What the Heck was I Thinking!?

I regularly check Dr. Sanity for postings. She usually has much to say, and much that should be read. Her latest postings include: 

Dr. Sanity: DOES TRUTH EVEN MATTER ANY MORE ?

So why is it then that they only show how much they care when they can blame the Americans or the Israelis?(or, the Republicans, or Bush?) Why is it that the innocent life taken by the terrorists is never worthy of their comments? Or their caring; or their rage? Only innocent life that they figure they can pin on Israel and America?

It pretty much goes without saying that if someone is criticizing reprehensible behavior from only one side in a political or military confrontation, they aren’t really outraged at the bad behavior. They are using it to manipulate public opinion. If they truly wanted to condemn the behavior, it wouldn’t matter where or by whom it was committed. That’s the real test of the sincerity of the feelings.

In looking over the comments from readers of the BlackFive blog, I saw that Radley Balko got involved in the discussion.

One of his comments:

So to answer your question, casualties of war are regrettable, but acceptable. Casualties of the “war on drugs” are neither.

reminds me of the argument against gun ownership…If outlawing guns saved only one life, it would be worth it.

As Thomas Sowell put it:

There will be no rational discussion of gun control until both sides acknowledge that guns both cost lives and save lives, so that the issue boils down to the net effect.

The same argument applies to the SWAT teams - they both can cost lives and save lives. How many and what kind are the questions.

That’s my problem with the study. The data doesn’t support the claim of widespread abuse or erroneous use of SWAT resources. The number of fatal instances in the attendant map listed only 293 wrongful deaths over the course of nearly 21 years nationwide. That’s a very low rate of death.

Mr. Balko’s absolutist comments indicate that he hasn’t put the data into perspective.

Innocent people shouldn’t die to preserve police tactics. When police tactics are causing innocent people to die, the tactics need to change.

When the same police tactics are also protecting innocent people (i.e., the police SWAT officers and non-SWAT patrol force) there has to be a balancing of the “cost” in human lives and the “benefit” in human lives. The number of officers killed in the line of duty nationwide averages about 150 per year. Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia entry, SWAT was formed in the late 1960s in response to changing criminal tactics. The highest death toll for police occured in 1974 with 253 killed. nearly the same number as the entire study period of Mr Balko’s paper.

I was on Blackfive, a very interesting mil blog site. Unfortunately what caught my eye was another posting about Radley Balko’s article on the militarization of police forces. I’ve copied my comments there below:

I saw this article from an Instapundit link. I checked into the stats and blogged about it at my site:
http://response39.blogsome.com/2006/07/19/instapunditcom-just-the-facts-maam/

The data aren’t that alarming. To quote myself,

“At first, this looks just as bad as the claims in the article. Then I looked at the numbers:

“These 293 results represent
The state of: All
For the year: All
And the following type of incident: All”

The All years must cover back to 1985, the earliest year that can be queried.”

In youre response to “The New Guy” you state, “I am with you new guy and in the cases where you pulled those large bunches of ugly stuff, you most likely knew you were dealing with serious bad guys. Far too many of these cases involve, folks who counld not reasonably be considered dangerous, and I still hold to my belief that dynamic entry is an absloute last resort.

A little cunning and trickeration should yield an easier way to do this than actually busting in the doors.”

I have to say that you’ve fallen into the trap of post-event prediction. Just because of all those rights guaranteed (see Balko’s response above), the police cannot have even very good intelligence on what the suspect has or might have. The cops have seen everything including body armor and a tank in the commission of crimes!

I don’t quarrel with your “more training” mantra - everyone who has the ability and may have the requirement to save or end lives (including other first responders) needs as much training as possible. I think it’s a slam to say that the SWATs use these real events as “live training” anymore than it would be to say that all combat is simply live fire exercises with rude people. Lessons learned? You bet. Just like practice? That’s just the pep talk before the deployment.

Over at Wizbang, Paul posts (
Saddam Steals Democrats’ Play Book - Or is it Vice Versa? - Wizbang ) about a recent letter written by Saddam Hussein.

One choice phrase Paul uses popped out at me:

Why is it Democrats always agree with murderous dictators?

It puts me to mind of the statements by P.J. O’Rourke about the Democrat party opposing capital punishment and supporting birth control.

A little hypocracy adds spice to a conversation. A whole plate of it makes you want to barf!

The Instapundit.com -“>instapundit links to a paper written by Radley Balko on the “militarization” of police forces

“July 18, 2006

RADLEY BALKO has a paper on the militarization of police forces across America. This has been going on for over a decade, and I agree that it’s troubling.”

This does sound troubling…until you look at the statistics behind the incidents Balko notes on a map.

On “Botched Paramilitary Police Raids” you can find a map that displays the locations and links to a summary of the incidents.

At first, this looks just as bad as the claims in the article. Then I looked at the numbers:

“These 293 results represent
The state of: All
For the year: All
And the following type of incident: All”

The All years must cover back to 1985, the earliest year that can be queried.

293 incidents since 1985! Your almost twice as likely to die from “falling from or through a building or structure in any one year (557)” than that! What the heck kind of “epidemic” is that?

On the other hand, most readers have probably seen the TV tape from a few years ago of the bank robber who had body armor and a fully automatic machine gun who kept several dozen police officers pinned down, injuring several.

If I were a patron or employee of that bank, I’d have kissed the first paramilitary police officer to save my life from that paramilitary criminal.

Enough of the demagogery and scare tactics!

Is Leftist “thought” an oxymoron?

Dr. Sanity sends me to a post by Gagdad Bob that discusses Leftist thought among other things doomed to failure. He has several comments that caught my eye:

“…it disrupts the developmental arc toward maturity and replaces it with selfishness, entitlement, and dependency–all under the sanctimonious guise of altruism. This is one of the great bait-and-switches in history, for what could be more selfish than to vote to raise someone else’s taxes so you can get a lot of free stuff? The left always talks about “free medical care,” as if someone won’t have to foot the bill. And to paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, “if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.” “

and

Likewise, promoting the goal of making college accessible to everyone can only have two effects: college will become a mediocrity enabler, full of people who don’t belong there; or it will become a stupid factory, an outcome it is well on its way to achieving already. And, shielded from market discipline, it will only become more and more expensive. Eventually, the ability to attend college and become stupid will be financially beyond the reach of most Americans.

and this crystal beauty:

Rather, leftist policies fuel envy because they detach effort from outcome and nurture a cosmic sense of entitlement–wanting becomes confused with deserving, as in a child.

Sometimes Gagdad Bob is too hard to read early in the morning, but these three quotes above are gems.

Over at Wizbang, a very interesting blog site, Jay Tea posts on the hypocracy and double standard that permeates the Wilson-Plame celebrity wannabe show.

My recent post on the Wilson/Plame publicity extravaganza also noted that discovery in this case will not be fun for the two publicity hounds, unless they take the Andy Warhol view that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

Bull Moose has an interesting take on the asymmetrical war concept regarding Israel and her neighbors.

The odd coincidence I have found is that Hammas and Hizbolla or one of the failing states around Israel starts a fight (no comment from world opinion at that point), and then starts getting their butts kicked. Israel, understanding how to deal with bullies, proceeds to give the instigator a real thorough thrashing. It is at this point when Israel is called to restrain herself and to not pick on the losers so much.

Now the question, who would cry of the destruction of Hammas or Hizbolla? Syria and Iran most likely - two countries who have sought the destruction of Israel publicly and violently for the past 30 years at least.

The real enemies of Israel, Iran and Syria, want her destruction. The real patsies in this fight, aside from the international press and professional hand wringers, are the leadership and rank and file of Hammas and Hizbollah. They don’t understand that their patron states don’t mind if they are anihilated by Israel.

The Worldwide Standard has a pair of excerpts from the Washington Post and AP about Bernard Schwartz, former CEO of Loral.

Seems he’s an active liberal political donor…when he’s not giving things to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

And a pretty damned good one, if I say so. At least this is the kind of diplomatic talk I understand.

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CNN) — An open microphone caught President Bush in an unguarded moment Monday as the escalating crisis in the Middle East prompted him to use an expletive in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I’m also pleased to note that it sounds as though he’s used to using the word in proper context.