Recently, a group of cops were fired/suspended for dumping a quadriplegic out of his wheelchair in a jail holding area. When an officer ordered the suspect to stand up, he quite correctly informed them that he couldn't since he was paralizyed from the waist down...so the officer upended the wheelchair and dumped him on the floor, later explaining that she(!) didn't believe he was really paralyzed. Another officer elsewhere is suspended and possibly about to be fired for grossly overstepping his authority with a couple of kids and their skateboards. Yet another in a different city is being investigated for "taking down" a non-resisting woman so hard that she broke several bones in her face on the concrete.
In all these cases and a myriad more, the cops' reaction is embarassment...that they got caught. Outrage...that someone actually complained, and anger that people are actually paying attention to the complaint. And stonewalling...determined refusal to discuss an incident that is "under investigation".
I caught a comment the other day that expressed a dismayed inquiry as to how we ever got to this point, where "our" cops are obviously so out of control that the rights and privileges of citizenship in America are now not just ignored, but openly disavowed by those whose job, supposedly, is to "keep the peace" and set an example of civilized conduct for the rest of us.
It's really quite simple, and inevitable, and will not stop until the cops themselves are disbanded and their organizations completely rebuilt. Don't hold your breath waiting for that!
What we're looking at is a rather striking example of Jerry Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. To wit: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. (Jerry Pournelle at "Chaos Manor")
And you were wondering why "police procedure" so frequently seems to allow, if not compel, activities that would seem to be illegal on their face? Like slamming 86-year-old ladies to the ground for handcuffing in such a manner as to dislocate shoulder joints? The claim later, of course, is that since procedure was followed, no wrongdoing by anyone in uniform ocurred.
To the rest of us, it seems obvious that when a stereotypical "little old lady", weighing about as much as a large teddy bear and just about as strong, winds up having her shoulder dislocated in the process of getting her handcuffed so that she can't attack and seriously injure a six foot, 230 pound policeman, somebody has committed a serious "wrongdoing". That's because we simply don't have the correct viewpoint.
To the organization (the police department), whatever is good for the organization is good, period. Whatever is bad for the organization is bad, period. A "little old lady", or a child or a cripple or an obviously injured person looks like an obvious "non-threat". A significant number of police officers, however, have wound up getting hurt or, in a few cases, actually killed by those who looked "non-threatening", and that was "bad"...so we'll make a rule that we just cuff 'em all, using whatever force and technique we think necessary so as to avoid having anything like that happen to "one of us"...ever...and that is "good".
Of course there are "good" cops out there, the ones that seem to be operating according to the "old rules" and are convinced that they are part of the "thin blue line" that protects the majority of us from the goblins, including the goblins in uniform. Unfortunately, their days are numbered. In the good old days, police officers used to be recruited and tested for judgement, and strongly encouraged to develop superior judgement. Those days are gone. You see, there is this thing called "the book". If an officer fails to follow "the book", he may lay the organization open to an expensive lawsuit. This is "bad". To avoid this, all officers must be trained, indoctrinated, propagandized, educated and fully brainwashed into following "the book" at all times, without question. As long as the bureaucrats can claim that "the book" was followed, then it's obvious to all but the benighted amateurs (who don't count anyway) that nothing wrong, or illegal, or "inappropriate", or in any way less than righteously professional, happened. "Judgement", anywhere from superior to execrable, went with the bathwater. It's not so much discounted as it is actively unwelcome in the halls of law enforcement.
Can't quite get enough of that good military gear to play with due to nasty budget concerns? Get a rule made that allows the police to arrest things (like large amounts of money, flashy cars, cool boats, conveniently placed houses, etc.) rather than people, and fix it so that the people who own them have to prove the things were not guilty of any connection with illegal activity to get them back...or the police keep the things. Word has it that there are now whole police departments operating "off" their city budget by virtue of the sheer volume of "earnings" they manage to acquire from this lovely legal concept known as "asset forfeiture". Back in the day we amateur civilians used to call it "theft under color of authority", but what did we know?
The idea that the cops work for us is outmoded...and currently incorrect. They now work for themselves, thanks to the "iron bureaucrats" who've taken over the shop.
If you really want to get fired up on this, check out The War On Guns blog. David Codrea runs an almost daily list of excesses that are reported in the news from around the country. It'll give you a new definition of "Protect and Serve" fer sher!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Global Warming?
There are a few issues that have to be addressed by the global warming crowd if they wish to be taken seriously by us "deniers".
1. Just as the only necessary answer to any of Al Sharpton's tirades is a quiet, chuckling, "Tawana Brawley", it would seem that the first answer to any claim of human-caused global warming has to be, "Mt. Pinatubo".
Mt. Pinatubo is a volcano in the Phillipines that underwent a major eruption in 1993. Fortunately, that area is home to a university that specializes in degrees in vulcanology and the area is virtually saturated with sensors designed to collect exactly the kinds of data necessary to properly analyze major, minor and picayune volcanic activity. As a result, Mt. Pinatubo stands as the most detailed study of a major volcanic eruption in the 20th century.
Startling results were achieved. Of primary interest is the atmospheric pollution aspect of the eruption. Mt. Pinatubo generated a range of pollutants across the entire spectrum of pollution, from the toxic gases (Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, etc.), thru the "greenhouse" gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.), to the particulates (Carbon soot, volcanic ash, etc.). Indeed, according to numbers that have been thoroughly vetted a number of times, Pinatubo spewed as much of this stuff as mankind has generated from all sources worldwide since approximately 1740. No, that is not a misprint. Pinatubo tossed as much crap into the air in one two-week burst as Man has in the last 250 years!
This would seem to render the entire scheme of "carbon credits" and "CO2 emissions reductions" rather moot, given our continued survival after the eruption without any detectable inconveniences. It also pretty well puts paid to the CAFE standards imposed on auto manufacturers as anything other than an open scheme to control production without regard to customers needs and desires, period.
2. The latest evidence from deep ice cores suggests very strongly that CO2 and methane levels don't produce warming conditions (as a consequence of the "greenhouse effect"), but rather follow such events by 1,000 to 1,500 years.
Again, we are led to question the efficacy of controlling mankinds generation of CO2 and/or methane to "cure" global warming.
3. Given that Man generates only about 2% of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, even if we were to diminish our greenhouse gas production to zero, global warming would not be affected by any significant amount. What efforts are we making towards reducing that other 98% so as to save our grandchildren and all life on Earth? Or does anybody care? Doesn't it seem that the environmentalists are far more concerned with controlling, restricting and limiting business and manufacturing than actually affecting the environment?
4. How does the global warming crowd explain why 2007 is going down as the coldest year in recorded history since 1934, and the absence of any further warming on a global scale since 1998?
This takes the entire concept of "curing" global warming and tosses into a cocked hat. Now we have to worry about "global cooling" again! Remember when the big emergency of the 1970's was the coming ice age? Now we're getting evidence that that crisis du jour might be the real one to worry about...again!!
Referring again to the point of this blog, the global warming crowd seem to be the ones insisting that everyone do things their way...at the point of a gun if necessary. The "deniers" seem to be much more lenient in their treatment of the environmental habits of others, and are the ones I would prefer for neighbors.
1. Just as the only necessary answer to any of Al Sharpton's tirades is a quiet, chuckling, "Tawana Brawley", it would seem that the first answer to any claim of human-caused global warming has to be, "Mt. Pinatubo".
Mt. Pinatubo is a volcano in the Phillipines that underwent a major eruption in 1993. Fortunately, that area is home to a university that specializes in degrees in vulcanology and the area is virtually saturated with sensors designed to collect exactly the kinds of data necessary to properly analyze major, minor and picayune volcanic activity. As a result, Mt. Pinatubo stands as the most detailed study of a major volcanic eruption in the 20th century.
Startling results were achieved. Of primary interest is the atmospheric pollution aspect of the eruption. Mt. Pinatubo generated a range of pollutants across the entire spectrum of pollution, from the toxic gases (Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, etc.), thru the "greenhouse" gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.), to the particulates (Carbon soot, volcanic ash, etc.). Indeed, according to numbers that have been thoroughly vetted a number of times, Pinatubo spewed as much of this stuff as mankind has generated from all sources worldwide since approximately 1740. No, that is not a misprint. Pinatubo tossed as much crap into the air in one two-week burst as Man has in the last 250 years!
This would seem to render the entire scheme of "carbon credits" and "CO2 emissions reductions" rather moot, given our continued survival after the eruption without any detectable inconveniences. It also pretty well puts paid to the CAFE standards imposed on auto manufacturers as anything other than an open scheme to control production without regard to customers needs and desires, period.
2. The latest evidence from deep ice cores suggests very strongly that CO2 and methane levels don't produce warming conditions (as a consequence of the "greenhouse effect"), but rather follow such events by 1,000 to 1,500 years.
Again, we are led to question the efficacy of controlling mankinds generation of CO2 and/or methane to "cure" global warming.
3. Given that Man generates only about 2% of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, even if we were to diminish our greenhouse gas production to zero, global warming would not be affected by any significant amount. What efforts are we making towards reducing that other 98% so as to save our grandchildren and all life on Earth? Or does anybody care? Doesn't it seem that the environmentalists are far more concerned with controlling, restricting and limiting business and manufacturing than actually affecting the environment?
4. How does the global warming crowd explain why 2007 is going down as the coldest year in recorded history since 1934, and the absence of any further warming on a global scale since 1998?
This takes the entire concept of "curing" global warming and tosses into a cocked hat. Now we have to worry about "global cooling" again! Remember when the big emergency of the 1970's was the coming ice age? Now we're getting evidence that that crisis du jour might be the real one to worry about...again!!
Referring again to the point of this blog, the global warming crowd seem to be the ones insisting that everyone do things their way...at the point of a gun if necessary. The "deniers" seem to be much more lenient in their treatment of the environmental habits of others, and are the ones I would prefer for neighbors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)