And this is how NOT to apologize
Bookworm on Jul 24 2009 at 5:07 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Earlier this morning I blogged about a suitably abject apology. Now I have the perfect example of a classic non-apology:
President Obama said Friday that he “could have calibrated” his words more carefully in the controversy over the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white police officer, but added that there had been an “overreaction” by both sides in a case that touched off an intense discussion about race in America. [In other words, I meant precisely what I said, I just didn't say it tactfully.]
“To the extent that my choice of words didn’t illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think, that was unfortunate,” Mr. Obama said, making an unusual unannounced visit to the White House briefing room in an effort to ease the controversy. [I'm really pissed off that, because I meant what a said, but didn't say it cleverly enough to get away with it, everyone is on my back.]
The president, who on Wednesday said that the police in Cambridge, Mass., “acted stupidly” in the arrest of Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr., a prominent Harvard scholar of African-American history, sought to clear up the matter. He said he hoped the case could become “a teachable moment” to be used to improve relations between minorities and police officers. [I'm sure he doesn't mean a "teachable moment," as in "I hope this teaches other presidents not to open their mouths and insert their feet." Beyond knowing what Obama doesn't mean, it's impossible to know what he does mean.]
The president said that he conveyed his sentiment to Sgt. James Crowley in a telephone call on Friday afternoon. The call, which lasted about five minutes, came after police officials in Massachusetts and beyond accused Mr. Obama of maligning the character of Sergeant Crowley and the entire Cambridge police force. [And what sentiment would that be? That Obama meant what he said, but is upset that he didn't get away with saying it?]
“I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear that in my choice of words, I think, I unfortunately, I think, gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “I could have calibrated those words differently, and I told this to Sergeant Crowley.” [But he was maligning them. He said they acted stupidly. That's maligning. So it wasn't an impression he gave, it was what he actually said. Once again, he's merely expressing regret at not being clever enough to get away with it.]
Mr. Obama did not specifically use the word “apology,” but aides said that was the sentiment conveyed during his call with the officer. [Even the New York Times figures out what's going on, but it's willing to trust those aids who stand around and interpret Obama's utterances for the benefit of us poor mortals who might not get all the nuances of his brilliant mind.] Mr. Obama, the nation’s first black president, has walked a careful line in his writings and in his political career when addressing race. Since taking office six months ago, he has delivered only a handful of speeches devoted specifically to race.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
83 Responses to “And this is how NOT to apologize”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It still cracks me up that I live in the only country where a lily white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black woman can never, never, never, ever give birth to a white baby.
Barack Obama is not the nation’s first “black” president. He’s the nation’s first half-black/half-white president. That the Democrats and the media continue to lap up this antediluvian racist “touch of the tar” claptrap is one of the reasons why I abandoned those dimwits long ago.
Did it occur to anyone that Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times asked about Henry Gates. This was not a prepared statement. Obama had no time to carefully construct what he was going to say. And he meant to show the racism involved but not to call the cop a racist.
The “teachable moment” means that Americans who so choose can finally see what life looks like for a well-known African American professor who finds himself locked out of his own home and gets arrested because he is guilty of yelling. This is racism folks. Obama knows it and also knows that many Americans choose to ignore it. A few more will get it due to the “teachable moment,” but others will stick their heads deeper into the sand and write inane blog entries. White Americans need to listen about race. Enough foolishness has escaped our lips already. We are teachable only if we choose to be educated.
Sorry, Helen, but one of more inane blog entries is yours. The cops were doing their job. That’s all. Gates, I suspect, acted like an ass. As a professor of African American studies at a prestigious institution, I suppose he felt he had a professional obligation to cry racism. But reports now suggest that officer Crowley is not racist, that he is every bit the professional, and even a black cop on the scene supports the Gates-as-hysterical-ass theory: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story
Greetings:
Like the nutcase finding a foot in the smallest part of his Rohrshach inkblot, I would just like to address what seems to me to be happening to “a teachable moment”.
When I originally encountered the term, it seemed to me to describe the opportunity that occurs when a student is open and attentive enough to process a significant information transfer from a teacher. (By now, you understand why I am not employed by any of Noah Webster’s descendants.) Lately, it seems to me that the term is being used to describe the occasion when the teacher is ready to instruct the student.
At this point, my unprofessional opinion would be that neither Professor Gates nor, thankfully, Sgt. Crowley are anywhere near a teachable moment. I would, however, be willing to enough of my time to let Professor Gates know that you’ve gotta watch out for those “Paddy boys”.
Let me fix this: “can finally see what life looks like for a well-known
African Americanwhite professor who finds himself locked out of his own home and gets arrested because he is guilty of yelling.”So, having made that minor change, let’s see what happens:
—Nobody remarks on the white professor because it’s obvious he’s an a**hole who can’t control his temper. However, had he been black, his a**holiness would have been excused because…………………….the media are racists and expect a low level of conduct from blacks, even ones who teach at Hahvahd.
—The white professor can’t play the race card because the cop he’s berating is white. Now if the cop had been black, the media would have effortlessly flipped the race card: “Elitist white man insults hardworking cop because he’s black.”
—The white professor cannot get the attention of the half-black/half-white president of the United States because he is the wrong half color.
Once again Helen trots out her usual accusations of racism, blind to her own deeply embedded, always-looking-down-upon-blacks racism.
Physician, heal thyself.
Helen –
The “teachable moment” here is that the President needs to learn not to comment on things before he knows the facts.
If he had had any serious, grown-up, executive experience prior to being elected President, he would know this.
Deana
Besides, Helen, have you read the statement from the black police officer / colleague of Mr. Crowley or do you think he is racist, too?
Deana
P.S. And please spare me all the excuses that this is just like it was 100 years ago when whites used to divide blacks against each other. The black officer is a professional who is duty-bound to report what happened during the Gates’ incident. He also is free, like everyone else in this country.
I find it hilarious and yet, predictable, that you choose to side with Gates and not the black officer.
If Obama really wanted to make this a “teachable moment” and help start a national dialog on race, he might have mentioned to the African-American public that they shouldn’t live their life assuming every encounter between themselves and a white person is ruled by racism. But I doubt that’s what Obama meant, more likely he had in mind the same racial canards the left has been beating white America over the head with for the past 30 years and wondering why nothing changes.
If a white guy had done what Professor Gates did the result would have been the same. Gates wasn’t arrested because he was black; he was arrested because he acted like an ass. And nobody was born an ass.
Deana… you nailed it!
Silence – the better part of valor in this teachable moment. In fact the very words I used in an email to POTUS along with the suggestion that he owed not only an apology to the Boston Police Dept. but every police department across the country.
You don’t think Helen sided with the Professor because he had a ‘yo mama’ moment with Officer Crowley….just such a damn ethnic and eclectic moment (doubled over here with giggles).
Much as I am tempted, I won’t beat up on Helen. I have a small reservoir of compassion.
Obama continues to demonstrate that he is not ready for prime time. Any sensible, experienced politician
would have responded simply that he was not familiar with the facts and would not comment.
The President, if he really wanted to teach, should say “that is a local matter, and I do not believe that I should intrude”. That would be a good lesson for all Feds to hear from their leader. He could reasonably follow up with, “Besides, I am not familiar. . .”
We are continually told that this man is intelligent. I simply do not believe that. I believe that, perhaps inadvertently, he betrayed his prejudice; but even so, an intelligent politician would not have been drawn in.
1. I agree that Obama should have stayed out of what was a local matter.
2. Gates acted like an unmitigated ass.
3. It wasn’t racism.
And there the agreement ends. Because:
A. You don’t have to show police an ID except in vehicle stops. Check your state law, you only have to verbally identify yourself. Period. Some states require name, others name and address. But you don’t have to show them your papers. Gates did after initially refusing, which he had a right to do.
B. Once Gates had gone the extra step and shown them ID, shown them he lived there, the police should have left the property immediately as they had no legal reason to remain. At that time, had Gates ordered them to leave his property, they would have had to lawfully comply. He should have, but he was being too full of himself.
C. Yes you have a right to speak in a disrespectful tone to police. Too many SCOTUS decisions pointing to your right to question what they are doing and why, even loudly. Of course, you will pay for it.
D. You will pay for it under the banner of “contempt of cop”. Cops acknowledge this. Try reading the comments at Policeone.com regarding this incident . Or the White/Martin incident. Or the other 100′s of incidents per month that make the surface. Many states have “interference” laws that are often used to justify silencing anyone audacious enough to question a cop’s actions. It is often used on people who are witness to police brutality or excessive force. In Philly, they just threaten you outright (check the recent Officer Lopez incident, many good cops on Policeone.com wanted him fired and /or charged, but he remains on the job for now).
E. Crowley could do nothing until Gates went on to his porch, then it was possible, although very, very flimsy, to charge Gates with DC. The charge was thrown out as unprosecutable. Crowley is a good cop, not a racist, but succumbed to ego. Had he and the other cops left immediately after Gates identified himself, no incident.
F. Not all states require the “name and badge” but Mass does, and it must be forthright and immediate. If any of them did as Gates said, which was to refuse giving him the info, they acted unlawfully.
Nothing is cut-and-dried here, not if you believe in classical liberalism.
Thank you so much for the useful info, Ariel. You’re right about the ego. Gates threw the first ego punch, and the cops hit back — with their greater power. I was telling this story to a friend in my son’s presence. I was very careful to state the facts as known (neighbor call, cops arrive, and that’s about it), and as alleged. The moment he heard that Gates, instead of instantly identifying himself as the homeowner, got nasty, my son said, “That was stupid.” The cops definitely should have stopped it, but I’m pretty sure that Gates started it.
And the one thing I know with absolute certainty is that Obama never should have gotten involved in it. And having gotten involved, he’s incapable of extricating himself from things gracefully, because he’s never mastered the art of the apology.
Here is what is clear here:
Gates is an egotistical, race-obsessed putz—everything Harvard pays him to be.
There was clash of male egos between Gates and Crowley.
Barack Obama is an affirmative action ditz, like Sotomayor, who is in way, way over his head.
Helen Losse can never be as authentically victimized as me, because I belong to an Official Victim Class (Hispanic) and she doesn’t.
Bookworm, your son shows good sense, something Gates did not. Nor did Crowley, as he should have just said “sorry to bother you” and left, muttering under his breath “what an unmitigated ass” all the way back to the station to file the report. And you are dead on about Obama’s part and predicament.
If you would indulge me a moment, as some commenters here may think me anti-cop, I’m not. I have both an Assistant Police Chief and a retired Sargent in my family and they are good people. My journey to this point of questioning police actions started with a watershed event: a child molested by a family member, and the end of my association with one entire side of my family. I didn’t like how the police handled it, but I understood why. As I dug for knowledge to make sense of it all, I found stat after stat that contradicted everything I believed from child abuse to DV, all from official sites or academic studies. At some point I started to look at the law through legal blogs, FindLaw, and State websites. I have now arrived at trying to understand the limits of what the police can do and can’t do but often do anyway. And shouldn’t because it erodes trust, and it corrupts them.
Ideology trumps truth, power trumps ethics. I find it sadly depressing. But don’t let that keep you from a good night. Give your son a kiss for his good judgment.
Charles Martel #14,
Pretty good summation. Now if only my family would have kept official on the Rez, and hadn’t married so many white people to get to me…
as he should have just said “sorry to bother you” and left, muttering under his breath “what an unmitigated ass” all the way back to the station to file the report.
And why should he have done that, exactly?
The logic of police arrests is very simple. You can either arrest the person and then check them out via police interrogation, lawyers, background checks, night in jail, etc in order to fully bring the institutional support of the law enforcement network on a person in terms of deciding whether he has broken a law or not (to warrant prosecution and grand jury investigation).
Or he can let him go and have the guy kill, rob, rape, or blow up someone or other and then be like “oops, my bad”.
The police can’t keep people in jail forever or for more than 24 hours. But that’s plenty of leeway to decide, in a calm and controlled environment, what is really happening. If people had to decide who was or was not a threat on the ground, in uncontrolled circumstances, it just so happens that this is where the great majority of lethalities occur. Wither from misunderstanding, over-zealousness, corruption, fear, or a first strike policy. This is where the shoot the car full of bullets happens, and it may or may not be full of insurgents. This is where people have to decide “launch the missiles or wait until their missiles take out our ability to launch at all”.
Revolutionaries, traitors to the US Constitution, and overall narcissistic bean bags like Gates exist to escalate the situation to the point where reasonable people cannot function well. Leaving the field to unreasonable people, to extremes of violence, harassment, and lethal occurrences.
Such people are a threat to the entire society, not just to private property or individual safety (whether of the police or of us).
This is racism folks.
This is racism.
Your people’s racism.
You’d think that someone who only took office six months ago would have delivered only a handful of speeches on anything.
That’s maligning. So it wasn’t an impression he gave, it was what he actually said. Once again, he’s merely expressing regret at not being clever enough to get away with it
He told 9/11 family members and various armed forces family members that he was going to do X. After Obama got the positive press coverage out of them, they were completely ignored when they said that Obama hadn’t kept up his little promises.
This is the reality of narcissists. They lie, they hurt people, and they use them as tools, not as God’s creations with ‘rights’.
Gates did not act like an ass. People misunderstand this. He acted like a thug. A black Panther revolutionary terrorist. That’s what he acted like.
If you have ever seen one of them or met them, you would understand why Crowley would not have been wise to sit around in the night allowing the situation to be escalated. Cause that’s when people start getting killed. And it doesn’t really matter why. That is what would happen. Gates would provoke. Crowley would respond. Because they cannot resolve the actual issue of who Gates is, why he is here, why the neighbor called the police, etc.
All Gates could have done was to tell the cops to bring out the neighbors and have them attest to his identity. This would remove any justification on the police’s part to arrest him, given that the entire reason they were there has been nullified. But so long as Gates refused to cooperate, the police could not resolve the issue. So they de-escalated the issue by telling him, whether he is a crook or not, that’s he going to jail. And most crooks, even if they are crooks or murderers, won’t resist. Because they aren’t armed. But if they are armed, that’s when they might resist. And the police, by dent of steering the situation by their own initiative, won’t be surprised by resistance. This means that the chances of shoot to kill reactions goes down due to a lack of surprise and due to a presence of training, because cops are trained not to allow a suspect that is being arrest to provoke the police. At least, within bounds.
He’s the nation’s first half-black/half-white president. That the Democrats and the media continue to lap up this antediluvian racist “touch of the tar” claptrap is one of the reasons why I abandoned those dimwits long ago.
You have to understand that in order to create a Perfect World, certain sacrifices must be made. Aristocrats cannot be allowed to be limited by peasant restrictions. Peasants cannot give birth to nobility, but nobility can give birth to peasants. This is necessary, Martel, in order for the Brave New World to function as designed. It would not be prudent to allow the slaves at the bottom to decide who is or is not of the ruling elite. Certain irrevocable distinguishing marks of class and blood must be invocated. The peasants must be kept in their place for generations on end.
Ymarsakar:
I am not familiar with other states, but here in Illinois you can be held up to 72 hours before appearing in front of a judge to get bail set.
“Gates did not act like an ass. People misunderstand this. He acted like a thug. A black Panther revolutionary terrorist. That’s what he acted like.”
Y, I’ll have to disagree. Gates may have attempted to act like a thug, but failed in the attempt, and came off as merely an ass. He’s an man past his prime, cultured, bookish and bourgeoisie, a black man with a very light complexion and Irish DNA which he probably has very ambiguous feelings about, and in some way trying to prove his “authenticity” and defend his turf as he sees it, came off like a parakeet pretending to be a hawk.
Is anyone else thinking that Obama had no problem doing his 2009 World Apology Tour but refused to use the operative words I am sorry in America.
He, may have Y, but as Martel so eloquently stated Gates is an egotistical, race-obsessed putz.
My older son, who was once upon a time a cop, who rarely if ever became unnerved about much except when called a ‘Honky’. Gates went for the ‘ya mama’ comment jugular moment (very classy-very Harvard) I am sure it’s the ‘in’ turn of phrase used by department heads in all the best Ivy League schools, so I am not a bit surprised that Gates intended to push Crowley’s button.
End result:
The professor is now the proud owner of 2 mug shots and Officer Crowley has the support of everyone except the Thug-in-Chief.
You know, all of this trouble could have been avoided if Gates had taken the attitude that the officer was there to help him, as opposed to the attitude that the officer was there to oppress him. All else follows from Gates’ decision at that point.
The thing that I’m seeing is people’s reaction to the situation as “You know what – I’m getting d*mn tired of this political correctness BS – blacks can d*mn well behave like whites are required to or pay the price”.
I think calling “racism” is beginning to backfire big time.
Helen…you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Ymar #17 and #21, you’re so far off base on this incident I don’t know where to begin. Did you actually read my post or cherry-pick?
I’ll repeat, once Gates ID’d himself, which he did, let me repeat, which he did, the cops were done. They had no lawful reason to remain. None, as you noted. Gates should have ordered them to leave and then should have remained in his home. His disrespect of them was not a crime, and as it turns out, neither was his yelling on the porch. The DC arrest was too flimsy. A lot of resources wasted for nothing. And your entire post #21 is nullified, because he did ID himself. And the police escalated it by remaining.
Your entire paragraph in #17 starting with “The logic of police arrests is very simple” is simply erroneous. Police do not arrest then decide whether you have committed a crime by full weight of the powers of interrogation, lawyers, etc. nor should they even to make society “safer”.They arrest when they reasonably believe you have committed a crime, at the discretion of the officer, the holding is anywhere from 24 to 72 hours depending on jurisdiction, and all of this as to whether you can be charged, sufficient evidence, or should be let go, insufficient evidence. As long as the officer had reasonable belief you committed a crime, no foul. If you are charged by the police, this can be thrown out by a PA for a variety of reasons. You missed that the first step is to detain, which is what they do when they first approach you, even there they have to have reason (the ACLU recommends asking if you are being detained, are you free to go, until the officer either admits to a detention or allows you to go). The arrest comes next or they let you go on scene, because there was no crime. Of course, this can be gamed in a variety of ways by cops. The way the NYPD handled videographers at the infamous Critical Mass rally is a good example, “you can’t film” is so unlawful it isn’t arguable.
The rest of your post goes off into semi-paranoid fantasy, having nothing to do with Gates, Crowley, or this incident. I realize you’re pointing out that in that uncontrolled environment cops make mistakes and kill people, but I would point out that people die in that controlled environment also by police aggression. This is where training, psych reviews, and people skills (defusing rather than aggressive escalation)come into play. As well as removing cops from their jobs when they prove they’re not up to the job. Helping them to find other employment is good for them, their fellow officers, and the rest of us. Police will always make mistakes, but minimizing it is a goal which we haven’t achieved yet, partly because police culture, their mythos, and police unions resist needed change.
Really, you remind me of Orwell’s warning that “the future is a jackboot stamping on the human face forever”. A jackboot you’re happy to see used on anyone you deem a threat. Gates wasn’t a threat, just a loud-mouthed race-baiting narcissist exhibiting poor judgment. Which isn’t a crime.
Free societies are messy, loud, profane and full of insult and disagreement. Police are trained to ignore this, but often forget or lose their training. Which is why cops acknowledge “contempt of cop” exists. They also acknowledge it is not a crime.
Police who act unlawfully are also a threat to each of us and our society, a society based on inherent rights that aren’t to be violated by the State or its representatives. No matter how good the intentions are. I don’t care to be on that particular road to hell, thank you very much.
Ya know, Ariel…
You may be right about >> His disrespect of them was not a crime, and as it turns out, neither was his yelling on the porch.>>, but let’s assume they did exactly as you say they should have. What would have come next? Don’t you think just leaving would have implied a certain amount of lack of justification? Do you think that the next step might have been the “police brutality” lawsuit? or at the very least, the “I showed those honkey cops who was who” type of publicity, which would encourage more “in your face” kind of response from other blacks in situations that they happened to think was analogous?
I don’t know. I don’t know when the ID was actually presented, I don’t know why Gates was asked to “step outside” onto the porch, or why he _did_. What I see is a man using the flag of racism to attempt to browbeat police who were trying to do their duty and in fact, were trying to _help_ him, and all he wants to do is get in their faces as if _they_ were the wrongdoers. There’s something wrong with this picture, and I really don’t know who should or shouldn’t have done what. I understand why he felt threatened by police accosting him in his own home because he knew it was his own home, but I don’t understand why he didn’t defuse the situation when he realized it was a misunderstanding. Has he had frequent run-ins with the police in the past?
I do agree with you that the power of the police has to be kept in check, and I’d also agree that there is a particular type of personality that enters the police force that we need to keep particular watch on. But on the other side of the coin, we the people need to support the police if we expect them to protect us from dangerous situations, and antagonistic response just doesn’t fall into that category.
You may be literally legally correct, but I think you’re missing the point.
Suek,
I’m sorry but I’m not missing the point because any conjecture as to what Gates would have done had they left, or to how other blacks will act, is meaningless. I don’t see “just leaving” as showing anything regarding justification. The reason was already given to Gates, it’s why he showed ID. The justification was in the act of confirming that Gates home had not been broken into. That was done. End of story.
The police must stay within the law and shouldn’t game it, and by staying on the property, likely hoping he would come out, they contributed to this brouhaha. So now you have “see how they treat us” anyway. Blacks know the police should have left once Gates identified himself, trust me, they know.
Gates didn’t defuse this situation because he is an unmitigated ass with a chip on his shoulder that caused him to see this as “the Man” oppressing “the Brother”, which is actually analogous to “contempt of cop”, having to do with “how dare you disrespect me”. Rather than how you or I might have seen it, which is “thank you so very much for checking, please leave now”. I actually have some sympathy for Crowley in this situation, listening to that braying ass was probably painful and infuriating. Especially when all they were doing was making sure everything was okay. However, it is the Police’s responsibility to defuse the situation, which means calming down an irate citizen who sees no reason for them to show up at his house asking him for ID other than racism (see first sentence this paragraph on “unmitigated ass”). It is the subtle difference between peace officer and LEO.
And, suek, “contempt of cop”, which I believe was the driving force here, happens in absolute numbers to whites more than to blacks.
I’ll leave you with one of the most dangerous statements to liberty I have read:
“The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he’s the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s legislative division. “If you’ve got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen.” That is a statement that SCOTUS called a “hallmark of a police state” back in 1942, and absolutely unconstitutional. From The Christian Science Monitor.
Ok. I’ve read the police report. I think you’re wrong. However, I concede that a difference of opinion is legitimate.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
Suek,
And I may be. But a police report can have Rashomon or CYA all over it so I take them with a grain of salt, just as I take the citizen’s account. People seldom write “my bad” about themselves, especially in these situations. I’ve seen police reports that were so far off the videos of the event that one had to wonder which universe the cop was in, because it wasn’t this one. By the way, I’m not saying that about Crowley, the report seems straight forward. There are two discrepancies.
This line, first paragraph, is false:”who was present investigating a crime in progress”. Gates had already ID’d himself as shown on the 2nd page, so there was no crime in progress to investigate by Crowley. This DC arrest happened after. This may be why the charge was dropped. The second line is a rather tortuous way to fit the Mass law on DC (already read an ACLU critique of the report).
The second discrepancy is in Crowley identifying himself. Crowley first gives only his name. Gates ask for a “show me yours first” before he will ID, but Crowley fails to report whether he did or not. Each time Gates requested ID, verbal or otherwise, Crowley only gave his name (Mass law requires both name and badge if requested). Gates maintains he asked for both name and badge, which nowhere does Crowley acknowledge doing. Minor detail, but it does show the Rashomon effect. If Gates was asking for both, and Crowley wasn’t complying, it would explain why Gates kept asking. So would unmitigated ass.
I think the “surprised and confused” by Gates behavior was a very honest statement by Crowley.
I am also very impressed by the timeliness of the report, he arrived at 12:44 and filed by 13:21. Nothing like a network.
Anyway, I have to go. Until I’m back, it has been a pleasure.
Helen L says,
> Did it occur to anyone that Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times asked about Henry Gates. This was not a prepared statement. Obama had no time to carefully construct what he was going to say. And he meant to show the racism involved but not to call the cop a racist.
I have two points.
1. It is despairing to me that the “racial divide” seems as though it will never close. Helen sees nothing but a legitimate push-back against the endemic, subconscious racism permeating our country. And I see nothing but grievance-mongering. I wish we truly could just judge each other by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and Helen says, “Not a chance, bub. The country is too racist, even subconsciously.”
There’s no hope.
2. Helen defends Obama’s egregious statement solely out of expediency. He “had no time” to carefully construct what he was going to say? Perhaps he then should have done the tried and true politico-speak where he says nothing at all, as all politicians do.
The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes. He chose instead to say, “If I’d been at the White House doing that, they’d have shot me.” HOLY CRAP! Where in the WORLD did that come from? He’s letting some internal demon loose, that’s for sure.
Then Helen dismisses it completely as Obama’s justifiable response against the endemic racism inherent in all of America. Everybody gets to claim racism for every mistake they make, no matter how serious, because of racism. Everybody, that is, except for white people.
By the way, I really appreciate Ariel’s posts. She is thoughtful and tries very hard to be clear and to back up her conclusions with facts. Whether you agree with her or not, isn’t it great that in her arguments she has reliance on the facts?
That in her arguments she even has a discussion of the facts and tries to use them; that she has enough RESPECT for the facts to include them. As opposed to simply restating some philosophical position about “racism is simply endemic in America, and I won’t be bothered to even think about the facts, because that misses the point, and misses the critical need for a dialogue about racism in America. The need for that dialogue is so much more important than mere facts, that I won’t be bothered about the silly old facts.”
So I would say, a big kudos to Ariel.
She made a few points about the “police state” nature of our society that I totally agree with, which perhaps is why I liked her efforts. Can you imagine if, every time a cop pulled over a speeder, the next five cars behind them pulled over as well, and the citizens gathered around, within ten feet, to observe the proceedings? We never would, because we have built up a fear of the cop’s reaction. The speeder is left to deal with the incident alone, and the cop is a rather fearsome character in that isolated circumstance. You are advised, correctly, to become completely submissive. This is not a meeting of equals. Nod, yes-sir-it-to-high-heaven, take the ticket, and get the heck out of there. Submissiveness paramount.
Ariel is right to point out how unsavory that is; yet everyone else is right to point out, don’t rock the boat, buddy, because you will lose. Don’t even try to reasonably disagree in a calm voice, because the situation *might* escalate, and as the quoted police officer above said, “The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he’s the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s legislative division. “If you’ve got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen.”
Handcuffs and bail, baby, handcuffs and bail. It is unsavory, and we do accept it. Perhaps, as free citizens in a free state, we should not become so instantly submissive under the threat of potential repercussions.
Mike Devx,
a common mistake but I’m not a mermaid. My moniker Ariel is actually a long gone British motorcycle, the most famous being the Square Four designed by Edward Turner, the same guy that designed the Triumph Speed Twin. I really should go with a more masculine moniker, but how would I stay in touch with my feminine side? It is also the name of, shhh, my dearest child, my problem child. And, yeah, she was named after the motorcycle. My wife wouldn’t go for Indian, Norton, SuperX, or…
Thanks for the compliments.
Ariel, your prejudice against cops is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Heh. I had made the assumption that Ariel was male. I made that assumption based on the content of the comments made. I’m not sure what that means…!
Ymar #35,
Ah, shucks, you’re just mad that I showed you the flaws in your comments 17 and 21. I do find it humorous that you paraphrased Eldridge Cleaver’s famous “you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem”, from Soul on Ice IIRC. Great insight to the mind of a then Black Panther. See, you even have something in common with them.
You might try Pepper Spray Me for a street cop’s view. He agrees with me, however slightly, on some points and not on others. He does bring up “contempt of cop”, just as Heather MacDonald does. I read him regularly. So much prejudice, so little time…
To want the cops to do better and stay lawful isn’t anti-cop prejudice, by any twist. Unless you’re a Moebius strip.
Suek #36,
My male brain at work? Or that you’re very intuitive and insightful?
Anyway, to both of you, good night.
Mike Devx
Just in passing…the now infamous Nutty Professor incident was brought up to Obama and “he” requested that the question be asked at the end of his press conference. We all know by now, that he picks and chooses who asks questions and what gets answered. This was not a surprise for him.
p.s. Suek, I guessed male, too, but I was thinking of Ariel Sharon.
I*often* make this kind of mistake – assuming the wrong sex of the author – when it comes to ambiguous monikers and the male or female typing away behind it!
I’d originally thought Ozzie was male. Then there was an incredibly arrogant liberal person from Europe with a female-sounding moniker that I originally thought was a lady… but I think ended up being I guy. Remember that one? He/She used the comments forum to insult all of us, but also to invite Book to online virtual parties in Europe, as the only one here worthy of further attention. Even though he/she had Book’s email address, he/she took pleasure in doing the inviting, er, to *our* faces here. We’d try to engage him in argument, but with an imperious virtual wave of his hand, he would declare, “away with you, little peon! I’ll not waste my time!” The agenda, and the rationalization, was hilarious to observe. (I enjoy the rationalizations of the intellectuals more than others, because they’re so sure that their subconscious motivations are so pure…)
Anyway, it’s *always* embarrassing to make such an assumption and be wrong…
Ymar #35:
> Ariel, your prejudice against cops is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I had to reread the relevant posts above to get a sense of the prejudice issue (Ariel’s 12,15, Ymar’s 17, 21). If Ariel’s investigations indicated a widespread “us vs them” mentality among the police force and he drew an anti-cop conclusion, then that is prejudice founded upon a reasonable conclusion, even if wrong. In other words, the evidence is not *conclusive* but is compelling. Ymar, on the other hand, recognizes, as Ariel does not, that the police deal with the very dreck of society every day (but especially on weekends), and are constantly under stress and threat, and should be allowed significant leeway to maintain safety and order. As Ymar points out, should a police officer encounter someone acting suspiciously, and give the benefit of the doubt and let the person walk away only to soon after commit a heinous crime, some people react with complete outrage against the cop and demand retribution. Out of a hundred such incidents, it only takes the one bad apple to produce the hysterical revenge outcry. So when Ariel declare’s Ymar’s entire responses off-base, I reject that.
I personally do believe there are more cops on power trips than I’m comfortable with, and I do believe that their constant run-ins with the dregs of society sometimes produces an us-vs-them mentality against the entire civilian population that is unfortunate.
(As an aside, let me note that the us-vs-them mentality can pop up and flourish with extraordinary ease, anywhere. As an idiot teenager, I worked the Cedar Point amusement park in Ohio one summer. We ran a “colonial style” fudge shop, we teenagers. And somehow we formed an us-vs-them solidarity against all the visitors! They were “The Zoo”, and when the park opened, inevitably we intoned “and here come the Animals”. Never mind that every single one of those visitors and families made far more money than we did and were on a well-deserved break. We had no respect for them though we never showed it to their faces. I suppose it’s an acceptable excuse that we were teenagers, or perhaps in a few cases 20 or 21, if you like to give the young a break for snotty attitudes.)
Cops have an extraordinary difficult job and do deserve leeway in keeping the peace. Some would like to impose so many restrictions on them that they’d be straight-jacketed into being incapable of doing their jobs. I don’t know if Ariel would be counted among that crew.
I personally do believe there are more cops on power trips than I’m comfortable with, and I do believe that their constant run-ins with the dregs of society sometimes produces an us-vs-them mentality against the entire civilian population that is unfortunate.
This is especially the case with Waco, Elian Gonzalez, New Orleans police abandoning their posts, and the enforced confiscation of arms because the police are ‘uncomfortable’ with armed citizens (probably because SWAT teams manage to raid the wrong address on their warrant list and then end up getting shot, but only in the South).
Of course, I don’t use those situations to judge Crowley and Company, however. That’s the difference here between how I view the situation and how Ariel views the situation.
I don’t need to sit here and tell you what Ariel believes and feels, he’ll do that for me as he continues to argue and provide context for himself. I don’t do as he does and assume Crowley believed in ‘contempt of cop’ and was x, y, z, and should have done a, b, and c.
I stipulate the situation as reflected in the timeline and i explain the human psychological factors present that would apply to everyone, not just cops or bench sitters.
Great insight to the mind of a then Black Panther. See, you even have something in common with them.
Pardon the loose comments here, but if I tried a mega-post, it would probably lose people’s attention. So I’m cutting it short and succinct based upon relevant factors at play.
I’m not sure what this comment from Ariel has to do with anything Crowley did or what I have described is true for human behavior.
Am I supposed to, like your precious allies the Leftist ACLU, cringe because you believe I am similar to the Black Panthers? The Black Panthers are alternatively fanatics and true believers.
If Crowley had any reason to believe that the males found on the premises, with the broken door jamb in clear evidence, was part of any such faction, Crowley had to have known that being inside a lit or especially non-lit house, with its CQB conditions, was not conducive to his future health. He would have opted for clearer sight lines and room to maneuver or also cover, which would be present on the porch. He would also have had to either act upon his suspicions via the arrest or simply ignore the situation. Like most people in Britain ignore crime when they see it, instead of reporting it.
People’s duty is to make certain that certain aspects are clear. Citizens report crimes and police investigate them. The woman reported two big black men breaking into a door, and low and behold, there’s two black men that have broken through a door. And they also seem to be acting a mite suspicious, like common thugs rather than professors.
You don’t want to consider such aspects, Ariel. You discard them. Because you don’t want to see things from the cop’s perspective, just as you are hoodwinked into being a tool of the ACLU because you don’t care about their behavior so long as they are ‘on your side’.
You are part of the problem, not the solution. Do not come here and lecture us about liberty. You yourself need to improve your own standards before that can become warranted.
For those of us that have studied warfare, strategy, and military history, we know that there will always be people after the fact willingly and eager to criticize the people who did have to make the decisions on the spot, without the benefit of hindsight or a luxurious time slot to contemplate issues.
I believe you have already read a description of exactly what I have just described, MikeD, recently.
This is an aspect of human nature and it can’t really be removed. However, there’s a difference between analysis of a situation after the fact, to see what mistakes or flaws were made, and the arrogant assumption that because we are sitting here now, that our judgment would have been better solely because we are the ones making it now, vs Crowley having made it on the spot.
Relentless training in deciphering military strategy and the causes of military disasters has trained me not to fall prey to hubris, however. It is proper and better not to second guess people who made the decisions, since what people should focus on are present and future decisions that they have to make, not past decisions somebody else made (It was Bush’s fault, not mine). It is much better to Only clearly and objectively quantify the consequences of those decisions and to be as scrupulously honest and accurate in detailing the reasons why those decisions were made in the first place. This is part of the solution.
I missed Ariel’s #28:
> The rest of your post goes off into semi-paranoid fantasy, having nothing to do with Gates, Crowley, or this incident. I realize you’re pointing out that in that uncontrolled environment cops make mistakes and kill people, but I would point out that people die in that controlled environment also by police aggression. This is where training, psych reviews, and people skills (defusing rather than aggressive escalation)come into play. As well as removing cops from their jobs when they prove they’re not up to the job. Helping them to find other employment is good for them, their fellow officers, and the rest of us. Police will always make mistakes, but minimizing it is a goal which we haven’t achieved yet, partly because police culture, their mythos, and police unions resist needed change.
Really, you remind me of Orwell’s warning that “the future is a jackboot stamping on the human face forever”. A jackboot you’re happy to see used on anyone you deem a threat. Gates wasn’t a threat, just a loud-mouthed race-baiting narcissist exhibiting poor judgment. Which isn’t a crime.
I doubt that Ariel has reviewed Ymar’s extensive postings. Allow me to assist, Ariel. Though I should not be putting words into Ymar’s mouth: Ymar never engages in “semi-paranoid fantasy”. What Ymar is, is hard-core. I think I draw a reasonable conclusion if I state that Ariel is soft-core. As such, then, the two of you will agree on very few things outside of a few of the basic libertarian principles. You’ll agree on almost nothing.
Also, the idea that Ymar wishes jackboots stamping down upon the human race is, well, ludicrous. Again, a review of many of his posts would reveal a strong libertarian leaning that shows profound and deep respect for the individual citizen. Most crucially, for Ymar, the right of self-defense is sacrosanct. What Ymar has no patience or use for are predators, and Ymar strongly believes in the proper application of violence to them. And if a predator threatens, one is *not* required to hold back.
Accusations of semi-paranoid fantasy and jackboot thuggery remind me of the hilarious contentions that Robert Heinlein was a fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth, though his views were actually quite complex once you scratched the surface. But he came in for the same kind of oppobrium that Ariel’s reserved for Ymar, and both are unfair and ridiculous.
I forgot to add a comment about:
> Police will always make mistakes, but minimizing it is a goal which we haven’t achieved yet, partly because police culture, their mythos, and police unions resist needed change.
I think completely acceptable effort has occurred within police culture in efforts to minimize police error. This statement almost indicates to me that anything above the bare minimum is unacceptable. This is entirely contrary to human nature and human endeavor, as mistakes happen all the time, in any profession. You can seek to minimize, but elimination is flatly impossible. I fear a statement such as Ariel’s about “minimization of error” is an indicator of the kind of “straight-jacketing” I mentioned that ends up preventing them from being able to do their jobs. I could be wrong, and Ariel could have meant that he believes simply that not enough is being done.
Statements about police culture, mythos, and unions would be more acceptable to me were an acknowledgement made that such applies to EVERY subculture that has mythos and unions involved. The totally dysfunctional education establishment is the obvious example. (And I speak from seven years experience from 1985-1992 within it. As a former teacher it’s perhaps totally understandable that I blame the administrations for its cultural collapse, despite the evidence of a number of incompetent teachers. The occasional incompetent teacher is not the reason the entire system fails to educate our students effectively.)
If Ariel’s investigations indicated a widespread “us vs them” mentality among the police force and he drew an anti-cop conclusion, then that is prejudice founded upon a reasonable conclusion, even if wrong. In other words, the evidence is not *conclusive* but is compelling.
Ariel has already dictated that Crowley is the same way, simply because of Ariel’s other records. That’s prejudice. That’s prejudging people and situations based upon assumptions made from other sources or times.
It’s not considered, it’s not an attempt to be just, fair, or objective. It’s Obama talking about bitter gun and bible clingers. He doesn’t need evidence. He doesn’t need to wait or make a meticulous search. He knows already.
I read him regularly. So much prejudice, so little time…
I do recommend you read Ariel’s link, Pepper. Ariel has clear evidence that the arrest was legal, that there had been a reasonable case that Gates was being disorderly, which is against the law in Mass. But Ariel chooses to prejudge anyway, to base the situation on what he thought should have happened rather than on actually what did happen.
Some background
Ariel wanted Crowley to walk away. To allow racist intimidation to play a factor in the discharge of a civil society’s laws. Ariel thinks this is the path to greater liberty. This is not the path to greater liberty.
He’s an man past his prime, cultured, bookish and bourgeoisie, a black man with a very light complexion and Irish DNA which he probably has very ambiguous feelings about, and in some way trying to prove his “authenticity” and defend his turf as he sees it, came off like a parakeet pretending to be a hawk.
I think in the situation as it existed for Crowley, any angry black man can be said to be perceived as a threat or potential threat for escalation. Both unwarranted and uncontrollable escalation, even.
He may not look like the average black thug criminal, but that may simply be why the police said he acted ‘strangely’. Which could be another way of saying that he acted like he was insane, off his meds, or otherwise potentially dangerous.
MikeD, I believe Ariel here is the same person that also posted sometimes on Neo-Neocon’s comment section. Of course, this means we have met, so to speak, before.
His flare for exaggeration has not left him, if i recall correctly.
Free societies are messy, loud, profane and full of insult and disagreement.
Let’s be accurate here rather than simply over the top. Free societies are made out of armed citizens willing and able to defend their system and their people and their laws. In such a society, things are not profane, though they can be loud. Such a society is full of politeness and exaggerated care, rather than full of insult.
An irresponsible society that has been granted freedom by the lives and blood of others, now that society is profane, loud, and etc. Because they don’t need the exaggerated care which comes with the responsibility of holding the powers of life and death in their own two hands. They can afford to be disruptive and rude, because they can rely upon the system to interpolate or mediate, because the system or federal government holds the majority of armed force.
I wouldn’t call that a free society. I would simply call that a spoiled society that is rotted to the core. And like all things rotted to the core, will eventually fall over due to decay and entropy.
>>Ymar, on the other hand, recognizes, as Ariel does not, that the police deal with the very dreck of society every day (but especially on weekends), and are constantly under stress and threat, and should be allowed significant leeway to maintain safety and order.>>
I think you’ve found a nugget I couldn’t put my finger on. You’re right about Ariel’s position, and it indicates to me that Ariel is a flaming lib. Why? because he expects perfection from the police, and will use that unrealistic expectation to attack them when they behave less than perfectly. In fact, it smacks of Alinsky – “use their own laws against them” as a means of destroying orderly society. Gates is to be excused – he’s an all powerful “citizen”. And black to boot. One of the revered victim class. Hold the cop to the letter of the law.
Ariel must think there is no “dreck” – only citizens who have been victimized and who are oppressed by the polizei. He’s Helen’s kissing cousin.
Ariel must think there is no “dreck” – only citizens who have been victimized and who are oppressed by the polizei. He’s Helen’s kissing cousin.
That naturally comes from Ariel’s personally attested to issues with the police in his own life experience. But again, that’s stereotyping and prejudicial judgment to make an analysis of Crowley based upon people and actions other than Crowley himself.
Did not Gates make a judgment about Crowley based upon the ‘other white people’ Gates thought he knew about? Including their ‘racist actions’?
I don’t know the details of Ariel’s personal biases nor the reasons for em. I don’t pretend I am him. I know nothing more than what little he has alluded to here. And I don’t want to pretend that I know anything more. That would not be part of the solution.
>>And I don’t want to pretend that I know anything more. >>
I’m going to trust my gut…!
But then…I’m very intuitive and insightful.
Mike Devx,
I’ll address you directly, and Ymar obliquely because I find him too silly for words at times.
One of the real problems of the internet is catching the clues in peoples writing, and understanding them. Especially when they are spread over many posts. So I’ll give you a little bit more substantial:
1. Grew up poor in one of the tougher areas in LA County, CA. But I was valedictorian of both my JHS and would have been of my HS had I not left.
2. I have had a knife tip held to my belly by being in the wrong area. Grew up with the silly wannabe gangbangers so I got to walk away.
3. I was literally raised by 3 generations, not my parents. You know, people born in the 19th Century, born before WWI, and born in the Depression. So I have a strong sense of the mythos of this country. And I believe strongly in it. Not to mention a turn of the century idea regarding politeness and decorum…
4. I joined the military and put in four years. I chose (I was first in my Recruit Company) a WEPS rate, you know, someone who is charged with pulling the trigger and killing people. I’m not some militaristic wannabe that never served.
5. I have cleaned up after a suicide at thirteen, been there on drug overdoses (idiots), and partied with bikers, even a pimp (I’ll wait for the idiotic response, not yours). I have walked south Chicago, the ghettos in New York (muerte means cross the street), San Francisco, LA, Honolulu, etc. Seemed like my old neighborhood to me.
6. I was in the first 18 year-olds to vote. I voted for Nixon.
7. I am a life long Republican, classical liberal which means I lean to libertarianism, but I do not embrace any pure ideology because it can make you say silly things.
8. And I love the libertarian Heinlein, read my first book around 1967-68. Still have it somewhere. “Green Hills of Earth” I think.
9. Oh, I have two cops in my family. I am well aware, possibly more than you or Ymar, what the “dregs of society” means. And what cops put up with daily. Lived there for one. And even the “dregs” are people. Not cardboard cutouts.
10. I have also been handcuffed, had guns pointed at me, had a gun to the back of my head. And had a cop save me from other cops. And I forgave the other cops, because I knew why they acted as they did. No real harm, no real foul. (No, I didn’t just give you ammunition, but do try.)
What I find truly amusing is that “us v them”, “contempt of cop”, “code of silence”, etc. is all found on cop websites. And that everything I wrote you’ll find being said by cops. Many of them realize there are problems in their culture that need resolution. Does that make them anti-cop? The other area you’ll find many of my arguments are libertarian sites, which I frequent regularly. In fact I find it quite humorous to typify Ymar as libertarian.
Mike, we actually agree on most things here, it is only a matter of degree. Which is part of a free society, a dynamic that keeps ideas thrown about. And, yep, I think more needs to be done because of quotes from the likes of that FOP rep. I have done one hell of a lot of reading, including a lot from cops themselves. They aren’t being straight-jacketed to be expected to act lawfully or constitutionally, or politely. Most cops do, throughout their careers, with an occasional slip. As far as approaching an “ideal”, it is what we are supposed to strive for, it makes us better as a people. And if you fully achieve that “ideal”, you’d better realize you’ve screwed up royally and start back tracking in a hurry (my response to your #45). That’s a conflation paraphrase from Heinlein.
It’s quotes like these from Ymar that keep me from taking things seriously:
“Ariel has already dictated that Crowley is the same way, simply because of Ariel’s other records. That’s prejudice.” Nope, but it is caricature on his part. I thought Crowley succumbed once. So did a cop. It happens. Thought the DC was a waste of time. So did the cop. Thought Crowley should have walked away. So did the cop. Never said the cop agreed with me fully by any means. He came from another angle, but arrived at similar conclusions. Here’s the salient quote:”Unless there’s something more to a grumpy old guy (with a limp and cane) than a lot of trash talking, you’re wasting your time. All you have is contempt of cop. Crowley’s report did not convince me that a disorderly conduct arrest was in order here.” So as Ymar wrote, do please read Pepper Spray Me.
“Am I supposed to, like your precious allies the Leftist ACLU, cringe because you believe I am similar to the Black Panthers? The Black Panthers are alternatively fanatics and true believers.” Pointed to the flaws in the ACLU, and the good points. They are a necessary component to maintaining a free society. PITA at times but still necessary. My “precious allies” is silly, 2-D thinking caricature, us v. them extremism. The “cringe” is just adolescent chest puffing. Another example: “you are hoodwinked into being a tool of the ACLU” Ignorant and stupid, too busy twisting to fit his 2-D view of the world to actually understand what I wrote. Not to mention sorely lacking in any knowledge of Constitutional history. However, the irony in the second sentence is just too delicious. Just from a simple tease.
I’d quote Ymar’s #45 but it’s so wrong-headed, while making good points, I have to think of Cleland’s “rose on a dung hill”. But a couple of points should suffice. “An armed society is a polite society” is another Heinleinism, yet Heinlein realized that a free society was also chaotic (my messy, loud, etc.). You can’t have a well-ordered society and a free society at the same time, except through cognitive dissonance. You can have a more-ordered, less free, or the opposite, but not both. We have never had a well-ordered society in the US, never, nor a totally free one either. “…(B)ecause the system or federal government holds the majority of armed force.” the irony here should be apparent. Our Founding fathers warned of too much police power by the State, created a Bill of Rights to restrict it, and restricted the military to civilian control for a reason. Do I need to explain? “a spoiled society that is rotted to the core” is not only over the top but indicative of a need to control, it must be my way, my vision of what is right. Ymar represents both extremes, a full-blown example of cognitive dissonance. “Grind their faces into the dirt”, or something like that, is one of his favorite phrases. From whence Orwell’s jackboot.
Mike, I’ve been following Ymar, in the sense of going to the same blogs, since about his first post after he started his website. He has always impressed me as an adolescent who thinks he has the truth of the world in a 2-D (moebius strip) , militaristic analysis full of us v them caricature and adolescent chest-puffing. Seen it before, but then I’m twice his age.
Of course, you can view him entirely differently and see things I don’t. Transpose the “you” and the “I” and the statement still holds.
If you have made it here, and actually read it all, I’m impressed. But I should probably apologize too. :>)
I’m going to trust my gut…!
And what, pray tell, dear suek, does your gut tell you? ; )
Mike, I’ve been following Ymar, in the sense of going to the same blogs, since about his first post after he started his website. He has always impressed me as an adolescent who thinks he has the truth of the world in a 2-D (moebius strip) , militaristic analysis full of us v them caricature and adolescent chest-puffing. Seen it before, but then I’m twice his age.
That’s a pretty big chip on his shoulder. I, on the other hand, barely remember what Ariel said or didn’t say all those months or years ago. Not particularly important to me. Of course, I was focused on things like Target Focus Training, Iraq, the deaths of innocents, the deaths of insurgents, the political ramifications of Alinsky and Soros funds, so I certainly should be given pardons of an extenuating circumstance on this issue.
I matured and grew. What has Ariel been doing in the meantime? Following me? That’s flattering, of course. But really nonsensical. I don’t want followers. Or stalkers. I don’t need em. When I do, I suppose I can find em somewhere around, you know.
Still, I suppose I made a big impression on dear Ariel here long long ago. It still touches a nerve, doesn’t it, Ariel, that you can’t overcome my own confidence. Why is it that the world is so full of people who can only create, by destroying other people’s property and creations?
The world doesn’t have to be a cruel zero-sum place, where the ACLU feast upon the flesh of the fallen like the scavengers of infamy.
One reason I liked Sarah Palin is that she is like me. She is stronger than me, more driven and more balanced. I admire her because I know the difficulties of leadership. Because I know that there are as many crabs trying to pull you down as there are friends seeking to pull you up.
I admire her because I don’t admire my enemies. I don’t need to tear her down to make myself look good. And I think, in the end, this is better all in all. Wouldn’t people agree?
But he came in for the same kind of opprobrium that Ariel’s reserved for Ymar, and both are unfair and ridiculous.
The world is an unfair and ridiculous place. Certainly all you can see is Obama in the White House and Gates on bail to see why ; )
People are irrational. There’s nothing I or we can do about it. We can’t remove it. We can use it, perhaps, like Obama manipulates people or how people talk their way out of speeding tickets. I’m not sure of what benefit such are in the long run, however.
It’s not about politics. Crowley is one example. While I don’t trust many Libertarians (like Ayn Rand disciples of the inner circle variety), it is based more on their character than on their politics. The same is true for Leftists and what not. I find more common bond and more trust in former Communists and Leftists and Democrats, like Neo and Book here, than I do with any isolationist Republican or current Marxist radical.
It’s not because of their politics, it is because of their personality and the decisions they have made in their lives. It gives them strength and I recognize that strength, born of wisdom and hardship.
Crowley voted for Obama. But I would trust his judgment on police matters more than I would trust Gate’s judgment, Obama’s judgment, or even Ariel’s judgment. He (Crowley) may have different politics than me. Well, almost assuredly even. But I can trust his personality not to prejudge, not to explode in intemperate rage, and not to hold personal grudges (like Obama and Gates does). And if that isn’t the case, then I can certainly trust in my ability to communicate in reasonable discourse with Crowley. I don’t think I can do it with the ideologies of Obama and Gates. How can you argue with a fanatic, Mike?
That’s a trick even the insightful suek can’t pull off ; )
Just read #48 through # 53, and, guys, I could easily say you’re bigger statists than I am. I am really trying not to laugh while I write.
Ymar, yes I’m that Ariel. And for you to ever use the word “exaggerate” to describe another person’s words is just too hilarious for words. Do you ever do any introspection? You have some real deep prejudices that you should examine, but they’re wrapped by your ego and your posturing.
Suek, flaming liberal? Alinsky? Helen’s kissing cousin? ROTFLMAO. I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, went Libertarian on Bush 1, Dole, then Dubya. And I started with “it isn’t racism”.
What you two did is create a little echo chamber, and then believed the echo was someone actually saying something real.
Do either one of you know what a classical liberal is? Think Enlightenment, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, natural rights, anti-totalitarian, dynamic balance between a well-ordered society and a free society etc. I am about as anti-statist as they come without going anarchist, because they are very silly people. Also, because I’m mature enough to know better.
Now, one of the things that happens on blogs, because people are people, is the scalding of anyone that “seems” to disagree with the group think. Ohhh, their prejudiced, they’re a flaming liberal or a wingnut, etc. This will of course replace real thought and leads to purely silliness of fields of scarecrows. Which is just where you guys went.
Try Mckay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. It will help you. And stay out of the echo chamber, you’ll go deaf.
Now, I wrote this before seeing 56 through 58, so I have to thank you for reaffirming everything I’ve written, including this. Your 56 is just too funny, you can’t even understand what you quote, and then go off in more chest-puffing fantasy. Anyway, enjoy being an internet warrior.
OK…for now, I’ll take you at your word.
Your narrative does not seem to me to jive with your comments, but none of us is 100% consistent. So..I’ll wait and see.
One of the problems in dealing with real Statists is that they have no compunction about lying. That’s very destructive to any trust, and trust is a major issue in my opinion. Those who wish to destroy the underlying principles of this nation use infiltration as a means of causing disharmony and distrust.
As far as I’m concerned, Ariel, you’re the new guy. Your narrative is good. Almost too good. Like the “Winter Soldiers”, it can all be made up – so I’ll wait and see. If you become a regular, fine – I’ll be able to form a more informed opinion. If you don’t – well, then it won’t matter.
(That’s what my gut says, Y…)
Suek,
I’ve commented from neoneocon to Dr. Sanity, Shrinkwrapped to Coyote Blog. I’ve seen your moniker a number of places if a IIRC. Although I’ve stayed away for quite awhile as far as posting goes. Spent more time on Aussie blogs.
And what I have seen, is that after awhile all of these sites degenerate into echo chambers. Its the same, and worse, at most of the Leftist sites, but then they call you filthy names, question your parentage, and your veracity. Anyone that diverges from the echoes gets whacked. That isn’t conversation, debate or argument. Its children putting their hands over their ears and making lalala.
Have you seen the Porky Pig and Uncle Sam cartoon from around 1940-41 IIRC? It is very close to what I believe.
“Those who wish to destroy the underlying principles of this nation use infiltration as a means of causing disharmony and distrust”
Most people just live in this country, Americans by culture but not by knowledge. They don’t embrace the “Grand Experiment”. They don’t embrace those underlying principles. Hell, they don’t even know them. They have no idea why there are no “positive rights” in the Constitution, why its all about limiting the power of the State. They have no idea why the police need a search warrant to enter your house, or why the police can’t stop you anytime and search you. Oh, maybe they know it’s in the Constitution, but they likely won’t even know that.
Do you know those underlying principles , suek?
OT, but a little Constitution trivia question: why were slaves counted as 2/3 in the census? An appropriate question, perhaps, given this comment’s person of interest. Don’t google it, be honest and use what you know, and please don’t say because it’s in the Constitution.
Do I get to answer that one, Ariel, or are you waiting for one of my many commenters who undoubtedly know the answer too? (And I do know the answer despite the crap they teach us in public school.)
You’re right about the echo chamber factor. We have a broad range of opinions here, but they’re almost all on the conservative side. The problem is that we usually have only two types of liberals come to comment: those who are true trouble makers, and are just trying to clog the blog; and those who cannot engage in the type of true argument that involves actual facts, followed by reasoned conclusions.
At this blog, we recognize that facts may lead to different conclusions, and we’ll engage in happy debate with people who recognize the same. Those who just spout conclusions as facts, however, are quickly run off.
As for obscenity that characterizes liberal blogs, this is a salon for ladies and gentlemen, not boors. You’ve fit in well, because you’ve been willing to engage in the traditional rules of debate. We may challenge your facts and your conclusions (you’ve given as good as you’ve gotten), but we won’t run you off with a pitchfork.
Its children putting their hands over their ears and making lalala.
When people don’t go your way, you are powerless to make them.
Agreement in terms of conclusions has no effect on the efficacy of people’s judgment ability. Just as the presence of disagreement has no static effect on people’s judgment ability.
At the same time that people find common cause with allies, such as the ACLU, in buttressing their various theories about police and police protocol, those same people will find networks of other people united by a common philosophy worthy of scorn and disrespect.
This is due to the fact that people will naturally aggregate themselves and their allies to one side and anybody in their way to another side. They can and often do refuse to admit it. They may even make fun of others they accuse of having a too non-variable viewpoint, but to err is to be human. And double standards are an error.
For Ariel, that side would be the Constitution and what he termed ‘liberty’, and anybody against it is against him also.
This is as starkly black and white as can be. Because it doesn’t matter what cause a side fights for. The polarization is inevitable. What’s not inevitable is hubris. People don’t have to act arrogant in terms of dealing with human flaws and the natural inclination of humanity towards hypocrisy. They don’t have to puff themselves up because they are not confident enough in their ability to make a reasonable case for reasonable people based upon the incident in question and the facts on the ground.
I am never particularly concerned about conclusions. What has always mattered is not where someone ended up, but how they got there. A person that comes to conservative principles because he thinks there is money to be made from them is not the same as the person that comes to conservative principles after defecting from Communist agitation.
The key to multicultural political infiltration and subversion, to which suek touched upon, is the manipulation of basic American feelings of fairness and diversity. Americans don’t want to be against diversity and debate, that’s how the nation was founded, after all. And aside from the social opprobrium, most American’s basic sense of justice would direct them to be for diversity and debate, diversity of color as well as of culture, within the limits of the US Constitution.
Multiculturalism, however, destroys American justice by demanding that other views, alien and harmful views, are accepted on equal par with harmless or even beneficial views. It turns the US Constitution into a suicide pack. It turns Jerusalem into a city with “Right of Return”, forced to take in Palestinians while Palestinians get to execute and persecute Jews. It’s not multicultural. It’s mono-cultural. It makes it so that one culture conquers the others, using that other culture’s beliefs and laws. Certainly there can be a coalition of cultures, such as gay culture, lesbian culture, transvestite culture, Islamic fundamentalist culture, and so forth. If that is the case, then multiculturalism promises them a piece of the final pie if they should ally to overthrow the dominant culture. Of course, what actually happens come that event, won’t be everybody sharing the pie.
Just as a nation, like the United States of America, must secure her borders and set down protocols and laws as for immigration and integration, so too is the case with any civilized society that wants to remain civil. Those that want to avoid a collapse must maintain homogeneity. This was accomplished in the past because homogeneity (or the pot) was the best path for America’s disparate people. Or if they believed otherwise, plenty of Amerindian Wars and even a Civil War would have convinced people otherwise.
For Bookworm’s blog, it is the same. Obama has already proven how effortlessly he convinced the great majority of Americans that he was a moderate, someone looking out for diverse opinions, considered ideas, and moderate policies. He convinced people that he was in the middle, that he would bring agreement and healing. He convinced people to put him in power on the throne.
I give the notice that just because people agree on politics, doesn’t mean anything. If McCain and Bush agreed on Iraq, the differences for why they sometimes agreed is too large to describe. People should not lower their guard simply because somebody is in political alliance. Nor should people ignore or alienate the enemy, simply because they are the enemy. Sunni Al Anbar enemies became our friends and allies. There is always the possibility for this. Just as there is the possibility for Benedict Arnolds. It doesn’t matter what the politics are.
What matters is judgment and character.
Bookworm,
Of course you can answer, you are the host. Also, please never leave “classical” off liberal, the qualifier is there for a reason. Most liberals today are Statists, with little or no philosophical ties to this “Grand Experiment”, classical liberals are not and do have those ties. I believe in American political exceptionalism. I am not a stickler for ideological purity, either. I leave that to the authoritarian types. I do believe in a social safety net, but its not for any reason remotely Marxist. Its more for pragmatic “promoting the general welfare”. I think there are uniquely American ways to handle that without adopting Euro-socialism.
At this blog, we recognize that facts may lead to different conclusions, and we’ll engage in happy debate with people who recognize the same. Those who just spout conclusions as facts, however, are quickly run off.
Absolutely, as well as people can come from widely divergent viewpoints and political beliefs and arrive at the same conclusions.
I look forward to your answer.
And I started with “it isn’t racism”.
You would be well warranted to pay better attention. Most of us already agree it is about racism. Gate’s racism and Obama’s racism and perhaps even Helen’s racism.
“It isn’t racism” is the classic RINO ploy whenever they need to defend themselves against what the LEFT preaches. The Republicans always talk about ignoring race and its issues. But they’re wrong. It can’t be ignored, if only because it will continue to exist with such people in positions of authority.
I look forward to your answer.
Ohhh, their prejudiced, they’re a flaming liberal or a wingnut, etc.
You have already answered your own prejudices.
but they’re wrapped by your ego and your posturing.
The people on blogs can be excused for their ignorance or in some cases, group think and social cohesion.
What is your excuse here for behaving exactly in the fashion that you would blame us for?
Is the concept of integrity not in your ‘constitution’?
Do I know the underlying principles?
I’m not sure I can answer that accurately. I’m finding that there’s more and more to be learned – even, or maybe especially, about that which I thought I knew already. So it’s entirely possible that I could answer “yes” completely truthfully, but still be wrong. There’s just always more to be learned. But yes, I think I do understand the underlying principles. In simple terms, it’s the difference between individualism and statism – although in it’s day, it was more individualism vs the monarchy, which was a different kind of statism, but still statism. All power resting in the hands of a government over which the individual had no control. In any case the individual vs a class or group.
As for the 2/3s ruling. No…not sure I know the answer. I know that the Constitution required a census to be taken in order to determine how many representatives a state would have in the House of Representatives. I know that the problem was that if the slave states counted the blacks as free men, they would have been overwhelming in their representation. The counter argument was that blacks couldn’t vote, so they shouldn’t be counted in determining representation. Hmmm. That applied to women as well. Were they counted? The 2/3 number was a compromise reached, and while I don’t know it’s so, my guess is that it pretty well equalized the balance between north and south in the House of Representatives.
If that’s incorrect or inadequate – I’d appreciate any info you have to offer. Or I should look up the Dredd Scott decision, right?
Right or wrong, it’s memory, not look up.
For Ariel, that side would be the Constitution and what he termed ‘liberty’, and anybody against it is against him also….This is as starkly black and white as can be.
Nope, black and white is more your style. Especially writing style. And polarization is only inevitable for authoritarian types who can’t compromise on any issue. Of course, you can’t compromise on liberty, that would be stupid. But you can argue what constitutes liberty, to what the balance is, but that has been going on since the 1780s and will likely continue. The Constitution could be amended, of course. And yes, the Constitution is sacrosanct. It, and the debate, is the basis of our entire mythos, of what makes America America, as well as the oldest, continuous Republic.
You want to throw that away?
Nope, black and white is more your style.
And how, pray tell, do you know what my style is.
And polarization is only inevitable for authoritarian types who can’t compromise on any issue.
If you wish to set up the chess board in such a manner, then I must mandate that I get two authoritarian queens against your liberal king. I’ll even allow two kings.
Of course, you can’t compromise on liberty, that would be stupid.
Quote us that favorite Franklin quote of Libertarians. That should be an interesting moment.
And yes, the Constitution is sacrosanct.
Intriguing. You are not part of a religious order, are you?
You want to throw that away?
Is humility defined by you as admitting that you and you alone own the US Constitution? It is certainly a manifest form of humility. Manifested by who, I wouldn’t dare say at this moment.
Heh. Right track, wrong facts. It was the 3/5 compromise. Very difficult to find it under the 2/3 title!
And Dredd Scott had nothing to do with it – other than being a slavery related case. Also nearly 60 years later.
Suek #69 & #71,
Dead on, and I admit I screwed up the number. An underlying argument is if counted as “persons” how were they “property”. The 3/5s (sorry about that) balanced power, and maintained the needed size to survive against other nations, as relations with the Brits were understandably strained. British subjects who were “troublemakers”, audacious enough to rebel, were a thorn in their side. Could spread you know. Must keep order to maintain the Empire.
And I find the same you do, that the more I look the more there is. However, the underlying is still individualism (an aggregate called the People) versus the State. Only the People have inherent rights and powers, the State only powers granted to it by the People. We would be a better nation if we remembered that.
Ymar #70,
More quote-mining. Most of the rebuttal is in the comment from which you dragged quotes. You do have to understand what you read. However, you have absolutely no foundation to understand what I write, and googling won’t help you. You have no idea what “civic religion” means for example, or you would understand from where sacrosanct comes.
“Is humility defined by you as admitting that you and you alone own the US Constitution? It is certainly a manifest form of humility. Manifested by who, I wouldn’t dare say at this moment.”
Now that is just alternate universe silly made-up stuff. No where have I said that, much the opposite if you understood, or tried to understand, what I wrote. You read with eyes shut.
Oh, by the way, Libertarian is a political party, libertarian is a political philosophy.They are not the same, and I embrace neither. Good points, bad points, and, you know, gray areas. Ideologically purity evaporates dialectic.
As for Franklin, he was a much more learned and wise man than you. By far and
by wide. But still just a man.
Finally, from S. I. Hayakawa, short version: “the word is not the thing.” Try to figure out the ramifications of that one. You’ll fail. But it just might keep you from that alternate universe for awhile.
>>And what I have seen, is that after awhile all of these sites degenerate into echo chambers.>>
Now this is an interesting thing to say. It seems to me that on this blog at least, those of us who comment regularly do have basic principles in common. You could certainly say we’ve “degenerated into echo chambers” – we agree on the basics of most things. But not on everything. And even with the basic agreement, each of us brings different experiences to the discussion, and that makes for interesting perspectives even in matters on which we agree.
There have been some who have had very different basics. Helen is one of them. The frustrating thing about having such persons participating is that you cannot seem to get them to nail down _any_ basic ideas which they think are _good_. You can’t discuss anything with someone who never answers any questions about their positions. You can’t discuss anything with someone who never – ever – gives you a straight yes-no answer. As a result, there’s little point in even trying to participate in such a discussion, and what usually happens is that it turns into a rant on someone’s part, or those of us who have more in common take some phase of the disagreeable person’s views and elaborates or expands on the differences brought forth.
If there’s nothing people have in common, then discussion becomes pretty difficult. Often it degenerates into emotional response, or simply each person stating their views in a very unconnected manner. Neither is particularly satisfying, imo.
Suek #73,
You need clarity and acknowlegment. You need to avoid mental labels (they said that so they must be this, I’m done), and you have to read with charity and understanding. Unfortunately, we have none of the visual and verbal clues here that we would over a glass of beer.
I used to have long arguments (debates) with a friend that was a Wobbly. We could find common ground and where we couldn’t, and there were large areas of uncommon ground, we would seek clarity. And we both listened to each other with charity and a desire to understand each other. It makes for good friends and good learning.
I understand the issue with people that just won’t give a straight answer, they move the goal post so often you don’t know what field your on anymore. If you ask an open-ended question you can’t expect yes/no, a close-ended is necessary. If that doesn’t work, you’re finished. They actually don’t have any real “basic ideas”. Or won’t share them.
Another issue is that at times it is really hard not to skim, so key points may be missed or questions left unanswered when a comment is made. Although, if I direct it to someone it means I have read and I have tried to understand, not look for what I can use against them to chest-puff my ego. I try very hard not to assume something about anyone. I go by their writing, content and style. Putting words in other peoples mouths is very unsanitary, and causes short-term memory loss, as the putter forgets immediately that the words were only his.
That ridiculously long comment of mine, #54, is me. Although I left out 7 different schools, 3 families, and 8 homes before I graduated High School. All but 2 in very poor areas, bordered on Hispanic barrios.
I worked outside sales for about 18 years in the chemical industry. There is almost always common ground somewhere if you seek it, it can even be created, but there isn’t if you’re too busy “destroying the enemy” and “fighting the propaganda”.
Finally, I guess it really irked me that no one even acknowledged that at least one cop viewed it the way I did, even while disagreeing with me on many, many points. Nothing I tried to hide there, because the point was that people from widely divergent viewpoints can arrive at the same conclusion (the converse is also true). And the conclusion didn’t make anyone anti-cop. Or a flaming liberal.
Anyway, best to you.
Ariel #61:
> And what I have seen, is that after awhile all of these sites degenerate into echo chambers.
Well, this is no echo chamber here. There is often a great deal of consensus; we are, after all like-minded about many things. But toss out a solution to the abortion dilemma, and you will *not* see an echo chamber.
Sometimes here in Book’s domain, when you’re in the minority on a particular issue, you don’t get many replies to your comments. Perhaps others just don’t know how to respond, or maybe they don’t want to offend you by disagreeing, when there’s usually so much agreement? That’s what seems to happen when we have disagreements among those who have been here awhile and are regular contributors.
But as you’ve noticed, pop in only rarely and toss in a discouraging word, and it gets rather… fiesty.
I still think you (Ariel) have backed up your conclusions with a great deal of reasonable background information and attempts to rely on argument and fact, and I appreciate that a great deal compared to what I usually see when someone pops in with very divergent opinions from our usual.
Don’t know about the mutual name-calling I see sometimes, but it’s amusing.
I *definitely* fear the risk of the echo chamber effect. I think I’ve been able to avoid it so far. I spend a reasonable amount of time approaching my opinions and beliefs from a liberal perspective, asking myself, “What am I missing? Where might I be wrong? Which of my facts and axioms are actually just opinions, or is one of my facts or axioms just one alternative among many somewhat equal alternatives?” For example, what if Keynesian and Austrian economic schools might both be right, and workable economic models? What if I’m wrong about the Keynesian school being total claptrap? I’m fairly confident but not 100% confident yet that I can toss the Keynesians on the garbage heap. On the other hand, once Obama’s wildly Keynesian approach leads to disaster, his supports will *never* refute Keynesianism… they’ll just find some excuse for why it all went so wrong, and they’ll force us all to try again. We’ll see.
But challenging one’s core beliefs from time to time prevents the echo chamber from taking its grip.
I’m tired of hearing about lunatic and pompous Prof. Gates, and for me the testimony of these Cambridge cops are the final words: http://neoneocon.com/2009/07/27/a-video-on-gatesgate-that-stands-for-itself/
Mike Devx #75 has it right.
We share some common conservative principles, but arrive at them from different points of view and with different objectives.
I suspect different contributors respect or at least tolerate the differences since all of us are united in purpose to limit the damage done to the country by the Obama statists.
Ariel, it did make me chuckle when you called some here statists. I guess one person’s libertarian is another’s anarchist.
Can socons coexist with fiscons? That debate, briefly engaged last year, has been suspended for the duration.
I wonder at times whether this is a conversation, a debate, or a soliloquy. Probably all three.
I will echo Zhombre’s #76.
Mike Devx,
Thanks for the kind words. I am not a troll, I don’t disagree for the pleasure of watching others go off apopletically.
“What am I missing? Where might I be wrong? Which of my facts and axioms are actually just opinions, or is one of my facts or axioms just one alternative among many somewhat equal alternatives?”
Good description of part of my classical liberal philosophy, so we have similar underpinnings. Hard, tiring, even emotionally painful work in practice. We too often tie our egos to our beliefs.
As for economics, you know its a complex, non-linear, and chaotic system which requires a lot of reduction to even create a model. I have a feeling that both schools describe aspects, just which is right more often? Last I looked, economists are starting to reexamine FDRs Keynesian project and it was about 49:51% that it hindered recovery. So the Keynes school is loosing ground. IIRC, Keynesian economics could not predict “stagflation”, scoffed at it, but the Chicago monetarist Friedman did. He was right, they were wrong.
The thing most troublesome is the nimrods who are calling this a failure of capitalism, so capitalism must be even more restrained, when it is a normal, natural part. The severity though is as likely tied to regulatory failure (and I don’t mean not enough) and direction, caused by Congressional stupidity.
It might have been best to save a minimum number of banks, let the auto industry fail or find other backing, then ride it out. A lot of misery for a short time, or a moderate amount of misery for a long, possibly long, long, time. We are going to find out. Prepare for heavy seas.
BrianE #77,
Actually, it was “more statist than I am”, so I was going for on the spectrum of things. Glad it gave you a chuckle, your “one man’s libertarian…” gave me one. I may borrow that some time, if you don’t mind.
Well, I would have been with the fiscons. I am only socon on the margins. Mostly baby/bathwater issues. No need to go there.
It is all three.
Good night and best to you.
Buy that man (Zhombre) a beer and put it on my tab!
Six months into the job and he’s managed to alienate just about everyone.
He trotted around like a proud peacock for a long time, but it’s just impossible to hide the fact that he’s a real turkey.
However, you have absolutely no foundation to understand what I write, and googling won’t help you. You have no idea what “civic religion” means for example, or you would understand from where sacrosanct comes.
I am under the impression that you believe you understand what I write. Certainly enough to attempt to ridicule it and assign it to the non-serious and entertainment category that you are so well known to do.
I’m not sure how many things I have written that you have googled in order to refer to here, but if you were reading them as I was writing them, why didn’t you say something at the time? Why were you hiding. Will you say something now, but not back then?
The reasoning is very simple here. Crowley decided to arrest Gates because Gates was in contempt of cop, not because Gates was in violation of the law. Or at least, that is what Ariel would seek to forward.
In both my case and Crowley’s, you stipulate that it must be either or. Either Crowley understands the situation and would de-escalate it by walking away or he would seek to escalate through arrest.
These are false setups. They don’t reflect the reality of the situation.
You read with eyes shut.
I’ll address you directly, and Ymar obliquely because I find him too silly for words at times.
If I am reading with eyes shut, what would you call your own style here? Reading with eyes crossed looking at two things at once?
As for Franklin, he was a much more learned and wise man than you. By far and
by wide. But still just a man.
You still haven’t made the quote. Are you evading the subject? I am flattered by your attempts to make every subject and persona, Franklin included, into a comparison with me. But you don’t need to do that to praise me, nor to praise yourself. This is not the purpose of intellectual discussions. Nor is it the purpose of polite discussions amongst non-narcissists.
You’ll fail.
Fail in what?
You need to avoid mental labels (they said that so they must be this, I’m done)
Like what. Calling people here blind, ignorant, authoritarian, etc? Are you looking in a mirror and accusing the person in front of you, believing it is suek, when in fact you are speaking and condemning yourself.
you have to read with charity and understanding
The Left aren’t particularly good at introspection nor seeking to obey their own standards. They would much prefer that others abide by a standard that limits them than to take up that standard themselves.
If you wish Suek to do any one of these things, Ariel, you would be wise and warranted to attempt to do the same for yourself.
I try very hard not to assume something about anyone.
I feel special then. I’m in that exclusive club. The one where you don’t try very hard at all.
Although, if I direct it to someone it means I have read and I have tried to understand, not look for what I can use against them to chest-puff my ego-A
4. I joined the military and put in four years. I chose (I was first in my Recruit Company) a WEPS rate, you know, someone who is charged with pulling the trigger and killing people. I’m not some militaristic wannabe that never served.-A
Because the chickenhawk angle has been used by the Left against people, primarily for narcissistic power mongers but also by Murtha and others that have served and who want to inflate their own private opinions, can you say with any degree of honesty that you don’t look for weapons to be used against others in order to puff up your ego?
Finally, I guess it really irked me that no one even acknowledged that at least one cop viewed it the way I did, even while disagreeing with me on many, many points.
That’s the problem with people these days. They think they are justified if they can get people to agree with them. It doesn’t justify atrocities, it doesn’t justify evil, it doesn’t justify crimes, and it doesn’t justify people believing gators are green. But people still think, that just because somebody else came to the same conclusions that they did, from a completely different path oftentimes, that this means the conclusion is valid.
This erroneous and inflated expectation should be slapped out of em. A bit of concrete and truth would do it quite handily.
Ymar #81,
1. I would never call you, or anyone else, a chickenhawk. That is a very specific term, applied to people advocating or backing a particular war while being unwilling to serve themselves. I have seen it applied to those who have not served, but still usually requires advocating or backing a particular war. It is an execrable, vile term that has no meaning in a Republic, as it really implies they should keep their mouths shut, that they have no right to speak. Not everyone can or should serve, they should still have a voice. More levels too it but that is the gist. Militaristic wannabe is something entirely different. I’m not going into that now. Some future date, perhaps.
2. Acknowledgment does not mean agreement. I didn’t ask for agreement. Nor did I write that what Crowley did was illegal, or us v them. Only ego on “contempt of cop” issues, and that has to do with using discretion. Anyway, I’ve left a post here that goes into some of that.
More thoughts on the racial issue in general.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/04/the-return-of-booker-t-washington-1243311214