This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with some thoughts on Attorney General Bill Barr’s various comments defending police and painting America as a warzone:
The beating will continue until morale improves
The funny thing is is that while people like Barr would never be honest enough to admit it the the police are getting all the respect they deserve, and if it’s not as much as they think they are owed they have only to look to themselves to find out why.
Treat the public as the enemy and show no respect for their rights, property or even lives? Guess what, they’ll return the favor.
Show time and time again that you consider those with badges as more important than those without? Don’t be surprised when the public faces that contempt and returns it in kind.
Make clear that you have absolutely zero interest in weeding out the worst of the worst, and in fact will only even begin to make a token effort in that direction with enough public outrage? Congrats, you’ve taught people that you don’t consider corruption or other abuses of power to actually be a problem, and that if people want anything to even maybe be done they’ll have to drag you kicking and screaming into the light and force the issue.
People like Barr are in fact some of the greatest threat to the police, as between constantly war imagery, repeatedly telling police that the public is the enemy and is out to get them, and refusing to do anything to clean up the corruption overflowing in the police and in turn making clear that they support that sort of behavior he and those like him ensure that the public can not, and should not, trust or respect the police.
Whether he’s doing it deliberately and indifferently/maliciously, or is just too stupid to realize it his constantly banging the ‘the public is your enemy’ drum is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because you can only act like that for so long before the public returns the favor.
In second place, it’s K’Tetch with a response to the New York Times political reporter who said he doesn’t even vote out of a desire to stay neutral, and specifically our note that he may have just failed to explain his point well:
That’s not a good thing either. Basically, ‘explaining things well’ is the OTHER half of his job description.
If he’s not reporting the facts, and he’s not explaining things well, then WHY is he employed as a journalist, when he can’t manage either of the basic requirements of that job.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with Kitsune106 pulling some turnabout on cops who claim citizens invoking their rights is suspicious:
Does that not mean according to cops, when they distract and stonewall, they have something to hide? And by their own bill of rights, by invoking them, the say they did something wrong?
Next, it’s an anonymous comment about the ongoing attacks on Big Internet:
Interesting that the people shouting that you can’t trust Big Internet are politicians, media companies, and telcos.
The people saying you can’t trust politicians, media companies and telcos are… everyone else.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Stephen T. Stone summing up the NY Times reporter’s comments about neutrality:
An average day for Peter Baker.
Person 1: “The sky is blue!”
Person 2: “The sky is red!”
Baker: “Both are compelling theories and deserve equal weight.”
For second place, we head to our post about Devin Nunes’ latest SLAPP suit, where we noted that he was making a mockery of his oath to defend and protect the constitution, leading one commenter to respond “like leader, like bootlicker”, which in turn prompted Thad to inject a different joke:
I don’t recall Putin swearing to defend or protect the Constitution.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with another comment on that post, this time in response to our assertion that “one hopes” Nunes’ lawsuits might prompt the rest of congress to create a federal anti-SLAPP law:
One also hopes that geneticists are able to create unicorns, complete with all of the magical powers that are traditionally attributed to them.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess which of the above is more likely.
Finally, we’ve got aerinai summing up the situation with US wireless carriers:
Thats it, I’m Switching Carriers!
Screw T-Mobile, I’m gonna go to Verizon and show them! …wait, i switched from Verizon because they were tracking me on the internet with super cookies a few years back (and probably still are). Fine, I’ll go to AT&T! … wait, they work closely with the NSA to circumvent my constitutional protections… Fine, I’ll go with…out a mobile phone?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon