Thanks for asking. I’m suggesting that when stories like this are told by that particular source, then the source should be considered, including its veiled motivations. Yes, it’s another horrible story of police abuse, but the source is promulgating this story and many others like it because they feed aversions to state power in general, and thus, ultimately, to unified, purposeful collectivism in general. It’s a form of propaganda, meant to help with atomizing the proles, which then makes their ultimate goal, privatization, all that much easier.
Just look at the funders behind Reason; why else would they be happy with such anti-“Nanny State” stories?
Ah yes, blame the messager for the message. Perhaps you could comment on George Soros and other huge liberal donors on poltics ?? Last time I heard, we ALL had free speech, but I haven’t checked the Federal Register lately. . .
So, talking about abuses of power by officers of the executive branch… Helps the enemy?
Is that what you’re saying? That it’s anti progressive to notice how not uncommon these stories are?
I’m not sure how else to parse your contribution.
Edit: due to the convoluted comment system it took me 5 clicks to determine your comment is focused at reason magazine. Yeah, they suck, but not as much as these cops.
i bet you’ve never been raped and i wasn’t either. An involuntary invasive medical procedure, as degrading and disgusting as it may be, never comes even close to beeing raped. Ask anybody affected by rape.
Another kicker - apparently (from the discussion I heard on the radio regarding this), the police took him to a hospital in the neighboring county for these procedures. Thing is, the warrant was only valid for the county it was issued in, and not in the county the procedures took place in. Not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like this, combined with the fact that the first hospital they took him to refused to carry out their request on ethical grounds, removes any claims that the doctors involved might have that they had no choice in the matter.
I don’t know, having something forced up your butt against your will sounds like rape to me. Does it REALLY matter if it was a penis or a proctoscope ? I always thought of rape as violation of your person without your consent. And, especially in this case, under color of law.
I have a friend whose daughter was “nurse-raped”, by the forced insertion of an ultra-sonic probe. The nurse lost her license and is now spending time in a low-quality state housing facility. . .
I see that the dog was ~2 yrs past his calibration date… I guess that the drug sniffing dogs are required to undergo annual re-certification and Leo was a couple years overdue.
What are Reason’s “veiled” motivations? It seems to me that Reason is very clear about what it supports and what it doesn’t. I’m not a libertarian and I disagree with Reason about lots of things, the same way I disagree on lots of things with Salon and Boing Boing and every other media group, along with all of my friends and relatives. And when it comes to civil rights, foreign policy, and criminal justice, Reason is much, much more liberal than the Democratic Party.
The two most prominent editors at Reason have both expressed support for social safety nets and environmental regulation, praising the Clean Air and Water Acts. Matt Walsh wrote an essay about how much better healthcare is in France than in the U.S… These are hardly radical objectivists.
The knee-jerk response by many on the left to Reason is identical to the responses one sees on the right (at places like Free Republic and Red State) towards anyone expressing a liberal idea. There’s a reflexive exaggeration and misrepresentation of the goals and motivations, followed by very confident moral judgments of character about people they’ve never met.
Police brutality and the violation of civil rights is a much, much bigger problem than the fact that everyone who agrees on this doesn’t agree on everything else.
