On TV, if an innocent citizen is threatened by a criminal, the cops spare no expense protecting him–or her.
If s/he’s really lucky, s/he’ll get protection from no less than the Top Cop HImself–such as Steve McGarrett (on Hawaii Five-O) or Elliot Ness (on The Untouchables).
If you think that’s how real-life cops operate, you’re in for a shock. Especially if you have to entrust your life to them.
Consider the case of a friend of mine I’ll call Bill.
Bill was shopping in a Home Depot in Daly City when his cell phone rang. Assuming it was someone he knew, he casually answered it.
The caller proved to be someone he didn’t know. More ominously, it was someone he wouldn’t want to know.
“You got my friend kicked out,” he said. “And I’m going to get you. I know who you are and where you live.”
Bill explained–truthfully–that he hadn’t gotten anyone kicked out. For a few moments he had no idea who the caller might be talking about.
Then he remembered: About two months earlier, an aggressive psychopathic tenant had been evicted from his apartment building. Bill hadn’t had anything to do with the eviction.
True, the property management company supervising the complex had tried to recruit him to testify in a lawsuit against the psycho-tenant. But Bill had wanted nothing to do with the case.
There were some risks just not worth taking–especially when a man who routinely threatened others lived only two floors below.
Still, the tenant had clearly been told by someone else that Bill had played a role in his eviction. Just days before he was to move out, he shouted at Bill: “I’m being evicted, and you’re responsible for it!”
The next day, by unfortunate coincidence, Bill again ran into the psycho-tenant, who shuted: “I’m being evicted, and I’m sure that makes you happy!”
So now, as Bill listened to the unknown caller making his threat, he felt 99% certain that even if he didn’t know the caller, he knew the man on whose behalf he was calling.
Bill stayed calm, trying to draw the caller into giving some specific information. But the caller refused to be tempted, and Bill hung up.
Thinking it over, Bill was worried: His cell phone number was known to only a few people–and certainly not to the evicted tenant. Someone had clearly gone to a great deal of trouble to find it.
For the moment, he took some heart in that the caller’s number showed up on his cell phone. No doubt the police could quickly trace it, he assumed.
(He soon found out they couldn’t. The number was to a Google phone exchange, which could be used by callers who didn’t want to reveal their actual number.)
As soon as Bill returned to San Francisco, he visited a police station and made out a report to a uniformed officer.
Later that day, he called the station to provide more information. He was connected to an Inspector Jones (not his real name).
In the police world, an Inspector is a figure of real authority and prestige. The word “inspector” will open doors that may well be closed to other police officers.
So Bill assumed he was dealing with the elite of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD)
To his surprise, Jones asked if he had filed a report of the incident with the Daly City Police Department.
“No,” Bill said. He had simply been visiting Daly City when the call came in. No one had assaulted him in Daly City And he believed the call had almost certainly come from San Francisco.
“Well,” said Inspector Jones, “you must file a report with the Daly City Police Department. Otherwise, we can’t (that is, won’t) help you.”
Bill asked: ” Can I make the report over the phone?”
“No,” said Jones, “it has to be made in person.”
Bill: “I don’t have a car. I don’t know where the Daly City Police Department is.”
“Well, we can’t help you until you do it,” said Jones.
So Bill called the Daly City Police Department. A female officer soon came on the line. Bill outlined the reason for his call.
“Did you file a report with the SFPD?” the officer asked.
“Yes,” said Bill.
“Then you don’t need to file one with us,” said the officer.
“Are you certain?” asked Bill.
“Yes.”
Now Bill was not so much worried as angry. He re-dialed the SFPD–but this time, at a far higher level: The Office of the Chief of Police.
he didn’t expect to speak with the Chief himself. But that wasn’t necessary. It would be enough for him to reach someone who worked directly for the Chief.
Police department are quasi-military organizations. They are rigidly hierarchial. At a police station, a captain wields Godlike authority over everyone beneath him–detectives, sergeants, uniformed officers.
And if a captain wields Godlike authority over his subordinates, the Chief is the uniformed version of God to everyone else in the department.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, BUREAUCRACY, BUSINESS REGULATION, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONGRESS, CORPORATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DISASTER RELIEF, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FERTILIZER PLANT EXPLOSION, HURRICANE SANDY, NBC NEWS, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA), OKLAHOMA CITY TORNADOES, REP. PETER KING, SENATOR JIM INOFE, SENATOR TOM COBURN, TEXAS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
HYPOCRITES UNITED
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 23, 2013 at 12:37 amTed Cruz voted against federal aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy–three times.
But the United States Senator from Texas quickly announced he would seek “all available resources” to assist victims of the April 17 explosion at as fertilizer plant in West, McLennan County, Texas.
The blast killed 13 people, wounded about 200 others, and caused extensive damages to surrounding homes.
Last October, Hurricane Sandy killed around 150 people and caused an estimated $75 billion in damage across the Northeast.
The Republican legislator stood foursquare against the Sandy Aid Relief bill, claiming that it was loaded with “pork”:
“Hurricane Sandy inflicted devastating damage on the East Coast, and Congress appropriately responded with hurricane relief,” said Cruz.
“Unfortunately, cynical politicians in Washington could not resist loading up this relief bill with billions in new spending utterly unrelated to Sandy.
“Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.
“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington–an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”
Another Republican, Rep. Bill Flores, who represents West, also voted against the Sandy relief package. But this didn’t stop him from requesting federal aid for the disaster in his home district.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Cruz and Flores are not alone in their fiscal hypocrisy.
Oklahoma’s two U.S. Senators– Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both right-wing Republicans–have also repeatedly voted against funding disaster aid for other parts of the country.
Oklahoma U.S. Senators Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn
They have also opposed increased funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers federal disaster relief.
Both Inhofe and Coburn backed a plan to slash disaster aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
In a December, 2012 press release, Coburn said that the Sandy Relief bill contained “wasteful spending,” and identified a series of items he objected to, including “$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies.”
Inhofe, a Republican, argued that the Hurricane Sandy bill was loaded with pork.
“They had things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C. Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place. That won’t happen in Oklahoma,” Inhofe said on MSNBC.
The Sandy relief bill initially contained money for projects outside of areas damaged by Sandy–as bribes to Republicans to get it through Congress.
But Federal relief aid is a different matter entirely to Inhofe when the victims come from his own state.
A May 20, 2-mile-wide tornado ravaged the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, killing at least 51 people while destroying entire tracts of homes and trapping two dozen school children beneath rubble.
For Inofe, aiding his constituents would be “totally different” from providing aid to Sandy victims.
“Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place,” he said. “That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”
As for Coburn: In a statement, he said that “as the ranking member of Senate committee that oversees FEMA, I can assure Oklahomans that any and all available aid will be delivered without delay.”
For Rep. Peter King (R-New York this hypocrisy is simply too much to swallow quietly.
“I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved here, Inhofe saying Sandy aid was corrupt but Oklahoma won’t be,” said King, whose state was devastated last October by Sandy.
For King, natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy and the Oklahoma tornado are not “local issues”: “It’s an American issue, we have an obligation to come forward.”
He said that he didn’t plan to exact revenge on those who had denied New Yorkers aid after Sandy.
“I won’t hold it against anyone,” King said. “I don’t want suffering people in Oklahoma to be held hostage while we engage in political fights, saying ‘I told you so.’ I want to deal with it on the merits.”
All of which highlights how the principle of YIMBY–Yes In My Back Yard–is very much alive, even for alleged fiscal hawk Republicans. At least, when their own constituents are the victims in need.
Because needy constituents who go unaided quickly become angry constituents who remember that lack of aid at the next election.
It’s something to remember the next time right-wingers take a hard line on spending bills to help the poor or victims of natural disasters.
Share this: