Friday Ephemera
One lucky dog. (h/t, Damian) // Public transport. // Christopher Lee reads five horror classics. // Can bats swim? // British artist stranded out at sea. (h/t, Albino Finger) // The unmaking of gelatin sweets. // The (post)modern scholar. // New York, 1940s. // Everything wrong with Citizen Kane. // Hong Kong density. // What dad did. // What cats do. (h/t, Julia) // Upscale fashion show of yore. (h/t, Coudal) // Refresh the ramsophone. // Ancient Roman dinner party etiquette. // The triggering. // Time travel radio. // Classic Trek antagonists, ranked. // Autonomous tractor. // Freediving under ice isn’t for the faint-hearted. // A dragon made of flowers. // And finally, on the art of choosing band names. I do like French Toast Emergency. And Librarians In Uproar.
except in the case of a totalitarian society where the police presence is actively engaged in repressing the local population.
The Churchill speech arrest was not a function of a militarized police force.
I’m curious why y’all put up with that? I’d like to think if something like that happened over here there would be organized mass readings of such. Perhaps I’m wrong. Or has there been some similar resistance that has not gotten any press?
I’m curious why y’all put up with that? I’d like to think if something like that happened over here there would be organized mass readings of such.
Not on college campuses.
Not on college campuses
Well, no. Not likely there. And as I’ve said, I’m disgusted that we seem to be moving in that direction. But there’s still an element of resistance to such in this country, even among the (true) liberals. In fact, if Scotland Yard is actually monitoring what is said on blogs, I would like to invite the head honcho there to come to the US. I’ll even pay for his flight. So he can kiss my white American (censored)..
The Churchill speech arrest was not a function of a militarized police force.
No, but one could interpret it as the action of an occupying force imposing ‘foreign values’. The British police do seem to have a dual standard in enforcing the law; compare this arrest to their inaction when the perpetrators are leftists or are of a different ethnicity.
I’m curious why y’all put up with that? I’d like to think if something like that happened over here there would be organized mass readings of such.
Good luck with that. If you did it over here, the result could very well be arrest and potential ruin.
In fact, if Scotland Yard is actually monitoring what is said on blogs, I would like to invite the head honcho there to come to the US. I’ll even pay for his flight. So he can kiss my white American (censored)..
If you ever visit the UK, let me know how you get on at Passport Control.
But Jonathan, rightists reliably and loudly assure us – if not ridicule others – that such a police state is the use of proper force and cannot, by nature, be wrong. It’s a thick, comfortable blue line.
The Churchill speech arrest was not a function of a militarized police force.
All arrests are now a function of a militarized police force, that being the point.
This is exactly the silliness I was referring to. So no matter where the state keeps its military resources, just as a function of having them, they are an occupying force. Which of course they are if one is an anarchist.
I’ve got a long ride ahead of me today so I can’t be back and forth on this issue until much later.
Ted S: “It’s amazing to see that every time I post stories about the cops that assiduously avoid the race angle, people’s responses basically boil down to, “But black people commit crime!”
Have you never stopped to consider that the vast majority of the fake news reports of police misbehavior involve accusations of racism?
“But I’m sure you’ll all say her victims were black so they deserved it.”
Take your meds.
I’ve got a long ride ahead of me today so I can’t be back and forth on this issue until much later
Safe journey.
on the art of choosing band names.
Never, ever ask the internet for help……..
Note first that the picture the newspaper used is not the mug shot,
Maybe because she wasn’t arrested?
The vast majority … something on the order of 90-95% of the cases we process do not include an actual arrest. And especially if one is dealing with fraud investigations, a felony complaint is filed with either an arrest warrant issued (and if an defense attorney is aware of when the complaint is going to be filed, they can go to the court house and calendar an arraignment date or do a counter arraignment and move right to the pre-preliminary hearing).
BTW … in the Freddy Gray case – which has turned out to be shades of Nifong – the LEO’s mugshots were ubiquitous.
rightists reliably and loudly assure us – if not ridicule others – that such a police state is the use of proper force and cannot, by nature, be wrong.
What a delightful strawman you’ve built! I would be happy if you’d quote one “rightest” asserting that a police state “cannot, by nature be wrong.”
The Falling Man.
Lest we forget.
I would be happy if you’d quote one “rightest” asserting that a police state “cannot, by nature be wrong.”
One could dig it up and quote you yourself, but one could also have even less inclination this time than last to endure the inevitable strawmantic snark.
The vast majority … something on the order of 90-95% of the cases we process do not include an actual arrest. And especially if one is dealing with fraud investigations, a felony complaint is filed with either an arrest warrant issued (and if an defense attorney is aware of when the complaint is going to be filed, they can go to the court house and calendar an arraignment date or do a counter arraignment and move right to the pre-preliminary hearing).
And speaking of delightful, that’s what it’d be if you were to engage, say, law professor and Libertarian Glenn Reynolds, who you well know, on the subject of prosecutorial overreach and the plead-out state.
“law professor and Libertarian Glenn Reynolds”
Except that Glenn Reynolds has written not only on the problem of abuse of power by police and prosecutors, he has also written about the left’s war on the police.
Jonathan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa_Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpH83Vi7b9E
Purple Haired Harpies.
Oh, better yet, Purple Haired Herpes.
Except that Glenn Reynolds has written not only on the problem of abuse of power by police and prosecutors, he has also written about the left’s war on the police.
And one wrong makes a rightist, that being my point.
“that being my point”
Given your propensity for misrepresenting what people say, the point is on top of your head.
Given your propensity for misrepresenting what people say, the point is on top of your head.
You know, that sly twist on declaring victory and hoping nobody notices is cute and all, but my original statement was literal and verifiable: In the context of an increasingly overbearing police establishment, rightists do in fact reliably and loudly assure us – if not ridicule others – that such a police state is the use of proper force and cannot, by nature, be wrong, where obviously “rightists” defines itself and, remarkably, needs no explanation and where “such” refers to a context of the matter I didn’t even write.
So kudos, young man. Why, I’d be tempted to say something like given your propensity for, yes, misrepresenting what people say, the point might well be on top of your head, except that would be too revealing of a tiny intellect.
Ten, I live in a city where the police darned well better be well armed.
One can make legitimate arguments about police overreach and misconduct, but we aren’t going to get back to the days of Mayberry Sheriff Andy Griffith anytime soon–not without significant reductions in crime and terrorism. In the meantime, please stop characterizing as racist every person who wants criminals and terrorists to be stopped and removed from society.
Police stopping and arresting people for reading Churchill are being overbearing. Police sufficiently armed to deal with justifiable potential acts of extreme violence are dealing with reality.
As for this BLM sympathy from certain “libertarian” elements, I notice that the incidents BLM scream loudest about are the ones where they have been proven to be wrong. Little is made of the incidents where police have been held accountable for excessive force, such as the BART shooting in CA or the Slager case in SC. They don’t want any attention paid to those incidents inbecause they undermine their attempts to undermine police work and the criminal justice system in general.
Ten, I live in a city where the police darned well better be well armed.
No kidding. Here too! So that’s nice. Not topical, but nice.
One can make legitimate arguments about police overreach and misconduct, but we aren’t going to get back to the days of Mayberry Sheriff Andy Griffith anytime soon–not without significant reductions in crime and terrorism.
Ah, so one can make “legitimate arguments”, such as they may be, but with your having invoked a cartooned 60’s comedy television community, as part some presumed extension of your first at least somewhat emotional proclamation, one may not state as I did that rightists don’t argue much against the police establishment. Which they don’t.
In the meantime, please stop characterizing as racist every person who wants criminals and terrorists to be stopped and removed from society.
Oof. As you wish, but do allow me a teensy correction, if you will. See, I’ve never characterized anyone as racist in my life, all the less so here. Likewise, I’ve never defended real criminals.
I mean, if I’m expected to defend myself against baseless charges not even remotely in evidence, that is. So do kindly stop caricaturizing every person you somehow preemptively concluded “doesn’t want criminals and terrorists to be stopped and removed from society” as racialist. Or whatever.
Somewhere in Mayberry you’ll find your lost intellectual Diazepam pen.
Not topical? It seems to me that the nature of the crime that police have to deal with is entirely relevant to how they should be armed.
Oh, and checking back through the thread I see that was another commenter who was characterizing those who disagree as racists.
My reference to Mayberry was merely a humorous reference to a day when many small towns (and neighborhoods in big cities) had very little crime and the police did not have to be so heavily armed. But if you want to turn that into some sort of evidence of delusion then oh well.
Furthermore: If you paid serious and honest attention to what people on the right say, you would know that there is plenty of talk about abuse of police power.
Not topical? It seems to me that the nature of the crime that police have to deal with is entirely relevant to how they should be armed.
No, “well-armed” isn’t topical if it’s only as literal as Mayberry RFD is in the same context, obviously. The color of the sky is topical too. It’s just not part of the thread you saw fit to attack me about, which alluded to the abandonment of conservatism in favor of state security, such as it hasn’t been defined by the right wing favoring it. Boom: Mission creep.
But yes, you can divert that into the subjective appeal to an as yet undefined threat and it’s presumed solution, that being “well-armed”.
Oh, and checking back through the thread I see that was another commenter who was characterizing those who disagree as racists.
I see.
My reference to Mayberry was merely a humorous reference to a day when many small towns (and neighborhoods in big cities) had very little crime and the police did not have to be so heavily armed. But if you want to turn that into some sort of evidence of delusion then oh well.
I turned that into your delusion after you deployed it as a justification for something you can’t define beyond two words? But I mustn’t issue a literal observation about that phenomenon, one you yourself saw fit to eventually reinforce? And I’m putting words in mouths?
Furthermore: If you paid serious and honest attention to what people on the right say, you would know that there is plenty of talk about abuse of police power.
I pay nothing but serious and honest attention to what people on the increasingly codependent and progressive right say in order to come to the conclusions they have and that I have about them. It’s not even remotely a consensus of rights-based classical liberalism.
And it’s hardly Blackstone’s formulation. Frankly, if I wanted something closer to that, I’d be tempted to lend an ear to the left first, and let their bizarre set-em-all-free psychosis better honor it than the average angry rightist.
In my very “conservative” American district 76% of those polled support an infinitude of surveillance so as to “reduce crime”. That’s not conservative. That’s Orwell. Soon, that’s Phillip K. Dick.
You’re plumbing your own experience, looking for a literal argument.
One could dig it up and quote you yourself
Then do it. Find a quote of mine where I not only cheer a police state but find it, by nature, can never be wrong.
Your studied ignorance of the judicial system coupled with sneering bigotry is only second to your attempts to invent positions never taken by people you hate.
My, such courage of convictions by someone who posts anonymously!
Darleen, as if one of your illuminating intellect somehow needs it pointed out, connecting the dots between blind law’n’order rightist hoorahing for one’s water cooler crew and the loaded words “police state” calls for significantly less mental effort, given their proximity, than tossing the latter two words at someone you can’t respect enough not to, as I believe the term goes, strawman.
Or to put it another way, you’re lazy on at least a couple points right there and I’d be happy to let it all dangle there where the light shines right through it. You’re really only compounding your own error.
So I’m not sure whether to ignore the falsehood implicit in that feeble, passing attempt at engagement, or call it to task by recalling for you the tripe you previously lodged last time you were so wrong on the subject. Which you were, and which you yourself can, as I said, look up, given that its foolishness plays to the evident fact you can’t remember it.
Or stand with it, as the case probably is, not that I can blame you for abandoning it. I would too, if I were capable of it.
See, when you guys lob that mighty canard over the fence at what you only presume (or hope) is a anarchist loon, your gathering of rightist thickheads show you more prefer to stand in the street and stroke each other’s snark and daring than recall what “classical liberalism” meant – another term bandied about casually but so seriously and psuedo-intellectually in forays not against a valid discrete ideology and it’s literal underpinnings that you can’t grasp, which mine is and which you can only pretend you can target and correct, but simply against anyone who you suppose doesn’t think in the little bite-sized red state pieces you think in, of which we are many – that trademark loud bravado behind the fence doesn’t hide the built-in fallacies. You can no more declare victory over your shoulder than pst314 could.
I mean, I realize your tribe relies on it to intimidate but frankly, it’s worn so thin that’s hardly what it’s good for anymore, as outing and embarrassing as it’s always been. I think you know that. It must be exhausting.
And of course, that’s before we get to the loaded terms deployed not just by emptiness, but by your hated leftists, and you do so hate them and their rhetoric, don’t you? Rhetoric like, “studied ignorance”. “Sneering bigotry”. “Invented positions”.
And hate. Hate!, the mark of rhetorical desperation and spiritual exhaustion at the task. Next I expect those other juvenile leftwing warhorses spew, invective, and vitriol, because when you can’t express a valid thing well, express a cheap thing badly. I mean, a few hours ago I was calling people Racists! when I wasn’t.
And now I H8te, but I hate because you probably have nothing else to say.
Anyway, facts: Rightists do indeed blindly applaud the evolving but, to them, largely undefined police establishment for it Keeps Them Safe while it tends to their notions – their bigotries, as it were – that the only good bad guy is no bad guy and and like you, defining that person in the framework of the previous Blackstonian constitutional structure you apparently handily disregard here while promoting yourself as its noble champion otherwise, doesn’t much matter. To you the judicial system and all its door-cracking, druggie-busting, cash-confiscating, grandma flash-banging, baby-crib-maiming ancillaries here in ham sandwich nation are, by virtue of their name and your fealty to it as you can’t or won’t structurally define them, are self-regarding, self-regulating, benign, benevolent, and peerless institutions, incapable of not protecting and serving simply, well, because.
And to doubt the self-evident veracity of all that statism makes one a H8tr hippie emoticon or something. Like, say, Madison, that asshole.
Why, it’s almost as invincibly pure as that Constitution itself is, this latter day apparatus, even given over to the legal evolutionists who’ve ruined it as they have and it is. But, denial being what it is, heaven be praised it can never really happen to the Blue. It just can’t.
It’s funny, one of my friends is a detective, a man of the street and no leftist. And he’d shred your argument, such as it is, on constitutional grounds with ten times the precision and fineness I have. I’ve limited my remarks mostly to the linguistic fallacies people like you trot out, but a classical liberal or especially a Libertarian, the naked freeloading dopehead apes you insist they be, would disassemble them to the molecule. And you’d be a rightist.
That defined thing as it’d be correctly conceived and framed I think we can safely call law and order. Just not your likely perversion of it.
And in parting, no, I don’t find some commenters half as courageous as they seem to find themselves, or half as important. I value having the integrity to not read from the script handed you that you never questioned because you didn’t have the capacity or the motivation. And I find the opposite of the right thing isn’t hate, Darleen. It’s just that sort of apathy.
Shorter “Ten”: “I can’t back up my assertions, so here is SQUIRREL!! in 862 words!”
Thanks for playing Lying sack, “Ten”.
#blessyourheart
Hardly, Darleen. When it comes to substance you’re just a loud, petulant child with a handful of cheap online shots.
Just the other day, folks around here were remarking about the relative absence of trolls. It seems that a certain troll (who shall remain nameless) has undertaken to remedy that by hijacking a thread. Even a hard-core libertarian like me has noticed.
Suggestion:
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!
“Hard-core libertarian” concern troll says, don’t feed the troll.
Well, it’s got a familiar ring to it, I have to admit. Referring to the part where rightists can’t even see structural principles, much less apply them to thought, and never be relied on to act accordingly.
And we wonder where the West went.
I have heard from some quarters that my message was not received. I shall therefore repeat it:
“Everything wrong with Citizen Kane”. Coincidentally, I have been watching a programme called Magician (on Sky Arts) about Orson Welles. It is stunning the wonderful films that were left uncompleted. He was such a genius. If the wally who posted his criticisms ever achieves 1% of what Welles did he could be rightly proud.