Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New York’s Intelligence Suffers the Unintelligent
On June 30th New York’s city council voted to cut nearly $484 million from the NYPD’s annual $6 billion budget and shift funding to other agencies as well as youth and social services programming.
According to a USA Today summary, “the changes will cancel a nearly 1,200-person police recruiting class set for next month (though another class in October is scheduled to go forward), curtail overtime spending and shift school safety, crossing guards and homeless outreach away from the NYPD.” (emphasis mine)
On cue, the addled mayor released a statement saying in part, “This budget prioritizes our communities most in need while keeping New Yorkers safe.” About as safe as a COVID-era New York nursing home.
The cognitive dissonance of reducing cops in a big city struggling with increased violent crime, a pandemic, and increasingly desperate residents challenges the senses. But set aside for a moment these until recently obvious observations. There is another consideration completely absent from any of this childish talk of defunding the police.
The NYPD operates one of the world’s foremost intelligence bureaus whose primary purpose is to detect and disrupt criminal and terrorist activity in the city and beyond. Its role came immediately to mind when I heard of the council’s vote.
Two summers ago I sat at a professional symposium, riveted listening to one of NYPD’s foreign liaison officers present an unclassified overview of a particular program the intel bureau maintains with law enforcement entities worldwide. They actively thwart plots and track criminals. At any given time the bureau posts more than a dozen exchange officers to make intelligence analysis sharing work effectively. It carries on similar agreements with state and federal agencies.
I have not read whether or how much the intel bureau’s resources are to be diminished. But I contemplate the coming blow to the yeoman’s work the NYPD intelligence bureau does on behalf of public safety. Safety indeed Mr. Mayor.
I feel a dystopian novel’s dread as I witness unthinkable events repeatedly crashing through the Overton Window into reality. New York is headed for trouble. Its historical, cultural, and economic role in our nation means we all, to different extents, are too.
I am interested in other consequences, unintended or otherwise, that members have seen in the rush to defund the police. What are you seeing and anticipating out there?
Do Veterans Want This Kind of Thanks?
November has arrived and Veterans Day is coming up soon. I’m a reservist and very much enjoyed the service and camaraderie that I’ve experienced over the years. I benefited from two incident-free active duty stints in support of the Global War on Terror. I appreciate friends’ and neighbors’ gratitude (I try to deflect that praise toward those who’ve sacrificed physically and emotionally). Overall, I’m thankful.
This past week, a group of Wisconsin state legislators proposed a bill that would create, according to the fiscal bureau summary “a requirement that all employers in this state grant a paid leave of absence on Veterans Day to employees who are veterans.”
There’s nothing so thankful in a republic as forcing others to pay a day’s worth of gratitude and probably taking political credit for it. Reading the bill’s details further evaporates the warm feelings for our veterans, replacing said feelings with just another raft of statutory gobbledygook. Nowhere does it mention the right to forgo the benefit either. I find that distasteful.
Still, mine is one opinion. Perhaps others find the legislation worthwhile. What do you think? Am I a curmudgeon or do I sense something that others do too? Either way, if you serve or have served, I thank you sincerely. If you’re a family member who supported a veteran, I thank you all the more. Blessings to all.
Crimes Against the Passive Voice
“From NPR News in Washington, I’m Korva Coleman.”
My Harry’s razorblade glided across my face Thursday morning as the reader sauntered through the news roundup. I finished, closed the cabinet, and turned to leave the room. Ms. Coleman solemnly reported Governor Scott Walker’s intention to sign a Right to Work bill due on his desk soon. I paused to hear the rest of the story.
She soberly explained that the bill “bars union members from being required” to pay dues.
My internal anti-passive-voice klaxon — meticulously installed by an Air Force writing course years ago — Woop! Woop! Wooped! to life. Calling out the legislation’s indirect object to affix the verb that’s meant for the subject? Egad! Such action would have sent my technical sergeant instructor to sick call.
Talk about torturing the language to extract the desired victimhood! It got me thinking how waterboarding other prose could change reader perceptions (I need a go-ahead from John Yoo first).
I can hear it now (insert your favorite NPR voice here):
“Burger King bars customers from being required to have the Whopper Burger King’s way.”
“Satellite TV bars customers from being required to accept cable monopoly offerings.”
“eHarmony bars users from being required to date that roommate’s coworker’s friend who’s coming off a rough breakup but has a great personality.”
Or my favorite, “My 20% home equity bars me from being required to pay private mortgage insurance!”
What actual examples or snarkily concocted crimes against the passive voice could you employ to gain the spin you desire?
I’d enjoy a weekend chuckle if you have the strength to respond. (And yes, I used “NPR” several times to impress Rob Long.)
Kim Jong Un-believable? Sony to ‘Amend’ Rogen Film
Korea observers no doubt expressed the same disappointment as I did Friday when reading this: “Sony Will Amend Seth Rogen’s The Interview After North Korean Threats.” I’ve been looking forward to a lampooning of the 30ish dictator. He’s got an interest in popular culture that ensures his attention to the movie.
Quick no-spoiler synopsis: The CIA recruits two journalists (Rogen & James Franco) that landed an interview with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Their mission: kill Kim.
I’m actually more bummed about having to wait until December instead of October for the film. In reality, this is not a U.S. backing off in the face of North Korean bombast. Making the movie is a statement in itself. It’s more about Japan.
The film’s parent, Sony Japan is where the pressure is likely making an impact. Plenty of sensitive issues plague the Japan-North Korea relationship such as abductees, WWII atrocities, and nuclear ambitions. Living within range of an unstable dictatorship is something the Japanese live with each day.
But I wonder if acquiescing in the face of the usual North Korean tantrums about a film is the right move for Sony. What do members think? I’d be interested to hear from insider Rob Long whether this is as transparent as it seems.
Addendum: If you’d like a good chuckle, peruse NK’s official English language news service KCNA.