A B1 Walsh rant about criminals (us) demanding privacy.
The first dumbicility comes from the dude who divies out my paycheck funds but who I secretly suspect may have Asperger's Syndrome:
" 'I don't like cameras. But in Pioneer Park we face a problem of persistent crime,' says Mayor Ralph Becker."
Foul ball... If you didn't like cameras then you wouldn't be pursuing this policy. If you pursue a policy, then you "like" it. Stop with the two-sided Obamatalk.
Who's up next...
" 'They are not as quick a fix as one would hope -- and at a high cost to people's constitutionally protected rights to anonymity and privacy,' says Karen McCreary, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah."
Steee-rike. If you call something "constitutionally protected", don't you think it should probably, maybe, possibly, in some form, be somehow referred to in the Constitution you cite?
Are privacy or anonymity rights found in the Constitution? No, they are not found there. They were invented later by bizarre, para-logical interpretation. But keep up your craft, Karen McCreary. Somebody's got to make sure something's wrong with the world. Daft ACLU.
And last...
"After all, there's little to stop police from one day putting cameras in Liberty or Sugar House Park, or pointing the Pioneer Park lenses out onto the sidewalk. At you and me."
Honestly, Walsh -- totally honestly -- you're a child, and a naughty one at that.
What are naughty children like? They're afraid of getting caught for all the bad stuff they always try to do. Hide infected wounds rather than exposing and cleaning them, and you will eventually lose the limb; and cover up crime with "privacy", and your removal of accountability only breeds more and more misdeeds until we're all endangered. Why not expose Pioneer Park to some sunlight? Expose the other parks. Expose our entire city, and stop demanding cover for criminality.
Did it fail to reduce crime in Britain? Then, here's a thought: let's try acting on what we see on cameras. Let's actually respond and apprehend criminals, instead of not increasing our police response, allowing criminals to become accustomed to ineffective cameras, and leaving crime at the same level.
Oh, but... wait. There was that one guy who wrote that book warning that lack of privacy leads to the creation of an authoritarian superstate.
Well, that must be true. It teaches us paranoia, doesn't it? Must be correct, since paranoia is the kind of thing we want more of in the world.
...O.k., Walsh, you're right. Forget it. Tear down all the cameras, even the "private" ones you defended. Every man for himself. Let's make it really balanced by sending all the cops home, too. Idiot.
Thanks, Tribune.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment