32 Responses to “Thank you Chief Monroe”

1. posted by anon at December 13, 2007 11:15 am [#]:
   

   Yes, it’s funny to use racially-stereotyped names and make jokes about violence against women.

2. posted by cgoblen at December 14, 2007 10:46 am [#]:
   

   Presenting a painful truth in a humorous way makes it more palatable.

   Congrats to the author for raising awareness.

3. posted by anon at December 16, 2007 9:06 pm [#]:
   

   Palatable to whom? It’s not palatable to the folks I know who are stuck in that lifestyle, or who care about people who are.

4. posted by j at December 17, 2007 1:10 am [#]:
   

   Racially-stereotyped names and violence against women not funny? Wow, you must not have heard any stand-up comics in the past like 100 years.

5. posted by anon at December 17, 2007 9:20 am [#]:
   

   No, j, I avoid them. Because having friends who’ve experienced both racism and domestic violence & rape, I have a hard time finding the humor in those subjects. So no, I don’t watch stand-up comics whose jokes revolve around making light of those issues.

6. posted by C at December 17, 2007 12:33 pm [#]:
   

   I would have to agree with anon on this one. It is really hard to laugh at something so prevalent and pretty much taken as a typical experience for most women yet ignored and not taken seriously at the same time.

   Case in point: the term “wifebeater” to describe a simple tank top. The term makes lite of a very very serious issue for many women; just pay attention to the daily news and see how many women are killed/shot by their significant others.

7. posted by anon at December 17, 2007 6:57 pm [#]:
   

   An enlightening article on the prevalence of domestic abuse and how society ignores it can be found here:
   http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/082207WA.shtml

   The article analyzes pro sports leagues tolerance of athletes’ abuse of women, especially in light of the Michael Vick spectacle.

8. posted by archie bunker at December 18, 2007 8:47 am [#]:
   

   Wow. Satire is lost on some. The point of the piece was to emphasize that whatever the strides made by the police, they have not reached this particular segment of the community and that additional attention on these issues is deserved.

   Anon, I appreciate that you are passionate about this issue, but you don’t need to pretend that everyone else disagrees with you about the importance of it.

9. posted by anon at December 18, 2007 6:10 pm [#]:
   

   Was I pretending?

10. posted by Bright Eyes at December 18, 2007 9:08 pm [#]:
    

    Yeah, Archie, some people, including myself, are just too durned stooopid to find the artistic merit and value in this profound work of high literature. You’re right – this isn’t vulgar, salacious bullsh*t that fails to amuse or inform, because it’s packaged and perceived (by intellects far superior to my own) as “satire”. How could I be such an idiot?!

    Yep, I”m a regular dumbass – just fell off the turnip truck. Not only are the pimp & ho jokes okay, it’s okay to spit into the eyes of the men and women who serve in our police department after they reduce violent crime in our city, because they are presumably too damned stooopid to figure out for themselves what issues demand their additional attention without the help of this Nobel-caliber “satirist”.

    What is lost on me is how anyone could or would defend this garbage, but remember, I’m just another dumb Virgina redneck who can’t understand or appreciate “art”. I’m just a simpleton who is content to thank and congratulate Chief Malone and the RPD for a job well done.

    As for the author of this piece, the Constitution and your juvenile talent level guarantee that you can produce and publish crap. As for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for us on a daily basis, no good deed goes unpunished. As for those who defended this piece, well, you’re just too smart for me.

    DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH……….

11. posted by archie bunker at December 19, 2007 8:01 am [#]:
    

    OK, you may really believe that everyone else supports the victimization of women and the continued plight of the underclass generally, but that would be patently paranoid and neurotic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

12. posted by Bright Eyes at December 19, 2007 1:20 pm [#]:
    

    I don’t know about “anon”, Meathead, but your magnanimity just warms my soul. The way you refrained from coming right out and calling him/her a Moonbat surely makes you the paragon of restraint.

    I’ll tell ya what. While you’re up on your high horse dispensing the benefit of the doubt (trumpets, please!), I’ll climb up onto my own equid and give you the benefit of doubting that you make a habit of defending “satire” that mocks the men and women in our police department.

    As for the next time you think of gratuitously insulting the intelligence of one of the members of this forum, I would suggest that you resist the urge to do so while you’re making an ass out of yourself in the same breath. Certainly, you don’t want to keep falling on your own sword, do you?

13. posted by john_m at December 19, 2007 1:41 pm [#]:
    

    … that mocks the men and women in our police department.

    I’m hesitant to step into this one, but I’ve got to say that I didn’t get that from the post at all.

14. posted by archie bunker at December 19, 2007 3:56 pm [#]:
    

    Look, if you (anon and Bright Eyes) want to feel like you’ve been victimized by the article, or that the article is vulgar and salacious (etc.), or that I called you “stooopid” knock yourself out. My point was and is that I do not read the article that way. I see it as satire intended to point out the need to address the same social concerns that you obviously share.

    Having given this some more thought, though, I’ve changed my mind. I still think satire is a completely appropriate literary device. But now I’ve decided that I support the expansion of the pimp ‘n ho market across our fine city, because if a guy wants to get his freak on on his way home from church (for under $20) who am I to tell him “no”? And, I certainly support the entreprenneurial spirit that every pimp and every ho bring to this market segment. It’s an inspiration to us all.

    Come to think of it, I know of a run-down abandoned property at the corner of 27th and Marshall that could be used as a base for an enterprising young (or old) ho. Maybe if I call up the cops, they can put me in touch with one of the more upstanding pimps in the area who can make this happen. Whaddya say?

15. posted by mike at December 19, 2007 4:22 pm [#]:
    

    “The article analyzes pro sports leagues tolerance of athletes’ abuse of women, especially in light of the Michael Vick spectacle.”

    Were all the dogs female?

16. posted by C at December 19, 2007 4:45 pm [#]:
    

    She means how he got 23 months in jail for something related to “only dogs” when many players in the NFL, NBA, etc. have gotten zero time for putting their significant others in the hospital.

    And the leagues have not enforced any suspensions or punishment of any kind on or off the court either.

    Example: Kobe Bryant who got to play ball throughout the entire duration of his rape trial yet Michael Vick was suspended from the NFL indefinitely for gambling on “just dogs.”

17. posted by T.A. at December 19, 2007 5:12 pm [#]:
    

    The article should in no way, shape or form be taken as making a mockery of the men and women of our police force.

    It is simply a “different” (some say humorous, others, well, not…) way of saying that while crime is down (and that is good!), there are still parts of this city where work still needs to get done – such as prostitution. Everyone knows this already. Whether its growing or not, who knows, that was just meant to be a joke. Yes, we need to laugh.

    Bottom line: some crime remains a painful truth that still exists. Nothing to do with violence against women. Our police force is doing an excellent job (note the drop in yellow tape putter uppers/chalk outline illustrators at the end).

    As for racially-stereotyped names, there are names of all races in those posts – Jims, Johns, Andrews, Nicoles. And wasnt Napoleon Dynamite funny with “LaFawnduh”?

18. posted by mike at December 19, 2007 5:13 pm [#]:
    

    Obviously I was kidding…

    But let’s bring some facts into this little discussion…

    Kobe had one accuser and was eventually found innocent right? Vick had a Federal indictment against him. Dogs had nothing to do with why Vick was suspended… it was the gambling that got him the suspension, I don’t care what the NFL PR office says..

    And to use some report on the NFL to prove the “prevalence of domestic abuse and how society ignores” it is pretty weak. Is it prevalent in the NFL? Maybe, but this is a pretty limited (socially, racially, economically) control group to try and extrapolate to society as a whole.

19. posted by anon at December 19, 2007 5:44 pm [#]:
    

    Mike, if you’d read the article you’d know more than your comments show that you do.

    “But no one has been suspended in the NFL for spouse abuse or domestic violence, even though they’ve been arrested and convicted.”

    Same goes for Jason Kidd and Ron Artest in the NBA.

    I personally didn’t see the article as criticizing the police, though that’s an interesting interpretation (I’ll save police treatment of prostitution for my own blog). I’m just tired of the casualness of the “pimps and hos” language that obscures the real tragedy of those caught in that lifestyle and makes light of a serious situation. Perhaps if there was more communal attention and sympathy for the plight of prostitutes and other women who experience violence, then occaisonal satire wouldn’t bother me.

    And Celeste, I’m a white male :) Just have a lot of women friends who’ve experienced both racism and violence.

20. posted by elliot at December 19, 2007 8:46 pm [#]:
    

    Bright Eyes, in reference to post 10, paragraph 3, the cheif’s name is Monroe not Malone. I know it’s picky when compared with the other issues brought forward in this post but……….

21. posted by Celeste at December 19, 2007 9:22 pm [#]:
    

    anon at post #19 – I’m Celeste, yes, but I have not posted on this thread, have nothing to say on it (yet – other than this posting!) – the person posting as C is not me. Thanks anyway for thinking it was me!

22. posted by Celeste at December 19, 2007 9:32 pm [#]:
    

    Hmm, now that anon has my attention – Archie Bunker, I think you’ve got a good point. Coco should set up shop at 27th and Marshall! Since her former place of bidnez on Mosby Street is undergoing rehab, she obviously needs another place! (Where IS Coco these days, anyway?!)

23. posted by anon at December 20, 2007 1:00 am [#]:
    

    Sorry Celeste. Read too many posts and comments before I posted that!

24. posted by mike at December 20, 2007 8:56 am [#]:
    

    Anon,

    My comments on Kobe and Vick were to in reference to “Example: Kobe Bryant who got to play ball throughout the entire duration of his rape trial yet Michael Vick was suspended from the NFL indefinitely for gambling on “just dogs.””

25. posted by C at December 20, 2007 1:12 pm [#]:
    

    mike,

    You helped make my point. There is federal language stating it is a crime to beat/rape women yet it’s left up to each individual state to enforce it whatever way is best. It’s a federal offense to kill your wife, too.

    Gambling, in my opinion, is not as big a deal as raping/beating your significant other so bad she needs to stay in the hospital for a few days. Of course, I don’t think anyone (mainly those getting paid millions of dollars just to dribble/pass/hit a ball while we have real live starving people in this country), should be allowed to beat ANY human being up, regardless of gender, and get away with it.

    Beating/Killing your significant other should carry much more weight than gambling. Much more.

26. posted by mike at December 20, 2007 1:31 pm [#]:
    

    C:

    I agree with you. I was just saying there was a very significant difference in the two cases.

    Anyone, in a position of trust, that abuses someone should be dragged out and shot in my opinion.

27. posted by edg at December 20, 2007 2:01 pm [#]:
    

    Just to be clear about the facts, Vick was not charged with “gambling”. He submitted a plea agreement for the charges of:

    1) Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities
    2) Sponsoring a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture

    There may have more or more severes charges filed had he not submitted the plea agreement.

28. posted by mike at December 20, 2007 2:10 pm [#]:
    

    Edg:

    Correct, but he was suspended from the NFL due to the gambling…

29. posted by edg at December 20, 2007 2:12 pm [#]:
    

    True.

30. posted by JC at December 20, 2007 4:49 pm [#]:
    

    T.A. -

    If by “different” you mean “sloppily-crafted” or “sophomoric”, I’ll agree that your approach was “different”. Given those “unique” qualities, it certainly isn’t difficult to imagine how a sarcastic article about how the RPD has made life easier for prostitutes could be perceived as mocking our policemen and women.

31. posted by elliot at December 20, 2007 9:17 pm [#]:
    

    Most officers are smart enough to know when they are being mocked and when to take things seriously. People use humor to difuse uncomfortable situations and this is certainly one of those.

32. posted by JC at December 21, 2007 11:49 am [#]:
    

    Both of your points are completely irrelevant to the subject of how craftsmanship effects communication, elliot.

Share a Comment