Oakland’s police chief Anthony Batts has announced that Oakland Police will not responded to 44 different crimes if planned layoffs occur at midnight. It was useful for Batts to announce the categories in advance for criminals to chose from a criminal dim sum list of free crimes including grand theft, burglary, vehicle collision, identity theft and vandalism.
If you are the victim of burglary, you will be told to make a report online and not to expect police to respond.
Here the list of free crimes in Oakland:
burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another’s
That allows ample room for most criminals to plan a life of crime without the risk of police interference.
This is the response to the planned layoff of 80 officers. That is roughly one-tenth of the force. As we continue to gush billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our cities are returning to a state of nature. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions. However, the union would only agree if the city promised no layoffs. The city refused.
Source: NBC.
Slartibartfast–
I’m with you!
**********
My opinion of presidential and vice presidential debates…as I know them from recent presidential campaigns:
1) They aren’t true deabtes. They are more like Q&A sessions with candidates.
2) Moderators ask some of the most inane questions.
3) Not all candidates are invited to participate. Remember when Kucinich was excluded from a debate?
Think how often Caribou Barbie winked during her debate with Joe Biden. Let’s get serious about presidential campaigns. The media deserves blame for the way they cover candidates…for looking for “sound bites” and not digging for real news. Let’s forget about lipstick on pigs–and address real issues.
In addition, the campaigns begin way too early–and last way too long.
Blouise,
That is really cool. Maybe not as big as being the Exalted Ruler of the Elks club, but pretty darn great! Yes, the League should get the gig!
Blouise,
We should all take debates very seriously – it would greatly help if they were controlled by someone who could add to the integrity and substance of the proceedings. I am so sick of only things that can be expressed in a 30 second sound bite mattering in politics – I would like to see the return substance and nuance into our national political debate (and candidate debates as well).
Woosty’s still a Cat
… And while we are at it…the freakishly poor ‘debates’ the public has had to endure should be given back to the League of Women Voters who always added to the integrity of the proceedings.
==================================================================
As a past president of a League of Women Voters’ chapter … I thank you for those kind and accurate words.
The League takes candidate debates very seriously and there are several rules regarding such programs that ensure the programs fairness and integrity.
“Public funding of adverisements might work, but I’d still rather see only debates and/or position papers on free TV and no ads at all….”
me too, it is a function of government, not a football game…and the ‘airwaves’ and boob tube are not strangers to having meet minor legislations to keep them from being total pirates.
And while we are at it…the freakishly poor ‘debates’ the public has had to endure should be given back to the League of Women Voters who always added to the integrity of the proceedings.
Slart
Public funding of adverisements might work, but I’d still rather see only debates and/or position papers on free TV and no ads at all. Not sure I’d want my taxes paying for Joe Blow’s offal.
Maybe a lawsuit about invasion of privacy or disruption of domestic tranquility could stop them? I’d include bannning robo calls also.
The whole Pres./VP openess idea is to get each from a different party. But the idea of Palin or Bachmann on any ticket in any combination is the scariest, I agree.
Byron,
Palin may not be the brightest bulb on the string of political “light”-weights…but I think Bachmann is CRAZY!
Slarti:
what about Bachmann/Palin?
Buckeye,
I was suggesting that networks be required to provide a certain amount of airtime to qualified candidates (for free – this should be part of the cost of having a TV network in the US) and that candidates should not be allowed to buy any more.
As far as nightmare scenarios, anything with ‘Palin’ in it is at the top, but the worst one (in my opinion) could only come from the current system: Palin/Bachmann.
Slart
Public funds should be available, of course, but that won’t stop TV ads, which is where the money is needed/spent. Other countries ban TV advertising in their elections and we really didn’t have any for the first 200 years and seemed to get along OK.
The Pres./VP scenario can reach all kinds of nightmare heights. Palin/Lieberman, Edwards/Bachmann, etc.
Maybe we should have a contest for the worst combination?
Buckeye,
No TV ads seems an unreasonable position – instead broadcast and cable networks should be required to provide a certain amount of airtime to any qualified candidate as a cost of their doing business. In order to get the corrupting money out of political campaigning, there needs to be some sort of level playing field.
Buddha,
I agree with Buckeye that the ‘runner-up is VP’ rule is not a good idea today. I don’t see the benefit of something that would require a Constitutional amendment to re-enact. And I certainly wouldn’t want the wingnuts (for instance) thinking about John McCain becoming president (and appointing Sarah Palin as his VP?) in the event…
BIL
I’m very excited about your proposals and will follow along enthusiastically.
My two hobby horses are Election Funds reform (my solution is NO TV ADS as one way to get the need for money out of the system) and Banking reform. Like Elaine, I’d just reinstate Glass-Stegal to start with, then hit the tax loopholes, corporate and individual.
None of us will probably live long enough to see all these reforms take place, but we can at least start them.
I looked at the Pres. VP from different parties and the only time it was done (Adams/Jefferson) it worked so poorly they never tried it again. It’s probably one of those ideas that are really good, but impossible for mere mortals to use successfully.
Elaine,
Noted. I think that’s a fine idea too and will find a place on the platform for it.
Buddha–
I would also like to see the Glass-Steagall Act re-enacted.
Blouise,
Thank you very much. It is nice to know others besides my cats appreciate me as they have a vested food interest in me for he who controls the thumbs opens the tuna.
As ever, one lives to be of service.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, July 17, 2010 at 1:33 pm
W=c,
No sedition here. …
===============================================================
Buddha,
My sincere admiration for you grows with each new post
Make mine with a side of pita and dolmades.
Woosty(t) = Cat for b < t < now (where b is the time of Woosty's birth posted:
"Slartibartfast λέει Συγγνώμη , δεν είμαι ένα πρόσωπο που μπορεί να μεταφράσει τα πράγματα από ξένους , που παίζω μόνο ένα στο διαδίκτυο …
κι εγώ το ίδιο !"
That's all Greek to me. 😉
By the way, it's spelled 'Σλαρτιβαρτφαστ'.
Slartibartfast λέει Συγγνώμη , δεν είμαι ένα πρόσωπο που μπορεί να μεταφράσει τα πράγματα από ξένους , που παίζω μόνο ένα στο διαδίκτυο …
κι εγώ το ίδιο !
‘If that’s Sedition then Newt should have been arrested’
‘If we were encouraging something like dissolving or destroying one of the three branches of government (which we are not – we seek reform and reform is not equivalent to overthrow), then that would be sedition. Proposing changes to any of those branches via Constitutional Amendment is a right and a process defined in the Constitution proper as are the processes of legislation.”.’
Thank you for the explanations…I think it is an excellent idea and well overdue…
I’m still in 🙂