Defund the Police? Ahem.

 I actually heard a guy in an interview, explaining "Defund the Police" in this way: he was like, "When we say 'Defund the Police,' we are not actually talking about removing all financial support for law enforcement, but rather, we are talking about improving accountability."

Ummm.... okay-ee?... So, in other words, what the guy was saying, basically, is that the word "defund" does not actually mean "defund," but instead it means "improve accountability." As they say, "Yes, it is true, and I can prove it. It's as easy as counting these five fingers that I am holding up right here on my foot."

Then why not just say "improve accountability"? Well, the problem is that "improve accountability" does not make for a good chant for people with megaphones. Apparently, it is better to go with what sells, and then try to re-adapt the established meaning of words afterwards.

"Defund the Police" is an example of a political view which caters to extreme views, and not the patient, rational introspection of a Moderate thinker. This is one of many examples of the opportunity for a Third Party to create new talking points.

Instead of choosing between the two extremes -- "Defund the Police" of "Law and Order" -- we may easily identify a better, more accurate, more realistic, and more meaningful solution, which necessarily comes from the middle. "Improve Police Accountability" seems like a good fit.

This is an obvious, and much-needed improvement.