Friday, January 23, 2015

Police public relations problems are their own creation

While the media has not been particularly kind to selected police departments around the country lately, namely Ferguson, MO (Michael Brown shooting) and Staten Island, NY (Eric Garner death at the hands of overzealous police) who lead the parade, this kind of coverage is not something that comes out of the blue.

Police departments throughout the U.S. have for decades, and perhaps centuries now, brought a great deal of scrutiny upon themselves.  Criminal activity within all communities is largely committed surreptitiously, since the bad guys don't want to go to jail and 99% of the time will give it their best shot to do their dirty deeds away from the eyes of the authorities.  The on-the-spot police involvement of crimes in progress grabs the headlines every time it occurs.  It's only human nature; we want to see these conflicts and how they play out.  Will the good guys or the bad guys win?

And much like Hollywood is always prone to do, they love to portray good guys as bad guys and vice versa.  It makes for great TV viewing. Anymore, TV is not about enlightening their audience with facts.  TV wants to grab as many eyeballs and glue them to their screens, and keep them there, whatever it takes.  Facts and reporting be damned, that's not what the media is about anymore, at least not primarily.

It's the airplane crash that grabs the spot light, since there's always a great deal of destruction and loss of life.  People can't help themselves, they want to know all about it.  Don Henley of "Eagles" fame put it correctly in his ditty "Dirty Laundry" several years ago:

"We got the bubble headed bleach blond who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry."

That's what people want.  And the media will gladly give it to them and most police departments play right into this need and are hard wired to portray these rare opportunities out to the most outrageous end.  They want to ensure that the public, and more accurately, their bosses, sees that their guys and gals in blue win at all costs, and that at the end of the confrontation, the bad guys are either down on the ground in hand cuffs or down on the ground with bullet holes in them.  

Most police departments have a desired ratio of patrolmen/women to population within their jurisdiction.  These ratios are subject to funding by each jurisdiction through taxes levied on that municipality.  These ratios vary widely and typically these ratios are higher in rural areas than in urban areas.  Criminals are acutely aware of where the police are, and where they are not.

Accordingly, crimes are almost always committed outside of the scrutiny of the police.  Houses are burglarized, cars are stolen, convenience stores are robbed at gunpoint, and the police are nowhere to be seen.  And this is understandable.  The ratios that are affordable by any municipality simply don't enable police patrols to watch everything all the time.  Criminals know this.  

When the victim discovers that he has been burglarized, for example, the criminals have been gone long before a police response could prevent the crime.  The police are called and they come out to the scene of the crime, look around, ask some questions and either verify that a crime has been committed or not. This is the way crime is handled 99.99 percent of the time.  The cops come out, write down what they see on their reports, cast a suspicious eye on the victims (since they are there at the scene of the crime and the criminals are not), file their report and then cruise off to Dunkin' Donuts to talk about how the Bears lost to the Vikings, never again to think about the crime report they will file at the end of their shift.  

No crime is solved, no investigation is undertaken.  Oh sure, they give you lip service that a follow up investigation will be initiated, but in the end, in the vast majority of police cases, nothing happens and the victims never see any kind of justice.  

Most policemen and women's only job is shaking down the people they have sworn to 'serve and protect,' by issuing citations for speeding, littering and other misdemeanors that keep the revenues flowing into the government's hands. Their involvement in fighting crime takes up perhaps 1% of their time, since the vast majority of criminals while evil are not stupid: they will do their dirty deeds surreptitiously, and not rob and steal in front of a live police presence.  The 99% of a run of the mill police person's total time on the job involves eating donuts and writing tickets.  

They are not judged by their police supervising sergeants and lieutenants by how many bad guys they collar.  That kind of personnel review simply will not work, there is just not enough bold, blatant crime committed that involves active police personnel. No, they are given performance reviews that focus on how many citations they issue to the tax payers.  Based on these criteria, they are determined to be good police men and women by how much money in fines and penalties they can squeeze out of the good guys. There are just not enough bad guys out there committing crimes in front of squad cars to justify their jobs with active collars and arrests.

And when a bad guy pops up in the presence of a cop to do his dirty work on super rare occasions, their training kicks in and they make as big of a mess of the scene as they possibly can to ensure that their exploits are noticed by their superiors.

We are all seeing the police departments across the country squirm and squeal about the terrible coverage they are getting from the media.  That media attention they are getting is warranted; these guys and gals in blue are getting exactly what they are asking for.  

Be careful what you ask for, is all I have to say.  In the fullness of time, you just might get it.     






Thursday, January 15, 2015

Rahm Emanual's free lunch for everyone

The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, has just announced an initiative that will provide the citizens of Chicago free junior college.  Just keep your high school grades up, and you're entitled to two years of college, all free.

The mayor assumes that having lots of his citizens with two year community college Associate of Arts degrees, all picked up by the taxpayers, will entice new businesses to swarm into the city limits in droves, and snap up all of these educated folks to work for them in a New York minute.  

Fat chance.  Business owners are not stupid, Rahm.  It only takes a few key strokes to determine what kind of taxes they would have to pay if their businesses relocated to Chicago, and those key strokes would spit out the dismal facts in a New York minute.

Chicago is one of the highest taxed business climates in the country, just outside of New York and San Francisco.  They have a state sales tax of 7.25% tacked onto almost everything you need to buy in Chicago, one of the highest gasoline taxes in the country, an enormous property tax burden, a city sales tax of around 3% tacked onto the state sales tax, and Cook county gets its fingers into the till as well with a county tax to boot.  

Nobody in his right mind is going to relocate to Chicago unless they get a monster sweetheart tax deal that exempts them from most of these taxes for a period of time.  Otherwise, forget it.

No business worth its salt is going to move to Chicago, Rahm.  The crime is out of control with one of the highest murder rates in the country, and the weather is just plain lousy, and add all those taxes to the mix, and this city is the last place on earth any business would relocate to.

And Rahm thinks giving away free college is the answer.  Think again. All that will do is suck more money from taxpayers with nothing to show for it other than a bunch of associate of arts degree holders (who majored in diversity studies and performance arts with a concentration in the art of mime).  

No wonder Chicago is about as broke as any city in the nation. Their leaders have absolutely no clue as to what attracts businesses to locate there.  These leaders, including Rahm, are all Democrats and have been Democrats in power since the days of Al Capone.  All Democrats know about running a government is to raise taxes and ruin a city in the long run.  Just ask the good citizens of Detroit how things have worked out for them over the last 75 years of Democrat leadership.

It's only going to get worse in Chicago.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Why do people think liberalism is good for us all?

Did you ever wonder why people who support liberalism think that this flawed philosophy is good for us all?

Even when this philosophy has been demonstrably, historically proven to fail wherever it has been implemented?  Throughout the history of mankind?

I am taken aback at how people can think this way all the time.  I have met many well-off, relatively wealthy folks who are completely enamored with liberalism and its leaders.  They themselves are not the benefactors of liberal politics which yield food stamps, welfare checks, Obama phones and rent controlled hovels.

These people are living large primarily because they worked at high paying jobs, saved their money that was not taxed away from them, invested it (and paid taxes yet again on any capital gains yielded from these investments).  And these liberals don't give it a second thought of the tax rates the rest of us also put up with, and the rampant wasted spending that Congress winds up doing with this tidal wave of confiscated tax money.

These very same people also paid accountants to ensure that they were not paying one single dime more in taxes than is absolutely required by law, not a penny more.

And yet these very same people think that we all should be taxed even more to support the unfortunate among us.  You know, the bums, alcoholics, drug addicts, and general lowlifes that don't have what they themselves enjoy in life.

According to these high living liberals, that's just not right.  That's just not fair.  And they will vote in as many liberals as they can that get up on the campaign stump and promise to make things right. Make things fair, it's only the decent thing to do, vote for me, vote for fairness.

Everyone should enjoy the finer things in life, they insist.  Why should only a tiny minority of people dine on caviar and truffles, while the great majority eat out of dumpsters?  Why should only a small minority of Americans live on the beach, drive Ferrari's and Bentley s and light their imported hand rolled cigars with $20 bills?

It's just not fair.  So let's all make it fair.   That is to say, they want their neighbors to pony up to make things fair for everyone and jack up their taxes, put limits on their freedoms and do it that way. No, no, these limousine liberals will not kick in a dime of their own to see to it that fairness reigns.  Not on your life.  That's the rest of us tax payer's responsibility, not theirs.  

They think that to ensure fairness through out our society, we ALL need to kick in and help those less fortunate than they are.  But don't pass that hat THEIR way, they have their yacht payments to deal with, you see.  They have their elite club memberships to service, and their mansion groundskeepers to support.

These liberal phony baloney hypocrites think that they are doing their part to lessen the misery and unfairness in our society by voting in liberal politicians that will see to it that their neighbors cough up the trillions it will take to make things right.

Just don't darken their liberal doorstep with your collection plate, you just better take it across the street where the money should rightly come from; not them.

I will never understand these liberal people.  And there are millions of 'em. Millions and millions of these generous liberals out there. Generous to a fault with the money of others.  




Sunday, December 14, 2014

Hollywood hypocrisy is not news, folks

As I was browsing through my favorite blogs, I stumbled across a link on "Geez"s blog written by Juan Williams ( THIS) pertaining to the Hollywood unflattering emails that were hacked and published recently. 

The main beef I have with Juan, who is a relatively reasonable guy most of the time (for a liberal), is that on several occasions within his article, he clearly stated that conservatives were justified in feeling a sense of Schadenfreude - the joy felt in watching the misfortunes of others - at the blatant hypocrisy of these Hollywood moguls.

Nothing could be farther from the truth: no conservative worth his or her salt could possibly have this kind of reaction to these recent revelations on the thought processes present in the Hollywood elite.

The fact is that we all know this is how these guys think.  It's nothing new, it's 'dog bites man,' and not the other way around. Why on earth would anyone get a feeling of joy at these Hollywood liberals squirming in their moment of lucidity?

I think Juan Williams' point is that since their raging hypocrisy is now on display, there will be accountability on their part to change, to atone for their sins, to become better people.  Accordingly, the conservative cause will have gained merit, and the liberals will have lost some mojo because of this kerfuffle.  

HA.  Fat chance.  None of that will happen.  These liberal moguls will continue to fund liberal causes, produce liberal movies and do liberal things just like nothing happened.  No accountability will reduce any of their activities, no face will have been lost for the liberal philosophy, life will go on exactly as it has before.

Why would conservatives be joyful over essentially nothing?  Nobody is taking this little episode to heart, and changing things in their lives: there is absolutely no chance that some of the clueless out there are suddenly going to read the National Enquirer and declare: "did you read this about those Hollywood hypocrites, Marge?  By golly, they are rotten to the bone saying those things, I think I will stop believing them and their liberal views.  I am never voting for another liberal ever again, and I am now going to vote conservative, Marge.  C'mon, Marge, let's go register as Republicans...."

Like that's going to happen? In a pig's eye.   Juan couldn't be more wrong about this Schadenfreude on behalf of conservatives.  


Sunday, December 7, 2014

U.S. justice system is frayed and tattered

You can't turn on the TV anymore without seeing mobs of angry protesters throwing bricks through Starbucks and 7/11 convenience store windows.

It's not that these angry mobs are irritated that Starbucks charges $5 for a cup of coffee, or that 7/11 charges $4 for a dozen eggs.  

These mobs are lashing out at a system that is fraying and tattered: it takes months and sometimes years to have a legitimate court case adjudicated.  Policemen are getting ruder and more volatile in virtually everything they get involved in.  Simply watch the video of 5 police goons tackling, subduing and arresting Eric Garner for the heinous crime of selling individual cigarettes - a legal product in the land of the free and home of the brave.  5 police officers, count 'em.

And the mobs don't like that image, not that these angry mobs are the epitome of virtue, goodness and righteousness themselves.

Hardly.  

In my opinion (of which I have many and of which are all rock solid and correct, just ask me, and I will tell you so), it is not hard to put the finger on what the root cause of all of this indignation: the justice system is swamped with activity.  It is overwhelmed with people wanting perfect justice.  And most of the people who make up these angry mobs are not removed from the root cause, either. 

When an angry woman calls 911 when a Port St. Lucy, Florida McDonalds Restaurant runs out of Chicken McNuggets, the system begins to fail.  When a McDonald's restaurant serves a woman scalding hot coffee and she spills it in her lap, sues and winds up with a jury verdict awarding her millions of dollars, the beginning of the end is upon us.  

We as a nation are guilty of demanding a Supreme Court decision on every little dispute, and we all want our neighbors clapped in irons, frog marched over to a police cruiser and taken downtown, and ultimately thrown into a federal prison because their neighbor committed the gross injustice of owning a dog that dug up their begonias. 

This is where we begin to see things run amok.  We sue everybody for every little thing.  Lawyers are everywhere, suing the pants off of everybody for the smallest of grievances. There is no end to the complaints that we process against our neighbors.

This is just one of the ways in which we swamp our system of justice.  And the other has become quite obvious as well: our police force is simply understaffed and under qualified to deal with what our society now expects out of them.

We are an educated society, so much so that we demand that our public schools hire only 4 year college graduates to teach our kindergarten students to finger paint.  You think I am exaggerating, think again.  Nowhere in the land of the free and the home of the brave, not one U.S. state will allow anyone without a bonafide four year college degree from an accredited four year college in front of a group of public school kindergarten kids to lead a class in finger painting.  Not one.  Anywhere.  

AND YET:  we issue hand guns, shot guns, assault rifles, tasers, billy clubs, and an assortment of deadly weapons to virtual kids with only a high school diploma, pin a badge on their lapel and call them a policeman.  Sometimes these high school graduates might have some college (aka college drop outs), and in a tiny, minuscule number of instances, some police have college degrees.

Armed with a high school diploma and an assault rifle, along with a billy club, we send these guys out on calls from the public to resolve an untold myriad of complaints.  It is not possibly reasonable to expect these kids to be all of the following: psychologist, marital counselor, hostage negotiator, soldier, business arbitrator, and even at times judge, jury and executioner when a fatality occurs with their involvement in the use of deadly force. 

The solutions to our fraying and sputtering justice system are simple, but elusive:  we need to change the justice system in two major areas: 1) loser pays court costs always, and 2) all police agents who are given authority to use lethal force have college degrees.

1)  Tort Reform.  When frivolous lawsuits are brought before judges, it bogs down the system with back logs stretching out for years.  If every little beef is processed through the system without cost to the plaintiff, there is no restraint to the number of beefs admitted onto the dockets and we get what we have now: chaos in the justice system.  Once a plaintiff understands that if they lose, they are hammered with the court costs involved,  which are substantial, only the most egregious of beefs will be prosecuted.  Problem solved.

2)  Upgrade police force requirements.  When high school kids, many of them college drop outs, are sent on calls to potentially arrest a perp, we see what we get (Eric Garner case): bad judgement.  The guy should have been issued a ticket at most.  Maybe not even that.  Terrible judgement by a gang of Wyatt Earp wannabes.  I do not have the information on all of these 5 arresting cops in the Eric Garner case, but I would wager an enormous amount of money that not one of them had a college degree.  Not one, and their judgement clearly shows this. Yes, they were trained on subduing a perp.  But they were clearly NOT trained as to when and under what circumstances to use this authorized force. 

Obtaining a college degree is not the end-all and be-all in obtaining a semblance of judgement, but it certainly goes far.  It takes the following to complete a four year degree at an accredited four year college: 


  • Resources, either from a stable family or a municipal entity which sponsors your candidacy.  These resources are only available from stable factors that invoke that same stability in their candidates.  
  • Respect for authority, and this is a critical factor in the composition of the character of the candidate, for if there is no respect for their professors, administrators or institutions of higher learning, they will have little or no respect for their ultimate charges (the general public) once they are conferred with any power over another.
  • Work ethic, something that many non-graduates do not have. You have to show up for classes, whether you feel like it or not.  You have to study for your tests and do your homework, regardless of what parties and ski trips you will be missing. You have to sacrifice to achieve your educational goals. 
  • Tolerance of high levels of frustration.  Slogging though four years of high stress and expensive college classes is not a cake walk, regardless of your major.  You will be forgoing full time wages, and accordingly will not be in any way affluent (starving student syndrome).  You will have to work on group projects with sluggos who drag your group performance down, and you have to resist the urge to purge these slugs from your midst with nefarious and nasty means.  You have to work with all forms of disagreeable people around you, to include class mates, instructors and administrators.  
Simply put, our justice system is in need of overhaul.  The police force nationwide is understaffed by largely unqualified personnel who are asked to perform duties that are unarguably beyond their abilities to adequately perform.

Our courts are swamped with frivolous beefs that should be dealt with outside the justice system, and only the most egregious cases are adjudicated in the municipal courts.

Until this happens, we are going to see our frayed and tattered justice system get more frayed and more tattered, and the mobs at our doors will start to turn ugly.  Once these mobs start creeping outwards from their mostly urban confinements and into suburban environs, things could get very, very ugly.




Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Ferguson riots: what they have accomplished

It's the same old page out of the same old play book: black Americans burn down their own town over some grievance (fill in the blank here), and think that their criminal actions will change America for the better.

And things don't change for the better.  We've seen it again and again, same ol' same ol'.  Watts and Detroit in the 1960's.  Los Angeles after the Rodney King beating.  Blacks burning down their own businesses, and blaming whites for everything that is wrong with their lives.

What are the results of this latest riot in Ferguson, MO?  Is the criminal justice system now going to look the other way from black crime?  Can blacks now steal and mug their way into the mainstream of American society without consequences?

The results of this riot in the short term are crystal clear: many black-owned businesses in Ferguson are gone, burned to the ground.  Hundreds of families are now without a source of income.  And the millions of white viewers around the country who watched these riots on TV are horrified that things could get like this in their country.

The results in the long term are the same as they have always been: white flight.  Whites fearing black violence move their families away from predominantly black and urban areas, leaving the black community to fend for itself.  The black community left behind is then hard pressed to make up for the lost business revenue, lost tax revenue and lost opportunities that have fled along with the fearful white Americans that have moved their families to safer grounds in the suburbs.

The results are exactly opposite of what the black activists who are calling for 'no justice, no peace': a viscous cycle of violence that plunge the black community into further chaos and despair.

I have no advice for the black community that it already doesn't know: their leaders are leading them down the path to ruin.  And things are not going to change for the better any time soon.

Friday, November 21, 2014

All we have to do is survive just two more lame duck years

Obama just threw down the gauntlet in front of the Republican's feet a mere two weeks after his party's historic landslide defeat at the national ballot box.

He will write new immigration legislation because the Republicans are dragging their feet on presenting him with a bill that he agrees with (like that is ever going to happen in our lifetime).

We'll see how the GOP takes this brazen violation of the Constitution.  Sitting down?  Maybe.  They might fly off the handle (I'd like to see that, I don't think they have it in them).

In any event, all we have to do as a nation is survive just two more years somehow of Obama's lame duck years.  Just two more.  He has now poisoned the Democrat brand so thoroughly up to this point in his presidency, most Americans have had it up to their eyeballs in liberalism's failures.

There's just no way any Democrat can succeed in 2016 in sneaking into the Oval Office.  Barry has so tainted every major Democrat's standing with Americans, they simply can't distance themselves far enough from Barry now, regardless of what they do or say.

How about Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren (D-Ma)?  High cheek bones and all, she is more liberal than Barry, and that is saying something.  Trust me, Kimosabe, this heap big liberal squaw will go-um down in heap big flames if the Dems have the nerve to nominate her, regardless of how much wampum she has in her war-teepee.  Pocahontas Warren was touted as the first 'woman of color' appointed to her position at Harvard.  Woman of color?  Elizabeth Warren?  She is arguably the whitest white gal east of the Mississippi.  I have seen better tans on jars of mayonnaise than on this 'woman of color.'  She's a complete and total (or as her people say, 'heap big') fraud and has no chance at attaining a position at the national level. 

Jim Webb (D-Va) has recently dipped his toe in the presidential waters.  He is so in bed with Barry philosophically, the GOP nominee in the 2016 race will lay a coat of Barry-paint on him so thick, it will take a battalion of chisel-bearing toadies to chip it off him.

And of course, there's Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-anywhere), who is joined at the hip with Barry.  She was in charge when Benghazi blew up in their liberal faces, there isn't a chance in hell that she won't be tarred and feathered with that debacle during the 2016 campaign. 

Americans are so sick and tired of this liberal crew and their devastating policies, even low info types like the Obama-phone lady in Cleveland have had enough.

All the GOP has to do is nominate somebody not named Bush and they are a shoe-in in 2016.