[lordofthecockrings]

To For police departments tos do the same, they'd hav to blanket city streets with a wall-to-wall police presenc--which was the basis fo hte coloniasts revolution in th firs place.

Did your cat write that last passage or did your meds just kick in?

[bmasel]

For police departments tos do the same, they'd hav to blanket city streets with a wall-to-wall police presenc--which was the basis fo hte coloniasts revolution in th firs place.

Top post of the month, typos notwithstanding.

[SombreroFallout]

To For police departments tos do the same, they'd hav to blanket city streets with a wall-to-wall police presenc--which was the basis fo hte coloniasts revolution in th firs place.

Did your cat write that last passage or did your meds just kick in?

For police departments tos do the same, they'd hav to blanket city streets with a wall-to-wall police presenc--which was the basis fo hte coloniasts revolution in th firs place.

Top post of the month, typos notwithstanding.

Classic.

One reacts solely, literally, to the letter of the Word. The other responds to the spirit of the Word.

The first evades the operative meaning expressed.
The latter frankly acknowledges a slip in conformance to the rigid social conventions of spelling.

Plug in Law and History and those two sentences tell you everything you need to know about what's gone wrong with the legal profession.

It's what sickens the body politic. The pretense that 'you say anything' for your client, the pretense that adversarial advocacy per se is a blessing, necessarily means to some that it's a free-for-all and anything goes, that there is no social contract at all. No shared ground, and no sacrosanct legal principle, cultural value, national security interest, that will not be violated.

Which is what has allowed George W. Bush to twist the syntax and procedural formalities of the law, to torture it clause by clause, until the Law is what He Asserts. What He can Get Away With.

It's why the judicial branch is so corrupt it runs with a thick rot, right at the core. And it's why any Legislator can freely consort with a D.C. Madame and merely confuse observers about just who is paying whom, and for what.

It's why people [meaning, die-hard Democratic, non-Nader voters] didn't want to vote for Al Gore, and don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or Barack Obama.

.

[Wet_Pavement]

Someone explain to me what exactly, and I mean exactly is the damage people suffer from having public surveillance cameras.

I don't want to hear any "slippery slope" arguments.

I don't want to hear any "well way back when we had a King" arguments.

What exactly right now in the present moment would be the damage that you or I or anyone else in the public would suffer from having surveillance cameras on poles in public places?

Here, I'll even get it started for you....You're down on State Street on a beautiful summer Saturday afternoon.....You've just bought your ice cream with some friends and/or family at the Chocolate Shop, when you walk out of the store, look up, and see the camera on the pole....and......????

[TAsunder]

Pavement, my objection is not to the use of cameras, it is only that the city ought to be very careful with how it uses the footage and only allow access to the footage to limited people and document their access. I also question whether it is worth the expense.

Sombrero, I find your assessment of the legal system to be hogwash. A lawyer ought to do anything legally allowed to get their client's wishes done. A lawyer who puts the interests of society before their client ought to be immediately disbarred and never allowed to practice law again. If you have a problem with what is legally allowed, then your problem is with legislatures for the most part.

[Wet_Pavement]

Pavement, my objection is not to the use of cameras, it is only that the city ought to be very careful with how it uses the footage and only allow access to the footage to limited people and document their access. I also question whether it is worth the expense.

I agree with your concerns about having some kind of safety aspect built into the system. I also agree that it may not be all that cost effective. But only time will tell on the second issue.

I'm just curious about those people who think surveillance-- any surveillance-- is somehow a harm. I understand the slippery slope arguments of heading towards an 1984 style surveillance state. Even with these cameras, we are a ways away from that. I want those people who think that surveillance is inherently a problem and somehow a harm to the citizens of Madison to spell out exactly and how anyone is harmed.

So you (not you TA but anyone in general) get your ice cream from the Chocolate Shop-- or is it Ye Old Chocolate Shoppe?-- and you and your friends walk out and look up to see a camera on a pole 100 feet in the air....and....and...?

[SombreroFallout]

I'm just curious about those people who think surveillance-- any surveillance-- is somehow a harm. I understand the slippery slope arguments of heading towards an 1984 style surveillance state. Even with these cameras, we are a ways away from that. I want those people who think that surveillance is inherently a problem and somehow a harm to the citizens of Madison to spell out exactly and how anyone is harmed.

I've already laid out that it is a harm, inherently and in practice, and why it is a harm. It's a harm on the face of it. It is a breach of trust that violates the social contract, whether or not people are aware of the cameras.

Would you be comfortable with a 300-officer squad stationed throughout a ten-block area, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? That's what people mean when they say 'It's no different than an officer seeing you in public.' Not so. It's not the same at all.

I've yet to hear a good or valid argument for surveillance cameras. The refusal to face up to the causes and fix the problems with our polity (socially, economically, politically) does not excuse or justify resorting to an after-the-fact band-aid that treats only symptoms.

The rationale doesn't work:
'Well, I guess since crime exists, Mr. Government-Official-Man, it's best if you just have Absolute Power, since the practical and hard-won lesson upon which America was founded--that limited government is absolutely necessary to prevent just this kind of abuse--must be, like, obsolete. Because we're modern! Is Tuesday @ 3:00pm a good time for you? I'd ask where I should show up to turn myself in--but you already know where I am.'

Crime has always existed. Crime has gone down. (despite recent spate)

Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV have a much higher distrust of strangers and people in general. People who don't watch much TV have a more accurate perception and a higher level of trust in strangers and fellow citizens. If officers watch CCTV constantly--they'll be less likely to trust us--they people they say they serve.

By far the stupidest, least relevant, and most dishonest reasoning has been about cost. Whether it's free or costs money has exactly zero to do with whether a) it's a good idea, or b) the fact that it violates the basic responsibilities of government.

That Madisonians are so ill-served by these sorts of cheap, execrable excuses for policy decisions should make us all sick. 'The cameras won't cost us any money.' 'The trees were old and dead in the middle.' Unresponsive. Irrelevant. Evasive. Without integrity. Lacking forthrightness. Without the decency or good judgment to maintain what all of us require as citizens.

It openly deviates from the historical basis for and purpose of having a country called America. With limited power comes limited responsibility, and this is a violation of that trust we put in our government. That is no slippery slope: you're at the bottom of a cliff--peering down and telling us you can't see a slope, or why it matters.

And don't forget! The last thing any of us wants to watch over and over and over again is CCTV tapes of some late-night cabbie splattered all over his own taxi, just because we have the technology. We want you made safe BEFORE something like that happens, not great snapshots of the event after the fact.

That there are victims of crime requires that we repair the body politic, the prevailing set of social and economic relations, and the 'town square.'

It by NO means compels us to damage the public realm further, irreparably, by agreeing to a deviant and malignant level of government power, though the installation of 24/7 surveillance cameras.

You would NEVER agree to what comes down to an enormous police force, constant, omnipresent, all-seeing. It's not a solution.

.

[TAsunder]

Cost is not irrelevant. It has to do with whether it's a good idea. Spending $10 million to reduce crime by 0.01% is not a good idea. Try thinking gray instead of black or white. Some things are good notions but bad ideas in practice because of the associated monetary cost. That's just the way the world works.

[lordofthecockrings]

Sombrero - do you ever have a thought which isn't tangential?

[SombreroFallout]

Cost is not irrelevant. It has to do with whether it's a good idea. Spending $10 million to reduce crime by 0.01% is not a good idea. Try thinking gray instead of black or white. Some things are good notions but bad ideas in practice because of the associated monetary cost. That's just the way the world works.

Wrong. Who pays is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether this is a bright idea. 'Gettin' sumpin' fer free' don't make it an improvement to the public interest, nor the public good, nor does it improve the public welfare.

Cost-benefit only comes into play after the decision about whether it benefits--rather than harms--the public. If you can spend $1,000 and reduce the cost of crime by $10 million, then more power to you. OOOOPS--was that the wrong turn of phrase? I think it was. No more power to you.

If King George III (or V (i.e., W.)) or anyone else--say Pol Pot--offered free security services for all of Madison, would it be a good idea? Because it was free? I think not. How 'bout Blackwater?

[SombreroFallout]

Sombrero - do you ever have a thought which isn't tangential?

I'm on-topic. Your post, though, is not about surveillance csmeras.

[TAsunder]

Cost-benefit only comes into play after the decision about whether it benefits--rather than harms--the public.

Or it could come before as a means of simplifying the decision if cost makes the potential benefits irrelevant.

[SombreroFallout]

Cost-benefit only comes into play after the decision about whether it benefits--rather than harms--the public.

Or it could come before as a means of simplifying the decision if cost makes the potential benefits irrelevant.

Nope.

Figuring out whether it damages the country rather than helps it comes first. That something is free does not overcome negative consequences. Low cost does not miraculously make a bad idea, somehow, good.

If a persuasive case that it improves the country, rather than help it, then you can talk about cost. Not until.

[Maxine]

If you're worried about your wicked behavior being watched by a camera by the police department, let me tell you there is a bigger camera that is watching all of your wicked behavior. It's call the Lord God Jesus Christ. And he sees everything. So turn off your computer porn and stop rubbing yourself in unholy ways, stop picking up whores in cheap bars and stop shoving long objects up your under-hole. Yes, God is watching, don't be afraid of Big Brother, because Big Jesus is watching and you will be swimming in a molting lake of fire if you don't hand over your life to Jesus, libtards. I'm praying for you, it's probably a lost cause, but I'm earning points with Jesus.

[Oprah]

molting lake of fire

Is this fucking lake made of feathers?*

Good night. It's time for me to wing the Wally.

*How's it hangin' Sheppy?