by Guest Blogger Tom Haswell
There’s been a lot of coverage on the McKinney pool party, from both sides. I’m generally pretty critical of police, but right now, I want to shame both sides on this one.
Why?
Because they’re all focusing on the wrong officer.
Let’s look at Officer 227, first initial E. I cannot make out last name on the footage. This is who we should be talking about.
Notice around the fifty second mark. Officer 227 calmly speaks to people on the scene, explaining why they shouldn’t “take off running” when the police arrive — no abusive language, no demeaning tone … he could be talking to a family member. He politely thanks the boys that return police property to him. He not only backs up his fellow officer who drew, but tells him “you stay here, I’ll get him” regarding the person he drew on — who is returned to the scene cuffed but apparently unharmed.
“To Serve and Protect” is to control a situation in a method that diffuses it, not escalates it. He diffused the situation (as well as his fellow officer) in a manner which did not embarrass or shame either one. In fact, he do so in such a flawless manner that no one is talking about it. Which is a shame.
The left needs to hold this man up as an example of how officers should act, and the right needs to portray him as an example of how officers do act … and neither side wants to acknowledge him, because escalation sells airtime.
The term “Good Cop” gets used on a lot of people who, in my opinion, don’t deserve it. Officer 227 does. Whoever you are … thank you.
Tom Haswell is a freelance writer and rules designer in the Wargaming Industry, currently working for such titles as Ravage Magazine, CTC MAgazine, Prodos Games, Crushpop Productions and Skullduggery Press.
I understand the concept of libertarianism, I really do. The idea that government causes more problems than it solves is appealing in concept, and when it comes to most social issues (gay marriage, marijuana legislation, freedom of religion) liberals and libertarians see eye to eye.
The problem is that most libertarians hate government except when they do. They aren’t consistent. “Government shouldn’t be providing all these services!” they say. “But don’t take away our public schools, parks, and libraries. I need that subway and the highway system so they’re OK. And my parents need their social security so we’ll keep that. Those tax breaks that allow me to deduct home mortgages is good. And it’s probably a good idea to have health inspectors making sure the food I buy isn’t tainted with disease ….”
In some ways, they are like religious extremists — they have a clear concept of what they believe in, and then they find a bunch of loopholes and exceptions that allow them to ignore the parts of it they don’t like. (“We must obey every word of the Bible! Except that part about eating shellfish. And the part allowing slavery. Oh, and the stoning to death of people who get divorces…”)
I understand the concept of reducing government, but be honest, libertarians — you just want to reduce some government, the part that doesn’t benefit you directly.
You like government that helps you.
You’re just against anyone else being helped.
Nobody is saying that!
I am so sick of these kinds of arguments: “Oh, so you want $15 an hour for flipping burgers when our firefighters get paid less than that? Who do you think you are, scum?”
Stop making those stupid comparisons! No one asking for a decent wage for a crappy job of standing over a boiling vat of fries for eight hours a day is saying that they are the only ones underpaid. Fast food workers are underpaid and our military is underpaid. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Why can’t we all admit that a large percentage of our population is underpaid? Until Reagan dismantled our economy, whenever things improved, salaries increased for everyone, upper and lower class. Now an improved economy only benefits the 1% at the top. Can’t we all agree that pretty much everyone needs a salary increase?
After all, the money to pay firefighters doesn’t come from McDonald’s anyway. Raising the wage for hamburger flippers won’t decrease other people’s salaries. Let’s lift everyone up. And even if we only lift some up at first, it doesn’t mean others don’t deserve it, too and should also be lifted as soon as possible.
But this is what they want — they want us fighting over the scraps because then we’re ignoring the huge wealth inequality that really exists in our country, and it’s not about whether someone should get a few extra dollars an hour.
But back to the main point: Stupid comparisons. I’m seeing way too many of these.
“Caitlyn Jenner is brave.” “Yeah, well not as brave as these soldiers!” Yes, we know. No one said she was. It is possible for more than one person to be brave, you know.
“Black lives matter.” “All lives matter!” Yes, of course all lives matter, but sometimes we need to bring attention to some of them! It doesn’t mean they are the only lives that matter!
I mean, seriously, it’s gotten out of hand. As one comedian said recently, these kinds of arguments are like someone running into a fundraising event to fight cancer and yelling, “There are other diseases, you know!”
Look at this list of people who have no chance of winning the Republican nomination: Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckbee, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum … and that doesn’t count the other long-shots that may jump into the overcrowded clown car, such as Donald Trump. Some might put Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry in that group as well…
So why do they do it? Why would they run when they must know they have no chance of winning?
A few reasons come to mind:
They love the attention. I recall someone criticizing candidate Obama once by saying he had a big ego, which made me respond, “No! Really? Someone who thinks he can be Leader of the Free World has a big ego? I am shocked!” Come on, big egos come with every politician. They love the attention or they wouldn’t be running.
Money. Candidates can raise a lot of money and live nice off it for a short period of time. If they lose the nomination and remain politicians, they now have made new connections and can use the money for their own PAC and their next political campaign — or they can give the excess to another candidate who will then owe them a favor.
Promotion. Running for President gets their name out there and keeps them in the news, which leads to book sales and speaking engagements which will make them richer.
Auditioning for another job. If they run a good campaign anyway and get good press and appeal to a certain segment of society, they might get considered for the Vice Presidency or a cabinet position.
Auditioning for Fox News. Based on past history, failed candidates have a great shot of getting a cushy well-paying job at Fox News as a commentator.
So do these guys really think they can win? Perhaps a few of the more deluded ones, but the majority probably have other motives in mind.
Look, the government knows who you are, through your social security number, driver’s license, post office mailing address, and probably a hundred other ways of confirming your identity.
Why then do we need an extra requirement for voting registration? Why should the most basic right of anyone in a democracy have such difficult stringent conditions?
Isn’t voting the basis of our system of government, the one we proudly hold up as an example to the rest of the world? Who wouldn’t want everyone to vote?
Well, the answer is simple: The rich and powerful. Since the founding of our country, the idea has been that the common rabble shouldn’t be deciding important matters that democracy’s elite nobility rightly should deal with.
We commoners have fought against this notion since then (when you had to be a white, male, property owner to vote). Little by little, with hard-fought battles, the barriers have fallen.
And the rich and powerful fought back, with poll taxes and literacy tests, and eventually those were eliminated as well.
Today, the rich and powerful are represented by the Republican party that knows perfectly well that the more people who vote, the worse the Republicans do — so they have tried over and over again to restrict voting and place as many barriers in the way of voters as they can. They scream about non-existent voter fraud but admit in private (when they don’t realize they are being recorded) that the whole point of it all is to keep us commoners from voting.
That’s why heads are exploding over Hillary Clinton’s proposal to make voting registration automatic. You turn 18, boom, you’re registered. Horrors!
As you can expect, the smarter people on the right are discussing this as if it will lead to massive fraud and elections being stolen* while the rubes who follow them are more blatant, posting comments that reveal that the racist idea behind poll taxes and literacy tests hasn’t ever died. (Note: Fox News has yet to remove all these racist comments from their web page. They know who their audience is.)
There’s more that can be done to encourage voting of course besides simply making registration easier — mail-in voting has been tremendously successful in the states that have tried it, increasing participation without a single incident of fraud. And “early voting,” which allows people a week or so to vote, also has proven to work.
But automatic registration? A good first step.
* yeah, I know — ironic, right?
