Could someone please tell me why vice cops citing dancers at Rick's is an important use of Seattle Police Department resources?
We've already had the debate here at Sound Politics on the broader philosophical issues around regulating strip clubs. But shall we consider for a minute the utility of cops regulating strippers for showing their breasts and "caressing or fondling themselves" while performing a lap dance? Let's see, prostitution on Aurora Avenue and downtown drug deals conducted in broad daylight, or making sure a young lady isn't putting her hand in the wrong place while working at a strip club?
Doesn't seem like a tough call. Beyond the giggle factor, it's a stupendously lame use of limited police resources. Then some people wonder why people don't trust the City of Seattle with their taxes.
A progressive city indeed.
UPDATE: Seattle Weekly reporter Philip Dawdy, author of the article linked above on the "progressive" culture of nanny-state Seattle, also supplies me with this article, detailing the sums spent by vice cops in pursuit of terrible crimes against the community: "The SPD documents make for interesting reading. 'I have participated in covert inspections for approximately five years and have bought over three hundred dances,'"...
Three hundred? On the taxpayers' dime? Who is the genius that thought of this law enforcement technique?
Posted by Eric Earling at October 27, 2006 08:25 AM | Email This1. Strip clubs regulated out of existence
2. Can't smoke a cigar in a cigar bar
3. Jaywalking tickets
4. Artificially inflated liquor prices
5. Ban on online gambling and non-tribal slots
Freedom is eroded in small chunks.
Democrats (read: not religious right) control the city, state house and senate and the governor's mansion. You can thank them for the laws in this state.
Posted by: Palouse on October 27, 2006 10:02 AMBrain damaged liberals have been saying garbage like this about the "religious right" for years.
Who is responsible for:
-bicycle helmet laws
-motorcycle helmet laws
-seat belt laws
-the crushing of free speech through political correctness
-the campaign to regulate the kinds of foods we eat
-telling us what sort of vehicles we should drive
-shutting down free speech on college campuses
-shouting down conservatives at campaign debates
-twisting "global warming" so that it serves their political agenda
-the annual war against Christmas
-the relentless campaign against traditional families
-And now, regulating behavior at private strip clubs.
Need I go on?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 27, 2006 11:07 AMWas that a good imitation?
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 27, 2006 11:33 AMCall it what you will, but the truth is being slowly revealed. Pity. Then again, maybe that is a good thing. Gotta wonder where Reichert and McGavick are on this, as if they would ever tell you.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 27, 2006 01:00 PMNo one is advocating not enforcing the laws. It is just that the government has absolutely zero concept of priorities. If all other crimes (open druggies, defication, grafitti etc) were all taken care of, go after private people doing thing volunarily in a private establishemnt (isn't that what libs like, and why they support getting rid of sodomy laws, even in private?) and jaywalkers.
They seem to be taking the way they spend tax dollars into law inforcement.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 27, 2006 02:07 PMLets get the coppers on enforcing the 25 foot rule for smokers. Post an officer at every business entrance, arm them with spray bottles so as to extinguish any lit burning material. We just can't have the police not enforcing the law now can we?
Posted by: swassociates on October 27, 2006 02:25 PMfine. contain it. watch it. regulate it. but the 4-ft rule is a silly waste of police time.
get the cops out there REALLY cracking skulls on meth heads, gang shooters, PARK DRUNKS/bums, car thiefs & kid molesters.
in this case, this conservative thinks it's a waste of good policing.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 27, 2006 06:17 PMYou're right about this being a case of political correctness and the nanny state gone too far. I'm prostrip club, pro gay marriage, pro pot, pro-choice and pro gun. Grown-ups should be able to do what they want.
Posted by: me on October 27, 2006 07:23 PMYou sound very pragmatic.
Huckleberry
Posted by: huckleberry on October 27, 2006 07:31 PMIt seems that Seattle has controlled the growth of strip clubs for years by improper means (a temporary moratorium that lasted more than a decade) that was challenged by a prospective strip club owner who won. The moratorium has been a good thing for the anti-vice folks and club owners with an effective strip club monopoly.
Now that Seattle's little game has been put to rest by the courts and they can no longer control the numbers of strip clubs through illegal moratoriums, they find themselves in the same position many cities wanting to control casinos find themselves: they either get rid of all or allow the market to reach saturation. Apparently, the City Council is disinclined to allow the latter, but may fear outlawing these establishments entirely for fear of 1st Amend litigation. So, they've adopted the path successful in other jurisdictions: regulatory death through restrictions that make the business unprofitable (believe it or not the economics aren't there without the breasts in the face, etc).
Anyway, I think the council may fear the open warfare that could result should they seek to create a red light zone (this kind of warfare seems to occur with some regularity in Seattle), so they are taking the easy way out: regulatory death.
If I've got the story wrong, please feel free to correct me.
Posted by: Going Uptown on October 27, 2006 10:22 PMOn a related point, the second reason one should object to your assertion about Seattle politics is that it is the very liberal, progressives that control Seattle City Hall that are trying to impose such restrictions, people who are not generally inclined to agree with you on many of the social/moral issues of the day.
If you've paid attention to Palouse's comments at this site you'd know full well he's hardly a candidate for BDS. Your implication otherwise indicates you do indeed have trouble understanding that people that hold conservative viewpoints can actually disagree with you, and still be conservative at the same time.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it your contention that you, Matt, Stefan, and Ward are conservatives?
As for Palouse, I have yet to see him post anything that is very thoughtful. But of course, I don't read SP.COM as much as I used to.
It is not my place to say who is conservative and who is not. I raised the question in regards to SP.COM, and I am raising it again with regards to you and your fellow SP.COM principals. Are you conservatives, and if so, what causes you to think that you are?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 28, 2006 02:54 PMI can only speak to myself with great authority on the "conservative" question. I say yes, though perhaps you and like-minded souls might disagree because I don't share 100% of your views on all the issues we might debate, particularly on the degree to which government should intervene on questions of moral decision-making not directly related to life, liberty, and property. In my personal observation, Stefan is most definitely a conservative with a strong libertarian tilt. Matt is an urban conservative, likely to disagree with you strongly on social issues, but equally likely to agree with you on matters of fiscal policy, choice in education, etc. Ward also seems pretty staunchly conservative based on seeing his work and talking to him, though I suspect you would find yourself more conservative than him.
As to why I think I'm a conservative, I refer to an original answer I gave to Doug Parris on my first thread at SP when he posed objections similar to your question above, asking me to list reasons that might validate the label of "conservative." While the points themselves are directed to Doug, you should still be able to get the point:
"Taxes - at the federal level I'd prefer something close to a flat tax, though at the local level you'd probably consider me an apostate on taxes related to transportation.
Energy - I'm a very strong advocate of expansion of energy exploration and production in the United States, though I deviate from other conservatives on my preference for an emphasis on conservation as well (albeit through incentives rather than mandates).
Social Security - I'm an adamant believer in significant Social Security reform, including a system that puts part of its resources into personal accounts for individuals to control.
Healthcare - I favor radical reform of our healthcare system, and was dismayed the passage of the Medicare drug benefit did not include more substantive reforms of the Medicare system to make it more market-based, with individual choices for beneficiaries.
Government spending - this is the area where our current Congress deserves its lowest marks for failure to prioritize spending and live up to the ideals of the people that elected them.
Property rights - here again I'm a strong proponent; actions like last year's King Co. CAO drive me bonkers.
Education - I believe with great passion in continued education reform, with a focus on accountability and choices for parents/students, though I suspect you and I would disagree on the particulars of how the current status quo should continue to be changed.
Foreign policy - I believe in a muscular American foreign policy, that utilizes international institutions (for what they're worth) where appropriate, and goes it alone when our interests necessitate it. I generally concur with Bush's foreign policy (and Truman's), compared with that of say Carter or LBJ.
Judges - I strongly support judges in the mold of the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, & Alito). I believe 43's overall success at all levels of the federal courts system in this area will be one of his lasting legacy items.
Faith - I think religion (particularly a Judeo-Christian foundation), whether one practices it or not, is a fundamental component of who we are as a nation.
Founders - my favorite founder is Alexander Hamilton, which should give further insight into my philosophical point of view."
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 28, 2006 04:03 PMYou're a typical liberal snot-nosed dweeb who would not survive without the nanny state telling you how many times to wipe your ass. For those of us who can actually think for themselves, we find the nanny state irritating. You don't want a government, you want a babysitter, and you want everyone else to pay for it. You are a three-time loser and what is worse, you are actually proud of your worthlessness.
Posted by: ERNurse on October 29, 2006 08:04 AMAnd what is so "divisive" about a strip club comment? Divisive? What a stupid choice of words! You need to consult your "lexicon of liberal buzzwords" again, because that one did not fit the situation.
And oh, by the way: You're the one who started in with the name-calling and religion-baiting.
Just like a dumb-ass liberal: you can't even remember the beginning of an argument that you started.
Posted by: ERNurse on October 29, 2006 04:39 PM