Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 12, 2019 10:01:28 GMT -8
If I saw a bunch of Muslims in a Starbucks, that would definitely make me uncomfortable. And with good reason. Muslims, statistically speaking, are a dangerous breed. I read one post about this that I have to admit had a shade of truth to it. Being around cops can be dangerous. I’m of the opinion that cops are increasingly politically correct and decreasingly competent, thus there is a rational reason to be a little afraid of them. Here’s another post I found on the subject: I’m hardly reflexively anti-cop, but we’ve seen more and more cases were law enforcement has been so zealous and quick to escalate a situation that they are worthy now of a general “be careful” suspicion. Whether this above post represents reality or just the whining of some thug, I don’t know. But it’s a good point about challenging the authority of police. These cops have been caught on cams all over the nation going instantly into DefCon 1 mode. This should be worrisome to everyone. But that doesn’t seem to apply to the setting of a coffee house. The most interesting take-way for me are two points (one already stated): 1) That the cops made no attempt to defend their right to drink coffee at a Starbucks. 2) That an employee at Starbucks would be daft enough (or hostile enough) to pass on a customer’s wishes to the cops. It would be one thing if some spastic Leftist mumbled something to a cop about not feeling comfortable. But to go through the process to tell the Starbucks employee and then to have that employee specifically transmit that message to the cops. There were several places there for a filter and it didn’t happen. It would thus be highly interesting to interview the employee and see what was going on in her (or his) mind. But that would take journalism. That doesn’t happen much these days. And let us remember that the previous incident at Starbucks (for supposed loitering) seemed to be that kind of escalation out of all reasonableness by the police. There are two sides to this story at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jul 12, 2019 10:34:27 GMT -8
Obviously, that poster has (for whatever reason) developed a generic hostility for all cops. Note that there is no indication that they were causing any problem at Starbucks Cop-free, and 5 or 6 (customers all, or they would have been anyway) were asked to leave at the behest of one person who might have been a crook with very practical reasons to want no police around. Yet the poster is on the side of the barista. If they had been troublemaking blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or homosexuals, I doubt the poster would have been on the side of the barista. But against cops who weren't making trouble, all bets were off.
In evaluating the police, one must remember that there are hundreds of thousands of encounters involving possible arrests every year, maybe more. And about a thousand end with someone killed by the police -- and most of those involve actual resistance to arrest. If there really were the sort of problem that leftists think there is, we'd have a lot more such deaths, especially blacks and probably also Hispanics. Better training most likely would be useful for a lot of cops. And no doubt some cops are quite competent until the wrong stress shows up. No one knows how he will respond in an extreme emergency until it actually happens.
With any group as numerous as the police forces at all levels, inevitably there are going to be some bad apples. This is made even worse when "disparate impact" standards are applied. Blacks are ill-educated and have criminal backgrounds to a disproportionate degree, so we found those standards loosened with dire consequences for police quality, as happened in DC a few decades ago. (I understand even the Washington Post eventually admitted there was a problem with affirmative action.)
No case should be judged reflexively on the basis of who is involved. The police are wrong occasionally. But the suspects are probably wrong a lot more frequently, as we see in those cases that became public controversies. But, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, it's a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 12, 2019 12:28:24 GMT -8
I think it’s obvious that the police have become increasingly militarized. In far too many cases it is longer “serve and protect.” They have an us-vs.-them attitude toward the public.
That even militarized police is better than anarchy and lawlessness goes without saying. But I do think we are creeping toward a police state. And if we are to be reasonable people here, it will not do to discount every criticism of a cop as being generated by the ne’re-do-wells, even if that is a logical default assumption.
Some of the second-hand things I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances is reason to believe that this isn’t Andy Griffith out there these days — not to mention quite a few disturbing videos online. And although it is trivially obvious that you’ll easily enough find some bad cops or just bad decisions being made when every day there are millions of situations they have to deal with, I think it’s obvious that I’m intelligent enough to make this distinction. My opinion is that we are slip-sliding by degrees to a police state.
Further complicating things are governments such as Seattle who simply will not let cops do their proper jobs. When there is not the capability of being a good cop, that necessarily will tilt one to the other category, even if one has no intention of being a bad cop. But good cops can easily become bad cops when bad politicians misuse them and the would-be good cops don't push back.
In Oregon and/or Washington there have been recent instances when certain brave sheriffs have said that they will not abide by the decisions of the corrupt politicians. These are the kind of patriots we need, not the wimpy Seattle cops so afraid of making waves or losing their pensions that they will abide by any nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jul 12, 2019 13:58:05 GMT -8
I certainly won't disagree with you about the militarized police (such as SWAT teams), though they could be useful when dealing with Antifa. Unfortunately, that's usually when they aren't used.
Lying in my nursing home bed, what I know of possible police atrocities is what I read, usually involving cases that become controversial. In a lot of cases (e.g., the Ferguson, MO case) they turn out to be right, though the left rarely admits it. In some cases (e.g., the Staten Island, NY case) they probably erred due to lapses in training. (In that case, it was a matter of not understanding the trouble an obese person might have breathing in that situation.) There have been others where they certainly seemed to be guilty (and don't always pay a price, other than usually losing their job whether guilty or not).
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jul 12, 2019 14:02:33 GMT -8
One of the problems you face in states who, for reasons passing understanding, have suspended the 2nd amendment is the lack of respect for police. Arkansas is a no permit open and concealed carry state and although some snowflakes, mostly from off, do faint when confronted with armed men and women the bulk will either make note to them selves or just ignore as do local, and state LEO's.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jul 12, 2019 14:20:30 GMT -8
The problem with SWAT and other police sub-organizations is not that they are over militarized but the education of the people they must protect about what SWATs mission is mostly ignored and not publicized.
We have this fantasy that SWAT is just more heavily armed police and will deal with life and death in a police manner; IT IS NOT. SWAT are the guys called in to take physical control of a situation that threatens civilians lives and end it.
Where the everyday cop on the street is a sharp knife cutting away the scum; SWAT is a broadsword. Short of a Marine regiment occupying your town the SWAT teams are and should be almost as scary. Their training is to kill the threat, asking polite questions is for regular police. The bad guys have to know that SWAT on the scene means they will die if they don't surrender.
These are the guys you don't want to show up and you don't want to deploy, but they are the last line of defense between civilians and the bad guys.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 12, 2019 17:03:03 GMT -8
Exactly. It’s the same with Islamic terrorists. I can think of a half dozen targets right off the top of my head that we’d never miss. But they alway go for the school bus full of children.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 18, 2019 7:40:32 GMT -8
The Rise of Coffee Shaming. They have machines now that easily make these drinks as good as or better than Starbucks for about 50 cents. And it’s very easy. The social-gabbiness of the rest of this article makes it difficult for me to read. Is this an issue of personal responsibility? Is it society’s fault? Is it the fault of financial gurus guilting on yutes in order to sell books? Does any of this really matter because coffee is but a trifle compared to house and car payments? Amazingly, it did not say it was Donald Trump’s fault. In many ways, this article shows how poor the writing is out there even at top magazines. It’s unfocussed and gabby. That’s a good opening paragraph that brings you into what would appear to be the gist of the article: immediate consumption vs. delayed gratification. Who hasn’t sprung for an over-priced cup of coffee at a Starbuck or elsewhere as a luxury? I know I have, although it’s very rare that I do so these days. It might have been instructive to see just how much saving $4.00 (or more) per day, with interest, would add up over a year or two. Maybe buying over-priced coffee represents an attitude of the grasshopper instead of the ant. And that is a serious thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jul 18, 2019 8:37:40 GMT -8
I find it somewhat amazing that a reputedly "serious" magazine publishes such an article. "Don't waste your money on silly things" is something that parents used to hammer into the heads of their offspring. That is not to deny that all of us do, from time to time, splurge on something which isn't necessary, but paying $5 for a cup of coffee on a daily basis should be an obvious no-no. I think Starbucks has run a brilliant pr campaign by making muddy coffee the poor man's status symbol.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 18, 2019 8:54:19 GMT -8
Mr. Kung, I know a good writer must report on the situation as it exists, but referencing a controversy ignited on social media is like bringing coals to Newscastle. That’s what social media is about. “I ignite, therefore I am.” So any article or essay based on something being “ignited” on social media is in danger of being thin and frivolous.
Also doom for this article is categorizing criticism of over-spending as “coffee shaming.” A good writer commenting on the culture (that is, having something to say) must stay above the fray at least a bit. But adopting the “shaming” paradigm so easily does not give a sense of a deeper perspective. Rather, it shows more of a gabbiness….which becomes apparent as the article runs on too long and loses focus.
There might be a fair point in the idea that one’s $5.00 cup of over-priced coffee more than pays for itself in terms of the little joys it brings you. It would be a fairer point to mention that coffee is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the volume of money spent on eating out, which is about the same paid-for-little-joys. It would always be more practical to cook at home. But it’s fun to go out. It’s fun to stop by a coffee shop for a cup of coffee.
Maybe an astute point would be that if we didn’t spend for any luxury items at all, the economy would go bust because the bulk of our economy is not about essentials but about luxury items. Why, then, should coffee be singled out?
But any young people saving up for a house or car ought to be exposed to the simple formula of thriftiness and delayed gratification. There is no need to wrap up this straightforward idea in a bunch of gabbiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jul 18, 2019 9:04:55 GMT -8
Edward Banfield in The Unheavenly City noted that there are present-oriented people (they tend to be young though some never learn better) and future-oriented people. He was discussing this in terms of the culture of the ghettos, as I recall. Present-oriened people are basically incapable of delaying gratification. Of course, one wonders what gratification they actually get at Starbucks if the coffee really isn't as good as they can get anywhere else (including at home). Is it the status of drinking there? (Status was one of the false gods Calvin Morrison identified in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen, set in 1964.) Is it meeting people there?
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jul 18, 2019 9:10:43 GMT -8
I wonder how much of the invention and use of such catch-all terms as "-shaming" is the result of laziness on the part of writers and how much is due to writers understanding that many people latch on to simplistic terms when reasoned discussion would go in one ear and out the other.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jul 18, 2019 13:07:56 GMT -8
Pre-digested thinking is all the rage — particularly, because as you noted, it is so easy.
Let me tell you quite honestly, Mr. Kung, that it took considerable brain power to parse that article (good and bad). That’s the power of the pre-digested words, slogans, soundbytes, etc. Via enough use, they gain a beyond-conscious-thought meaning. And to really dig down into what they mean (and what they gloss over), its difficult. It’s a challenge.
Even trying my utmost to be concise and not run off at the mouth on a specific subject ad nauseum, I could easily fill three pages just on the meaning and context of “shaming.”
But the super-condensed version would be: The connotation of “shaming” is almost always as a bad thing, of bullies, the self-righteous, and hypocrites bludgeoning The Nice People with their intolerance and judgmentalism. Oh, if only the world were free of shaming, no one would ever have to cry.
|
|
