The Goat Pen

"I mean what is more important to you for your civil servants? Do you insist that they have a simlar ancentory/heritage as the community they serve so that they are more easily trusted OR is it more important that they be competent in their jobs? I think what you are suggesting is a very slippery slope sir."

That's a good point. Should Hitler have put jews in charge of Auschwitz? I don't think so...

"I mean what is more important to you for your civil servants? Do you insist that they have a simlar ancentory/heritage as the community they serve so that they are more easily trusted OR is it more important that they be competent in their jobs?

It's not an either-or proposition. There are plenty of educated, intelligent and thoroughly competent teachers and police who have the same ancestry as the people they serve and do an outstanding job.

I saw a video of the police chief of Ferguson. His reasoned and persuasive speech to the public, and the fact that he shares the ethnicity of the local community, is probably the #1 reason the response to the shooting has been so restrained. They generally trust him to do the right thing way more than if he was a Buford T. Justice.

hedge wrote:"I mean what is more important to you for your civil servants? Do you insist that they have a simlar ancentory/heritage as the community they serve so that they are more easily trusted OR is it more important that they be competent in their jobs? I think what you are suggesting is a very slippery slope sir."

That's a good point. Should Hitler have put jews in charge of Auschwitz? I don't think so...

They weren't in charge but they were working for the man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando

Professor Tiger wrote:

"I mean what is more important to you for your civil servants? Do you insist that they have a simlar ancentory/heritage as the community they serve so that they are more easily trusted OR is it more important that they be competent in their jobs?

It's not an either-or proposition. There are plenty of educated, intelligent and thoroughly competent teachers and police who have the same ancestry as the people they serve and do an outstanding job.

I saw a video of the police chief of Ferguson. His reasoned and persuasive speech to the public, and the fact that he shares the ethnicity of the local community, is probably the #1 reason the response to the shooting has been so restrained. They generally trust him to do the right thing way more than if he was a Buford T. Justice.

That is correct. It is not an either-or-proposition.

All I'm saying is that working law enforcement in an blighted area/inner city/area with a higher crime rate is a particularly tough job. You aren't just a beat cop working suburbia and teaching the 4th graders D.A.R.E. Its tough work. And I want that type of work to only be made available to the most qualified police officers. I don't care what their heritage is as long as they do damn good work.

Ferguson was not and is not a high crime area

" I don't care what their heritage is as long as they do damn good work."

Shooting you on sight would qualify as damn good work as far as I'm concerned...

innocentbystander wrote:And I want that type of work to only be made available to the most qualified police officers. I don't care what their heritage is as long as they do damn good work.

That's a sentiment that *sounds* good but is not connected to reality. The reality is that being a cop is not like being an astronaut or an NFL QB. It's a Civil Service job with great benefits whose requirements are to 1) pass a background check, 2) pass a psych test, 3) pass a physical test, 4) pass some written tests, 5) complete a basic training course. Roughly 1,000,000 Americans have passed the above requirements and currently serve as police officers.

Of that million, a small percentage are absolute heros. A larger percentage are competent professionals doing good work. The largest percentage are people who are collecting a decent sized check, marking time until their pension vests and/or a better opportunity comes along. A fair percentage are dirt bags who do just enough to keep their jobs. A small percentage are criminals who use their jobs to pad their pockets. A tiny percentage are psychopaths who are a danger to society. It's pretty much like every other job or profession.

Many arguments were made about public safety jobs (I'm including Fire/EMT in this discussion) should be meritocratic, free from race/gender "quotas." The truth is that the public safety sector has long been a hotbed of the worst kind of nepotism and cronyism. At one point, there were entire precincts in Boston where all of the cops were related. Even in the days of written examinations/standardized testing, there are numerous examples of leaking tests/coaching the sons/friends/cronies of current employees while using the tests to keep out minorities and new blood. And the worst part (for me as a flaming liberal) is the role that the public service unions have played in perpetuating the problem.

You forgot drug test.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/politics/ ... index.html

Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted on two felony charges

(CNN) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, was indicted Friday on felony charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.

The two counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she resigned, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said.

Who'd a thunk Perry would get indicted before Christie?

How ironic, Democrats accusing a head of state of abuse of power. I wonder if it's ok to sue...

sardis wrote:How ironic, Democrats accusing a head of state of abuse of power. I wonder if it's ok to sue...

Not an accusation, an indictment. You should be wondering how Perry will do in prison.

Mack Brown is next.

Jungle Rat wrote:Mack Brown is next.

They could never get an indictment of Mack Brown in Texas.

Damn, Perry is dumb. But most knew that. He had the 2012 nomination sewed up if he hadn't shown his incompetence in the Republican debates. He has the power to veto. But by connecting that power to someone resigning, he probably committed a felony, at least enough for an independent grand jury to say there's enough there to indict. If he hadn't threatened the person and just cut the funding anyway, he probably wouldn't have an issue now.

He won't be convicted. Can you imagine putting someone in prison for insisting on this to resign?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

Johnette's Daddy wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/politics/ ... index.html

Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted on two felony charges

(CNN) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, was indicted Friday on felony charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.

The two counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she resigned, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said.

Who'd a thunk Perry would get indicted before Christie?

Bah, who cares. He was never getting the GOP nomination anyway. The primary debates raised the bar and require a certain level of competence.

Johnette's Daddy wrote:At one point, there were entire precincts in Boston where all of the cops were related. Even in the days of written examinations/standardized testing, there are numerous examples of leaking tests/coaching the sons/friends/cronies of current employees while using the tests to keep out minorities and new blood. And the worst part (for me as a flaming liberal) is the role that the public service unions have played in perpetuating the problem.

No sir, that is not the worst part for you.

The worst part (for you as a flaming liberal) is that there is nothing you would want to change about the seniority aspect of public sector unions which perpetuates the problem. You will complain about it to me, but then insist that we do nothing to change it.

If I had my way JD, reactionary conservative that I am, public sector unions and their seniority based system would all be gone tomorrow.

Its just like on Dalrocks blog on the manosphere that I link to occasionally. The men there complain that they have been destroyed by their ex-wives in no-fault/unilateral divorce. They complain that they didn't want to divorce but it didn't matter, she wanted it, she got it, she get money from him for life, keeps the kids and the house but he doesn't get to sleep with her anymore. Then feminists come along to Dalrock's blog and mention (this isolated case or that isolated case) where the MAN ends up better in the divorce (maybe getting alimony from the ex-wife he frivorced.) The difference is every single man at Dalrcoks blog, myself included, wants no-fault/unilateral divorce to go away immediately so that neither gender can abuse this power while the feminists only complain about the men that take advantage of it, but out and out refuse to do anything to change it.

Fascinating. Apparently it's a fine line between being a politician and being a fucking criminal. You just have to properly veil your threats to do what your office entitles you to do. I say we eliminate the fine line and prosecute all the motherfuckers.

It's not a fine line. It's a big fat line. It's a fine line in finding the necessary evidence and not having the proof.

So, in your lawyerly opinion you think he has a snowballs chance in hell of being convicted? I have no such hope.