My typo.
I thought when our faith in the integrity of a procedure was shaken, steps should be taken to make at least a token effort at repairing that trust.
Bricker, you’re exactly wrong.
No, wait, I just type that reflexively these days 
In this case, you’re exactly right. At least that it is not only reasonable but responsible and ethical to correct factual errors, no matter the subject of those errors, and no matter the political direction of those errors. I think Arpaio is a total scumbag and this posse is a terrible idea, but that still doesn’t make it ok to brush off factual errors, nor does it make pointing out those errors “defending” Arpaio or any part of his plan.
FWIW, I contacted the writer and she said she would follow up on the error and post corrections as necessary.
I’m reminded of this: xkcd: Duty Calls
I am happy to concede that the guy mentioned in the Salon story wasn’t hired as part of the Arpaio Posse or whatever they’re calling it. I am yet again irritated by the incredibly low standards of journalism that most major publications seem to have these days. And I maintain my point that the idea of a school protection posse staffed with volunteers with guns is stupid and will cause more problems than it solves. I understand that Bricker wants to have some kind of debate with me about arrests and felonies and the definition of “criminal” but I feel no obligation to have a debate with him just because he wants to. Life is tough sometimes. If you feel sad about that, you can just come back and read this post, because it sums up my point fairly concisely and accurately.
Well, when one finds out that the facts which shook one’s faith were not, in fact, facts, I would expect that one would no longer expect steps to be taken.
I mean, what do you want to be done? Shoot the clerk that mistakenly left the name on the list?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. Do you instead mean your faith in the integrity of a procedure that results in Salon stories?
Know what being charged with something normally gets you under Arpaio? You get to stay in an unairconditioned tent in 110 degree heat.
Oh, absolutely!
But that’s a completely separate statement from the claim that Arapio hired a known sex offender to his posse.
Sure. That’s a very defensible point.
The main problem I had was your trying to win that argument by claiming the posse is staffed with criminals and convicted sex offenders. Abandon that point, and argue that even if the posse is staffed by generally law-abiding citizens, it’s a poor idea, and I won’t debate you.
Not because I concede you’re right, but because I concede it’s a reasonable stance.
How is this relevant to either sub-argument in play?
Although, due to all the confusion and sloppy reporting, it’s also a bit unclear what actually did happen. The impression I get is that there was a list assembled of people on the posse, which automatically included a bunch of current-and-previous sheriff employees, thus unintentionally including an already-fired convicted sex offender. In which case, had no one noticed or made a fuss about it, and had his posse plan actually been put into effect, could that guy have just shown up at a school, pointed to his name on a list, and then started guarding schools? If so, that’s awfully close, in practice, to “Arapio hired a known sex offender”.
Which is why we really need more information.
And I am reminded of this:
Now I am confused. How did he get on the posse roster (which I may have mistakenly assumed was created in response to the last school shoting) seeing that he was fired in 2009? Could they just have copied an old list of Deputies as’ volunteers’?
Think carefully now,** Counselor**. Are you sure you want to besmirch your pristine reputation for truthy candor to defend Joe Arapaio? Seriously?
I appreciate this.
It seems self-evident, but no one – except me – chose to call BrainGlutton’s attention to his error. And no one except you voiced support when I did so.
No, according to the lady I talked to, the MCSO has had “posse” organizations for years. Boulter was on the master list when he was a deputy and never removed.
Sure. I’ll defend him against accusations he’s an arsonist, or that he cheats at Monopoly, or that he hired a convicted sex offender for his posse.
Why won’t you?
Is any criticism of Arpaio justified, no matter it’s truth? Surely that can’t be acceptable, even to liberals.
So, its more about us than about him, then? Bricker’s crusade against liberal hypocrisy?
Sure it’s about you. You seem to be championing the concept that certain people – presumably the Liberal Shit List – can be criticized on any front; attacked with impunity with any allegations, their truth or falsity irrelevant.
Why won’t you defend the man against an untrue charge, elucidator? Explain yourself. Worse, why do you attack the person who IS defending him against an untrue charge?
Explain that.
Nice work, **Bricker **and Ritter.
I still choose (B), it’s more likely that one of the 3450 will sexually abuse a kid than one of the 3450 will stop a school shooting (after all, they only refuse to hire the ones that haven’t been caught and convicted yet), but the facts were bungled by Salon.
It sucks that Bricker did better journalism than the article writer and editors of *Salon *together.