Jacob Lew is the Obama Administration's Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He was also the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Lew recently wrote that "[L]ooking into the next two decades, Social Security does not cause our deficits . . . Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing . . . the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years."
This is either a blatant attempt to mislead the taxpayer public or it is an outright lie.
In the OMB official commentary on President Clinton's budget for Fiscal Year 2000, Mr. Lew's office wrote on page 337 of Analytical Perspectives that:
"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits."
It is well known that Social Security is not currently self-financing and will not be in the future so long as the current system remains in place. The plain facts are that the Social Security shortfall for 2010 was $37 billion and the projected shortfall for the next 10 years is $547 billion. So, absent changes in the nature of the entitlement program that is Social Security, the only scenario where the Social Security trust fund will "have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years." is if China and the rest of the world agrees to loan us the money.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Mr. Quarter Knows Some People Like This
David Brooks of the New York Times opins that the sense of self-importantance that many in America have may be detrimental! I know people like this - especially relatives. A partial excerpt of this particlularly insightful piece is as follows:
"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.
I wonder if the rise of consumption and debt is in part influenced by people’s desire to adorn their lives with the things they feel befit their station. I wonder if the rise in partisanship is influenced in part by a narcissistic sense that, “I know how the country should be run and anybody who disagrees with me is just in the way.”
Most pervasively, I wonder if there is a link between a possible magnification of self and a declining saliency of the virtues associated with citizenship.
Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project.
Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.
It’s possible, in other words, that some of the current political problems are influenced by fundamental shifts in culture, involving things as fundamental as how we appraise ourselves. Addressing them would require a more comprehensive shift in values.
"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.
I wonder if the rise of consumption and debt is in part influenced by people’s desire to adorn their lives with the things they feel befit their station. I wonder if the rise in partisanship is influenced in part by a narcissistic sense that, “I know how the country should be run and anybody who disagrees with me is just in the way.”
Most pervasively, I wonder if there is a link between a possible magnification of self and a declining saliency of the virtues associated with citizenship.
Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project.
Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.
It’s possible, in other words, that some of the current political problems are influenced by fundamental shifts in culture, involving things as fundamental as how we appraise ourselves. Addressing them would require a more comprehensive shift in values.
Monday, March 7, 2011
And Now, Mr. Quarter's Quote of the Week
"Anyway, while I was taking in the bizzaroland that is South Beach, I began to feel better about my life; that although it has its trials, at least I wasn’t the over-tanned guy who just passed us on a unicycle in Daisy Dukes wearing a white python around his neck and stinking worse than an anchovy’s crotch."
Doug Giles
Doug Giles
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mr. Quarter Opines on Historical Nature of Marriage
Since before humans became sentient and walked upright, they have paired with mates. The reasons were probably self-apparent in the beginning – protection, and to conceive and raise offspring propagating the species. The basic and primary rationales haven’t changed much in thousands of years.
But, as time passed and humans became for populous, the urgency of propagating the species diminished as an individual endeavor. The primary rationale was expanded by new needs. Very early, we humans developed the concept of property and began to acquire items of individual private property that had inherent value in those respective early cultures. Consequently and concurrently the need arose to identify for the local community who should be the legitimate recipient of our accumulated property at the time of our demise. The legitimate offspring of a union with a mate needed to be recognized as one’s own blood and inheritor, and only formal recognition of the exclusivity of that union provided that indisputable recognition.
Thus did the institution of marriage arise as a means of signaling to the community and society at large that the children of our unions are the rightful inheritors of our property upon our death. In earliest times, marriage was simply recognition by the elders and leaders of the local social group that two persons were mates. It lacked the formalities that we would associate with a marriage today, but was nevertheless just as binding. This recognition by the clan, village, or tribe made taboo sexual congress outside of that union, thus ensuring that the offspring were truly of the married partner’s blood. Thus the historical emphasis in almost all cultures on the virginity of women until marriage. Of course, there came various and sundry obligations that inured to each party as a result of their union such as protection, providing food and shelter, implied consent to sexual intercourse, and the like – all of which were important to the stability and function of that society. But the single most important aspect of that union and its recognition was to recognize the property rights of the offspring.
This was the driving rationale for marriage, but it became even more important as cultures advanced. Eventually, not only real property but social status became inheritable, culminating in the titles and rank of the feudal systems that sprang up in cultures worldwide. As the importance of the exclusivity of the union and the need for certainty of familial heritage of offspring increased, so did the recognition of the union evolve into ever more formal symbols and ceremonies. Obviously, this formal recognition reached its apex with the advent of religion and the ceremonial entreaties to a deity to recognize the union. After all, if the union is divinely recognized, then what mortal man could dare deny the bond?
A second important function of marriage was to acquire property. In cultures worldwide, marriages were acts to consolidate two families property, whether material or title. Kings wed to cement alliances or acquire new lands of dominion. Bushmen in Africa wed to gain cattle as a dowry. Families gained a worker. It was functionally about economic gain.
The factual record demonstrates that has marriage evolved to be integral to the economics of property, its acquisition and the transfer to our inheritor descendants. The origin, nature and fundamental value of marriage was unrelated to the notion of romantic love. In fact, romantic love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new phenomenon arising in the 20th century.
Today, the argument rages over gay marriage and whether it homosexuals should be granted the “right” to marry. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate between themselves, lacking the full complement of genetic material necessary to achieve that goal, in the historical context there is no logical argument to support gay marriage. The heritage of children born to a homosexual couples cannot be validated in the eyes of society as can children born to a heterosexual couples. But, you may say, what about an adopted child? Of course you may designate you adopted child as the inheritor of your property via a last will and testament. Marriage is not a prerequisite for either adoption of a child or to designate a person as your heir.
So you are now screaming that Mr. Quarter is a homophobe! No. Mr. Quarter is not a homophobe. Mr. Quarter favors civil unions between homosexual couples for all the reasons that are applied to the argument for marriage. But Mr. Quarter is on the side of 8,000 years of civilization history.
But, as time passed and humans became for populous, the urgency of propagating the species diminished as an individual endeavor. The primary rationale was expanded by new needs. Very early, we humans developed the concept of property and began to acquire items of individual private property that had inherent value in those respective early cultures. Consequently and concurrently the need arose to identify for the local community who should be the legitimate recipient of our accumulated property at the time of our demise. The legitimate offspring of a union with a mate needed to be recognized as one’s own blood and inheritor, and only formal recognition of the exclusivity of that union provided that indisputable recognition.
Thus did the institution of marriage arise as a means of signaling to the community and society at large that the children of our unions are the rightful inheritors of our property upon our death. In earliest times, marriage was simply recognition by the elders and leaders of the local social group that two persons were mates. It lacked the formalities that we would associate with a marriage today, but was nevertheless just as binding. This recognition by the clan, village, or tribe made taboo sexual congress outside of that union, thus ensuring that the offspring were truly of the married partner’s blood. Thus the historical emphasis in almost all cultures on the virginity of women until marriage. Of course, there came various and sundry obligations that inured to each party as a result of their union such as protection, providing food and shelter, implied consent to sexual intercourse, and the like – all of which were important to the stability and function of that society. But the single most important aspect of that union and its recognition was to recognize the property rights of the offspring.
This was the driving rationale for marriage, but it became even more important as cultures advanced. Eventually, not only real property but social status became inheritable, culminating in the titles and rank of the feudal systems that sprang up in cultures worldwide. As the importance of the exclusivity of the union and the need for certainty of familial heritage of offspring increased, so did the recognition of the union evolve into ever more formal symbols and ceremonies. Obviously, this formal recognition reached its apex with the advent of religion and the ceremonial entreaties to a deity to recognize the union. After all, if the union is divinely recognized, then what mortal man could dare deny the bond?
A second important function of marriage was to acquire property. In cultures worldwide, marriages were acts to consolidate two families property, whether material or title. Kings wed to cement alliances or acquire new lands of dominion. Bushmen in Africa wed to gain cattle as a dowry. Families gained a worker. It was functionally about economic gain.
The factual record demonstrates that has marriage evolved to be integral to the economics of property, its acquisition and the transfer to our inheritor descendants. The origin, nature and fundamental value of marriage was unrelated to the notion of romantic love. In fact, romantic love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new phenomenon arising in the 20th century.
Today, the argument rages over gay marriage and whether it homosexuals should be granted the “right” to marry. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate between themselves, lacking the full complement of genetic material necessary to achieve that goal, in the historical context there is no logical argument to support gay marriage. The heritage of children born to a homosexual couples cannot be validated in the eyes of society as can children born to a heterosexual couples. But, you may say, what about an adopted child? Of course you may designate you adopted child as the inheritor of your property via a last will and testament. Marriage is not a prerequisite for either adoption of a child or to designate a person as your heir.
So you are now screaming that Mr. Quarter is a homophobe! No. Mr. Quarter is not a homophobe. Mr. Quarter favors civil unions between homosexual couples for all the reasons that are applied to the argument for marriage. But Mr. Quarter is on the side of 8,000 years of civilization history.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Deuce Doesn't Do Egypt
I'm having a hard time taking the turmoil in Egypt too seriously. Why not? Well, I can't do anything about it, and neither can the U.S. Seriously, if the U.S. wants to somehow influence the political scene in Cairo how the hell are we going to do it? We'd need real tough guys who know how to talk to third world dictators and the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead of tough guys who understand the real world, we've got Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Kumbaya twins. Ewwwwww! Scary! So, it seems to me this is a 'let the chips fall where they may' moment in history. That being the case, let's look at the humorous side of it all.
Prince said it best. "Riot like it's 799." The Bangles are a close second with their hit, "Riot Like An E-gyp-tian."
This has got to be a first. Camels in a riot. In the 21st century. Don't tell me you didn't bust out laughing when you first saw the video. I mean the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to develop better non-lethal means of breaking up riots, when all the time the Egyptians had the perfect technology. "Allah save us! It's S.W.A.C! (special whips and camels).
Certainly the preferred methods of rioting vary around the world. In the U.S. the permanently deprived like trashing store fronts, looting, arson, overturning cars, taking shots at cops and beating innocent bystanders. In France, burning cars is all the rage. In India you can always count on an elephant to make a grand entrance or a Buddhist monk to immolate himself because the world is such a terrible place burning yourself to death seems the perfect answer and will turn the whole wide world into Shangra-La.
But in Egypt they like to relive the glory of the pharaohs and whip out some camel action. It must be hard on a people to know they're culture has been going down hill for four thousand years. I mean, what do they tell their kids to give them hope of a better tomorrow? "Don't worry son, it's just an isolated incident. The infidels can't last forever. Come on. Let's go see King Tut."
Don't get me wrong. I always wanted to visit Egypt; see the pyramids and King Tut and maybe even ride a camel. I hope they find a way to work out their problems and become stable and prosperous...just as long as they don't turn into a haven for every whack-job radical Islamist trying to give birth to the Twelfth Imam when they're not too busy hating Jews and America.
That would not be humorous.
Prince said it best. "Riot like it's 799." The Bangles are a close second with their hit, "Riot Like An E-gyp-tian."
This has got to be a first. Camels in a riot. In the 21st century. Don't tell me you didn't bust out laughing when you first saw the video. I mean the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to develop better non-lethal means of breaking up riots, when all the time the Egyptians had the perfect technology. "Allah save us! It's S.W.A.C! (special whips and camels).
Certainly the preferred methods of rioting vary around the world. In the U.S. the permanently deprived like trashing store fronts, looting, arson, overturning cars, taking shots at cops and beating innocent bystanders. In France, burning cars is all the rage. In India you can always count on an elephant to make a grand entrance or a Buddhist monk to immolate himself because the world is such a terrible place burning yourself to death seems the perfect answer and will turn the whole wide world into Shangra-La.
But in Egypt they like to relive the glory of the pharaohs and whip out some camel action. It must be hard on a people to know they're culture has been going down hill for four thousand years. I mean, what do they tell their kids to give them hope of a better tomorrow? "Don't worry son, it's just an isolated incident. The infidels can't last forever. Come on. Let's go see King Tut."
Don't get me wrong. I always wanted to visit Egypt; see the pyramids and King Tut and maybe even ride a camel. I hope they find a way to work out their problems and become stable and prosperous...just as long as they don't turn into a haven for every whack-job radical Islamist trying to give birth to the Twelfth Imam when they're not too busy hating Jews and America.
That would not be humorous.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Mr Quarter on THE NATIONAL DEBT
That feeling of disquiet and unease just seems to keep growing and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until today. Matt Patterson of Pajamas Media put words to my fears in his article today which I partially reproduce below:
"In this era of hyper-partisanship, it is comforting to know that there is one thing both parties have agreed upon — spending the nation into insolvency.
It is clear that $14 trillion is an amount is so astronomical as to be literally incomprehensible — beyond the ken of our formidable, if recently evolved, homo sapiens mind.
Unfortunately, that does not stop us from racking up such sums. Doubtless, the two phenomena are somehow related.
So deduct another $45,300 from your salary. That is what the national debt amounts to for every man, woman, and child in America. For a family of four with two small children and both parents working, that’s an additional $181,200 in family debt.
Few such families reckon this additional burden when they allocate their already-stretched resources. Yet reckon it they should, for national governments — despite our legal fictions to the contrary — are not autonomous entities. The money they spend and promise has in the end but one fount — the wallets and purses of individuals and families.
The government’s debt is our debt, and when our creditors at last demand their due, that heretofore unseen $45,300 per person in debt will suddenly surge to the surface and sweep all before it in a terrible deluge. Not one person in America will be unaffected. The rich will become less rich; the middle class will become, for all intents and purposes, poor; and the poor will see any hope they may have had of economic advancement disappear.
The deluge will come as a surprise to many. After all, cheap money and unlimited credit has given us the illusion of prosperity for all too long.
But ours is an inexcusable ignorance. For decades, the government has been spending our wealth — first everything we made, then everything we ever going to make, and now everything our children and their children will ever make. How future generations will judge us for the theft of their prosperity is not hard to guess.
America is not alone in this fiscally debased condition, of course. The rot is deep and widespread; it is civilizational. The entitlement promises made by national and local governments of the West are so vast that they can never be kept. When people finally and fully realize this, the capitals of the world will shake with the rage of masses which have come to expect everything, and will accept nothing less.
Indeed, it is already happening. The recent unrest in Greece, France, Britain, and elsewhere adumbrate our future rather nicely.
The reckoning is coming. It will be swift, and it will be terrible, and we will have only ourselves to blame."
The end is nigh.
"In this era of hyper-partisanship, it is comforting to know that there is one thing both parties have agreed upon — spending the nation into insolvency.
It is clear that $14 trillion is an amount is so astronomical as to be literally incomprehensible — beyond the ken of our formidable, if recently evolved, homo sapiens mind.
Unfortunately, that does not stop us from racking up such sums. Doubtless, the two phenomena are somehow related.
So deduct another $45,300 from your salary. That is what the national debt amounts to for every man, woman, and child in America. For a family of four with two small children and both parents working, that’s an additional $181,200 in family debt.
Few such families reckon this additional burden when they allocate their already-stretched resources. Yet reckon it they should, for national governments — despite our legal fictions to the contrary — are not autonomous entities. The money they spend and promise has in the end but one fount — the wallets and purses of individuals and families.
The government’s debt is our debt, and when our creditors at last demand their due, that heretofore unseen $45,300 per person in debt will suddenly surge to the surface and sweep all before it in a terrible deluge. Not one person in America will be unaffected. The rich will become less rich; the middle class will become, for all intents and purposes, poor; and the poor will see any hope they may have had of economic advancement disappear.
The deluge will come as a surprise to many. After all, cheap money and unlimited credit has given us the illusion of prosperity for all too long.
But ours is an inexcusable ignorance. For decades, the government has been spending our wealth — first everything we made, then everything we ever going to make, and now everything our children and their children will ever make. How future generations will judge us for the theft of their prosperity is not hard to guess.
America is not alone in this fiscally debased condition, of course. The rot is deep and widespread; it is civilizational. The entitlement promises made by national and local governments of the West are so vast that they can never be kept. When people finally and fully realize this, the capitals of the world will shake with the rage of masses which have come to expect everything, and will accept nothing less.
Indeed, it is already happening. The recent unrest in Greece, France, Britain, and elsewhere adumbrate our future rather nicely.
The reckoning is coming. It will be swift, and it will be terrible, and we will have only ourselves to blame."
The end is nigh.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Deuce and Cops
In the wake of the mass murder in Tucson I was struck by the repeated comments made by Pima County (Tucson) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (D). Before the shooting I don't recall ever having heard of Sheriff Dupnik, despite the fact that I was living in Tucson from 1977 to 1982 ( Dupnik first became Sheriff in 1980 ). Since the shooting we've all heard way too much from him. Listening to his rants regarding 'violent rhetoric' inciting crazed gunmen to go nuts and slaughter innocent people got me to thinking of good cops and bad cops. My first thought was that southern Arizona used to have lawmen like the Earps (R), the famous brothers who helped tame Tombstone, 'the town too tough to die', in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The trail from Earp to Dupnik is long, and unfortunately, depressing.
Sheriff Dupnik's comments are egregiously political ( Sheriff being an elected office in Pima County, like most other jurisdictions ) and have little to do with law enforcement. Dupnik is political to the point he refused to enforce the recently passed Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants. Nice that a law enforcement officer refuses to enforce the law because he thinks it's 'racist and bigoted', despite the fact that a majority of Arizona residents think it's perfectly fine.
But to my main thought. Who are the 'Best Cops.'
It's late on a Saturday night. You've been over at a friend's house watching the NFL playoffs with several friends. You've had a bit to drink over several hours and are borderline legally too drunk to be driving. You're a middle-aged man with no criminal record, or at worst one or two misdemeanor arrests 25 years ago when you were young and stupid. Now you're driving home. You're driving fine, but you're left tail light is out and you don't know it...but the cops do. They pull you over. Your license, registration and proof of insurance are all up to date and in order. You obey all the officer's commands and are courteous. The cop runs your license and plates and finds that you nor your vehicle are wanted, and that your driving record is clean over the last five years. Now, what kind of cop is he? Good or bad? Are you going home to bed, or are you going to jail?
Who are the cops you want to be dealing with? Cops with judgment; cops not looking to advance their careers by meeting arrest quotas or to jam you up just 'cause they're in a bad mood; cops with an ingrained understanding of human nature who know that good guys occasionally deserve a break and bad guys never deserve a break. In other words, cops who are looking for the seriously dangerous...the bad actors who kill, rob and rape...the guys who burglarize your home or entice little girls into their vans; guys with four previous DUIs; cops who don't want to waste everybody's time dealing with that which they can truly let slide with no danger to the general public.
By that criteria, here are my Best Cops. Note: Seriously dirty cops are disqualified, i.e. Training Day, The Shield, etc ( punching out lowlifes who 'resist arrest', sleeping with the occasional hooker or placing a bet on the big game are okay ). Overt parodies and/or comedies are also disqualified, i.e. Police Academy, Naked Gun. Western lawmen will be a separate poll.
1. Andy Sipowitz ( Dennis Franz, NYPD Blue ). Broken more laws than your average felon.
2. Jim Malone ( Sean Connery, The Untouchables ). No blood, no foul.
3. Axel Foley ( Eddie Murphy, Beverly Hills Cop ). Car thief before becoming a cop.
4. John McLain ( Bruce Willis, Die Hard, et al ). NYPD, no time for small fry.
5. Harry Calahan ( Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, et al). Robbery/Homocide, would never pull over any car for a tail light out.
6. Martin Riggs ( Mel Gibson, Lethal Weapon, et al ). Don't try and sell him drugs and you're cool.
7. Jack Cates ( Nick Nolte, 48 Hours, et al ). Too lazy to deal with your misdemeanor ass.
8. 'Popeye' Doyle ( Gene Hackman, The French Connection ). Driving 100 mph in the city "might" get his attention.
9. Frank Bullitt ( Steve McQueen, Bullitt ). Too cool to mess with your misdemeanor ass.
10. Mike Lowery ( Will Smith, Bad Boys, et al ). Too busy being entertained by his partner to mess with you.
Here are the Worst Cops.
1. Joe Friday ( Jack Webb, Dragnet ). Wouldn't cut God a break.
2. Robocop ( Peter Weller, Robocop ). Can't cut God a break.
3. Nicholas Angel ( Simon Pegg, Hot Fuzz ). God maybe, but Jesus gets busted.
4. Bud White ( Russell Crowe, L.A. Confidential ). Every arrest advances his career.
5. Freddy Heflin ( Sylvester Stallone, Copland ). The law is the law.
6. Frank Serpico ( Al Pacino, Serpico ). He'd like to cut you a break, but Internal Affairs is all over him.
7. Sam Gerrard ( Tommy Lee Jones, The Fugitive ). As he so famously said, "I don't care!"
8. Steve McGarret ( Jack Lord, Hawaii Five-O ). "Book 'em Danno" is just too easy.
9. Rick Deckard ( Harrison Ford, Blade Runner ). "The computer says you're busted...nothing I can do."
10. Vincent Hanna ( Al Pacino, Heat ). "You're busted just for wasting my time."
Here's to good cops. I've actually known a few. God bless 'em.
Sheriff Dupnik's comments are egregiously political ( Sheriff being an elected office in Pima County, like most other jurisdictions ) and have little to do with law enforcement. Dupnik is political to the point he refused to enforce the recently passed Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants. Nice that a law enforcement officer refuses to enforce the law because he thinks it's 'racist and bigoted', despite the fact that a majority of Arizona residents think it's perfectly fine.
But to my main thought. Who are the 'Best Cops.'
It's late on a Saturday night. You've been over at a friend's house watching the NFL playoffs with several friends. You've had a bit to drink over several hours and are borderline legally too drunk to be driving. You're a middle-aged man with no criminal record, or at worst one or two misdemeanor arrests 25 years ago when you were young and stupid. Now you're driving home. You're driving fine, but you're left tail light is out and you don't know it...but the cops do. They pull you over. Your license, registration and proof of insurance are all up to date and in order. You obey all the officer's commands and are courteous. The cop runs your license and plates and finds that you nor your vehicle are wanted, and that your driving record is clean over the last five years. Now, what kind of cop is he? Good or bad? Are you going home to bed, or are you going to jail?
Who are the cops you want to be dealing with? Cops with judgment; cops not looking to advance their careers by meeting arrest quotas or to jam you up just 'cause they're in a bad mood; cops with an ingrained understanding of human nature who know that good guys occasionally deserve a break and bad guys never deserve a break. In other words, cops who are looking for the seriously dangerous...the bad actors who kill, rob and rape...the guys who burglarize your home or entice little girls into their vans; guys with four previous DUIs; cops who don't want to waste everybody's time dealing with that which they can truly let slide with no danger to the general public.
By that criteria, here are my Best Cops. Note: Seriously dirty cops are disqualified, i.e. Training Day, The Shield, etc ( punching out lowlifes who 'resist arrest', sleeping with the occasional hooker or placing a bet on the big game are okay ). Overt parodies and/or comedies are also disqualified, i.e. Police Academy, Naked Gun. Western lawmen will be a separate poll.
1. Andy Sipowitz ( Dennis Franz, NYPD Blue ). Broken more laws than your average felon.
2. Jim Malone ( Sean Connery, The Untouchables ). No blood, no foul.
3. Axel Foley ( Eddie Murphy, Beverly Hills Cop ). Car thief before becoming a cop.
4. John McLain ( Bruce Willis, Die Hard, et al ). NYPD, no time for small fry.
5. Harry Calahan ( Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, et al). Robbery/Homocide, would never pull over any car for a tail light out.
6. Martin Riggs ( Mel Gibson, Lethal Weapon, et al ). Don't try and sell him drugs and you're cool.
7. Jack Cates ( Nick Nolte, 48 Hours, et al ). Too lazy to deal with your misdemeanor ass.
8. 'Popeye' Doyle ( Gene Hackman, The French Connection ). Driving 100 mph in the city "might" get his attention.
9. Frank Bullitt ( Steve McQueen, Bullitt ). Too cool to mess with your misdemeanor ass.
10. Mike Lowery ( Will Smith, Bad Boys, et al ). Too busy being entertained by his partner to mess with you.
Here are the Worst Cops.
1. Joe Friday ( Jack Webb, Dragnet ). Wouldn't cut God a break.
2. Robocop ( Peter Weller, Robocop ). Can't cut God a break.
3. Nicholas Angel ( Simon Pegg, Hot Fuzz ). God maybe, but Jesus gets busted.
4. Bud White ( Russell Crowe, L.A. Confidential ). Every arrest advances his career.
5. Freddy Heflin ( Sylvester Stallone, Copland ). The law is the law.
6. Frank Serpico ( Al Pacino, Serpico ). He'd like to cut you a break, but Internal Affairs is all over him.
7. Sam Gerrard ( Tommy Lee Jones, The Fugitive ). As he so famously said, "I don't care!"
8. Steve McGarret ( Jack Lord, Hawaii Five-O ). "Book 'em Danno" is just too easy.
9. Rick Deckard ( Harrison Ford, Blade Runner ). "The computer says you're busted...nothing I can do."
10. Vincent Hanna ( Al Pacino, Heat ). "You're busted just for wasting my time."
Here's to good cops. I've actually known a few. God bless 'em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
