My photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Sunday, August 24, 2014


TAC is yet again holding up a comment of mine.  It is in response to the boringly reliable "Philadelphia Lawyer. "  He is one of the left-trolls haunting the site.  As a former peace officer I had to tick him off, perhaps too much for the timid souls at TAC.

Here is the link.  Check out Philadelphia Lawyer's call to action.  Can any Lawyer actually be so misinformed?
  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “The police formulate policy that, quite naturally, gives the police the “right” to kill when the threat to them is only a little bit above ridiculously low. And they exercise that “right,” over and over again.” This is really laughable. Who do you think formulates police policy, lawyers! Every move to turn cops into robots over the last 40 years began with legal jerks seeking to “professionalize,” police.
    Almost all police in the USA answer to prosecutors, all of whom are lawyers. And it is these prosecuting lawyers who keep restricting police judgement and autonomy.
    Tasers, nets, clubs? Nightsticks were taken away from the police in my day as a means to limit liability driven by ambulance chancing lawyers representing criminals.
    Nets? You must be joking. This isn’t the Circus Maximus and the cops aren’t Spartacus.
    Tasers can be very unreliable. Mace is good but it won’t stop an attacker with a knife fast enough to save your life.

    Sunday and still waiting.  



  1. You may have missed the most recent desperate scream from TAC for attention here, an effort hard to distinguish from a Democrat fundraising email raising the specter of Obama's impeachment. As you know, Dreher is Wick Allison's ventriloquist's dummy; the two became close during Dreher's tenure in Dallas.

    Of course TAC is going to float Ezra Klein's talking points (police using nets - hey, why not club offenders with non-lethal, net-caught mackerels in the process?) and suppress the experience of LEOs because liberals click and subscribe to TAC to gain the illusion that their vision is a tide that has engulfed even the "conservatives" of TAC, a delusion TAC works hard to underwrite. LEOs recognize TAC nanciness for what it is and spend their money on better things. It's the economics of the world's oldest profession.

    1. I miss a lot that happens at TAC dispite my occasional posts here. TAC's just getting too dispiriting to read closely. If it weren't for Phil Giraldi's writing and intermittent flashes of lucidity by to others, I just would just ignore the site altogether, well, except for material to puncture from time to time. Oh, and I like their willingness to stand up to the Zionist lobby.

      I tried to follow their transportation efforts for a while but it seemed, like intelligent transportation efforts itself, going nowhere. Now they are into Urbanism. Just think, a phenomenon as old as Jericho!

      I think the Steve Sailor, John Debyshire wing of Conservative thought is salient right now. I get published on VDARE and the UNZ Review. I know you have a Catholic perspective and I share it. But the issue of race and the dissolution of our Western heritage is so suffused in all the topics that TAC engages in, that TAC is left with little meaningful to say.

      For instance, their transportation writing made some excellent points. Writing about transportation in a state like my former one, New Jersey, is so truncated by racial and class considerations, that if everything the transportation reformers want came to pass, there would still be no change.

  2. Tim, I have a question: what's your opinion of Sean Scallon?

  3. I'm guessing that by "Tim" you mean me.

    His proofreader must be a baboon. I make more than my share of typos, and occasional howlers, but he writes comments that are so loaded with them that I have images of the late night stream of consciousness Kerouac, keyboard hammering in an altered state.

    I had a run-in with Scallon over regulatory reform a few years ago. He lets his anger at Conservatism Inc. get in the way of his judgement. As I recall, he thought that curbing over-regulation was just a big business scam. Of course all forms of lobbying are self serving, but he seemed to think that because the business community stabs us in the back, they have no legitimate interests and that our mutual interests never intersect. He took the side of the usual combox pinko's in favor of close government interference in business and industry. That's a peculiar mentality for a conservative.

    Bear in mind that he is a county government official somewhere in the midwest. He managed to get a book published filled with his deep thoughts, which is more than I have done so far. So my take on him is that he is a well meaning yokel who is just enough a big fish in his own little pond to take himself seriously. I don't