<< Abolish the Bus Tours! | Main | News Flash: Radical Islam Is Dangerous >>

Better Police Through Lower Standards


The ABC affilate in Dayton, Ohio carries this story:

The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.
It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.    

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.  The hiring process was postponed for months because the DOJ rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.  Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The DOJ approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%.  That's the equivalent of an 'F' and a 'D'.


The DOJ and Civil Service Board declined Dayton's News Source's repeat requests for interviews.

How's that?  President Obama's "Hope and Change" administration is stonewalling questions about why police hiring is now to be geared toward tossing goodies to a reliable Democatic constituency instead of signing up the best qualified applicants?

And am I remembering this wrong, or isn't it DOJ itself that's beating the drum for "smart policing?"

I said in an earlier entry that I'd been having trouble figuring out what "smart policing" means.  Now I know.  It means dumber police.



At some point, this stuff has to add up for Holder. The NBPP stuff, the "my people" comment, the demagoguery with respect to the federal death penalty and race, etc. And then there's always Marc Rich.

Not to mention the trial, such as it may ever be, of KSM, and the 284 out of 285 acquittals in the embassy bombing case.

I can only imagine what would happen if John Ashcroft had ever uttered the phrase, "my people."

But Holder is safe, unless KSM gets acquitted (I wonder whether it's to obviate this possibility that Holder keeps stalling). He has the press on his side, so the Department's blunders either (1) get blamed on someone else, like Alberto Gonzales; (2) get swept under the rug; or (3) get flat-out lied about.

As an Obama voter, I just cannot defend the Presiden't choice of Holder. I mean, of all the people you could get to be Attorney General, why him? Surely, there must've been someone else without so many negatives--I mean, the Marc Rich scandal should've been enough alone to instantly disqualify Holder.

Are you thinking of switching your vote in 2012? I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm actually just curious. Thanks.

No. Who am I going to vote for? Huckabee? Romney? Palin? I just couldn't do it. I had actually been considering voting for McCain until he made his most unfortunate choice of running mate.

I hear you. My major problem is that this debt crisis is out of control, and there isn't a wisp of evidence that Obama can or will do anything about it. The calamity that will come from inaction is difficult to overstate. Thus, I am likely to find myself compelled to vote for the opposing candidate, even if I have to hold my nose hard to do it.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives