Neither – or maybe both.

First, she makes an accusaton – “The police are guilty of police brutality”. (Of course, this doesn’t begin to approach the issue that the same police are innocent until proven guilty, but we’ll leave that for now.)

>>The LAPD are Not all good guys. Honest.>>

What to make of this? We should accept everything the press prints as true unless it is proven false (although why someone would attempt to prove it false unless they questioned it in the first place is another problem), but we should suspect the police of lawbreaking when they are the ones in charge of enforcing the laws.

OK…so now suppose I accept this – that those who are in charge of enforcing the laws are in fact lawbreakers. What can we do about it? Fire all the police? Enact a blanket indictment and try each and every one of them? Who is going to police the police? Do you form a _super_ police force? How do you make sure _they’re_ honest, aboveboard and non-violent?

Theoretically, the problem belongs to the Mayor, through his police chief. You could demand that the Mayor fire his police chief, but if he doesn’t, then your only option is that the Mayor is recalled by the people who elected him. Los Angeles doesn’t seem so inclined.

Maybe they don’t think there’s really a problem?

Or maybe Helen just objects to the fact that perfection doesn’t exist among human beings, even when they’re the government?

Don’t forget, Charles, that Helen doesn’t include “white people” in everybody.

If you want to navigate the corridors of Leftist thought, make sure you bring your alternate Dimension GPS device.

The full video told a completely different story, but of course, it wasn’t part of the White Privilege narrative.

Nice catch, suek. Of course, nobody said Helen couldn’t use doublethink! At least, nobody on our side.

I did say Helen was no philosopher or theologian. You can’t expect her, transparency or no transparency, to debate such complex points of interest on any terms even half way acceptable by others.

‘Helen’ replies that those rough men are themselves fallible, as though any person commented that they were perfect or that this was even remotely the point of Martel’s in the first place. That’s called combining a straw man with a red herring. It is also cheap and juvenile.

This is perfectly in line with Helen’s world view and Leftist faction. They need to destroy America’s legitimacy and what better way to do that than to hold the “authority” to perfect standards? That way they will fail and then Helen can come in and get that “social justice” cranking. Great way to get rid of that “white privilege” and replace it with Black Power.

Suek – are you suggesting that Helen is being cynical or being sceptical? You aren’t suggesting that she’s diminishing the humanity of the LAPD, are you? I am soooooooooo confused!

But Helen…they’re from the government. How can they be anything but good guys? Are you saying that we shouldn’t trust someone who is from the government?

How do you suggest we should address this problem?

That one would reply to his anecdote with what she did is breathtaking in its absence of seriousness. He wrote hundreds of words noting the naïveté of the period, the people, and one person in particular and how she was incapable of seeing the men duty-bound to protect her and her family.

‘Helen’ replies that those rough men are themselves fallible, as though any person commented that they were perfect or that this was even remotely the point of Martel’s in the first place. That’s called combining a straw man with a red herring. It is also cheap and juvenile.

I also note with interest ‘Helen’ had the aforementioned cheap reply to ‘Charles Martel’ but nothing written countering the excellent comment by ‘Tiresias’ (made before Martel’s) detailing her deep innocence of knowledge regarding the role of the press with regards to the government. To use that worn cliché: the silence is deafening.

Skepticism is awakened by circumstance. If a guy sitting next to me at a lunch counter asks me to pass the salt, I say sure. If he asks me to lend him $500, the light of skepticism is raised. If a guy is running for president and I don’t know him, then I ask who is he. If I get a list of accomplishments and I hear sensible positions, I say OK–he’s a possible. If said candidate lacks a list of accomplishments, is not asked about positions by the press, and then promises to stop the rising of the oceans, I ask what institution he was let out of. It has to do with what my experience says is reasonable and possible and about the impact of a bad decision on my part. I am actually a quite nice, empathetic person most of the time, but when my antenna pick up something like a Nigerian inheritance scheme, I can get a little angry.

=SIGH=

I’m going to go talk to my dog.