[Ken P writes to Birdman:]
I disagree with your strategy to write over-the-top, hysterical diatribes in order to facilitate effective communication. For your information, I have no friends or relatives who work I law enforcement. Im also not unsympathetic to legitimate, well-reasoned complaints of specific cases of police brutality, or of abuse of police power in general. This piece, however, lacks any sense of balance between the need for police protection and the risk of abuse of police power; any sense of balance between abuse of police power today compared to that of other places and times; any sense of balance about anything.
And really, why should you use Podunk's Finest Fascists to characterize abuse of police power? Do you not think your audience sufficiently erudite to recognize Bolshevism as a more effective allusion of the same? This is not your best effort.
I could write a fair and balanced essay on the police in one sentence -- one which I completely agree with (as I expect you do, too) -- and here it is:
"The police can be abusive sometimes, but we sure are a lot better off WITH them than WITHOUT them."
However, this essay, so called, is the acme of boredom, and if all I can think of to say is boring, I will not bother to say it.
But if I refuse to tell the truth when it's boring, I do not refuse to tell the truth when it is interesting. But what is truth? Sometimes it is just the (boring) recitation of simple facts, but most of the time it is the recitation of SELECTED facts, which can come across very differently. Some would -- not unreasonably -- call this propaganda -- something which we usually think of as 'bad' because it is skewed, but in fact the root meaning of propaganda is to PROPAGATE (ideas). In the case of my essay, which I concede is not 'balanced' (and which is therefore 'over the top' in some sense, tho I really think that is too strong a term), my purpose -- besides the purely personal one of expressing myself -- is to propagate the notion that we have a problem with police power in this country. I can't put forth this idea with a 'fair and balanced' 'essay' like the single-sentence one above, so instead what I do is to select facts which then illustrate my point, and in the process utilize the psychological truth that an old friend of mine liked to make, to wit, that "learnin' is churnin'", ie, that the best way you can get people to learn is to get them upset, a condition in which cerebral ossification is broken up and new ideas are then able to find some lebensraum. I could point out that I have gotten you upset with the present essay, and maybe that is not altogether bad.
But to reiterate, my point is that police power has become a serious problem in this county. Yes, we have a significant problem with lawless negroes -- a problem which has been used as a reason (or excuse) for ramping up police power -- but the real problem is that there needs to be a separation of the races, not that white people should be weighted down with the burden of police 'protection' appropriate only for the darker races. And by my 'unfair and unbalanced' essay, I get people churnin' -- and hopefully learnin' -- about what really needs to be done here. And once they experience this epiphany, they become receptive to appreciating such alarming facts as that the War On Terror is a fraud perpetrated by Jews and their sympathizers using the convenient excuse of 911, that the War On Drugs is a fraud whose purpose is to protect the World's Biggest Drug Kingpin (the US government), and that we have more prisoners per capita in American gulags than did the Soviet Union at it's height (depth?).
But there is another point to my essay besides those already noted here. That point -- and one which I believe may have cut you more sharply than any other -- is that there is an ugly sort of psychological motivation to putting on a uniform, badge and gun, which may be gently described by saying that being a policeman is a socially-positive way of integrating the bully, the thug and the gangbanger into society. That does not mean that all policemen are bullies, thugs or gangbangers, but it does mean that there is a tendency which is more pronounced among the men in blue than others. For my part, I am willing to have these men as policemen and let them get their rocks off by annoying motorists, beating up vagrants and the like, as this is far less harmful than what they might do if they were not under a military-like control. But when the thuggery and brutality begins to extend to home invasions and other truly freedom-suppressing phenomena, as it did during the Democratic an Republican conventions, and as it has always existed during the War On Drugs, then it may perhaps dawn on us that it is not my essay which is over the top so much as it is the behavior of the men in blue. -j
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *