Ignorance
in the face of reality
One
of the local haters has erupted again. An irrational and chronic-hater (of Righeimer
and Mensinger) recently blogged some biased diatribe for our entertainment. He’s
always hateful and usually wrong; and has been since about 2005. (Hate blogging history)
He
said, “We
used to have THE BEST municipal
law enforcement helicopter program in the country until our Mayor got peeved at
the CMPD because they opposed his candidacy for office, so he spear-headed the
movement to close down the A.B.L.E. program.”
Reality that intrudes
Remember
that we had flying police who were available part of each day (A.B.L.E.) to support our street cops. That essentially part time air support cost a great deal
of money. Devoted officers, certainly, but they were expensive.
The City
Council disbanded A.B.L.E. to forestall financial disasters. They contracted
for on-call, around the clock aerial support for our police at less cost.
And
further: “Righeimer crows about saving
money by shuttering the A.B.L.E. program,
yet spends that money on parties to distract the residents from what is really
happening in our city.”
Uh, he can't do that, actually
The
Mayor can’t spend City money. The City Council directs City staff to accomplish
something, whether it’s to continue the Holiday “Snoopy” program or to develop
a self-supporting celebration of our City’s 60th anniversary. The
Council approves the plans that efficiently accomplish their goal and then funds the implementation.
Apparently
the blogger believes he has omniscience: he knows the inner motivations of what
he perceives as an all-powerful figure able to shut down programs and spend
money as he wants. Rubbish!
And,
“We
should be putting more public safety boots on the ground instead of throwing
feel good events every few months. . . I've never seen a man so willing to
demonstrate such a combination of arrogance and ignorance before!” Really?
Projects own weaknesses
He criticizes the Mayor for pretending to know about police work when Righeimer’s actually meeting his responsibilities for balancing income, infrastructure and services.
But the blogger’s own “combination of arrogance and ignorance”
ignores the science. Studies and experiments suggest that “boots on the ground”
beyond a minimal staffing level have little effect on crime. (Crime Science)
That is, he
knows more than the scientists who have demonstrated that community concern
thwarts crime, but additional cops don’t. (Full disclosure: "no tolerance" policing has also been shown useful, and it might require overtime expense or even additional officers in unique circumstances.)
Commenter won't play
One
of his anonymous (some call it cowardly) commenters noted: “I have not volunteered,
nor will, nor plan to even attend this event because of what it is really
about, and I know I am not alone” about the Kickoff to the 60th celebration.
He or
she, then, won’t get involved in what they perceive is the Mayor’s sneaky
plan to manipulate them. This one provides us the entertainment of his/her
omniscience (or naïve acceptance of the blogger’s omniscience), hubris (effect
of his/her not supporting our City), persecution delusions and lack of the
Community Concern that thwarts crime.
Silly is as silly does
Irrational commentary, when it’s silly enough,
can be entertaining.
But don’t be fooled by foolishness. Facts matter, but opinions stated as if they were facts are – opinions.
And, some opinions have been in error since 2005.*
* See comment below
* See comment below
There was an objection to references to hatefulness being only point-of-view disagreements. When nefarious and dishonest motivations are cited as driving the Mayor or the Pro Tem’s decisions, with no factual basis cited, we consider it a “hateful” assertion. A tongue in cheek example:
ReplyDelete“That blogger, who beats his wife all the time, missed two posts while he was repairing his whips. He’s back now and just as evil as ever.” This, just as much, is not a difference of opinion. It’s just a hateful remark without merit in rational discussion.
Note that the correspondent didn’t give permission to publish remarks or name, and so is not identified. We answer personally, and occasionally in print, all comments from identified commenters.
We received a note that “wrong opinion” is an impossible term. The commenter is correct, opinions are only opinions. The term “opinion” in the last line should read either “claims” or “assertions” as the reader prefers.
ReplyDeleteNote that the correspondent didn’t give permission to publish remarks or name, and so is not identified. We answer personally, and occasionally in print, all comments from identified commenters.