After a polite traffic stop, a young black man was moved to comment that people are people, regardless of color, and that civil behavior goes a long way to smooth out differences:
A mish-mash of things from the wonderful Caped Crusader, from Earl, and from my own Facebook feed. The first one explains a lot about the bond between Leftists and Islamists, despite the fact that the former ought to hate the latter because of little things like religion, sexual constraints, etc., while the latter definitely hate the former because of little things like lack of religion, sexual freedom, etc.
San Mateo County is a good Progressive county. That’s why it was a surprise to find this angry post coming from its Deputy Sheriff’s Association regarding a police officer who was killed in Indianapolis. What set the Deputy Sheriff’s Association off was a local media story sympathetically recounting the killer’s problems, including the last line in the story, which says it was the police officer’s own fault that he died because he was doing is job by trying to deal with an armed career criminal. I can’t find anything to disagree with in this Facebook post. How about you?
I think that police departments across America are grappling with the ultimate values clash: Their “government union” identity, which hews Progressive, is clashing with their “law & order” identity, plus their “I want to go home alive” identity, both of which hew conservative.
These links aren’t related to Christmas Eve. They are simply interesting things that came my way today, as I was getting my family ready for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. (To those new to the blog, although I’m Jewish, I was raised celebrating both Christmas and Hanukkah in entirely secular ways. That means trees and menorahs, and gifts of course.)
Understanding what cops deal with and what they can do
Given that rioters ran riot again today, this time because a cop shot a teenager who can be seen on video pulling a gun on the cop, this seems like the perfect time to bring two things to your attention. The first is the best “what it’s like for the police” post I have seen since the whole Ferguson thing became a cause celebre for the Left. I posted it on my real-me Facebook page and I urge you to share it with your friends in whatever way you do share posts that are chock-full of accurate, relevant data relating to major events (and the race/Leftist riots rocking major urban areas in America are major events).
Once you’ve read that post (which is fascinating from first word to last), then check out the following Facebook post. Be sure to stick to the instructions and watch the video — one or two or more times, if necessary — before you read the post. After reading the post, watch the video again:
Distilling “political correctness” to its essence
Snoopy the Goon, my friend and fellow Watcher’s Council member who blogs at Simply Jews, has what may be the definitive post when it comes to defining “political correctness.” Even better, it has a perfect illustration at the end.
Will the Middle East end with an ISIS versus Israel stand-off
During my lunch yesterday with my wonderful, intelligent, and conservative friend (he’s the one who helped lead me across the Rubicon from Democrat to conservative), my friend said that ISIS is the future in the Middle East. Because ISIS has the passion, the oil money, and the brutality, all Arabs and Muslims in its path will either join up or be slaughtered. This is so because of two factors about Arab/Muslim fighters: First, while they are vicious in pursuit, they are craven in retreat. That means that they’re lousy defensive fighters. When they lose, they are either slaughtered en masse by the even more violent victor or, because (as bin Laden knew) they are drawn to the strong horse, they desert their side in the fight and join the victorious army.
Indeed, even as we speak, it looks as if Israel will find itself facing off against ISIS very soon, since ISIS is pressing it from both north and south. Nor should Israel expect much help from Saudi Arabia, at least according to my friend. He theorizes that, to the extent the Saudi decision to drop oil prices (an act aimed at American fracking) is devastating the Russian economy, Putin will retaliate by siccing Muslim extremists into the heart of Saudi Arabia.
I have no love for the Saudis, whose petrodollars are largely responsible for the radical Islamist rise around the world. Nevertheless, to the extent the Saudis have suddenly realized that they created a monster, and are cautiously edging over to Israel’s side, I have this peculiar feeling I will regret it if Putin succeeds in destroying them from within.
My prayer for this holiday season, in addition to seeking victory and protection for all of the innocents in ISIS’s path — whether Christian or Muslim, old or young, male or female — is for Israel to have the wisdom, the strength, and the courage to see this thing through, and emerge unscathed and stronger than ever.
Israel’s long ties to the land continue to be revealed
One of the most pernicious lies to come out of the Muslim world, and it’s a lie that the Christian Left embraces fervently, is that Jews have no ties to the land, and that it’s Palestinians who are Jesus’s true people. That’s why I celebrate every time archaeologists discover yet another sign that Jews’ ties to the Holy Land run back longer and deeper than those of any other people in the world:
Archaeologist Limor Talmi was minutes away from wrapping up her excavation of an ancient garbage pit last Thursday, when a piece of 1,600-year-old glass was brought to her, bearing imprints of menorahs.
The timing was fortuitous, not only because she was readying to close up shop but because it was also the second day of Hanukkah, the Jewish holiday most closely associated with the seven-branched candelabra.
In the same vein, God bless David Bernstein for instantly ridiculing and destroying the suggestion that, if Joseph and Mary were alive now, they’d run afoul of Israeli checkpoints:
Seriously, this sort of historical revisionism, treating ancient Jewish Judeans as if they were Palestinian Arabs, and then analogizing modern Israel to the oppressors of Jesus and his family, a common trope in the UK, would be laughable if it were not so pernicious. Pernicious not simply because it’s a ridiculous distortion of history, and not simply because it’s often accompanied by a large dose of anti-Semitism, with Palestinians playing the role of Jesus and the Israelis being the foreign oppressors crucifying him. But pernicious because it goes to the true heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict–the failure of the Arab side to recognize that the “Zionists” are not the “European settler-colonialists” of Third Worldist imagination, but a people with a three thousand year plus tie to the Land of Israel, whose religion was born there, who ruled two separate kingdoms there, who have prayed toward Jerusalem for two thousand years in their ancient Hebrew language, and so on.
Sadly, the Left ignores the fact that the truth shall set you free — no doubt because, so far, lies have served them so well.
Was it really the Norks who went after Sony?
Sony has announced that it will screen The Interview online, so I’m not going to take any more pokes at it, at least not for now. Indeed, it’s decision has led some at the conspiracy-oriented InfoWars website to wonder whether this whole thing wasn’t a marketing scam.
Others are wondering whether the Norks were involved at all. Marc Rogers, who describes himself as “the director of security operations for DEF CON, the world’s largest hacker conference, and the principal security researcher for the world’s leading mobile security company, Cloudflare,” has a different theory:
All the evidence leads me to believe that the great Sony Pictures hack of 2014 is far more likely to be the work of one disgruntled employee facing a pink slip.
Rogers provides a detailed analysis to support his thesis. Since I am currently less than enthralled by federal agencies, I think it’s entirely feasible that the FBI is wrong, wrong, wrong, and that Rogers is correct.
The history of Jews’ Christmas Day love affair with Chinese food
It’s a longstanding joke: on Christmas, Jews eat Chinese food. In an article originally published in The Atlantic, Adam Chandler says that this is no joke and explains how it came to be.
Apropos Chinese food, if you’re in San Francisco’s Chinatown, I have a Chinese restaurant to recommend. I have never recommended a Chinese restaurant in Chinatown. In my experience as an SF native, the Chinese restaurants in Chinatown are always either (a) too geared to tourists; (b) too dirty, along with having horrible greasy, gristly food; or (c) too Hong Kong style, which means bland flavors and lots of offal. The other day, though, we ate at a wonderful Chinese restaurant called Hunan Homes. It’s one block from the affordable Portsmouth Square garage, which makes it relatively easy to get to. In addition, the restaurant is very clean, the service is excellent, and the food is affordable and delicious.
Cirque du Soleil plug
Since 1984, when it first burst on the international scene, I’ve seen every Cirque du Soleil show except for “O” which was closed for repairs when I was in Vegas. For the last ten years, I’ve found the shows boring — muddled, contrived, and stale.
With Kurios, however, Cirque’s most recent show, Crique has redeemed itself. The show’s theme is Steampunk, which is a sort of futuristic Victorian theme. The costumes were gorgeous, the sets imaginative, the music charming, and the acts were simply wonderful. Our group, which ranged in age from teenagers to late middle age fogies, all enjoyed every minute.
Another day, another trip to the doctor for my mother and, by extension, for me. Here are just a few quick links before I go:
Cop cams are great if you don’t value your own privacy
The Brimfield Police Chief is at it again, dispensing common sense. This time, he’s talking about police cams, which he freely acknowledges would be a great thing for his department. With those cameras in place, many fallacious complaints would just vanish. He warns, though, that there’s a downside:
The kids return to school on Wednesday and I have the hope — faint, admittedly, but still the hope — that my life will return to normal then. I’m not complaining about life during the summer. I’ve enjoyed sleeping in every day, I’ve enjoyed the freedom from schedules, and I’ve enjoyed the vitality that comes with having the neighborhood teenagers move into my house.
Still, I like normal too. I like being up and about early, I like that wonderful moment when everyone is gone and the house is mine for six hours, and I like the quiet rhythm that enables me to read, think, and blog. During summer, because my quiet time comes so erratically and lasts so briefly, I cannot seem to get in the groove.
Until normal arrives in my life (assuming it ever does), here are a few interesting links.
Making shocking comparisons about Obama, mainstream media turns racist
What’s shocking about WaPo editor Jackson Diehl’s post discussing Obama’s hubris isn’t how mean and angry the tone is. No. What’s really terrible is that this WaPo editor is no longer comparing Obama to Lincoln or even Reagan; he’s comparing him to George Bush Jr. Wow. That’s hate speech.
Thomas Frank : fool or plant
Steven Hayward points out that Thomas Frank’s advice for Progressives who want to make conservatives happy is to (a) ignore reality and (b) put into place the kind of agenda that conservatives have sought for decades. Hayward is correct that Frank is either as dumb as a post or a brilliant conservative plant.
The perverse pleasure of getting under a Leftist’s skin
One of my liberal friends posted on Facebook the fact that the autopsy report revealed that Michael “Big Mike” Brown, formerly of Ferguson, Missouri, sustained six gunshot wounds, two of which were in the head. He commented that this was an excessive number. His boyfriend chimed in — yes, excessive!
I wrote polite words to the effect that if, solely for the sake of argument, one accepts as true the shooting officer’s version of events, six is not an unreasonable number of bullets to put into a huge man who is charging towards you with apparently malevolent intent. Not all shots make their mark and a big man may keep moving long after he’s sustained serious, even fatal, injuries.
I added that the “shoot to wound” idea exists only in novels and movies. Real cops — and I’ve spoken with a few — know that, if the situation is bad enough to merit shooting, you shoot to kill. I got this delightful response, not from my friend, but from his boyfriend:
Sorry . . . that just doesn’t match up with the facts as reported. It’s nothing less than stupendous how those of you on the lunatic right become apologists for the very same fucking governmental forces you shriek are taking us into “socialism”, “tyranny”, and whatever other crap you come up with. How pathetic and embarrassing to all Americans. UNfuckingbelievable.
When I went to reply, I saw that my friend had deleted both my comment and his boyfriend’s response. I was so delighted with the boyfriend’s response, though, that I mischievously re-posted my original comment, adding that it was significant that the shots entered front-to-back and not vice-versa. It now appears one of the shots may have been from back to front, which raises the question of whether that was the first, kill shot, with the others coming as he lay helpless on the ground, or if it was a final shot as his body fell.
I thought it would be lovely to elicit another one of those tirades. When someone is so viciously paranoid, it’s nice to tease it out so that all the world can see him for what he really is.
Conservatives don’t hate gays
I’m part of a majority! Sixty-eight percent of Republicans would willingly vote for a gay candidate who shared their values. I’m in that 68%. Ever since I’ve been a child, I’ve been neither racist, nor homophobic, nor religionist, nor anything else but VALUES-IST. If you share my values, I don’t care about whatever else you have going on with you.
I’m also with those conservatives (60%) who would be upset if their children were gay. This isn’t because I hate gays, and I wouldn’t hate my child. It’s because gays are statistically less likely to live lives free from substance abuse, spousal abuse, depression, and suicide. It’s also because I’ve known many gays and their lives tend to be less stable and more inclined to excess than the straight people I know. In other words, it’s not the sexual orientation that would disturb me, it’s my deep worry as a parent that my child would be setting out on a potentially very unhappy and dangerous life path.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
Edward Snowden, who threw himself into Chinese and Russian hands with suitcases full of NSA secrets, dressed himself up in libertarian patriotism: I’m protecting you, the American people, from your government, he promised. As someone who fears overreaching government, I could fully understand those who argued that he was performing an important public service. But how do you explain away the fact that the vast bulk of data he stole related to national security, not homeland surveillance? It looks as if he may be precisely the type of “patriot” scoundrel Johnson was thinking of when he coined his famous saying — someone who covers up despicable acts by waving the flag.
The Left’s selective concern for victims of violence
Bernard Goldberg is singing an old, familiar song, but it certainly deserves a reprise — Leftists, including black Leftists, have no sympathy for blacks killed by blacks, or whites killed by blacks. Their outrage is reserved solely for blacks killed by whites, even though their number is exceptionally small, especially when compared to those blacks who die at the hands of their racial fellows. This outrage, then, has nothing to do with victims of violent crime, and everything to do with fomenting race wars.
That Kung Pao something-or-other was delicious! Now, what did you say was in that dish?
I wonder how Thomas Friedman is going to explain this one away in defending his beloved Chinese communist government: dogs are for eating, says Chinese government.
(Thanks, as always, to Caped Crusader, who has a knack for finding these great images and posters.)
There is a road near my home that I travel frequently. It’s a familiar road and, in its own way, a fun one: Many people in my community travel that road on foot and I like to keep an eye out for friends. Seeing them always gives me a comfortable, small town feel.
Given my dual reasons for keeping an eye out for pedestrians (safety and small town friendliness), you can take my word for it when I say that, as I neared a specific cross street, there were no pedestrians drawing near and, as I drove past that specific cross street, there were no pedestrians heading towards it from the opposition direction. Indeed, the only pedestrians were two men nearing this particular intersection as I drove towards it.
Just as I entered the intersection (going the speed limit), one of the men walking north towards the corner suddenly swerved east towards the cross walk and stepped off the curb. I had a split second to figure out what to do. In that split second, he looked over his shoulder, up the cross street, and then stepped back onto the sidewalk. I had my foot hovering over the brake, ready to plow my passenger into the dashboard, but his change of plan made me change my plan. I decided that he’d changed his mind about his impulsive decision to cross the street (because there was no indication that he was previously contemplating doing so), and I drove on.
Fifteen seconds later, I saw a motorcycle police officer coming up behind me with his lights on. An officer wearing a uniform from a police department two towns away from mine approached and asked politely if I had seen the pedestrian. I said that I had, but that he’d stepped into the intersection when it was too late for me to stop safely for the passengers in the car — even though I was going the speed limit — and, since he’d obviously then changed his mind and turned around, I kept going. The officer informed me that I had enough time to stop and issued me a moving violation.
At this point, I might have thought the whole thing was my bad luck, but then something happened that got me wondering: About four minutes after the policeman stopped me, I saw another car in my rear view mirror getting pulled over. I’m betting he got pulled over for the same infraction because the office went out of his way to tell me that they were cracking down on cars that didn’t stop for pedestrians.
The crackdown might explain that another car got stopped immediately after I did, except for that information I opened the post with: There were no pedestrians near that intersection other than the two men I mentioned, one of whom got me in trouble. Perhaps — and I’m just say perhaps — that same pedestrian did the same thing to the other driver that he did to me: Looked as if he wasn’t going to cross, waited until the driver got into the intersection, stepped into the cross walk, then stepped back onto the curb, right in front of another motorcycle cop.
There’s no way I can ever prove this, of course. I just think it’s a remarkable coincidence that, within four minutes, on a street with only two pedestrians at a corner where police were hiding as part of a crackdown, two people got ticketed for moving violations.
It’s not the end of the world, of course, but I don’t like being made a fool of, especially when it costs me money — and being caught in a con (a scam? a sting?) does make me feel as if I’ve been played. Whatever the cost, I can afford it, thank goodness. Others who travel the road can’t (and I wonder if the police let them off with a warning, since the whole infraction is, I believe, a man-created offense).
Aside from the cost of the ticket (and I don’t know yet what it is, but I’m sure it’s not cheap), if I want to avoid seeing my insurance going up, I have to go to traffic school. The county makes that expensive too:
In addition to the bail, you must pay a non-refundable administrative fee of $52 when requesting traffic violator school. The Court accepts certificates of completion from classroom and online traffic violator schools accredited by the Department of Motor Vehicles. You will also be required to pay the fee at the traffic violator school you select. You must submit satisfactory proof of completion to the Court by your due date. If you do so, your citation will not be reported on your driving record. If you sign up for traffic violator school and fail to submit the certificate of completion to the Court by the due date, the Court will notify DMV of your conviction and this conviction will be added to your driving record.
You know what else irked me? The ticket itself. The useful information on the back is illegible, light gray on pink. I could see that it said “IMPORTANT — READ CAREFULLY,” because that was in 10 pt text and all caps, but everything else was not only in faded gray on pink, but was also 6 or 7 pt text.
If a business handed out a document with important information in illegible text, not only would people not be bound by the information, but the business would be sued under all sorts of consumer protection acts. One of the mandates the law imposes on businesses is that they must ensure that important information in documents that they give to consumers is in dark ink and uses a readable font. Our government, however, is free to hand out unreadable traffic tickets. Fortunately, I was able to access the information I needed on the internet. Not everyone, though, is as internet savvy as I am, something that’s especially true for older people.
I’ll get over this, but as someone who’s not fond of government at the best of times, I really didn’t need to be on the receiving end of this petty exercise in police power. I was just speaking today with a contractor about building codes. He said that inspectors don’t have to have any building experience. Instead, they can just be any old person who takes a class on how to read the code and apply it to a building site. This means that the inspector is going to be absolutely inflexible. Since he has no knowledge, all he can do is paint by bureaucratic numbers.
Take wheelchair ramps, for example. I like them. They’re useful for all sorts of people, from the disabled to mothers with baby strollers. My problem is that codes don’t say only that the ramp has to be wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs of a specific width, that it cannot have a grade greater than “X” or less than “Y”, and that it cannot force the disabled to wend their way through garbage piles. Architects, engineers, and contractors can then act creatively to meet those parameters while still respecting the space or design of the building project. Instead, codes spell out rigidly what the ramp must be like, even though it might be impossible or cost-prohibitive to fit that specific, code-defined ramp on the project, and even though an equally useful ramp might be built a different way.
I have the same problem with the ticket I got. There was not the smallest likelihood I would have hit the man, who turned back to the curb the second his foot hit the road. There’s also no indication that I was driving so recklessly or fast that I would have been unable to stop had it been apparent that he was bound and determined to cross. The rule didn’t provide any flexibility for me to read the entire situation: the passengers in my car, the other drivers on my tail, and the pedestrian’s actions, moving both forwards and backwards.
Instead, because the pedestrian (whether he was a plant or not) decided on the spur of the moment to step into the street, I was expected to stop immediately, sending my passengers flying and risking that another car would rear end me. Keep in mind that, as the situation played out, I could have hit the pedestrian only if I suddenly accelerated from 30 mph to about 70 mph (which I could do in a Tesla, not my Mom car), or if he had sprinted at warp speed to get in front of me. Keep in mind too that, if the pedestrian was a continuing into the intersection, or was a child, I would have slammed the brake so hard, I would practically have moved backwards.
Grumble, grumble, grumble. Grumble.
I wrote a few days ago about my liberal friend who was shocked by the way the judicial system treated a friend of hers who got arrested for allegedly doing a bad thing. I have absolutely no idea whether the guy is guilty or innocent. This post posits all three possibilities.
The guy ended up being charged with 21 counts, many of them duplicative, and all of them carrying very high minimum sentences. He will almost certainly plea bargain.
If he’s guilty, a plea may be a good deal for him.
If he did what he is alleged to have done, but there are extenuating circumstances, that’s irrelevant in terms of deciding the risk of going to trial. The moment a jury concludes that he committed the acts, he’s done for. So again, a plea bargain is the way to go.
And then there’s the question of whether he’s innocent. By charging him with 21 acts, the prosecutor, by bringing 21 counts against him, has already sent a signal to the jury that this is a “bad” man. The legal presumption may be innocent until proven guilty, but a jury will almost certainly think “Boy, that’s a lot of smoke. How about if we just convict him on one of the charges?” The jurors won’t know, of course, that just one of those charges can mean decades in jail. So again, the best bet for the guy is to plead out.
So think about that for a moment — we have created a judicial system where a person, whether guilty, innocent, or with a good excuse, begs to go to jail rather than to face the stacked deck in court.
But there’s more to it than that: This system encourages lousy police work, because the police know that they probably won’t be called upon to answer for it before a judge and jury. Police are rational and they are overworked. Even the best and most decent of them will eventually fall down the slippery slope of dangerously careless policing.
Did I say dangerous? I meant it. Please read this post by my friend Mike McDaniel (whose home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor). It describes the terrible outcome of the kind of shoddy police work that our judicial system actively encourages.
I was quite tired yesterday when I read something interesting. Having read it, I jotted down an idea for blogging about it. That note says “loving the individual versus loving the system.” I then went to bed. Today, I’ve spent the last several hours trying to remember what I read and what my cryptic little note meant.
Quite obviously, of course, the note refers to the difference between true conservatives, who believe in individualism, and Leftists of every type who speak of the individual, but only as a prop to justify state power. The problem is that I’ve said this multiple times before at this blog. What was new and exciting to me was something that I read that more perfectly illustrated the difference between conservative and statist. I suspect that whatever that interesting trigger was, it’s gone forever, which is too bad.
However, having that thought in my mind did come in handy today when I got a call from a friend. Someone she knows got arrested on the charge of doing something very bad. He and his family don’t have much money, so they cannot afford a good lawyer. Instead, he will get a pro bono public defender pulled from a pool of available attorneys — which means it’s very hit and miss whether the attorney has the actual skills to represent him. The multiple charges against him carry automatic and lengthy prison terms — in other words, mitigating circumstances are not allowed. I don’t know whether this person did what the police say he did but I do know that, if he actually did do what was alleged, there are actually mitigating circumstances.
But here’s the deal: Because of the mandatory sentencing, his pro bono lawyer has already told him to plea bargain. A trial is just too risky, because the outcome is binary — you win or you go to jail forever — and the attorney isn’t good enough to raise a reasonable challenge to the state’s charges. That means that, even if this guy is innocent or there are extenuating circumstances, the risk of having his day in court is so great that the system is forcing him to spend the next decade or more in prison.
This is profoundly undemocratic. We are guaranteed under the constitution a right to a fair and speedy trial, but the system is designed so that people have no incentive to take advantage of that inherent right. The problem isn’t even as simple as rich defendants versus poor defendants. It’s the fact that prosecutors layer on as many charges as possible, regardless of their validity, simply to force a plea bargain. Rich people can hold out longer, but ultimately prosecutorial overreach is a “get into jail very not free” card.
My friend, who is heartbroken, was fulminating about the “police state.” I agree. I don’t blame individual police officers or even individual prosecutors (many of whom I count as my friends in the legal world). They are operating in a system that cedes them greater and greater power, and with power inevitably follows corruption. This is especially true when there are no checks on that power.
I see this increased power flowing not from the conservatives, who are normally considered law and order types, but from the statists, who are control freaks. An inevitable byproduct of a control-freak is increased enforcement. That is, control is meaningless unless you have the brute force to effectuate it.
Put another way, conservatives expect people to behave well. Rather than micro-managing that behavior, they would like our institutions to teach good behavior as a moral, not a police, imperative. Think about it this way: If you remove God from the equation, the Ten Commandments are still a perfect list of core moral behaviors that lead to societal cooperation:
Then God said all these words: “I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.
“You are to have no other gods before me.
You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline. You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.
“You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.
“Remember the day, Shabbat, to set it apart for God. You have six days to labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work -not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the for eigner staying with you inside the gates to your property. For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself.
“Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you.
“Do not murder.
“Do not commit adultery.
“Do not steal.
“Do not give false evidence against your neighbor.
“Do not covet your neighbor’s house; do not covet your neighbor’s wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
People who willingly abide by these rules are good citizens. Conservatives do not believe that they are perfect, but that they will err on the side of decency and morality. The problem, of course, is that without God as the ultimate, albeit abstract enforcer (which is the case with statists who will not cede any micromanagement even to God), you’re left with nothing put police power to carry out your increasingly petty and overreaching decrees.
Since there are no big rules, there can only be thousands and tens of thousands of petty little rules. And petty little rules need an awful lot of law enforcement. And a lot of law enforcement means a vast concentration of power centered on policing. It also means an overwhelmed prison system that incentivizes going to jail rather than presenting your case.
What was fascinating was that my friend, in the midst of her unhappiness, had an epiphany: Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of the leading lights of state power. It’s true. The minatory, bossy, arrogant Feinstein is certain that she knows everything better than you. She goes about armed or with guards, but she knows that you’re too stupid to be armed. Or if you are allowed to be armed, she knows which gun you should use and how many bullets it will take for you to defend yourself. She knows what you should be paid for your work, she knows how much of your income the government can spend better than you, and she knows that it’s up to her to control even the minutest details of your life.
My friend, though, hasn’t quite connected all the dots. After fingering DiFi as the living embodiment of Big Government, my friend said, in a bewildered voice, “I don’t understand how she could have come out of San Francisco.”
I’m not shy. I told my friend that SF is the perfect DiFi breeding ground. Take away San Francisco’s endless tolerance for public nudity and gay sex, and you reveal a City government with pure tyrannical instincts. The Board of Stupidvisors micromanages the city in every way possible and has since the Leftist takeover in the 1960s. Here are just a few examples, which appear in posts I’ve written over the years:
This definitely wasn’t the post I intended to write, but it will have to do.
I may not own a gun, but I cherish my right to own a gun should I want one. Ever since Hurricane Katrina, I’ve realized that police cannot always be there to protect people. What I’ve also realized, is the police officers can be just as dangerous when they’re on the scene as when they’re not. This thought has been swirling around in the back of my brain ever since I started learning about a practice called “swatting.” Swatting happens when a person, either as a (stupid) prank or from real malevolence, calls 911 and reports a hostage situation at the target’s address. These reports always require a SWAT team to appear. Homeowners find themselves awakened when the police surround their house or burst through their doors. The there’s a high likelihood that something terrible will happen, such as the police shooting a befuddled homeowner who appears threatening.
Even without swatting, though, the police can be dangerous because they don’t know who the bad guys are. With the best will in the world, in a confused situation, it’s impossible for them to tell who’s the homeowner and who’s the intruder. In Fort Worth, Texas, police shot a grandfather who, hearing a ruckus from his neighbor’s house (police searching for drugs, as it turned out), grabbed his gun and went over to help out. He never even made it off his driveway but was, instead, was shot dead by the police. I’m not blaming the police. I’m just citing this particular story as an example of the fact that, in fraught situations, police are justifiably nervous and can’t tell good guys from bad. Neighbors, however, know each other, and a homeowner certainly knows who shouldn’t be in his house.
[UPDATE: Thanks to Libby and John C, please scroll down to see two more great images.]
Tom Elia, who blogs at The New Editor, alerted me to this tweeted picture, which purportedly shows the rear bumper sticker on the car the Chechen brothers carjacked. If you look carefully on the bumper’s right side….
It’s a hokey old song, but I thought of it when I thought of the wave of first responders, in Boston, in Cambridge, in Watertown, and in West (Texas), who so willingly showed up when the calls came in:
And finally, on a slightly less mordant note, did you know that one of Sinatra’s later albums (1970) was called Watertown (apparently after a place in New York) and that it had a song of the some name? I don’t like the song, but it seems appropriate here: