Callie sends me the following questions with regard to this typically retarded editorial in the Comical. Not sure why she doesn't post it on her blog, but here goes:
what exactly is the point of this? c.o. is bad? aguirre might've been innocent? the dna lab was badly managed? underlings seem to pay for c.o.'s incompetence?To answer in order: 1) There's no way to know -- the Comical editorial page is as big a joke as the rest of the paper; 2) They can't say that, because when he's mayor there will be hell to pay; 3) Maybe; 4) Much like their coverage of Enron, they're just starting to get up to speed on the crime lab, months after the story made national newspapers -- check back in a few more months; 5) That's one way to interpret the Comical's seemingly deliberate imprecision; 6) See answer #1; 7) Apparently so -- although said death would pay immediate dividends in terms of editorial quality! 8) That's the conclusion most people draw; 9) Much like Mayor Pothole, he's no mere Chief of Police -- he's Mayoral Material!
what exactly is the comical trying to say? would it KILL someone at our venerable daily actually to come out and say that maybe c.o. should be fired? that he's a dumbass? that he's no chief of police?
I'm pleased I could clear all of this up.
Personally, though, I still haven't been able to parse the concluding paragraph:
Apparently, the public had been complaining for years about late-night crowds milling about the Kmart and adjoining parking lots to drink, use drugs and to watch and gamble on street racers. That's legitimate law enforcement problem that deserved a sensible law enforcement solution. The jury's verdict in Aguirre's case should not be taken as an excuse to deviate from such sensibility and responsibility.It's almost as if the Comical is doing that experiment of giving 100 baboons a typewriter and seeing if eventually something comprehensible is churned out. Except they are paying humans to do this, and I think the baboons would be preferable.
[Posted at 22:45 CST on 06/19/03] [Link]