A Ruling Class That Acts like the One in the Last Story

A Ruling Class That Acts like the One in the Last Story June 20, 2014

increasingly selects for cops that act like the ones in this story as it readies itself for when the consequences of its folly and corruption are felt on a wide scale by the people it regards as subjects and not fellow citizens.

Put your trust in God, not in princes.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    I don’t think cops like that are picked to do what they do. I think it’s just one more symptom of a society we’ve all helped build.

    • jroberts548

      And an important step in fixing that is holding cops accountable when they murder people, instead of reflexively blaming everything but cops.

      • Dave G.

        I merely pointed out that officers who do this are likely not picked in the hopes they’ll do such things. No one is excusing what they did.

        • jroberts548

          But that’s exactly what’s happening in Albuquerque. The APD is accused of running a department that was tolerated and even approved of excessive police violence. When the APD chief sees that video, and the first thing he does is publicly call the murder justified, the problem isn’t “society.” It’s the Albuquerque Police Department.

          • Dave G.

            And it sounds like there are serious problems with that PD. I was addressing the larger issue.

    • Dan C

      It’s a long-standing behavior that was acceptable when the cops were doing this in the inner city in the 1980’s.

      • Dave G.

        Then it’s nothing new and nothing is increasing in terms of selecting cops like this?

  • OldWorldSwine

    When I start my punk band, I think “Social Contagion” would be a great name.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      Will you be a Social Distortion cover band? 🙂

  • KM

    The homeless man in the first linked story was killed by police while attempting to camp out in a makeshift illegal camp after the city’s homeless shelters were closed. In related news, a federal appeals court overturned a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibited homeless people from using their cars as “living quarters.” The ordinance had been used in recent years “to arrest homeless people who were merely sitting in cars that contained food, clothing and other household supplies…”

    For homeless people who come under police scrutiny, “there appears to be nothing they can do to avoid violating the statute short of discarding all of their possessions or their vehicles, or leaving Los Angeles entirely,” Judge Harry Pregerson said in the 3-0 ruling. Palo Alto and other San Francisco communities have similar ordinances that will now need to be reconsidered.


    • Most of the homeless people who are being shot on the streets, in the 1950s would have been institutionalized in a mental hospital.

      Saving on taxes directly costs lives.

      When you expect a cop who never went to college to do the job of a doctor, the result can be horrendous.

      • Deinstitutionalizaton apparently roared on the scene in the US once mental institution peonage was made illegal by court decision in 1973.

        Restoring peonage for mental patients would probably make them economically viable again, but I think that’s not the way to go. Rewinding the clock doesn’t solve the problem.

        Instead, listen to Pope Francis. His call for personal involvement applies to the mentally ill as well as the economically destitute (the two categories will often overlap).

        I do not believe that we have seriously considered applying modern informatics techniques to the problems of mental illness cost. We are not rich enough to use the old techniques in a way that is not abusive.

        I don’t have a ready made solution, just a hint of a way to blaze a new trail that would be more true to Jesus.

        • The problem to me is deciding that taking care of the poor needs to be “economically viable”. Charity is a duty to all, a tax imposed upon us by heaven; whether we can “afford” it or not should simply not be a concern.

          If we can’t afford it, then we need to re-engineer the economy until we can.

          • You do not seem to understand what economically viable is. If you act in an economically unviable way such as eating your seed corn, you can recognize all the duty you care to, on the second farming season you still will starve.

            Charity is a duty to all. After examining the record of the past, I’m worried that the way that we paid for those asylums was to use the labor of the mentally ill in peonage. A blind return to the past would mean reintroducing peonage of that type. It’s not uncharitable to look for better solutions than that.

            If your argument is that we should reintroduce peonage for the institutionalized mentally ill, then have at it. But please don’t confuse the issue by calling it charity.

            • We’re in an economy that currently runs ~ $13 Trillion in gross profit. Are you truly suggesting we can’t afford mental institutions without peonage because we don’t have the resources to do so? Or are you suggesting that profit without charity is a good thing that we cannot endanger by spending money on non-productive people?

              I find arguments that rely upon “prudence” and “economically viable” is more often the second than the first; that we don’t wish to give up a portion of our comfortable lives to give enough to maintain charity for the deserving poor. And I include myself in that remark; especially with what I now know is the sin of gluttony masquerading as preparation for disaster (that became a bit obvious to me this year when the heater wore out and we needed to move the pantry shelves to accommodate the new heater- I found packaged, prepared food that I thought had a very long shelf life, that had expired a decade ago- a complete waste).

              • You mistake the problem I have, which is mistakenly endorsing peonage because we have a false and romanticized vision of our past.

                • The past is the past, we can do nothing about it. We should not let the past force us to fail to live up to the future.

                  Chaining morality to economic viability is putting the cart before the horse. If economics forces us to be immoral (as in peonage) it is the economics that needs to be changed, not the charity. We need to become MORE generous, not less. Generosity needs to be a more important virtue than prudence.

                  I’m with Pope Benedict XVI on that I’d rather the Church have NO millionaires, than one small child in Africa with AIDS starve to death. I’m with Pope Francis on the concept that one elderly homeless person dying of exposure in the snow causes all the “good” of high numbers in the stock exchange to be meaningless garbage.

                  • When you endorse the past’s solutions, you’re also endorsing the warts of the past. If you aren’t, you should make it clear when called on it.

                    As for the good numbers on Wall Street, where do you think so many elderly get their money? They have IRA money saved up and portfolios that they’ve traded for a lifetime and thus they are not on the street.

                    The existence of people who can choose or not to exercise their well formed consciences and pay for a well to be dug in Africa or pay for the housing of an elderly person is not in opposition to either of those needy people.

                    The reality is when you get rid of the millionaires, you don’t end up with fewer people starving or dying of exposure. Over the course of a lifetime, you actually get more, which is why I view such calls to be morally odious by those who have an economic education and naive tripe by the economically ignorant.

                    For the record, after all our discussions, I do not think you are ignorant.

                    • “They have IRA money saved up and portfolios that they’ve traded for a lifetime and thus they are not on the street.”

                      The rich can afford an IRA and to have money saved up. The middle class is never in single job long enough to have an IRA these days, and throwing money into an IRA for a job you’ll have less than two years just means that all the money you put in there will get gobbled up by fees and you’ll never see any of it.

                      We ought to be able to design a system where we can at least provide first level maslow needs for 7 billion people. Especially since we’re producing enough to do so for 26 billion people now; greed and corruption and spoilage eats up the rest.

                      If you can do so without getting rid of the millionaires, fine, but one small child dying of starvation in Africa means that the system is an immoral failure; and we should be working to do better. Even if it means nobody gets to retire and the nursing homes are full of people still doing productive knowledge work when they are awake.

                    • I take it back about your state of economic ignorance. You don’t even have to be in a job to have an IRA. All you have to have is some sort of pre-tax income that would otherwise be taxed and you put it in the account up to the yearly IRA limit. There are plenty of institutions willing to open such an account. If you don’t have enough income to be taxed, it’s smarter to open a Roth IRA at one of the same institutions.

                      We have designed a system where we can at least provide first level maslow needs for 7 billion people. There are just a bunch of men with guns manning borders and skimming so much off the top that the system breaks down in those areas where such people are decisively influential. These people will defend their perquisites with their lives. You have to either bribe them to take retirement with a load of cash, kill them, or by some miracle convince them to start being moral.

                      The problem is not systemic. The problem is that nobody is willing to spend the blood and treasure necessary to pry all those parasites in power out of their perches and self-righteous idiots in recent years have made the bribery route much harder than in the past closing off the possibility of some cheap wins.

      • tz1

        Another unnoticed shift is from Police being honorable by putting their own lives at risk to protect others including the accused to protecting themselves and beating innocent people up when they don’t immediately obey an unlawful order or worse.

        As to de-institutionalization, it is more of the Church’s moving the wall of separation so the state does everything not involving ordination. The ill, mentally and physically, along with the poor, ignorant, suffering, etc. are now the business of Caesar. Who defines marriage too.

        Caesar saves – by closing the mental hospitals – and can spend on getting reelected

  • tz1

    The bishops, the shepherds, have sold out the flock to a factory farm mutton & wool, inc. Do not wonder at the dogs or wolves. It makes sense to keep the complacent sheep happy and healthy when you want meat and fiber.

    The sheeple gather under the steeple. Their own wool to be shaved off and sold to make wolves rich. And to be slaughtered for meat. And the shepherds having been paid well, either say nothing, or explain how the wolves make all better off.