I don’t watch much Network TeeVee but I caught a show the other night that I have only seen about twice before. It is a show in which some down on their luck family has their house totally redone for free by some dream team of builders and designers.
The first time I saw this show it was about some disabled Iraq war vet getting his house totally redone for him to make it more wheelchair accessible. This time- it was another Vet of the Iraq war – who for no particular purpose wore his beret and uniform throughout the show (he was flown back from Iraq for the show). He had nothing but good things to say about the war and everyone simply agreed without saying how awesome he was for “protecting” and “serving” us in Iraq.
I gagged with horror throughout this sappy propaganda. This is actually rather common fare among our “liberal” networks and the war. Game shows routinely play up vets from the Iraq War. There is obvious government/military collaboration with these shows in providing them with party line vets and soldiers who parrot the usual garbage.
On another front- I have trouble sleeping. I have for years. So recently I thought if I can’t sleep for more than three hours at a time I might as well do something useful in the wee hours when everyone is sleeping. For years I have seen these ads for temp and part time work at a Boston Globe distribution center. The job would be to collate the Sunday edition of the Boston Globe early in the morning on Saturday- for 3 or 4 hours and it paid a respectable hourly wage- for basically mindless work. This job has a high turnover rate because it is only one day a week and at 2am in the morning. So I thought what the hell? I am not hurting for money exactly but I can’t watch the same HBO movies over and over again either every night. So I called the 800 number to arrange a time to go down and talk to a manager about the job.
Now I figured this would be a snap and pretty informal. Ooooooh wrong! Upon walking in I am handed a 5 or 6 page job application as if I were applying for a job with the FBI. Every possible thing about me they wanted to know- every past employer, all the schools I attended, my healthcare plan if any, my race, my criminal record going back 5 years . . . a sexual harassment policy form for me to sign, on and on and on.
Now I expected some sort of paper work so I could get paid- little more than my name. But for a job less than a half day’s work a week at 2AM, that is utterly mindless, with zero responsibility, in a friggin warehouse located in a dirty industrial park outside of Boston they want and expect me to fill out a form that literally would have taken me an hour?
I noticed that half of what they wanted on these forms was some government requirement. I sat there for a second- filled out my name and address and phone number and then went into the guy’s office who looked startled that I had “finished” so fast. I handed him the application and told him I had no intention of filling out all that crap for a part time meaningless drudge job and that if he was serious about hiring me- he could call me- turned and left.
Driving around I can’t help but notice the numbers of cops and their varieties. Town cops, state cops, city cops, MBTA cops, Sheriffs, and even the occasional black SUV with that blue federal license plate that almost certainly contains a fed cop from the many DC police type agencies. Oh- and in the sky- cop helicopters.
A friend of mine noted that every election politicians talk about “putting more cops on the streets” so that we are “safe”. That seems to be all Americans care about. Being “safe”. Will a politician ever ask the obvious question? How many cops is enough? Aren’t we drowning in cops in this country? And what is the number of cops on the street that will finally make us “safe”? Huh? Why not assign a cop for every three households in the country? Wouldn’t that make us “safe”?
Politics in this country is infantile and imbecilic.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here are some quotes from "The Supply Side of the Political Market" in Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law":
After an extensive study of police performance, Lawrence Sherman, director of the Police Foundation, concluded: "Instead of watching to prevent crime, motorized police patrol [is] a process of merely waiting to respond to crime." Sherman noted that the budget process rewards those who successfully dispose of cases after crimes are committed more than with the questions of how many police are needed and how big the police budget should be. Of course, the answers to these questions depend on what police must do, so police lobby for more budget and personnel in order to reduce response time and catch more criminals. Efficiency considerations would dictate that the additional cost of such resources be justified by improved performance of at least euqal value. Is this a valid assumption?
A 1976 study by the Police Foundation and the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice found that cutting response time by seconds or even minutes makes little difference in whether or not a criminal is apprehended. [...] Studies of police on duty have found that about half of an officer's time is spent simply waiting for something to happen. Police officials claim that this time is spent in preventative patrolling, but systematic observation has discovered that such time is largely occupied with conversations with other officers, personal errands, and sitting in parked cares on side streets. [...]
[P]olice offcials contend that patrol cars should have two officers because they can more efficiently deal with criminal incidents and are less likely to be resisted or harmed. A year-long Police Foundation study of one- versus two-man patrol cars in San Diego, however, contradicts these claims. The report found "clearly and unequivocally it is more efficient, safer, and at least as effective for the plice to staff patrol cars with one officer." [...] The primary differences were that two-man cars wrote several more traffic tickets, one-man cars received far fewer citizen complains, and one-man cars were far more cost effective. [...] Furthermore, there were fewer cases of resisting arrest and assaults on officers in one-man units than in two-man units.
[...]
Is increasing the size of the police buereaucracy likely to solve these problems? Consider the impact of increasing the size of the police department in New York City between 1940 and 1965. Over that twenty-five-year period, the number of police was increased from 16,000 to 24,000, but the total number of hours worked by the entire force actually declined. The 50 percent increase in personnel was more than offset by shorter hours, longer vacations, more holidays, more paid sick leave, and longer lunch periods.
I much prefer to deal with abstract concepts, linguistics, and speculative political philosophy and history than to pay attention to current events.
It's easier to maintain one's sanity.
For instance, in response to the study which TGGP posted, I would note that as the Gendarmerie have altered their policy of from the preventive to the reactive, so their designations have changed as well, from constable, which basically means stable-manager or watchman, to police, a controller, administrator or bureaucrat.
On sort of a related note, my wife and I were at our friendly neighborhood immigration office (it's all part of the international adoption process), and the first thing we saw upon entering was a big banner that said "Check in with guard first." It could just as easily have said, "Check in at the front desk," but no. They had to be sure that we saw a uniformed security guard as we walked in. It was as if they wanted everyone to know who was in charge.
Post a Comment