Police State?

This is a search for one guy?

Police State?

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin 1755

Submitted by Anon

As stated by Rudy Guiliani in 1994
“”Freedom is about authority,” Mr. Giuliani said then. ”Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.”

How far must we allow it to go?


  • Ariel

    Yep, that’s exactly what freedom means. To carry Guiliani to his logical conclusion: if you cede all discretion to authority, you have maximized freedom.

    “Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.” No, it’s to cede some discretion to authority with clear limits. It’s why the FFs enumerated the powers of Congress, limited the powers of the Executive and Judicial Branches, put impeachment in place for all three branches, and gave us a Bill of Rights embracing the Declaration of Independence.

    Do remember Guiliani was a prosecutor, an occupation with too many who see breaking the laws that constrain them as a good thing if they win in court.

  • Captain Amurrika

    Not a police state. Just think of it as your friendly, benevolent Uncle Sam looking out for you. Sure, he may violate a few of your constitutional rights from time to time. But that’s only because he loves you so much. He doesn’t want to see you end up going down the wrong path in life. There is a method to his madness.

    It’s absolutely like that movie “Uncle Buck”.

  • RadicalDude

    The belief that another person has “authority” over/ ownership of you is a superstition they have programmed you to believe, wake up from the lie/program they use to control you…

  • Ariel

    “Superstition” doesn’t mean what you think it does, nor does “programmed”.

    The acceptance of authority over some areas is a social contract made (yeah, made before you were born, yada yada) to further society in both order and liberty, always a balancing of the two. The question asked and fought over is where the balance?

    Government doesn’t give the people rights, the people give the government powers. But, always a butt monkey, the balancing act is how much power to the government to ensure the rights (simple example, I have the right to free speech but not to libel or slander, but what constitutes libel or slander? In the USA, if it’s true it isn’t either in private speech; in political discourse a much greater latitude is given making it harder to prove either.).

  • Radical Dude

    It’s my way or the highway. I am an extreme liberal.

  • Ariel

    Well, at least you’re honest. You are being honest? ;>)

  • http://truthspew.wordpress.com Tony P

    Indeed, the founding fathers of the United States saw despotism we’ve not seen the likes of until today. And that Franklin quote sums it up succinctly.

    And even Ike Eisenhower, on his way out of office warned us about the military-industrial complex.

    We’ve had visionaries throughout the decades who looked at society with a jaundiced eye.

    But we have to ask, why do we have SO MANY COPS? Even my modest size city has close to 600 of them.

    And what is the primary job of police? Traffic enforcement and drug interdiction. But I see two trends going on right now that spell the abolition of those parts of their job.

    The first is that autonomous vehicles are coming. They don’t break traffic law. And it’s not a matter of technology right now but law. A few states are already out front on this. It all has to do with shift of liability.

    The second is the gradual de-criminalization of majuana and the general sea change in attitudes about illicit drugs. We’ve seen the disaster that the War on Drugs has brought and those in power are starting to re-think the money we’re spending on it.

    Take those two elements away and what’s left for the cops to do? Investigate property crimes and assault and battery cases and the occasional terrorist act.

    I figure you could reduce our department down to maybe 150 people. Taking 450 cops off the streets just in my little berg would be interesting. Think about how much it costs for each of them. I’d say on average about $100,000 per cop. So the budget would drop from $60,000,000 per year to $15,000,000 per year. Just imagine what you could do with the money you saved.

  • slappy

    It was only a matter of time until some dumb ass activist starts crying about searching for the last Boston Bomber. No one knew if he had bombs strapped to himself. I didn’t see one activist assisting the police in the search of the guys who set off the bombs. When the gun fight erupted, I didn’t see or hear of any activists assisting the police. They have nothing to bitch about.

  • dougo

    terrorist caught by police,caught terrorizing public.wrong on both sides.

  • Ariel

    slappy, you reach the nadir of logicity. I would point out activists don’t wear a vest like in Castle, substituting “Activist” for “Writer”. I would also point out that no dentists, physical therapists, or chiropractors aided in the search, nor did they participate in any gunfight. They have nothing to bitch about either.

    In a Republic, no one can bitch unless they took an active part. They should remain silent. Oh, wait, if they took an active part does that make them activists?

  • http://yahoo Alvin

    I have kept a close eye on the Boston drama with a feeling of curiosity and horror. I was very curious to note that a liberal city so full of hatred for the Patriot Act and have for several years now screamed about how the govt. is encroaching upon their rights, totally rolled over for the police in this instance. Where were the “You ain’t coming into my house without a warrant”? Where were the “Screw you. You don’t have the authority to restrict me to/from my home”? Libs/Commies, either you beleive what you spout and are committed to upholding that which you claim, or you are nothing more than a screaming child. How are you able to argue your beliefs when we see that you aren’t willing to suffer for them? I am horrified at the “Roll Over” this liberal city performed in the face of a little adversity. Either stand up for your rights, or shut up about the “Growing Govt.”.

  • Matt

    slappy, YOU STATIST PIG. I would rather have 1 “suspect” on the loose than an entire Major city SHUT DOWN under Martial Law with streets becoming a War Zone under patrols. How many American citizens had guns trained on them Friday?

    You cant do YOUR FUCKING job properly, so YOU trample the Constitutional Rights of everyone in a given area.

  • Common Sense

    Roughly 750,000 sworn officers in the US.

    Of that, take out non-patrol, detective, sergeants, lt’s, captains etc. and you have around 600,000.

    Of that, take a 1/3rd, for shift work, so at a given time, there are around 200,000 cops working 3,000,000 sqare miles, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.

    In the US, there are approximately 250,000,000 adults, those over 18.

    Sorry, not a police state.

  • Common Sense

    Martial law wasn’t not declared/imposed in Boston.

  • Matt

    “common sense” Any portion of the country at anytime YOU choose can be transformed into one. Friday proved that. 1 person threw an entire city into martial law, at the convenience of politicians and law enFORCEment.

    Friday also proved door to door searches/confiscations are completely possible.

  • Matt

    It sure as hell was imposed. Look at the freaking videos and pictures. It WAS Iraq on the streets of Watertown.

  • Edward Damiata

    Hind sight is always 20/20. It’s very easy to see Boston under Martial Law and be outraged especially if you were no where near Boston when it all went down. We did not know how many enemy combatants were at large and we did not know what their araments capabilites were. For public safety the ‘shelter in place’ was broadcast. Our police officials acted effectively and prudently.

  • slappy

    Matt you are just a pure dumb ass. The people of Boston worked together and and let the police alone to do their jobs. I realize you would have hidden the bomber because that is just how stupid you are. But the even is over. The brothers were caught. The patriot act was there believe me.
    Why don’t strap some explosives on yourself and hide in your basement loser.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Common Sense is starting to go “pseudo cop” again from the metal shop. Must be a slow day in blue collar land.

  • ishkabibble

    Hooray Sloppery Slope!

    Austin Powers [in Goldmember]: [after he causes the Britney Spears fembot to explode] Oops. I did it again, baby. Words never rang so true.

    Skippy, where do you get your positions? Or rather blind allegiance to those we place in authority. ‘Princess’ Ariel, hit’s the nail on the head, we’re all for open and honest discussions, however the “nadir of logicity” you posit, is always promoting the audacity of authority. Regardless of right or wrong.

    We American’s, Activists, Chiropractors, Hair Stylists, LGBT, Straights, Mormon’s, Buddhists, Statist Pigs, Palin’s, Kardashian’s, Belieber’s, etc… have a right, nay a responsibility to review, evaluate, and manage how far WE choose to allow those we place in authority to go.

    Was the response in Boston over the top? It’s a question we as a nation need to ponder, and debate. In a government of and by the people, this must occur.

  • certain

    Comoron Sense the douch-potato strikes again with his “out of my ass” statistics.

    According to http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_74.html

    As of 2009, total LEO is in excess of 1 million. 4 years and much governmental paranoia later, probably closer to 1.5.

  • certain

    Know a lot about strapping things on there, slappy?

  • Shawn


    Ariel is correct in that your apparent view that “only those who are policing have any right to a say in how it is done”, is nonsense. The police work for the public, their actions affect the public, and they can not be an island unto themselves for deciding what is and isn’t acceptable. We live in a free society and cops have to answer to that. They don’t have to take the job if they don’t want the scrutiny involved.
    The police will always choose more power any time you give them the choice.

    That said, the hunt for this guy was not some SWAT for a grab bag of pot. This was an atypical situation that was highly dangerous. You can’t look at this and call it routine.

  • Common Sense

    Lakewood, woman, go make me a sandwich…men are talking here.

    Maybe your husband lets you push him around, but where I come from, women know their place…

  • slappy

    Shawn, the PD works in the public. To think that you should be able to determine what their job description and how they do their jobs is ludacris at best. Guess what, 4.3 million people of Boston say you are wrong. The officers did their jobs. Armchair quarterback coach potatoes do have a clue about police work or what it entails. Listing to these activists they get most of their bull shit from TV programs.

  • Common Sense

    2010, BLS shows 790,000 people employed as “police officer” but certainly, if you want to cite numbers from 4 years ago, by all means.

  • Common Sense

    Matt has no idea what ‘Marshall law’ is, only that it sounds catchy…

  • Shawn


    You apparently didn’t read. I have no issue with what went down in Boston.

    My issue is your idiotic belief that only cops can decide what cops can or can’t do. Do you have any idea how absurd that is? Cops, if allowed, will decide they can do ANYTHING.
    You clearly have no concept of what it means to live in a civil society. Clue, government and its organs answer to the public. And the public has every right to question and call out police behavior.

    “The officers did their jobs. Armchair quarterback coach potatoes do have a clue about police work or what it entails.”
    That argument isn’t even relevant. All that is relevant is that cops are answerable to society for what they do and how they do it. Anything else is North Korea or China.
    And I can easily counter that cops have no clue as to the harmful affect they have on the public because it isn’t them.

  • slappy

    Shawn, the police officers follow their protocols. Protocols are just a pathway. They have to decide which pathway they are going to take and along that path they need to make critical decisions that just aren’t going to appease everyone. They aren’t out there to make friends. They are doing their jobs. They chose to be police officers. IF you think you can do it better then become a police officer. All of these gutless wonder activists think they can always do it better and know more than the officers but they aren’t proving it. I want to see them in action being a police officer otherwise all of the rants and paranoid delusions are just that.

  • ishkabibble

    Hooray Sloopy!

    Austin Powers: That ain’t no woman! It’s a man, man!

    Silly Slippy, the PD works for the public. The concept that the public determines what the LEO “job description is”, and how they do their jobs is real, and does happen. It’s addressed by the public’s elected representatives, you Slippy Nippy, you. It’s called civics.

    As for “oversight” (um, what you refer to as “Armchair quarterbacking”), that’s the responsibility of the government of we the people, as well. Let’s see we’re currently debating whether or not to mirandize this kid, who is an American Citizen, as well as overzealous Pols who want to move forward with “enemy combatant” status. So yeah, thankfully, there will be oversight and review, Sloopy.

  • Matt

    Edward Dementia…

    “We did not know how many enemy combatants were at large and we did not know what their araments capabilites were.”


    The ONE 19 year old kid is an American citizen!

    I am sick and tired of so called “law enforcement” using the Constitution as some kind of low grade ass wipe.

    If your “LEO” trolls are representative of all, this Country is toast as any form of FREE society.

  • Shawn


    I don’t see what any of that has to do with your apparent belief that cops are a law unto themselves. Everything they do, every power they possess, is strictly at the sufferance of society.
    They answer, and must answer, to society for everything they do. Anything else is called a rogue organization. Now, I get that they don’t like public oversight. Who would? But this is still a civil society, not a dictatorship.

    Before the advent of mass media, cops got real used to doing a lot of things and burying it. Now, with cameras in our phones and the ability to spread information without having to wait for the regular media to be interested, the ability to bury their mistakes and bad choices is dying.

    Too many things they thought were fine because no one knew what they were doing are now becoming public.


    Does anyone here live in Boston? Anyone “bothered” by the police at thier home in Boston. Pretty easy to criticize and complain from your comfortable chair miles away…..verses being in a house blocks away from where some nut job…who blew people up, shot some cops, car jacked someone, threw bombs out and pursuing officers…..who is hiding…somewhere.

    Odd how people in Boston cheer for the police…Thier OWN police for catching the fuck before he killed anyone else.. But the internet tough guys think different.

  • deepelemblues

    Geez, they didn’t know where the guy was. They thought he was inside their perimeter but they weren’t sure. He’d already engaged in throwing bombs during a car chase and shooting hundreds of rounds in a residential neighborhood. What if he’d slipped their perimeter and killed 20 people at an intersection in downtown Boston the next morning, would CopBlock be praising the police for not telling Bostonians to go indoors? No, you’d be going apeshit over the police’s incompetence. This site didn’t used to be a place where police couldn’t win no matter what. Now it is.

  • RadicalDude

    Radical Dude says:
    April 21, 2013 at 7:00 am

    It’s my way or the highway. I am an extreme liberal.

    ^^^The above quote is from the impostor who has been impersonating me.

    Ariel says:
    April 21, 2013 at 5:55 am

    “Superstition” doesn’t mean what you think it does, nor does “programmed”.


    quoted from Ariel:
    The acceptance of authority over some areas is a social contract made

    5. Who are you alleging are the parties to that contract, and
    6. what evidence is there of a “contract”?

  • RadicalDude

    Noun 1. superstition – an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
    superstitious notion
    belief – any cognitive content held as true

    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
    1. unfounded belief
    2. myth, story, belief, legend, old wives’ tale, notion

  • Aaron

    The Founding Fathers had to put up with EXACTLY this kind of shit – Redcoats ransacking from house to house with impunity – and said, “We don’t want this bullshit for our country.” Now, 200-some years, later, their offspring, the people for whom the FF stood up against a tyrant and fought that great war, just pussied up and took it. Way to go, cowards of Boston! You certainly are a beacon of inspiration for freedom in this country. Pussies…

    Hey, slappy, you’re no better than a redcoat. Go fuck yourself, you tyrant.

  • RadicalDude

    I am using the term as per the definition given above, taken from


    or in the sense of this definition, from




    belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. T

  • Radical Dude

    Definition of PROGRAM
    4: to predetermine the thinking, behavior, or operations of as if by computer programming


  • Radical Dude

    3: a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Hey, “t”, another game of “scuff the tard”:


    4’11” down syndrome kid. 2 deputies beat him with truncheons. His crime? He didn’t know the answer to their question about something he wasn’t involved in.

    So glad no officers were hurt. Officer Safety (TM) trumps all.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    And you wonder why people hate your kind?

  • Josh

    The best part is that it wasn’t the police that first person to find him and he was only found after martial law was lifted by a person who noticed him. Oh and before the badge lickers claim it wasn’t martial law and want to argue word semantics, it might not be technically martial law because it wasn’t offically declared. That said people were restricted greatly in their movements, illegal searches were conducted and people were forced to stay in their homes, so pretty much sounds like martial law. It’s like how we don’t call any of our current wars a war but we all know what it really is.

  • YankeeFan

    I think this comment from a random person on the topic, “Has martial law been declared”, sums it up best:

    No. Residents have been asked to stay indoors with their doors locked, but it’s a voluntary request. No one is being arrested for being outside.

    Personally, If I, as a married man, had to be asked to stay indoors and to keep my family safe, I would be to damn stupid to live. Police were advising heavily to stay in as that offered the best protection for their safety. If the people of Boston bitch then ok. If not, who are we in California, where I am to say shit about what happened there. The police did it right and no reports that rights were violated. So far I say….well done civil authorities!

  • Kevin

    Bostonians were cowards to allow this occupation! Especially when this was a false flag to test the waters. The waters say it’s nice and warm for the jew rats to come out and take away your rights.

  • Kevin

    Here we’d hunt the de facto government thugs down and end their miserable jew shill lives!

  • Kevin

    The de facto government thugs create a false flag and tell you citizens who pay their salary to stay indoors for their own protection! Smith and wesson will take care of any fears brought on by this jew government!

  • Libertymike

    In a free society, there are no special rules for the king and his men, including the oinkers.

  • Josh

    @YankeeFan While no one was arrested for going outside they were harrased they had guns pointed at them and were forced to answer many questions before they could go on their way. This would happen so many times that it made it pretty much impossible to leave. The searchs were involuntry as well. I have a ton of friends that live in boston. One of my friends did try and refuse to allow the police to search his home. The police forced their way into his home and both him and his girlfriend were put into handcuffs while they conducted the search. Now most of my friends allowed their homes to be searched and they said the cops were polite.

    I am not really trying to bash cops here since they are just doing their job and most are good guys. The system is fucked up though that allowed this to happen. The suspect wasn’t even found during the “martial law” so how much good did this do, and was it worth giving up our 4th amendment?

  • YankeeFan


    What you describe is anecdotal evidence. Not saying wrong but just what I said. I would have said before you commented if asked, yes, I am sure some police did violate citizens rights under the 4th. No doubt some police were under mistaken belief this was some mass exigency, which it was not. I also do not believe in an ends justifies the means. with that said, there are by far more examples out there, if you asked around, of citizens saying no and police moving on, other wise you would have a serious constitutional issues. In anything this large you are going to have those kinds of issues and if what you say happened then it appears that would be a violation as citizens, even though there appeared to be restrictions, did not give up right one in the interest of justice.

  • YankeeFan

    I found this little snipet and here is what it says:

    In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites

    To you Josh, I am willing to bet a very high % of citizens were asked and said yes go ahead and I am willing to bet the searches lasted very quickly as in a room to room peeks open a closet kind of thing. If the police really were, however, just entering and claiming exigency, we will see lawsuits as citizens value rights more than anything else but we will see. Personally I would have a hard time believing a court would claim this as a mass exigency and would not find in favour of the police if they did do that on a mass scale but we will see!!

  • Josh

    Ok that is a fair point that it could just be a few cops making mistakes since I only know of one case. In these few cases those those officers need to be punished though or their superiors if they gave them wrong information. If people voluntarily let police into their homes that is their right. I hadn’t heard of anyone saying no and not being searched but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I really hope that was the case more then people being searched without cause.

    Now the whole thing about people having to stay in their homes was a big issues too. Like I said I have a ton of friends in Boston area and if they did leave their homes they were stopped asked a battery of questions and patted down in many cases. This was illegal at most the cops could ask them who they were, get identification and make sure they were not the suspect. This should have taken 5 minutes at tops but many people were detained for 30 minutes. Also people driving would be stopped and have their vehicles searched even if they said no.

    So maybe not all cops were enforcing martial law but there were some that were doing just that and so there should be some ramifications for this which I highly doubt will happen.

  • YankeeFan

    Also this in another link:

    Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don’t have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn’t necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause.

    It seems unlikely that many residents of Watertown felt like exploring that particular legal nuance by refusing the police entry. Nor is it not clear if any did; a spokesman for the Watertown police department didn’t answer a question to that effect. It is clear that doing so would have required a great deal of courage. The conservative blog Poor Richard’s News transcribes a YouTube video that has since been removed.

    The gentleman here (if you can call him that) notes that both times his house was searched the law enforcement officers “asked” permission to do so, but he didn’t feel like he had much of a choice as the police team had guns pointed at his face. On the one hand, he expresses relief that the terrorist was caught and that he’s still alive, but he seems to struggle with questions about whether the police action was appropriate.

    The ACLU would like to hear from the person in that video. Rose said that the organization had received a number of concerned comments from people about the searches that took place, including some from residents of Watertown. None, however, from people whose homes had been searched. (The Watertown police spokesperson, Michael Lawn, wasn’t able to say how many homes had been searched, saying only it was “a lot.” When asked if that was because the FBI was leading on the effort, Lawn indicated that it was just because it was “hard to tell.”)

    Calling the searches “a fourth amendment question that wouldn’t change whether or not the shelter-in-place” was in effect, Rose explained that the organization’s hands were tied. “We’re concerned about any precedent that this might set,” Rose said. “and are interested in hearing from people whose rights may have been violated.”

    The day’s searches were themselves not without precedent. Following the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1998, authorities searched the woods of North Carolina. Earlier this year, cabins near Big Bear Lake, California, were searched in the hunt for Christopher Dorner. Neither of those incidents involved as many homes or as much media attention, nor did either occur in heavily populated residential communities. And, as with Friday’s hunt, they were likely perfectly legal.

    “Courts look at it differently when there’s a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search,” the ACLU’s Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.

    The images from Watertown were scenes from a movie brought to life. Heavily armed and armored law enforcement officials knocking on doors with rifle-toting backup. But there’s no reason to assume it was an infringement of civil liberties. “We’re trying to get facts on the ground of what really happened,” Rose said. Unless they do, what happened in Watertown was just an extreme example of law enforcement at work.

  • Shawn

    “The gentleman here (if you can call him that) notes that both times his house was searched the law enforcement officers “asked” permission to do so, but he didn’t feel like he had much of a choice as the police team had guns pointed at his face.”

    I have a big problem with that. Cops are too cavalier with pointing guns at people on the most minute reasons. Point one at a cop, and they all get huffy about it. After all, that is dangerous. Accidents happen that way. Only, it isn’t an accident. It is incompetence and negligence. If it were punished as such, cops would quickly remember basic gun safety.
    Only one person in the entire city was a threat to them. And it only takes a moment to look at a person and realize it isn’t him.

    Seriously, how would you cops like having guns pointed at your faces? The idea a little upsetting?

  • YankeeFan

    After watching this video I must ask, is this what we must go through in the interest of justice. Police yelling at citizens, guns pointed, being frisked. Tell me police officer types, does this set a dangerous precedent? How many of you cops and supporters of police would want to be treated like this, even in a situation like this.


  • Jean

    @ slappy April 21, 2013 at 9:48 am
    Slappy, as you define things, it was an activist that found the suspect. Moron.
    Also, SO WHAT if the suspect had a bomb strapped to him? Does FORCING HIS HAND INSIDE A BUILDING PREVENT HIM FROM DETONATING? Was that a quiet no? Thought so… Such an event would kill more people.
    Moron again.

    @ common sense: Changing the name doesn’t change the effect. A rose by any other name woudl smell as sweet, if you recall. Calling a rose horse shit doesn’t make it smell like shit, it’s still a rose. Calling martial law “Shelter in Place” doesn’t change the fact that there are cops everywhere, armed with “assault rifles” we citizens aren’t allowed to own, conducting door-to-door searches for someone they believe is armed and dangerous, and might have a bomb – so they’re going to back him into a corner and MAKE SURE he has no choice but to blow himself (and them!) up…? BRILLIANT! Not to mention he may kill others along the way now…
    Further, the police were happy to abuse ANYONE in the area, matching the description or not. INCLUDING news reporters, cameramen, etc. I guess even if you’re an asian woman, you look like a 19-year-old Chechen.

    WHO DO YOU THINK YOU’RE FOOLING? That’s like saying Dorner looked like two women delivering newspapers!

    @deepelemblues April 22, 2013 at 1:01 am:
    Given that what the police DID in no way contributed to actually FINDING him? Your logic is beyond worthless. Now, if a cop had actually FOUND him, you might have a leg to stand on – MIGHT. But let’s say he IS guilty, and DID escape. Waht would you say then, if he did in fact kill 20 more people at an intersection? Yell at Cop Block for “interfering”? In a case where the authorities CROWDSOURCED the photos of the suspects? Seems the authorities didn’t have a clue, then made it worse by enforcing their will, unopposed, on a complacent populace.

    Now, wouldn’t the person who tipped off the police actually be an ACTIVIST for law and order?

  • http://yahoo Alvin


    Nice logic. Keep up the good work.

  • Ariel

    Hi, Radical Dude,

    The problem is that dictionaries aren’t equal. Here from Merriam-Webster (roughly the best on the web without going to OED): Superstition
    1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
    b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
    2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

    Notice that the first requires overall a supernatural component. The second definition ties best to bigot. This “an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear” is a really, really poor definition of superstition or its derivative superstitious.

    Bigot, by M-W: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” might be the better word. The problem is of course that the word has been tied to “especially” sex, race, ethnicity, or religion (it’s original sense). I have dictionaries going back to the 1930’s where the word is used in it’s pristine sense.

    The belief that Police are necessary is experiential; that it must be by government may have been settled by the Pinkertons, but if not, Blackwater should give pause.