The war on cops
Maurice Clemmons had many enablers — starting in Arkansas with clemency-crazy Mike Huckabee and stretching to Washington state where he was surrounded by people who witnessed his threats against law enforcement and did nothing to stop the Lakewood PD massacre. This week, police charged four family and friends with aiding him and plan to indict two more. My column today steps back and looks at the past year of violence against police officers and the cultural war that has been waged against them for the past several decades. The Left has a popular mantra: “Stop the hate.” Why don’t they start applying it to the men and women who protect and serve?
***
The war on cops
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Faces of the fallen: Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; Officers Ronald Owens, 37; Tina Griswold, 40; Gregory Richards, 42.
The Left’s police-hating chickens are coming home to roost. While partisan liberals have gone out of their way to blame conservative media and the Tea Party movement for creating a “climate of hate,” they are silent on the cultural and literal war on cops that has raged for decades – and escalated tragically this year.
The total number of law enforcement officers shot and killed this year is up 19 percent over last year, according to the Christian Science Monitor. More officers have died in ambush incidents this year than any other since 2000. The Lakewood, Washington massacre on Thanksgiving weekend claimed the lives of four dedicated officers getting ready for work at a coffee shop Sunday morning. Maurice Clemmons – the violent career thug who received clemency from former Arkansas GOP governor Mike Huckabee and benefited from fatal systemic lapses in the criminal justice system – had many other enablers.
Clemmons had told numerous friends and family members to “watch the TV” before the massacre because he was going to “kill a bunch of cops.” The witnesses did worse than nothing. Several have been arrested for actively aiding and abetting Clemmons – with shelter, food, money, and medical aid — before he was discovered in Seattle early Tuesday morning and shot after threatening a patrol officer investigating Clemmons’ stolen vehicle.
A militant online group called the National Black Foot Soldier Network celebrated Clemmons as a “Crowned BOW (Black on White) Martyr” and dubbed the Lakewood ambush a “preemptive strike on terrorists.” It wasn’t the only chilling propaganda cheering black-on-white police murders in the Pacific Northwest this year.
Just three weeks before the Lakewood, Wa., massacre, the region endured another police attack. Suspect Christopher Monfort was arrested last month in the targeted shooting death of Seattle Police Department Officer Timothy Brenton and the wounding of his partner Britt Sweeney. Monfort had written diatribes against law enforcement harping against white policemen.
The leader of a Seattle hip-hop/punk band commemorated the assassination with a t-shirt depicting Monfort’s face splattered with blood and overlaid with a Seattle Police Department badge under the slogan “Deliver Us From Evil.” The other side of the shirt read “most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamp.”
From where does the deadened and deadly callousness toward the thin blue line come?
How about years of cop-bashing rap from NWA’s “F**k tha Police” and Ice-T’s “Cop Killa” to Dead Prez’s “Police State” (“I throw Molotov cocktails at the precinct”) and The Game’s “911 is a Joke” (I ought to shoot fifty one officers for the fifty one times that boy was shot in New York”)?
Try the glamorization of poisonous anti-police domestic terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers. Add in the mainstreaming of anti-police demagogues Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (whose ex-wife and daughter were arrested last week after verbally abusing a Harlem cop and resisting arrest after running a red light). And toss in the global glorification of Death Row cop-killers Stanley “Tookie” Williams and Mumia abu Jamal by the Hollywood elite.
It is, in my mind, no coincidence that another of 2009’s bloodiest multiple-police shootings took place in Oakland – a hotbed of black nationalism/Free Mumia radicalism that gave us the likes of Angela Davis, Huey Newton, and Obama green jobs czar-turned-liberal think tank fellow Van Jones (whose “creative” activism and “energy” in the Bay Area won senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett’s heart). Four Oakland officers went down and one was injured when a convicted felon ambushed them during a routine traffic stop. Nearly 20,000 law enforcement officers and supporters from around the country filled a memorial event for the fallen.
President Obama — Chicago pal of police-targeting Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the convener of the national beer summit to indulge his race-baiting, police-bashing Harvard professor friend Henry Louis Gates — did not attend the service.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Big Nannies of the Year
December 29, 2010 10:22 AM by Michelle Malkin
44 CommentsAnother police ambush in Washington state
December 22, 2009 12:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsMemorial for Lakewood PD officers expected to draw 20,000-plus
December 8, 2009 10:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Seattle Police Department on trail of Maurice Clemmons; Update: Family reportedly aiding Clemmons; Update: Seattle PD officer fatally shoots Clemmons; Update: Suspected getaway driver is former Ark. cellmate
November 30, 2009 03:40 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Violent felon granted clemency by Huckabee now sought in Lakewood, WA police ambush; Update: Huck PAC posts statement; Update: Search continues; how Clemmons played Arkansas; Update: Huck whitewashes on O’Reilly (and vice versa); Update: Clemmons is dead
November 29, 2009 09:58 PM by Michelle Malkin
209 Comments
Confirmed: Huckabee is an idiot
May 16, 2008 05:01 PM by Michelle Malkin
87 CommentsMcCain-Huckabee: The GOP immigration drag queen ticket
May 12, 2008 09:02 PM by Michelle Malkin
196 Comments
Categories: Maurice Clemmons,Mike Huckabee
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Well I have to go to bed now.. I’ve said as much as I can say.. It’s up to you to decide on your own, or stick with what you believe, whichever you desire.. I’ll believe what I believe & know what I know based on my research & life experiences, & if anyone tries to force what they believe on me, I’ll fight back.. First through reason, & then by force if the affront to my beliefs & values becomes a physical one.. It’s that simple. That could be a physics lesson!
Good Night Gentleman..
Love you baby!
Hugs and kisses to Mrs. Zero and Zero JR.
I take personal offense that you only said Gentlemen.
Where’s the ACLU number on my Rolodex?
Problem. Don’t even habe Rolodex.
Oh pure.. I’m sorry darling! I thought you had already shipped off to bed! Good night sweet lady!
Good plan, Chaps.
Neither are you in any position to wake up in the wee hours like any normal middle-aged woman and beat you to the punch.
Are you kidding me?
I am like 51 years old and sleeping on some kind of normal basis clicked off some 21 years ago.
Thank God for the 24/7 internet.
On December 6th, 2009 at 10:41 pm, zeroangel said:
I probably would debate that some here can’t tell a Jihadi from a simple Abdul. Moreover, I plan not to vote Republican. I’ll vote for whoever supports my stand on key issues regardless of party. The Republican party lost my donations when they became no different than Democrats.
On December 6th, 2009 at 11:08 pm, Bruce said:
Having been classified as ‘Expectant’ three times, Thank God for doctors with spare time to go check.
I’ll go with that.
One of our Soldiers had an incident like that inside a room of a house in Iraq same question (not a K-bar, some really nice thrusting dagger). Any chance your guy either is or taught the idiot JAG Officer?
Stuff like that causes me to shake all over and lose my last meal. Worst was a Brigadi Rossi member, probably in his teens who tried to kneecap me with a Beretta .380 outside of the US embassy in Rome. Thankfully, he’d reassembled it improperly and the firing pin came out when he cocked it. Couldn’t shoot because of bystanders but pulled .45 and told him to go away. Then about two or three minutes later when I got somewhere that I could lost a fine breakfast and shook so bad I couldn’t stand. Like you, kept the firing pin to remind me never to let my guard down.
So, I can relate. Thank God that was in the days of the Reagan Presidency and we didn’t have stupid boards and they expected military personnel to be violent.
Now its different and in the middle of a flipping war they hold shooting boards as if we were cops or something and people weren’t trying to kill us by every means possible. This happens if there’s even a claim that a civilian was killed or injured. In a war, for pity’s sake.
Yeah, I can relate to what you’ve been through.
On December 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm, zeroangel said:
Sometimes, you just plain can’t yell it fast enough (dry throat and no spit to wet it etc.,) and sometimes you’re just human. You’ll live with it and learn to accept its what could be done at the time. That doesn’t mean you won’t have nightmares. I’ve got mine, you, yours. It stinks and it’s a lot to expect from a kid.
Maybe you think that rules help. Maybe in your case they might have. But I believe in something else, I believe that most US Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen have a conscience and it generally is a better governor of behavior if its properly maintained by leadership than any rules could be. Rules assume an incapacity to behave properly under a general set of circumstance. A conscience assumes the capacity to behave properly and judge the appropriate behavior under specific conditions. I like the latter more than the former as it gives people latitude and ability to judge for themselves on a case by case basis. Right now we have ROE that were written by legalists who don’t believe in a conscience or in honor and integrity. I find that distressing in that without those three and frequent exercise thereof, the inculcation thereof in Soldiers becomes useless. Ultimately, it will cause a breakdown in the necessary trust, that creates that special form of good order and discipline combined with initiative and willingness to take independent action that sets the US armed forces apart from all others in the end, stifling that is what will defeat us where no army on the ground could.
On December 6th, 2009 at 11:23 pm, havok said:
You’re not kidding a genuine, certified nut case.
Answer this for me, why if he can’t purchase a firearm legally does anyone issue him a license to drive?
He’s a paranoid schizophrenic. Can anyone say ticking time bomb if he’s off his meds or he becomes ‘immune’ (for lack of a better word) to them over time? Ask anyone with a chronic disease requiring medication, if they’re honest they’ll tell you they’re not 100 percent compliant.
Dan Lee/ZeroAngel
As far as nuclear decay goes, we’ve been able to observe the half life of Strontium 90 (28.8 yrs) and Cesium 137 (30.17 yrs) in multiple cases. Both in the field (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Alamogordo) and in the laboratory (too numerous to mention). No, I’m not a nuclear physicist, just four semester credits of college level physics and my NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Warfare training.
It also might be mentioned that Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi amd apparently, Niels Bohr affirmed their belief in God through science. While Einstein’s, Fermi’s and Bohr’s beliefs would not coincide with most of fundamental Christianity, they most certainly believed in God. I can’t speak with certainty about Stephen Hawking, but think that he at least seems to believe as well.
That should prepare both of you for round II of the ego fest.
Ssnark:
I tend to agree, I was just trying to illustrate my point that this discussion won’t alienate any allies when it comes to other issues.
Yes, thank you.
I’m not sure about Fermi and Bohr, but Einstein and Hawkins were absolutely Spinoza-style Pantheists. Einstein even said that exactly (invoked Spinoza’s name). Now, if you want refer to the combined total of physical laws of nature in a poetic sense as, “God” you will find I have no problem with that. However, that is not what any honest, “believer” is thinking of and it’s certainly no god worth praying to. In short, a person like Dan would no doubt call both of them, “atheists” and he would be right.
I don’t know whether or not you are willing to admit it, but I should think that the fact that recent polls suggest 40% of Americans are as scientifically illiterate as Dan here would worry you.
So you admit your talking about your lack of belief in God is hateful speech? Or are you trying to claim atheism has never lead to severe psychological and emotional pain for certain people, or that atheism was not a core component of the communist tyrannies of the 20th Century, leading to a lot more than severe psychological and emotion pain for merely certain people?
Be careful what ideas you want to define as “hateful.” Think it through.
Roland:
Ummm, no.
How? In any event, religion certainly has done that.
Oh please. Not this nonsense again. Unless you are going to try and argue that people like Carl Sagan and Ayn Rand ultimately become murderous communists this argument is just plain silly.
In any case, I can clarify for you if you like:
The idea that you can rehabilitate gays is first and foremost based on the idea that there is something “wrong” with them and they need to be “fixed” (that part is the absolutely hateful component). The fact that such treatment is a disaster is just icing on the cake. The treatment is consistently a disaster, you can’t come anywhere near making such a claim for atheism.
Roland:
Are you seriously arguing that (for example) talking about atheism is on the same moral plane as trying to rehabilitate homosexuals?
Seriously?
Roland:
…and before you start saying something else silly like, “Ohhh… but you think believers are wrong and need to be fixed,” let me say that I think their ideas are wrong (just as Dan was wrong about carbon-14) and that is a completely different thing that saying there is something wrong with them and they need to undergo extreme and damaging attempts to manipulate them psychologically.
Many people see these two issues the opposite way you see them. To them it is clear wanting to help homosexuals (that is the way most of them really do see it) is not even remotely ‘hateful,’ while your public denial and belittling of the idea of the existence of their God and their Savior is unspeakably cruel to all of those people desperately seeking some kind of spiritual relief for the incredible pain in their lives.
You are setting the bar for what is a “hateful” idea waaaaaaaaaaay to low.
Ughh.. Another one..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579602,00.html?test=latestnews
Roland:
As I said, the difference is, I am talking about ideas. You might as well say that some people get really upset if you discuss political viewpoints that differ from theirs. I am sorry, but that’s not hateful. I am absolutely not recommending that anyone should undergo any kind of reeducation. That is what people who suggest homosexuals need to be “fixed’ suggest.
If you are arguing that people who argue gays should be forced to be “reeducated” are advancing a hateful idea, then you’ll get no argument from me on that.
However, characterizing the opinion gays can and/or ‘should’ (for their own well being) try to become heterosexual as a “hateful” idea in and of itself smacks of idea intolerant leftwing screwiness. Supremely PC.
Also, would the idea research to attempt to discover a way people could change their sexual orientation is a good thing be a hateful idea? Do we want to force gays to stay gays and heterosexual people to stay that way, too, even if there might be a way to give people the option to choose otherwise?
Roland:
So if I said: people that hold conservative or religious ideas SHOULD be reeducated for thier own well being, that is NOT hateful?
What would you call it? How would you describe the evil nature of that suggestion?
Research itself is never hateful as long as the methods used don’t have ethical concerns. For example, I would be totally OK with research to determine if there is truly any average difference in some kind of intellegence between races on a genetic level. For example, are Asians REALLY naturally smarter? However, if you are going to start purposely depriving one group of a quality education (for whatever reason) for the purposes of the study then you have a problem.
Sigh. You know what I meant.
You should stop smoking, ZA. I think it is bad for you.
Is my having that opinion “hateful?”
Roland:
You are comparing smoking with sexuality now? Remind me, did you ever address Chap’s point from the other thread that a woman is at much less risk of acquiring STDs if she is a lesbian?
You should stop having sex completely, it’s bad for you.
Roland:
Honestly, how would you describe the opinion that gays SHOULD be reeducated if not hateful?
Stupid?
Potentially disastrous?
Dangerous?
What exactly?
Pretty much all of my close relatives are always trying to reeducate me for being a conservative and a Republican.
They would love it if I would go into therapy for it.
Is that “hateful?”
Roland:
I think the major difference there is that everyone (mostly) agrees having different politics is acceptable and encouraged.
The same folks do not say the same thing about gays. They believe something is very wrong with them physically. On top of that, trying to reeducate a person into a different sexuality will have obvious, disastrous psychological effects. It will almost certainly lead to sever depression and angst. Changing one’s political viewpoints is not even in the same ballpark, many people change their politics to some extent over the course of their lives.
BTW, you never addressed Chap’s point about lesbians.
I did. Heterosexuals reproduce. That changes everything.
However, I have reached the conclusion you are unreachable on this issue. Our opinions do not just differ. You are closed minded and intolerant regarding views of sexuality that differ strongly from yours. Even hateful. There is no point continuing this discussion.
Well Dan – the sentiment is appreciated, but really – armor plating police vehicles is not going to help much since we spend the most dangerous parts of our job outside the vehicle. Then there is the cost. The NYPD, forexample, maintains a fleet of some 3,000 patrol cars. That doesn’t include emergency service trucks and cars, motorcycles, and assorted un-marked and bureau cars. Figuring $5k to armor each of those able to be armored … woof – lots of money. Of course if they reduced welfare payments in the city it would help, but we know THAT ain’t gonna happen! So they went with upgraded ballistic vests for street cops. Back when I went on the job there was no such thing, we had no portable radios (only callboxes, if they worked). There was you, your baton, and your balls. Later we were “allowed” (yes – ALLOWED) to purchase our own vests at an average cost of $400 a pop, plus an additional $75 for a second or third carrier for the panels. Had to be washed, right? Still, the assholes learned quickly to now shoot at our (unprotected) heads or the belly below the vest. Lost a lot of brothers that way too. There is really not that much you can do to protect a cop out of the car, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is that these days cops don’t stay past 20 years like we did years ago so there are no old timers around to teach some of these dumbass kids how to survive. They are all Superman, if you didn’t know that.
Zero – thanks for the support, and I understand the reticence some have of what this new breed of cop might do under given circumstances. I later worked alone – by choice – and to the dismay of my “union” who always claimed solo patrol in NY was too dangerous. Sure it is, but if you’re experienced and have a clue it was not in my opinion any worse than having a 21 y/o quota cop riding next to you. Is that a clue at all? Oh, the stories I could tell about range qualification with some of those kids!
Hey – not for nothing, but what the hell is the deal with this new background image? Never saw that before today!
Finally! I’ve been trying to find out if anyone else has this. The full screen Siemens ad. This is really annoying and I can’t figure out how to get rid of it.
That being my first shooting incident with but 6 months out of the academy – I’m not embarrassed to say afterwards I lost most of my dinner, and it took the better part of a half hour before my legs stopped shaking/jumping from adrenalin. I was fortunate that the Patrol Sergeant first on the scene was a recipient of the Medal of Honor (cop version) and had been through what I had just experienced. He took good care of me mentally and physically – for which I am eternally grateful – and have tried to pass on to other young cops I counseled over the years. He put me right on sick report and told me (firmly) “don’t say ANYTHING to ANYONE until you’ve had a chance to go over it in your mind, and then only to your lawyer. No union delegates, and especially not to other cops.” A wise man indeed.
Roland:
Umm, no all heteros certainly don’t.
Yes, I am absolutely intolerant of an idea that leads to severe emotional and psychological distress. The root of the idea that gays are somehow “wrong” or “broken” (language fails us here) is just plain intolerant, so yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. You might as well suggest that heterosexuals that enjoy other forms of sex rather than vaginal are also “broken” and should be reeducated for their own good. I’m sorry, but what people do in their own bedroom is their own business.
OK.
Bruce:
Yah, the military has it’s share of itchy trigger fingers. I don’t know what the solution is, but I sometimes consider that the rules exist only when necessary to throw the book at someone that deserves it. Sometimes, the ROE is just looked at as kind of a guideline. It really depends on your command.
As far the background, I just noticed it, I had to maximize my screen. You don’t see it if you keep your browser at a thickness of 1000 some odd pixels, at least in my case.
So I’m not hallucinating!
I couldn’t tell what it was, but the previous page of comments was chopped off and the last comments unreadable. I don’t know if it was a hack or what – I can’t see Michelle doing that on her own.
I think I will try Adblock Plus.
hehehehehe … that did it:)
Right click on BG image, Adblock Plus, filter image, Seimens ads/*
bada-BING!
Did you guys read any of the comments under that article? Remember what I said earlier about comments about cops, then take a gander at the entirely predictable results…
WorkingJoe wrote on 10/23/2009 08:22:55 AM:
Wow, accident to charges in less than 24 hours! Where were these uber-sluths when 3 bicyclist deaths need investigating? I guess progress can be made in an investigation when the subjects “matter”.
bikeboy wrote on 10/23/2009 09:10:03 AM:
I’d like to hear an explanation for why they needed the “snorkel fire truck” with the 100-foot-high platform for this incident. (As seen on TV coverage.)
Any incident where cop is victim gets WAY more official attention than when it’s just us common folks who are victimized. If you don’t believe that, you’re not paying attention.
I rest my case.
Can you download this AdBlock Plus for free?
I have Panda antivirus and it’s not knocking it out.
Maybe I could run AdAware.
Looks like AdBlock won’t work with Internet Explorer.
Yeah – it’s a free “Add On” for Firefox only, pure. You really ought to dump that POS Internet Explorer and install something fully compliant to CSS-2 and HTML-4 standards, though. Either Firefox or Opera are used by most of the pros around the world. Your choice, of course:)
I’ve heard that the pros like Firefox. Just had my first experience with it at work and found it annoying for certain reasons. I guess I’m comfortable with Internet Explorer.
Meanwhile Red Pill gave me a tip on another thread here to just crop in the sides of the browser which I’m been able to do.
Why does Chaps keep talking about that?
The only value to that is for lesbians to feel better about the risks they won’t face.
Are we supposed to take from that that all women should become lesbians to reduce their risk factors? Then there would be no more people. Not even any more little lesbians. Boo hoo!
If you want to promote safe sex, how about abstinence or monogamous relationships?
Pure:
No, the point was that the idea that homosexual sex is risky behavior (and therefore reason to suggest it is self-destructive) is flawed.
Homosexuals are capable of monogamous relationships. Indeed, many want the state to recognize this.
Annoying in what ways, may I ask out of curiosity?
The thing is this … MS refuses to follow established conventions for the display of both CSS and HTML standards. Those standards – internationally agreed upon – govern the way pages on the web are displayed to the user via his/her browser. MS seems to think websites constructed using tables are valid, while the rest of the modern world knows they are a plague on mankind. Worse is their plugging of complete garbage like Front Page with which to construct websites.
The only real way to experience how bad MS really is to to open both and go to a website coded properly (meaning to standards) – then compare the display. Most competent designers would not think of coding their work to be viewed with IE. I tried with my site after a few complained about “things not looking right” and gave up. I found it would take almost a full page of hacks to get a simple page to display properly under IE, and it’s just not worth it. That is MS’s contribution to your experience on the web. And MS wonders why people are abandoning MS products in droves for open source operating systems like Linux – which by the way almost exclusively loads Firefox by default?
Comfort levels can be adjusted. I feel confident that after spending a day or two with either Firefox or Opera, you will be left wondering what took you so long to abandon IE:)
Bruce, now I remember.
I was posting comments here at work. One was just LOL. Then later, I tried to post LOL again and I got a box saying I was making a duplicate post. So it ate it.
So I typed LOL! to get past it.
But all that does is differentiate gay and lesbian sex.
Pure:
Yes, but those that are against gay marriage (for example) are also against lesbian marriage. It highlights the fact that the root objections have nothing to do with risky behavior. In any case, people were still against homosexual behavior before AIDS.
Bruce,
I’m sure you’re right but I didn’t get my first computer until I was 41 and I don’t have anyone around to help me so I try to keep things as simple as possible. If I tried to set up the scenario you’re describing, I’d probably screw up something else.
But I appreciate reading your suggestions!
zero, You’re right. That is not the root reason. So what? The people who are against gay and lesbian marriage aren’t trying to deny they are against for moral reasons.
They would plainly state that is their root reason.
Pure:
That’s a sperate argument and not the one that Chap was responding to.
Of course, concerning your argument, you have to explain what is morally wrong with it. Obviously, saying “god said so” isn’t going to cut it with either Chap or myself.
zero, there’s no point in arguing over that. You either accept that morality or you don’t.
For myself, I heard or read once that marriage is a social institution created for the protection of children.
To me, that makes sense. Men and women produce children. Gays and lesbians don’t. If gays and lesbians want to adopt, maybe that’s okay but how about let’s not make a mockery of the instituion of marriage with same sex couples.
Pure:
OK, then don’t.
Sterile men and women don’t, they can still get married.
But it’s not OK to give both parents full parental rights and spousal rights? Why? Can’t you see this will only hurt those adopted children?
It’s not the business of the church or government to investigate someone’s reproductive status.
Older people way beyond childbearing age get married too which I think is silly.
What rights are you talking about? Adoptive parents are parents. Period.
FYI, just bought my pagan tree.
I’m trying to get Kingfish to make an appearance here.
He is busier than a cranberry merchant in November.
On December 7th, 2009 at 11:05 am, Dan Lee said:
My ex-GF told me that domestics were the most dangerous call to answer for a cop. They don’t know what’s going to happen, sometimes both parties turn on the cops.
What rights do power of attorney and joint ownership not cover anyone, anywhere in this country?
Hi ssnark!
Be sure to watch the premier of “Men of a Certain Age” on TNT tonight. 10:00 EST.
St. Louis homeboy Scott Bakula stars.
On December 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, Bruce said:
We’re only now learning to do these things. There used to be a difference between warfare and police duties. The current politicians only know laws and lawyering with not much else.
On December 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm, Bruce said:
No, I didn’t read the comments. I rather expected such. My opinion is that there’s a fair amount of ignorance in the world, I was once one of them until my eyes were opened by several people, an FBI agent who showed me that cops aren’t all bad and about what they call “John Wayne Syndrome” which one of the agents in training had. Another, was my ex-GF from whom I learned a different view of cops.
On December 7th, 2009 at 7:21 pm, purealchemy said:
I’m afraid I won’t be able to, got a pile of work to finish as problems cropped up at my client’s today.
ssnark,
Good answer.
And maybe baby zero can survive without your attention tonight.
No lie – Domestics are extremely dangerous, closely followed by those simple car stops.
My old partner and I once ran on a domestic, arrived to find a couple we knew well from previous runs to be psychos – he a drunk and she just plain nuts. There he was, sitting on the front stoop with a K-5 Jaguar (7″ gravity) knife sticking out of the side of his head. All he did was point up the stairs. Up we went intent on cuffing and stuffing her, when here comes hubby – now armed with a cast iron frying pan – insisting vehemently that we leave her be. Of course that was not going to happen, and he swung at my partners head. Mid-swing, his elbow somehow ran into my cocobolo baton, breaking same with a very nauseating sound. Make that two under arrest – both on violent felonies.
You never have a clue how those things are going to turn out.
zero:
20 OMG!? U who iz mixin up goodz and evilz,
laitz and derkness,
yukyness and sweetiness! Waht r u stoopid? Ya dont no waht iz sweet nd wat is yuky?
21 OMG!? U who thinkz u r just so dern shmart,
nd u probly think dis sawng iz being abouwts u!
– God forgive me. I could not hep mahsef.
LOL
Arguments for and against existence of God:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Proof_of_Ceiling_Cat#Awgooments_For_Ceiling_Cat
Pure:
Exactly.
No, in the case of homosexual couples that can’t married, only one parent can be the adopting parent.
You might have to ask Chap, but I’m certain that there are some things that are left out, besides, why make them go through the extra hassle?
I’ll read the LOLcatz stuff later, hehe.
zero,
I wasn’t aware of that but it really doesn’t sound like a bad situation to me.
If Chaps can up with something, I’m open to being corrected.
Lesson for Tuesday:
He, liek, nevr duz anyfing.
An der iz lots ov bad fings in wurldz.
Liek, I wuz in teh best warm spot on teh rug, but den it moovd, an Iz cood not be in it anymoar.
WAI, CEILING CAT, WAI??? WAI YU SO CROOL???
So, him not exist. An teh Ceiling Cat sed tu kill teh Jews, but wez not ded yet! LOLZ! Yu looz!
Ceiling Cat too buzy sleeping and eating cheezburger to du nethink.
You has no bad things in Ceiling!
If you be bad and not believ in him, he wil maek bad tings happen to you.
So therez. Jews git killed in apucolpse. Not yt
Pure:
Oh no? What happens if the adopting parent dies and then second “parent’s” custody is challenged? You seriously can’t see how this could be a potential disaster?
He doesn’t need to, the point is, it’s an extra hassle that is unnessecary.
Then that indicates it would have been challenged in the first place.
Yes, he does. Plenty of people have to get medical power of attorney. It’s a simple task.
That’s not the way I meant that. For heterosexual couples to have to go through fertility tests to get married is too personal.
Pure:
So what? Imagine this: let’s say horrible mother (repeat violent offender, drug addict, prostitute) gives birth. Let’s say a nice gay couple adopts said child right away and raises the child for say, 5 years. Sadly, only one gay parent can adopt. Now imagine that the adopting parent dies and then the horrible mother comes back to try and get custody (let’s say she appears to have cleaned up her act). You don’t see how this could be a problem? If the gay couple were allowed to marry the orignal mother wouldn’t have a chance.
That’s just one thing. Are you seriously trying to tell me that it’s just as simple and easy for a gay couple to do all the legwork to get all the legal documents they need to get “kind of married?” That’s just not true. Why can’t they just get married?
So why should it matter that homosexuals can’t reproduce if heteros don’t have to prove they can?
Absolutely. It just would cost more because they would do two wills or two trusts. Most married couples have a will or trust because it’s more prudent to do so.
Anyone can name anyone as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy.
Many people who are not married put both names on a property. Same procedure.
Pure:
Well, then obviously it’s not as simple and easy. Furthermore, you ignored my points about the adopted child and not reproducing.
Pure:
The only person you are hurting is the child in my example.
Holy Hell, what happened to purealchemy.
Hi, Jeddite! Was hoping to run into you somewhere to thank you for that interesting piece of music you left me (and everyone for that matter) on the Kevin Jennings thread.
That was copied from the LOL Cats bible transation website.
No, it was not the Christmas brandy!
zero, actually I kind of botched that explanation. And try to restrain yourself from saying something like I botch everything, okay? ;o)
Absolutely.
It just would cost more because they would do two wills ortwo trusts.Most married couples have a will or trust because it’s more prudent to do so.It is prudent for both partners in a couple to have a will, gay or straight.
At some point in the lifetime of a couple, one will die first and there needs to be a different executor or trustee. It is also prudent to have a will naming an alternate trustee if case both would die together in an accident.
Pure:
None of that changes my points concerning children and reproduction.
Fine.
Wai R We Rguin Aneway?
…that’s what we do here.
Here’s another way to look at it, zero.
Maybe heterosexual couples who plan never to have children or know they will not able able to have children don’t even need to get married.
A lot of younger couples chose not to get married because they are rebeling against the “property” aspect of it or the contrivance of it.
People who are WAY beyong child rearing age get re-married after divorces and deaths of previous spouses. It’s silly and usually just gets their kids upset.
Pure:
So, what are you saying, that unless people plan to have kids they can’t get married? What if they adopt?
I’m not saying they can’t get married.
I’m saying it’s not something they need to feel compelled to do.
If they want to adopt, probably they should get married.
Like I started out saying, marriage is a social institution created for the protection of children.
What if men and women just reproduced aimlessly and abandoned their offspring at will? Marriage creates a legal structure that holds people accountable for their offspring.
As same sex couples don’t reproduce, marriage just doesn’t seem applicable.
Marriage isn’t really about love and romance as it is about social structure, the family unit.
Society strongly encourages couples to make a commitment to each other before they become sexually active so when and if any children are born, they will be wanted and cared for.
When people haven’t made that commitment and the baby comes, one or both parents may abandon it. Not a good situation.
We always hope there are others who will take the child but it’s inherently a precarious situation.
Pure:
However, same sex couples can adopt and if they are allowed to marry, that will protect the children they adopt! Can’t you see? It’s not just about equal rights!
Pure:
Don’t you get it? Allowing same sex marriage gives monogamous same sex couples that same stability you are talking about!
It’s actually better for their adopted children!
But if you put children in a same sex couple home, it tends to encourage the children to view that as normal.
Then those children may be less likely to reproduce.
The goal is to encourage natural heterosexual parents to keep their children.
Keep the focus on children staying with their natural parents, a mother and a father, to set an example of the natural progression of reproduction. Then there would be fewer children up for adoption.
First choice for adoption is a male and female couple. Gays and lesbians are last resort.
Pure:
All evidence thus far points to sexuality being genetic so, that’s probably not true. Besides, its not as though we are in danger of not spreading enough.
Pure:
Like it or not, children are adopted by same sex couples and they are being hurt by not allowing same sex marriage.
If for some reason you had to give up zero jr. for adoption, what environment would you want most for him?
Pure:
What are my choices? Because if I had to choose between a hetero sexual couple with IQs of 80 and a homosexual couple who are lawyers and doctors with IQs of 130 I would choose the homosexuals, obviously.
Pure:
Besides, It’s really a moot point, because like it or not, there are same sex couples with children.
Pure:
On top of that, if a same sex couple did adopt zero jr, I would definately want the state to recongize their union for junior’s own protection.
BBL.
I know there are and I don’t like it but I will say that if it’s a choice between a child having a home or not, I’d rather see them get a home.
I always hear that there are more children up for adoption than people who will take them and that same sex couple often take the kids nobody else wants.
All the threads here seem to have fizzled out.
Pure:
I got to go pick up Junior, but having said all this:
…don’t you see how important same sex marriage is? It IS about children too!
I’m still not willing to say that’s important. It’s all evidence of the breakdown of traditional society.
Not happy about it.
It’s too depressing. I can’t think about it anymore.