"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

What Passes For Argument Today

This is what passes for argument today.

A Federal Judge today ruled that NYC's Stop and Frisk Violates peoples rights.

In response, NYC's Top Cop responded "The NYPD is the most racially and ethnically diverse police force in the world, have focused efforts on protecting the poorest."

See, this is how we argue today. Judge rules on whether it violates rights. The Commisioner responds by talking about racial diversity (read immunity from criticism) and intent to 'protect the poorest.'

In this country it no longer matters whether what you do is right (antiquated criteria), all that matters is who you are and why you do it. If he "right" people are doing something for "right" reason, how can anything be wrong?

If we stopped and frisked among our ruling class looking for reason, it would not generate many results.

*subhead*Right supplanted by who and why.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

1 comment:

Pax Britannica said...

Not really a fair criticism of Kelly, surely? He is not debating with, or trying to persuade the judge, he's trying to bring up (emotive) issues that might get the politicians to support him (in which he is, alas, likely to be unsuccessful). He believes fundamentally that the S&F practice is highly effective in reducing and discouraging crime, especially in poor areas (as he carefully explained in an op-ed in the WSJ recently). Is he allowed to bring in these emotive (and, indeed, largely irrelevant) arguments? Those of us who have benefited from the reduction in crime might say "the end justifies the means [or the hyperbole]". May we?

Post a Comment