’s going to lead you into a wrong choice at one of those life altering moments. Look, some of your old friends have been calling. They’re worried about you, too. They miss hanging out with you. You really should think about giving them a call and just seeing what they’re up to. I know they’d be happy to hear from you. I know you don’t think they’re as cool as this new friend, but a couple of them are pretty solid kids. Just please think about it, for your mother’s sake. She’s very worried about you. Ok, go on and get out of here. Good talk, buddy. Huh? No, you can’t borrow twenty bucks. |
MisfitsJust a gaggle of people from all over who have similar interests and loud opinions mixed with a dose of humor. We met on Twitter. Archives
January 2024
|