For the life of me, I can not figure out why a review of traffic stop statistics could provide race-baiters with solid information showing cops are “illegally” racial profiling. Oh wait, I know. They can use the statistics collected – no matter how valid they are – to show a “disparity” they can use in a headline.
In the real world, people actually take a few minutes to review proposed legislation instead of blindly accepting the opinion of someone else – and broadcasting that third-party description on your TV program. I guess Bill O’Reilly does not live in the real world.
Recently, the Connecticut ACLU has been squawking about the fact that they can’t get racial profiling data from the police.
According to the CT News Junkie site, the Conn. ACLU is protesting that “there was a failure and refusal to fulfill the obligations” of the Alvin Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act. According to this site, “Under the legislation passed in 1999, municipal police departments were supposed to report traffic stop data to the state on an annual basis. The data was then going to be analyzed for racial profiling.” Both the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and the Office of Policy and Management oppose the law on the basis that it is a de facto unfunded mandate, and that they do not have the money or manpower to fulfill the obligations of this law.
So the Democrat controlled legislature and the ACLU want money and manpower spent to “police the police” if you will, under the presumption that the police are guilty before proven innocent?
Ironically, or typically, if you prefer, the government routinely commit acts of “do as I say, not as I do” when it comes to racial profiling: federal and state governments routinely practice racial profiling through racial quotas, hiring practices and “affirmative action”. In each case, a potential employee is assessed racially, and in many cases, assessed differently with a bias towards specific (not all, mind you) minority groups, better known as “protected groups”. The fairly recent decision by the U.S. Supreme court decision against the city of New Haven (who would have guessed?) and for the firefighters who were unfairly discriminated against demonstrated that the liberal talk a good game of “equal opportunity” but when the results don’t go the way they want, they will default to the cherished liberal goal of equality of result. To hell with hiring the best candidates: if the standards have to be lowered for any person or group, then that is tacit admission that they did not meet those standards. Discrimination in the workplace cannot be remedied by discrimination in the testing/selection of candidates.
So racial profiling is “bad” when practiced in the interests of catching criminals, but “acceptable”, even preferred, when hiring to “increase diversity” or meet some racial quota? Hmmm. Do I detect another double standard from the Bizarro world of Democrats?
The left talks (propagandizes, actually) a good game of equality, usually while simultaneously accusing conservatives of being racist (an act of purest psychological projection), but the theory keeps turning out to be racist in practice. Put the Penn Act in the same category as Connecticut’s motorcycle helmet law and let the cops do their job.
This is just too much. How a wizard of smart can appear on a Sunday Morning Talk show to talk about illegal immigration and not have read the law. I love Kirsten Powers because she is generally pragmatic, but clearly when you get into a smack down with Brit Hume, you had better know your stuff. Or, in this case, did she know her stuff but rather exposed her bias? Read more