“We Mean Literally Abolish The Police”: Activists Reject Spin On Movement’s Call To Defund The Police

SansculottesThe New York Times has run an opinion column by Mariame Kaba denouncing efforts by Democratic leaders and the media to try to spin the call for defunding the police as just a reallocation of funds and a new set of priorities and a new structure for policing.  Kaba wrote “Yes, we mean literally abolish the police.”  That opinion piece follows a warning by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that Democrats and others trying to “repackage” the push to “Defund the Police”   Notably, while the New York Times apologized for publishing an opinion piece by a ranking U.S. Senator on the use of federal troops to quell rioting, it has now problem with publishing a column calling for the abolishment of police.  As discussed earlier, this is a movement that is moving rapidly to the left and repackaging is now considered counter-revolutionary.

Kaba states what people in the streets has been saying (including rallies chanting “no more cops”) even as some in the media has mocked those who claimed that “defund the police” could actually mean defunding the police or that “dismantle the police” could actually means dismantling the police. Indeed, recently Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota that people who are concerned about their personal safety after defunding police are simply speaking “from a place of privilege.”

Kaba rejects “liberal reforms” from congressional Democrats and Joe Biden including calls for cracking down on police misconduct or ordering reforms:  “Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.”  She states that police have always been a “force of violence against black people” dating back to slavery.  At a minimum, Kaba wants police cut “in half” because “fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people.” For this reason, Kaba explains “We don’t want to just close police departments. We want to make them obsolete.”

She is not alone in this backlash.  Seattle Council Member and Socialist Kshama Sawant just called for people “to fight against the reactionary agenda.”She has attacked the “Democratic establishment.”

“At the same time we have to hold the establishments in various cities accountable. This violence against the peaceful protest movement on Capitol Hill was carried out by Mayor Jenny Durkan. And that’s why it’s no surprise that tens of thousands of people in Seattle are calling for her resignation because they reject police violence, they reject police brutality and we want a society that is based on equality and cooperation

….as far as things going awry, I can tell you the only thing that went awry day after day after day since the first protest on May 30th was the police under orders by the Democratic Party establishment and the Mayor Durkan, it was the police making things going awry.”

The disconnect is widening between what actual activists are saying and what the media is reporting and Democratic leaders are hearing.  For example, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms assured people that the slogan is simply a “simplified message. . . but I think the overarching thing is that people want to see a reallocation of resources into community development and alternatives to just criminalizing.”  That sounds a bit different from “no more cops” and demands to “dismantle the police” heard in these rallies:

As discussed earlier, Democratic leaders have been trying to tap into the energy and numbers of the antifascist movement for years despite its anti-free speech and sometimes violent record.  It is now struggling to control this careening movement by simply refashioning its demands in a more a new image.  The establishment is dealing with another sharp disconnect. While the media has attempted to re-make the movement to defund into a more mainstream image, polls show 64% of the public oppose the call.  It is a dangerous pivot to make in the middle mad rush to the extremes. This is why, during the French Revolution, the journalist Jacques Mallet Pan warned, “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its children.”

568 thoughts on ““We Mean Literally Abolish The Police”: Activists Reject Spin On Movement’s Call To Defund The Police”

    1. nowhere good.

      BLM has already significantly pushed the line between legitimate protest and lawlessness.

      Once people perceive what is happening as lawless rather than legitimate, few will care about police violence to restore order.

  1. Does anybody remember when former attorney General Holder said we are afraid to talk about race in this country? Well maybe he should check out this site and read “all” the postings that are presented here.

  2. When I was in high school, I took a sociology class with a teacher who I now realize was a liberal but he didn’t talk about his politics at the time. Anyway I remember the day he explained why the KKK had to have the right to assemble and free speech and even police protection. None of us were convinced but he said free speech meant either everybody or nobody. Once you start picking and choosing there is no more free speech. The KKK is an overtly racist organization. The point is that people have, or should have, the right to be racist under the Constitution. As Americans, we have the right to hate anybody we want. Of course, it kind of seems like a waste of freedom to use it to hate but that’s our right. We don’t have the right to discriminate, that’s different. So this is in regard to the college professors who are about to get the axe. In regard to calls to defund the police, how is it not obvious that this whole thing is just an attempt to destabilize our country? When China takes over they won’t even have to fire a shot. And then maybe the people who are working like beavers to abolish free speech and police protection in this country will start to value what they threw away. I just wish I didn’t have to live to see it.

      1. Cui Bono, indeed. Since convicted criminals are being given the right to vote, even in jail, felons seem to be a new interest groups for demagogues to recruit for the next election.

    1. To my recollection Lindsay Graham was a Never Trumper. However, over the years Graham has changed his mind and has been supporting trump on many issues.

      Anon depends on lies and deception so he uses old vdieos not letting anyone know that Lindsay Graham had a near 180 degree reversal on his feelings towards Trump. This newest posting demonstrates that nothing Anon posts can be accepted as real.

    1. Let’s use the technique of the left. The Washington Post is a cesspool (it actually has been proven so) therefore the article is worthless.

      The more intelligent approach to discussion (not used by anonymous). There were conflicting reports regarding the use of force in Lafayette Park. What is known is that Lafayette Park was a staging area for violence during successive days and there were reports of violence in the park. People were ordered out of the park and told it would be cleared. The police and local authorities removed the protestors from Lafayette Park and none of those officers were under the control of the President. No US army soldiers were used in the park.

      People complained about various things including being pushed but they were asked to leave and didn’t. They broke the law.

        1. I stated that I used leftist style logic instead of my own. “Let’s use the technique of the left. ”

          Hellvis, If you think it is wrong to attack the messenger I agree, but that seems to be the manner in which the leftists on this blog handle information that comes from good conservative web sites. Hopefully I won’t hear that from you.

          However, I do believe the Washington Post published many articles as news that weren’t news, news based on erroneous facts and anonymous reporting. I don’t think they have been following good journalistic practices.

          1. So you’ve told me what you think. But where’s your proof?

            And what’s the “technique of the left?”

            1. Where is my proof of what?

              That the Washington Post lied? That the NYTimes lied? That has been demonstrated over and over again on the blog. Start with what they said over and over again about the Steele Dossier.

              That my response calling the Washington Post a cesspool wasn’t mimicking another blogger earlier?

              You can read Alinsky for yourself.

                1. You said it’s been “proven” the Washington Post is a “cesspool”. Have they dressed up as a cesspool? Have they been caught systematically lying in a *documented* way? Have they been sued for libel and lost? Have they systematically been proven to go against their journalistiic standards in a documented way?

                  What someone thinks or feels about them in an individualy way is opinion. Let’s see some documented sources.

                  1. I base my claim on all their reporting that has been intentionally politically charged and wrong. Start with their claims about the Steele Dossier. They were wrong every step of the way and their anonymous sources were wrong as well. If you can show us that the Washington Post wasn’t wrong on the Steele Dossier then you can say I haven’t proven my case, but you can’t.

                    1. The fundimental issue with the majority of the press is that the distinction between news and the opinion pages is gone. Nit only is the concept that opinion belongs on the opinion page, not the news, But the very concept that left opinions are not fact is outside their comprehension.

                    2. The academy is not merely dominated by the left, it is almost exclusively extremely left today. Post modernism – Communism with identity substituted for class, does not have a concept of truth.

                      The press is not intentionally lying – because the ideology that owns them defines truth as whatever supports that ideology.

                      I am appalled by the fact that so many have made so clearly false accusations of others, and feel absolutely no shame about it.

                      I am far less of a Trump fan than those who I engage with here presume. But when you call someone else a liar – and you are wrong, you are a bad person. look around and can not beleive how many people do just that.

                    3. Hellvis, I guess you are playing the part of the fool. You don’t understand the Steele Dossier’s creation, who, how and why it was created. The Washington Post accepted the Dossier in total as a factual document and promoted it. When questions arose about it they continued to promote it. We now are seeing all parts in its creation due to the release of FBI documents, transcripts and investigation. You wish to wrap yourself in the Steele Dossier. Go ahead that is what fools do.

                    4. Holding up the Steele dossier today is beyond foolish. It is immoral.

                      It was manufactured by Russia, fed to their patsy Steele, bought by Hillary for America, and fed to the FBI – who know all of this and used it anyway.

                    5. What part of it do you think is correct and meaningful ?

                      The primary subsource has called everything he provided to steele no more than gossip.
                      In may of 2017 St. James Comey called it Salacious and unverified. But even that was a lie because by the time he testified, he knew, the FBI know that is was not merely unverified – leaving open the possibility that it might be true, but that most of it was demonstrably false.

                      So again – which part of it do you think might be true ?

                      Why are you still trying to prop up this garbage.

                      “Let us not assassinate [anyone] further, … You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

                      I think the answer is no.

                      No moral person would be trying to prop up any part of the Steele Dossier today.
                      Much of it is likely deliberate russian disinformation pushed by an unwitting Russian Stooge, paid for by the Clinton campaign and sold to the seventh floor at the FBI who knew it was a fraud and used it anyway.

                    6. Good starting point with that 60% it seems. That group tends to politically break with a much higher percentage of dems trusting in mass media than repubs so there’s a a fair amount of compromise in the definition.

                      It implies a bit too much of a monolithic existence to me though — but then again, I’m not sure there really is an ordinary group of people to begin with. That’s why I asked.

                      Might be impossible to come up with a definition of ordinary that also branches all the racial, gendered, economic, political and religious disparity that exists, I don’t know.

                      Maybe “ordinary” begins at one pole as being white male sensibility becoming progressively less so as demographics shift? Let’s hope so.

                    7. Are you still trying to define ordinary ?

                      You seem to start to veer towards conflating ordinary with truth.

                      A truth does not care about the view of ordinary people.

                      A = A

                    1. David, I’ve been nice to you, but I guess I have to get you back to the assylum and your rubber room.

                    2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after eighty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David post your certification as a mental health professional.

                    3. Allan & Paul C Schulte — In my opinion. And no, often enough both of you are Uncivil, violating the Civility Code, that I will simply express my opinion. I’m not calling names or engaging in personal attacks.

                      Not even when I state that Paul C Schulte demonstrates sadistic tendencies in his writings here…

                    4. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after eighty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, you double-barreled twit. Saying I have sadistic tendencies is personal and an ad hominem attack. Again, could we see you professional mental health certificate?

                    5. Paul C Schulte – – – “double barreled twit” is certainly name calling, don’t you think? Tch, tch, shame on you.

                    6. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after eighty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – no, it is a apt descriptor.

                    7. Thanks, David. I’ve seen Allan’s work before. Ha. Just trying to walk him through the difference between opinion and fact . And no, I don’t believe it will be a successful attempt.

                    8. “Thanks, David. I’ve seen Allan’s work before.”

                      That is true Hellvis and you couldn’t handle it. You had a lot of problems separating out truth from fiction, much less opinion from fact and your frustrations led you into the toilet with your four letter words. I await true fact from you but you became a joke once you had to ask the question which part of the Steele Dossier is not true.

                    9. And you couldn’t answer the question, opting, as always, to deflect and resort to insult as your only option. Not exactly a champion of critical thinking are you Allan?

                    10. That would be a statistically relevant group of people. But are they ordinary? And would that group qualify as being a monolith? And what would that group consider mainstream media to be?

                      A few too many sweeping generalizations in that definition for me. Maybe “ordinary” is too broad to have much predictive relevence. It would act as a rorshact test, basically boiling down to: I’m ordinary so people who agree with what I agree with are ordinary? In that case it’s hard to see this definition venturing much past a white male centric definition by default…

                      Race and ethnicity should figure in. Ditto economic standing. Gender. Political affiliation.

                      I guess that 60% group probably represents political affiliation of the 33% on either end plus what would be considered the independents in the middle and which way they swing at any given time?

                      I’m actually tempted to think there is no such thing as an ‘ordinary’ group of people. That’s why I asked. Why is it even necessary to label ordinary? Take that 60% for instance…, guaranteed some of them think mainstream media are the larger daily newspapers. Some of them think it’s the 3 networks. Some more think it’s cable, roughly breaking down into a cnn/msnbc/fox split.

                      More fascinating to me is what those people would even consider media…, for instance, with a quick google search one could find what the journalistic standards of the Washington Post are. Not so easy to find those standards for Fox.

                      Either way, the term ordinary seems to be looking for a group to stick to. A group that probably doesn’t truly exist. It’s more of a labeling and classification issue and always a sure way to miss out on nuance.

                    11. Your comment demonstrates pretty much perfectly why the left and the press will be screaming “Liar, Liar” it Trump says the sunrise was nice today.

                      A book on what “ordinary means” – and for what purpose ? To micro parse and fact check a statement of opinion that “ordinary” people would find true and innocuous.

                  2. Ordinary people take the claim that WaPo is a cesspool seriously but not literally,
                    Left Wing nuts take the claim literally, but not seriously

                    1. “Nice dance.”

                      Hellvis, John’s response was really good, well written and very much on target. You missed it completely. Maybe if you reread it again you will recognize its quality. If not, you have serious deficiencies.

                    2. Correction: By “ordinary people” John means right wing Trumpsters. Ordinary people know the WaPo, along with the NYTs, WSJ, Bloomberg, the AP, Reuters, and various regional newspapers are dependable sources of news, and act to protect that reputation by publishing confirmed news regardless of partisan impact and also print retractions for errors.

                      Followers of Trump have no idea what this is as they must believe he is always correct, whether on hurricane paths or medical advice and he never issues any retractions.

                    3. “Correction: By “ordinary people” John means right wing Trumpsters.”
                      Back to mind reading again I see.

                      I mean what I write. Please quit rewriting my remarks into a straw man and beating it.

                      That is deliberate misrepresentation. It is not what honest and credible people do.

                      “Ordinary people know the WaPo, along with the NYTs, WSJ, Bloomberg, the AP, Reuters, and various regional newspapers are dependable sources of news”

                      Over a year ago Gallup found trust in the media at a new low – significantly below Trump.

                      “act to protect that reputation by publishing confirmed news regardless of partisan impact and also print retractions for errors.”
                      I have some swamp land to sell you.

                      “Followers of Trump have no idea what this is as they must believe he is always correct, whether on hurricane paths or medical advice and he never issues any retractions.”

                      Back to mind reading half the country – and insulting them.
                      Great way to win elections.

                    4. Speaking of the WaPo. Remember the fired IGs? Remember the relief bills? Column is fully linked.:

                      “What are they hiding?

                      That’s the question taxpayers should be asking as the Trump administration refuses to reveal where a half-trillion dollars of our hard-earned cash has gone.

                      In March, back when Congress was rushing to provide more coronavirus relief, lawmakers passed an unprecedented $2 trillion bill known as the Cares Act. After initially fighting to prevent any meaningful oversight of the bailout programs it would administer — at one point even demanding a few-strings-attached Treasury slush fund — the Trump administration eventually agreed to several major oversight and disclosure measures. Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, repeatedly pledged “full transparency on anything we do.”

                      Yeah, right.

                      Since then, the administration has worked to sabotage virtually all of these accountability mechanisms. While paying lip service to “transparency,” it has fired, demoted or otherwise kneecapped inspectors general, some of whom recently wrote to congressional leaders warning of systematic efforts to avoid scrutiny required by law. The watchdog Government Accountability Office also complained that the administration has refused to provide critical data on the bailout.

                      Last week, the administration backtracked on its commitment to publicly disclose the beneficiaries of its $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) — including, presumably, information about whether any of the “small businesses” helped happen to be President Trump’s….

                      …Despite his alleged commitment to transparency, Mnuchin told lawmakers last week that information on loan recipients and amounts would not be released because it is “proprietary” and “confidential.” Never mind that the PPP loan application form explicitly says borrower information may be “subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” It adds that “information about approved loans that will be automatically released” (emphasis mine) includes borrower names, collateral pledged and the loan amount.

                      In other words, exactly the kinds of details that media organizations and congressionally appointed government watchdogs are requesting and that the administration refuses to release.

                      On Monday, Mnuchin tweeted that he would have “discussions” with lawmakers about releasing more information. Maybe he means it this time, but this feels a bit like Lucy and the football….”

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-has-the-trump-administration-done-with-a-half-trillion-dollars/2020/06/15/eb86ee5a-af30-11ea-8f56-63f38c990077_story.html

                    5. I generally support transparency in government.

                      I expect that ultimately we will get that.

                      Disclosing recipient information is more complex – should we publich a list of everyone who receives SNAP ? or SS ?

                      There is also a difference between making public and proper oversite.

                      I have no problem with Congress receiving the recipients – as long as we are going to jail congressmen who disclose that information if as I suspect there are laws that prohibit doing so.

                      I find your confidence in IG’s going after Trump in conflict with your unwillingness to accept IG horowitz.

                    6. Meanwhile, speaking of Dear Leader’s always being right:

                      “WASHINGTON — The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration violated the agency’s code of ethics in the fall when he rebuked employees for contradicting President Trump’s inaccurate claim that a hurricane would hit Alabama, NOAA said Monday in a report.

                      Neil Jacobs, NOAA’s acting administrator, “engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard” for the agency’s scientific integrity policy, according to a panel commissioned by the agency to investigate complaints against him…..

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/climate/noaa-sharpiegate-ethics-violation.html?smid=tw-nytclimate&smtyp=cur

                    7. And the panel is credible for what reason ?

                      Most intelligent people were aware that NOAA projections included scenarios that matched the Whiteboard Trump presented.

                      The only debate on this issue is whether NOAA had and the WH was provided with more recent data at the time of the remarks.

                      And your panel gets the ethics backwards. The NIAA employees speaking publicly, had neither the authority to do so, nor the knowledge of what was provided to the WH when.

                      If there is an actual issue that constitutes a violation of federal law or actual waste or fraud – those employees are free to go to the IG’s that you so love.

                      Otherwise the public face of the entire executive branch is political apointees – NOT career employees.

                      The UCMJ defines it as a crime for an officer – active or retired to publicly criticize the president or any political apointee in the federal government.

                      Outside the military there are similar ethics rules and regulations.

                      This is true for all presidents.

                      A bureaucrat who sees a problem, can go to the IG, or arguably to congress.
                      Those are the people responsible for oversite.

                    8. I also find it fascinating that you are gripped by this story.

                      How is this more important than Obama famous telepromoter problems ?

                      You had your 15s of news years ago. That is all this story was worth. Now let go and move on if you do not want to appear obsessed.

                    9. John fatuously claims I am reading minds when I am reading his words in the light of real world experience. By his own standard he above claims to read the minds of “ordinary people” and “Left Wing nuts”> Clearly he speaks for neither, just as I don’t speak for right wing nuts – I do observe them however.

                      As a person who has voted for the popular vote winner in all but one of the last 7 presidential elections (and the same number in Democratic primaries), as well as one who’s ideas track well with majority opinion on most major issues of our day, I believe I can claim to better speak for ordinary people than John who admitted to voting for an un-serious crackpot in at least the last election.

                    10. “John fatuously claims I am reading minds when I am reading his words in the light of real world experience.’
                      There is no reading someone else’s word’s in light of real world experience.

                      I am responsible for the actual meaning of the words I write. Any effort of any kind by you to change that meaning is either mind reading or misrepesentation or both.

                      “By his own standard he above claims to read the minds of “ordinary people””
                      Nope – Gallup says that confidence in the press is below Trump.
                      Ni mind reading involved.

                      “and “Left Wing nuts””
                      Are you saying that an expressed extreme left wing position on a variety of issues does not exist ?

                      “Clearly he speaks for neither”
                      Did not claim to speak for either.

                      I would further note that it is not mind reading to paraphase the publicly espressesd positions of actions of amorphous groups.

                      You are free to take offense at my characterization of “Left Wing nuts” – either by asserting that you are one and therefore know more than I, or by finding evidence that I am misrepresenting the extreme left.

                      You engage in “mind reading” when you claim to know MY unexpressed positions – or those of other specific people.

                      “As a person who has voted for the popular vote winner in all but one of the last 7 presidential elections (and the same number in Democratic primaries), as well as one who’s ideas track well with majority opinion on most major issues of our day, I believe I can claim to better speak for ordinary people”

                      In what election of the past 7 have 100% of people voted ?

                      Regardless. Gallup says that public confidence in the veracity of the press is below that of Trump. Clearly your not in sync with ordinary people on this issue.

                      Or are you saying Gallup is wrong ?

                      “than John who admitted to voting for an un-serious crackpot in at least the last election.”

                      Both Johnson and Weld were very successfull governors serving multiple terms.
                      Not un-serious or crackpot

                      https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.j21SXn7OjeUQKpjtzicw7AAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1

                    11. I think the 60% of people that according to Gallup do not trust the major media is a reasonable operating definition.

                      But I am willing to listen if you have a better one

                    12. John dodges the question of Trump’s hiding the disbursement of billions of dollars, on which there was no confusion over Congresses intent, and which he maneuvered around early by firing IGs. Saying you didn’t agree with the program is CS.

                    13. “John dodges”
                      Not dodging anything.

                      The FACT here is that I do not know the law, and I do not trust you to.
                      Congresses intent is irrelevant. They can not circumvent the constitutional right to privacy.

                      Congress is not free to ask for or make public tax returns – and the intent in some funding legislation does not change that.

                      I fully expect that oversite of this spending will ultimately occur.
                      I even demand that.

                      But that is not the same as saying it must occur as you wish.
                      I do not beleive that FOIA requests can obtain mass information of private persons.

                      Regardless that is a question the courts should sort out.

                      I also fully expect there will be massive amounts of Fraud found – this program was a bad idea from the start and was practically designed for fraud.

                      As to your ranting – my guess is that the executive is not anywhere near close to having the information that you are demanding.

                      You presume a degree of efficiency in government that is impossible.

                      I always assume government corruption and incompetence.

                      Do i think you will find this program was maladministered ?
                      Absolutely. It was designed to be.

                      Will some of this money somehow find its way into Trump’s pockets ?
                      Almost certainly – Trump has more interests, he is involved in businesses that he does not know he is in, and those businesses do not know he has an ownership interest.

                      This money will also find its way into the hands of political crony’s left and right
                      The corruption is likely to be thoroughly bipartisan.

                      This was a bad idea. Locking down the economy was a bad idea.

                    14. John must not contradict Dear Leader.

                      It’s important because stooges like you attempted to corrupt a trusted and scientific federal organization – the panel is the scientists, the stooge was a political appointee – so Dear Leader would not have to admit he was wrong, even about something inconsequential. That you choose to continue it confirms my worst opinion of you .

                    15. “It’s important because stooges like you attempted to corrupt a trusted and scientific federal organization – the panel is the scientists,”

                      What part of libertarian do you not get ?
                      I do not trust government. Something I share with more than 2/3 of americans
                      AP-NORC found Trust in the federal government in may to be 31%

                      Regardless, do you really want me to list a small portion of the near infinite errors of scientific and federal organizations ?

                      Have you read the study of the FBI crime labs ?

                      But back to your specific claim. I do not give a sh$t what the scientists say after the fact.

                      NOAA made numerous predictions BEFORE the fact. Those predications were all over the place – which is not unusual. Many were consistent with the Trump white board,
                      Until replaced by others. Your trying to make a deliberate lie out of a timing issue.

                      The “Scientists” at NOAA can not retroactively alter the past – therefore there is no need for experts.
                      Further their area of expertise is not govenrment, ethics or the constitution.
                      So I do not care what an NOAA panel concludes.

                      The fact they chose to weigh in is proof of their ethical failure.

                      “would not have to admit he was wrong”
                      Of course he was wrong, He was near guaranteed to be wrong. Forecasts are probabalistic. Regardless the huricane did not go inland to Alabama.
                      As I recall it also did not do what NOAA predicted latter that day.

                      Yes, this is inconsequentially – do you have the NOAA press release for each hurican path prediction they have been wrong about ?

                      Only to you is this an issue. Predictions are constantly wrong – look at those regarding C19. It is very rare that we expect a correction for errors that are self evident to the entire world.

                      In January I said that C19 would not likely get into the US. One of the very few C19 errors I have made.

                      Need I buy a billboard to announce that ? Will people everywhere be continuing to make decisions based on that prediction despite the error, until I correct them ?

                      “even about something inconsequential. That you choose to continue it confirms my worst opinion of you .”

                      You raised the issue.

                    16. And what was Obama’s teleprompter scandal? if there was one how does it rank with going to war with one of your own government bureaus?

                    17. Google “Obama Teleprompter” – you will find a long list of gaffe’s and problems in the start of his administration.

                      It was not a scandal, it was minor, and the typical fodder for a slow news day.

                      It was no more or less consequential that the huricane path chart – except that happened once. And still generates frothing and foaming from the left.

                    18. “if there was one how does it rank with going to war with one of your own government bureaus?”

                      Have the marines invaded NOAA ?

                      Regardless, it is the government bureaus that have exceeded their authority.

                      The constitution vests the entire power of the federal executive in the president.
                      With congressional oversite. Not presidential oversite by bureaucrat.

                      If the president says something if you are employed be the executive, you may priviately advise correction. If the issue is so great report it to the IG or congress – and live with the fact they might not agree. If the problem is even bigger than that QUIT and go public

                      But you may not publicly snipe with the president – any president while in the executive branch. Inside the military doing so is actually a crime – even for retired officers.

                    19. John’s contortions to justify Dear Leader are impressive.

                      Congresses intent certainly is critical and defining in many issues before the courts. Further, the administration is not challenging the law in court, they’re just trying to sleaze their way around oversight. And John defends that.

                      As to NOAA, yes, that’s right scientists make errors and they have procedures for correcting them, which is why you can take a jet across the country without nose planting 4 out of 5 times. John somehow manages to take the side of an ignorant pygmy who will try to undermine public confidence in a federal service based on science to avoid having to admit he was wrong on a totally inconsequential statement.

                      What a clown.

                    20. “they’re just trying to sleaze their way around ”

                      The President is living within the letter of the law that you wish to stretch for your own purposes. “Sleaze” is more a reflection on Anon than anyone else as Anon uses the word sleaze when he attacks without ammunition. Anon is the one that should be attacked for the use of these tactics.

                      “try to undermine public confidence in a federal service based on science ”

                      That federal service had Alabama in the sights of the hurricane that moves quickly so that most locations the scientific serviced pointed to likewise moved out of the area of concern. The only reason this became an issue is because some sleazy people made it into an issue and Anon is a part of the sleaze.

                    21. “Congresses intent certainly is critical and defining in many issues before the courts.”
                      Complex. The first step in applying a law is the plain language as used at the time the law was passed. If all questions can be answered by that and the law does not exceed the constitutional powers of government or infringe on individual rights the process is done. It is only if that is insufficient that one looks at intent.

                      “Further, the administration is not challenging the law in court, they’re just trying to sleaze their way around oversight.”
                      Oversight is the responsibility of the congress and the courts.
                      I actually support broad oversite. That said congress and the courts have the power and responsibility to oversee the executive – NOT private parties.
                      You keep demanding information about individuals.

                      While I would narrow executive priviledge and broaden congressional oversight, I would not allow congress to subpeona private individuals or companies.
                      Congress has almost no law enforcement power.
                      Congress is barred by law and the constitution from peoples tax returns as an example.

                      Separately IG’s are members of the executive not congress.
                      I have no problem with congressional oversite – congress should hold hearings and subpeona govenrment records. But they can not get information about private people.

                    22. You blurr science and government.

                      Government has no business in science.

                      Government is power and as Lord Acton noted Power Corrupts.

                      A little less than 2 decades ago a weather satellite over the atlantic that provided important information to predict huricanes started to fail early.
                      There was a hot spare ready to go, but no room on the space shuttle until significantly after it would fail. The reinsurance industry – the people who insure the insurance companies. offered to pay for the launch on a european or Russian rocket. NASA refused. So they started a rush project to design build and loft their own satelite.
                      They came up with about $1B to do so, and were started the process and would have a new satelite up before the old one failed when NASA mysteriously found a free slot on the shuttle.

                      We do not need government weather services. We only have facilities like NOAA because government will not allow competition.

                      There is a long record of economic data demonstrating that any service that government provides that can be provided without government will be done better and more efficiently.

                      We got lessons in that with C19. We were told that all our PPE was made in china and we would get none.

                      There was never an actual shortage of PPE for healthcare workers, and only a brief one for ordinary people.

                      While we all fight over the failures of government – Ollies has large pallets of hand sanitizer dirt cheap. Toilet paper did run out in LA – every day. but by the next morning the shelves were full again. We have masks out the wahzoo.

                      We ramped up production of ventalators but ended up not needing them.

                      I think there are 70 vaccine candidates right now – that is after 3 months.
                      There were about 1/2 dozen after 1month.
                      Numerous antivirals have been tried – most but not all failed. We have two possibly 3 effective ones in a few months

                      All this courtesy of free markets – not government.

                      The government failed massively in testing.
                      The feds turned it over to the states, and the states to private labs. and they have tested 26M people so far

                      Combining science and government violates a critical precept.
                      The primary criteria for trust is “skin in the game”.
                      Government never has “skin in the game”
                      as we see from C19 there is little to no consequence for error on the part of government science experts.

                      The NOAA is no different.

                      If you want me to trust someone – then find me a source that will lose money or their job of their are wrong.
                      That is never true of govenrment.
                      Incentives matter.

                    23. “Government has no business in science.” “While we all fight over the failures of government – Ollies has large pallets of hand sanitizer dirt cheap.”

                      For the most part true and even in that final part, almost always, the private sector can do it better. Government has a few people thinking of solutions. The free economy has over 300 million people looking for solutions all with different perpectives. When we found hand sanitizer unavailable, very early in the game, we went to the liquor store and bought large bottles of vodka 150 proof at a very low price, certainly lower than the inflated price of hand sanitizer offered by Amazon. We bought some large bottles of aloe knowing that a 50:50 mix would provide the protection of Purell. My understanding is that one company that produced vodka went into the business of producing a product similar to Purell.

                      The same has occurred for masks though not of the N-95 variety though many N-95 were used outside of the healthcare sector and didn’t have to be approved as N-95. Has the the government produced a “N-96″ or” N-100″? No, but scientist have put together masks using nanontechnology that are thought to be “N-100”. Virtually every major decision made by government involving individual behavior was changed more than once. Not only that but government accepted people rioting and protesting in very close quaters without masks for political reasons while others were threatened with arrest mowing their own lawns.

                    24. The issue is not science and government – we fortunately have an NOAA whether crackpot “libertarians” like John likes it or not. The issue is John’s situational “logic” and “objectivity” – pettifogging more pronounced for wordiness than cleverness, since he shifts subjects like an old Ford 8N with a bad throw out bearing – whenever defending Dear Leader is required. Dollars to donuts he voted for the a…..e and can’t admit it.

                    25. The issue is not science and government
                      When government intrudes in science, science becomes less trustworthy.

                      “all power corrupts”
                      Lord Acton.

                      There is no exception for science.

                      “The issue is John’s situational “logic” and “objectivity” – pettifogging more pronounced for wordiness than cleverness, since he shifts subjects like an old Ford 8N with a bad throw out bearing – whenever defending Dear Leader is required. Dollars to donuts he voted for the a…..e and can’t admit it.”

                      Is there any argument at all in this entire rant ?
                      Is there even a meaningful or relevant comment ?
                      Is there even a single clause that is not a fallacy ?

                      Not only did I vote for Johnson. but I have been voting libertarain even in state elections for years. When there is a libertarain choice I almost always vote libertarain.

                      But once again you are clairvoyant, you know more about my thinking than I do myself

                      You keep claiming that you do not try to read minds, and then you go off and do it again.

    1. David, he’s admitted here that he gets his news from YouTube.. We also know he believes what Trump says.

      What could go wrong?

      1. Anon – several people have screen shots of trying to donate to BLM and it sends them to ActBlue’s page. You are actually using Media Matters, a propaganda wing of the DNC. as a fact checker? As Joe Biden would say, Come on, man!

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-nine weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, the donations go to ActBlue which is a SuperPAC for the DNC.

              1. David:

                If you read Professor Turley’s article above, he discusses the complete disconnect between what the media reports activists do and want, and what activists actually do and say they want.

                Please clarify. Are you under the impression that BLM contributes to Republicans, and not Democrats? Or do you think they don’t make political contributions?

                Do you know where Black Lives Matter spends all the money they rake in? In 2016 alone, they received at least $100 million. When I go on their website, I do not see an accounting.

                Its political activity is most certainly Democratic, rather than Republican. It’s not like it can seriously claim to be bipartisan. And they rake in significant money. So much, that Nancy Pelosi put on Kente cloth (because cultural appropriation is out again) and got down on her knees in heels on that cold, hard floor. She needed help to get up. But for an organization that has 9 figures available, she’s happy to oblige. The optics of that pandering have not worked out well.

                All that money. Where’s it going? They could build swanky new schools for that.

                https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/

        1. Paul, you are absolutely correct about Act Blue and BLM. Anon always goes after the messenger. He seldom discusses the message and has been pointed out over and over again he is generally wrong. Olly says Anon’s words are those of a traitor and believes Anon to be a traitor. Many of his words definitely fit Olly’s description but Anon might be too dumb to be classified as a traitor.

              1. Less than 4% is the processing fee; nominal for the result. None goes to DNC unless so designated; Paul C Schulte is flat out wrong.

                1. My understanding is that there is a little hanky panky going on there. That is typical for the Democrat Party so I don’t bother with that too much. It makes what Paul says about the connection true.

                  1. You are wrong. ActBlue is a PAC so everything has to be reported. So you couldn’t of read the links that I provided, not with comprehension.

                    1. Allan, the Conservative Tree House just Makes Stuff Up. ♏

                      This isn’t reporting.

                    2. David, you always say someone is making something up when you don’t like what you hear.

                      Can you tell us where the BLM donations are going? Or how much they are? The article and the information are relatively new so one has to be careful but to discount it totally like you do everything else is a sign of a person that doesn’t know much of anything because he doesn’t want to know.

                      Let me quote from the article something that yet needs to be verified in my mind but makes sense.

                      “As of May 21st, ActBlue has donated $119,253,857 to the “Biden for President” effort.

                      It’s a smart workaround and provides a back-door for all of the Hollywood and social influence crowd to use. By supporting donations to Black Lives Matter, the leftist movement writ large is essentially funding the DNC. The BLM movement is simply a vessel for them to use and exploit.

                      Keep in mind you are now hearing of multi-million donations to Black Lives Matter from big corporations. Any corporation that pays into this scheme is actually paying to fund Joe Biden 2020 and the Democrats. Now all of those “donations” make sense.

                      Over the past couple of weeks, in the wake of the protests over extrajudicial killings of Black people, tech companies have made tens of millions of dollars in commitments to racial equity organizations. (link)”

                    3. The funny thing is Anonymous that when the Steele Dossier was debunked you called it (something like) a cesspool as well. Don’t you feel foolish now? Probably not because you still probably believe it. Loads of phony claims have been made against Trump that you believe despite the fact that they were debunked by conservative media. Now we are seeing the truth in the FBI files and in Congressional testimony finally released. Every phony item about Trump you believed, but when they were debunked you shouted ‘cesspool’ which demonstrates what and who you are. No wonder you go under the name Anonymous.

                      We will have to wait to see the true meaning behind the information but your response to denigrate the media reporting the data is pretty stupid. That is generally the only response a vacuous mind has to offer.

                    4. I do not know anything more than the video.

                      I have no reason to assume the 75 year old is Antifa. Nor frankly does it matter.

                      What matters is his conduct and that of the officers.

                      We do not have much of what happened before this event.
                      We do not have clear audio either.

                      Based on the limited evidence I see in the video, the man was interfering with the police, and the officer mildly over reacted, and the 75 year old fell and hurt himself more severely than appears waranted by the push he received.

                      Without more information I do not wish to read much into that.

                      Older people lose their balance and fall hard when younger ones do not.

                      I know that the police unit was staging and that it was questionable to approach them.

                      But we do not know whether the man asked “where is the nearest portapotty” or “why are you a F#$Knf pig”

                      I would further note that White police officers tend not to shove 74yr old white men for asking for directions to the porta potty.

                      So it is reasonable to assume he was being a pest atleast.

                    5. John, There is no reason to get lost in the details. The man was interferring with an important police action. That he is thought by some to be a troublemaker and attempting to fish for police data is something that the courts could be interested in should any claims in any direction be made.

                      The basic point was he was interferring and got hurt. No one wanted him hurt but that happens when people place themselves in the way of harm.

                    6. “John, There is no reason to get lost in the details. The man was interferring with an important police action. ”

                      That is a plausible conclusion. It is not however certain based on what I have seen.

                      Without audio, without the preceding context, I am highly inclinded to give 75yr olds the benefit of the doubt.

                      For all I know he was persistently demanding to know where the porta potties are.

                      “That he is thought by some to be a troublemaker”
                      I do not reject that as a possibility either.
                      His fall does NOT look like a natural response to the shove he got.
                      That could be because here was only and doddering,
                      or just an accident – some falls are worse than others, sometimes we fall when it makes no sense.
                      Or he could have been deliberately trying to make it look like the officer harmed him.

                      All plausible.
                      But I do not have sufficient information to conclude that.

                    7. “That is a plausible conclusion. It is not however certain based on what I have seen.”

                      I think the films and events demonstrate that there was a lawful police action. I think anyone could see the police were moving forward and in this area only this man was moving towards the police. The man made movements that could be interpreted as dangerous for the police so they pushed him away. If the man were looking for the porta potty then he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sh1t happens.

                      Anyway you look at it, even from the porta potty viewpoint “The man was interferring with an important police action.”

                    8. I have only seen one clip.
                      It starts a few seconds before the officer shoves the 75yr old.

                      I have heard many things – but I do not trust things because I have heard them.

                      In the video i have seen the 75yr old’s fall was odd, It did not seem properly connected to the shove. I am not sure whether he was trying to fall or his heels caught, but it just did not look right. I think part of the problem is the 75yr old approached the officer and they squared his feet. that is not natural. If one foot had been forward of the other he would not have fallen. It also looked like the 75yr old was trying to block the officer.

                      but alot of this is subjective – it is guessing.

                      More context would be helpful.

                      But honestly I do not care that much.

                      I also think the officer lost his temper.
                      Not badly, but enough.

                      I do not think this should have been that big a deal.
                      but it got blown out of proportion.

                    9. “I do not think this should have been that big a deal.
                      but it got blown out of proportion.”

                      The man interferred with a legitimate police action and the police officer had the right to push the man away. It doesn’t matter what the man was doing though based on the reports I have seen, it seems the man was up to no good. The police must be able to protect themselves and maintain their lines when doing crowd control. A lot of people have been hurt and killed over the country, property destroyed, family businesses destroyed and families destroyed because the police were not permitted to do their job.

                    10. I would also note this goes against the “systemic racism” narative.

                      Whatever happened here – it happened to a 75yr old white guy.

                      If you make this into a really egregious action by the officer,
                      The conclusion is not “cops are racist”. it is cops are brutal.

                    11. ” would also note this goes against the “systemic racism” narative.”

                      We are not talking about systemic racism. We are talking about limited racism and in this case violence. The numbers do not show significant racism from the vast majority of police departments. This is hyped up by those that don’t care about life. If they did they would be in Chicago trying to stop the killing or our children which is black on black. They would also be in Baltimore and every other large City that has continuously been under Democrat control. These leftists that are sensationalizing Goerge Floyd, Brown etc. are stirring violence against other groups.

                      Take this example of anti-Semitism which has been growing in certain communities trying to find someone easy to blame for their problems. The Sharftons and other such leaders no matter the race are guity.

                    12. Allan. Chill,

                      I was not claiming systematic racism exists.

                      I was saying that the left is telling us that police are racist.

                      Well they just shoved arround a 75yr old white guy. In what world is that racist ?

                    13. John, I didn’t think you believed there was systemic racism. I actually agreed with your points. I am annoyed because a singular act has caused so much death and destruction and spins elsewhere and to other people. This is a creation of the left for money and power. I pointed to a clip on anti-Semitism because it heightens that as well. The Democratic Party is pitting one group against another and people are dying. Does anyone think that this will help quell the violence and subsequent deaths of black youths in Chicago?

                    14. Anonymous – The Daily Beast is not accurate about what they are reporting in this article. They are reporting feelings, not facts. For instanced, on Gugino, there is video of him before the pushing incident talking to the photographer who got the picture and there is video of him talking to activists one of whom says “This guy seems to want to get punched in the face.”

                      The Daily Beast needs to dig deeper on its reporting.

                    15. “Misinformation Directory”

                      By FactCheck.org

                      https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/websites-post-fake-satirical-stories/

                      Excerpt:

                      The Conservative Tree House

                      Theconservativetreehouse.com posts conservative-leaning stories that sometimes include misinformation. It has a lengthy description on its “About Us” page, including:

                      “Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.”

                      The site is registered through Domains By Proxy, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.

                    16. Posting from left wing fact checkers doesn’t help decide which media is truthful and which isn’t.

                      The easiest way to determine truth is to look at what we know and using the Steele Dossier as an example take a look at all the MSM and left wings blogs that tried to say the Steele Dossier was true. We now know it wasn’t. We also knew it was paid for by the Hillary Campaign and DNC but the left wing blogs made all sorts of statements to prove it wasn’t.

                      The Steele Dossier was the tip of the iceberg, yet some like anonymous still feel that the left wing sites are always honest and the right wing sites are always dishonest. That demonstrates the inability for anonymous and others to learn from mistakes. That is how people get smart. The rest become the opposite of smart leaving people like anonymous in a bad place.

                    17. One rare occasions there is actually good reporting from WaPo or NYT.

                      But by and large the media is a useless cesspool.

                      I am not a big Fox fan – but Fox is more credible and sane than the rest of the media combined.

                      Regardless, if you want truth today, you have to chase the raw information yourself.

                    18. “One rare occasions there is actually good reporting from WaPo or NYT.”

                      There is but that went in the toilet when they chose to advocate for left wing causes and couldn’t separate the news from opinion. Today they are virtually worthless sources for the news.

                      In the meantime, how much are you charging Anon for your lessons on Logic. I’m only auditing so I don’t have to pay but your points are loud and clear.

                    19. “the Conservative Tree House just Makes Stuff Up.”

                      I can’t speak to the other reporting on Conservative Tree House but I closely followed their reporting during the George Zimmerman trial and their research on that case was superior to anything in the media and sometimes better than the lawyers on either side.

                      They were so good at uncovering new information that it seemed to me that the defense counsel were consulting the page regularly and using at least some of the information that they discovered. I wasn’t the only one who thought that. The prosecutors complained about it in open court and on television as well.

                      Sometimes the defense would try to get relevant information into evidence and be blocked by a pro-prosecution, political judge. Occasionally the motions would be abstruse but one could tell from Conservative Tree House research what it was all about.

                      Their Zimmerman research is still available on the site and one can review it and reach one’s one conclusion about its accuracy in the light of information that came out during the trial and since. They were not just making stuff up then.

                    20. ActBlue is similar to a bank. Each depositor, owner of an account, tells the bank to whom pay how much.

                      I don’t know what BLM does with its contributions. Whatever, ActBlue just pays whatever is requested to whomever.

                    21. Perhaps that is where the Hanky Panky exists. You are now one step further to being aware.

      1. Allan, I know a modest bit of statistics. More to the point here, Grant Foster aka Tamino is an excellent professional statistician.

        1. “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” __Mark Twain

          You have a facile mind where statistics are concerned so you lack the true understanding behind Mark Twain’s comment.

          1. When I was in high school I reviewed “How to Lie with Statistics”. Its now available online.

            1. David, maybe you should have read the book instead of reviewing it.

              That is exactly what is being shown in the article.

              1. Allan, in order to write a review it is necessary to read first. With comprehension.

                Don’t lawyers read before writing a review? I knew it!

                1. Based on what you write here David I don’t think you bother reading a lot of things before commenting much less writing a review.

                  1. Irrelevant.

                    But I attempt to be careful in my comments, unless an attempt at humour, which often fails.

                    1. David, sometimes I wonder about your comments. Nothing wrong with humor or humour though the dry British variety sometimes skips over people’s heads.

    1. Oklahoma cops are racist?

      I haven’t formed an opinion on this yet, but the study might be susceptible to one or two errors.

      First, it assumes a conclusion based on a simple correlation. I could use a similar set of data to demonstrate that wet streets cause rain. Every time I look up days the streets are wet I also discover that it has rained. Perhaps I can make it rain by hosing down the street. The argument isn’t quite the same, but it is similar.

      Second, the assumption is made that a cop shooting a black man is doing it because he is racist. Maybe that isn’t so. The NJ Troopers were assumed to be racist when they ticketed more blacks than whites. Quite a big deal was made of it. Then speed cameras ticketed in about the same ratio. The cameras weren’t racist and neither were the troopers. Blacks broke the speed limit more often. Same thing happened in London with blacks ticketed more often than whites even when cameras were used.

      One could argue that the officer quoted as saying that more blacks should be shot by police had it right. The police have backed off enforcement in places like Baltimore and the local black men have taken up the slack and shot more blacks than the police did. Are they racist?

      By any measure, blacks commit more crimes than any other race or ethnic group and it seems likely that with the fair application of enforcement without racism as a cause for shooting more blacks than others are going to be shot.

      It seems like someone has taken “How to Lie With Statistics” as a ‘how to’ manual rather than a warning.

      But I reserve final judgment until I have more information.

      1. There is also a data set size problem.

        The data set of all police shootings in the US is barely large enough to show racism if there was anyone. Only 9 unarmed blacks in the entire country were killed by police in 2019. Hiw are you going to get a body of data from OKC big enough to be statistically meaningful.

        1. John– Good point. Not enough data to move the meter in a meaningful way. Statistically insignificant.

          What probably is statistically significant is the very large increase in murders in Baltimore after the police backed off.

          The demand for racism exceeds the supply so they invent it.

          1. There is already a spike in non-riot related crimes in the cities that have had mass protests.

            One of the most trivail solutions to this police racism problem is to significantly increase the number of black police in black comminities.
            We do not need good black cops, just black ones.

            Unfortunately even hispanics will not do – unless they are really black.
            Because when a hispanic cop shoots a black man, it is still really a white cop shooting a black man.

            And if crime spikes in black communites – oh well, policing is not “systemically racist”.

            There are real reforms I would like to see,

            But I doubt they will happen. What we will get is stupid, and a spike in crime.

            1. A couple of times in Miami black guys were shot by Hispanic cops and riots followed.

              Seldom mentioned in the media is the racial tension between blacks and Hispanics. Apparently proximity doesn’t generate love. It is easier to adore black culture hiding behind gates in a white/Asian community than living next to them and hearing that tio has been robbed and shot.

              In Illinois the Latin Kings gang came into the streets armed and kept the rioters out. Good for them. Never thought I would cheer a street gang, but when the cops are told to stand down a gang offers some organization and protection.

              If lame judges keep releasing criminals straight onto the street hours after arrest I imagine there will be more instances of resisting arrest requiring a broken bone or two. Never thought I would hope for that, but I am drifting that way. Street justice is better than no justice.

              1. I know that polls have shifted against Trump and Republicans in the midst of this.

                But I find it hard to beleive that a strong backlash is not coming.

                This country desparately wants a return to normalcy.
                Which is one reason Trump needs to shut up a bit – even if he is not wrong.

                When Trump speaks he takes ownership of the problem.

                Absolutley nothing about Floyd or this mess involves Trump.

                The militarization of the police occured before he was elected. Biden is up to his ass in laws the the left is now excoriating. Trump had nothing to do with them.

                None of the cities rioting are controlled by republicans. Most have democratic governors.
                In most instances these disasters are occuring in the most left leaning cities in the country.

                Let the left self destruct.

                The whole country is watching. There are what 3 people in the country that actually want to see the police abolished ?

                We are already seeing spikes in crime in theses cities.

                Let the left fight over what Defunding the police means. Iutside of the left who thinks there is a meaning that is good.

                Who thinks suburban soccer mom’s want to defund the police ?

                Trump should be giving free air time to democratic mayors and governors.

                In a rational world – no democrat should get re-elected.

                1. John Say – 1 million people reportedly have asked for tickets to his campaign speech in Tulsa. If that is true, if I were a Democrat, I would be getting nervous.

                  1. Right now, I just flat our do not beleive the polls.

                    I find it extremely hard to beleive that an entirely blue problem badly handled tanks Trump.

                    Otherwise democrats should just pay police to kill black people in Blue states and blue cities to win the election.

    2. “Oklahoma police shoot blacks more often:”

      That might be true. David, assume there were 25 armed bank robberies by green people intercepted by police and 1 armed bank robbery by red people intercepted by police. There are shoot outs in all of them. More green people get shot then red.

      Do you think that indicates racism against green people?

      1. People who commit violent crimes are police shooting targets.

        Blacks commit more violent crimes than other races do.

        Police shoot more blacks.

        Simple logic and not necessarily racist.

        1. Young, sometimes reality is hard to get across to some people. That is why I used green and red people for David. Logic on this blog escapes the leftist mindset. In fact can one be consistantly openly leftist and openly logical at the same time?

  3. Where was the pointed follow-up question by Alisyn Camarota to Lisa Bender? The answer to “who is going to field 911 calls?” was about as evasive as it gets. This isn’t a good sign. If the media are going to coddle naive-idealist-proto-Jacobins, what comes next?

  4. The Truckers are solving this stupidity. No trucks going into any city that defunds it’s police force. You want food bank deliveries? Tough it’s diet time. You want protection? Take a bus out of town IF the busses are running? Electrical goes out. So what? Try to get out of your predicament? Barricade them into not being able to leave .

  5. Radley Balko
    @radleybalko
    “Systemic racism” does not mean “all cops are racist.” It means the criminal justice system is racially discriminatory regardless of the motivations of the people who operate it.

    Quote Tweet

    Jake Tapper
    @jaketapper
    · May 31
    Asked if systemic racism is a problem in US law enforcement, White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told me just now: “No. I don’t think there’s systemic racism…

    8:36 AM · May 31, 2020· Twitter

    https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1267087452692533251

    1. “It means the criminal justice system is racially discriminatory regardless of the motivations of the people who operate it.”

      Wrong, that is disparate impact, As has been noted 90% of those prosecuted fro crimes are men. We do not presume that the system is sexist against me.

      systemic racism REQUIRES racist motivations throughout the system.

      We live in the least racist moment in the least racist county in history.

      1. Great post, John.

        People don’t understand the difference between a disparity, and racism.

        Immigrants from African nations earn more on average than native born African Americans. If the biggest obstacle to success was racism, then the two groups would have similar outcomes.

        1. There is one chapter in Murray’s book “Coming Apart” that shows the similarities of welfare recipient blacks here and welfare recipient blacks in Great Britain. The groups had tremendous similarities.

        2. Immigrants are a self selected population of highly motivated individuals, perhaps of already advanced accomplishments and may include training and willingness to struggle to overcome obstacles.. You cannot say based on that metric that American blacks do not face more obstacles than whites, and they almost certainly do.

            1. Haven’t you seen lately? Immigrants can walk down a ramp more steadier than the bumbling goat at the white house who was born here?

              Or immigrants are less racist than half-educated morons who regularly spew hatred here like you?

              Want even more?

          1. Why is it blacks make only 13% or less of the Gen Pop, but commit over 50% of the crime?

            Could it be: “bythebook says:
            June 14, 2020 at 4:39 PM

            “Immigrants are a self selected population of highly motivated individuals, perhaps of already advanced accomplishments and may include training and willingness to struggle to overcome obstacles..”

            Stop with the Horse Sh*t already BTB.

            The Mexicans/CA’s are doing far better & they’ll Work.

            BTW: the tag like BTB you must be Susan Rice or some other American hating Turd from Obama’s crew as that’s the same excuse they used for the Sedition/Espionage… BTB!

          2. Can you even imagine being a sharp black guy or gal working your azz off ,raising your family, being a good citizen & then seeing all these black/white/ assosorted anti-American freaks/prevs,,, Retards, burning down your biz, your work place your nation.

            I can & types rotten commie behavior will not stand.

          3. African Americans have a rate of single motherhood of over 75%. That is a high risk factor for poverty, crime, jail, early death.

            You can’t escape the math.

            Cultures who have traditional values of a 2 parent household, and the importance of staying in school, fare better. Those who regularly attend a place of worship fail better.

            Again, it’s math.

            A child born into a single parent household in a bad part of town, in a school where there is a lot of violence, has more obstacles than a child born into a conservative 2 parent home, in a low crime neighborhood, where school is very important, regardless of the skin color of those involved.

            This mathematical formula works regardless of the color of the integers plugged into it. It is one of the secrets to success of the Asian subculture of America. Note that though Asians fare better than whites, there is no outrage at Asian privilege. Though there is, however, racial bias against high achieving Asian college applicants.

            No matter how much people try to blame the high crime, high incarceration rates, and high poverty on racism, the fact is, some of this is self inflicted. And once a child is born into this environment, they learn the exact wrong way how to become successful, and the cycle continues.

            All this focused rage, action, force of BLM…pointed in the wrong direction. Look within and fix these problems. Every child deserves their best chance. It’s a values problem. The cycle of teaching values in a nuclear family has been broken, like a mutated strand of DNA that keeps replicating the same maladaptive mistake. The instructions given to the next generation need to be repaired.

          4. Bythebook,
            By saying of immigrants that they have a “willingness to struggle to overcome obstacles” it comes across that homegrown citizens do not have the same degree of willingness to overcome obstacles. There may truth in that, though. Learned helplessness and complacency can impede a desire to improve one’s circumstances.

        3. There is a massive amount of data on race and policing in the US.

          There are a very small numbers of areas that either demonstrate problems or atleast suggest there is a basis for further inquiry.

          Blacks tend to get higher sentences for the same crimes. But that is evidence of judicial racism, not racism in policing. Further I would like to see those results fully regressed.
          I.e. does that still hold if you compare working class whites to working class blacks and middle class whites to middle class blacks ? I do not know the answer. But MANY crime statistics that purportedly prove racism are actually a reflection that crime and class strongly correlate, and there are more minorities, particularly blacks in lower classes.

          Their MIGHT be a problem there. There might even be a racism problem, but there is not a policing problem.

          Regardless, if we presume we know what the problem is without regard for the data, then we are not going to fix it.

          There is lots of reforms that i am hoping will result from this.
          Republicans are apparently digging their heals in against repealing qualified immunity.
          Qualified immunity is a mistake and it should go.

          The militarization of policing is a major problem – and we should stop it.
          “Lord we don’t need another SWAT team, we have SWAT teams and APC’s enough to last til the end of time”.

          There are a long list of other reforms that would be wise.

          At the same time we need to stop demonizing police – most are not superheros, nor super villians. They are ordinary people doing a very hard and dangerous job.

          And the left should be careful, they might get what the wish. over 600 NYPD officers have quit, there is muttering in the ranks about a strike or slowdown.

          Those calling to abolish the police might get to see what that looks like.

          In cities with protests accross the country crime has spiked on average 200%,
          That is factoring our looting and arson and the direct effects of “protests”.

          Criminals know that the police are tied up with crowd control and that response times are way way way up. There are more murders, and rapes, and all sorts of crimes.

          We should not forget that Crime has been trending down for 30 years, that politic brutality, that police shootings have all been trending down.

          The fact that we can do better does not mean we should not recognize that we are doing well.

          We should take care while “reforming” not to make things worse.

        4. There are some data points that indicate reasons for actual concern.

          Police stops by race change proportions when it gets dark.

          There is evidence that blacks are handcuffed more frequently at stops that to not result in arrests.

          But for many statistics black officers are more likely to perform “racist” acts to blacks, than white officers.

          We are also seeing more automated policing – traffic camera’s and the like and these seem to indicate that human stops of blacks are lower than those of automated systems.

      2. We do live in the least racist moment in our history, however, declaring the least racist country in history would be more than difficult to assess and with variable metrics.

        1. bythebook, I don’t believe we live in the least racist moment in our history. Racism has never been directly addressed in this country. It has always been just under the surface. Lately all events, shooting of unarmed black men, people denigrating immigrants because they speak their own language in their presence, or that they don’t belong here because they look like illegals, etc.

          We really haven’t as a nation acknowledged the fact that we still have problem with racism that has not been addressed. We can say ti still exists but we are not facing it as we should. I suspect it’s one reason why actual racists don’t like being called racists. That there is no real effort to educate the harm it does.

          I think of how Germany dealt with the holocaust. It is taught in schools as something that they admit was wrong and why. It is emphasized to the point where every German understands why and why it shouldn’t happen again.

          Here the confederacy is still glorified and seen as something to be admired. It may offend some, but it shouldn’t be. They lost their argument by losing a war. The reasons why the idea of owning people as slaves being wrong should have been taught to every child thereafter. Sadly the same sentiments, and attitudes that survived the civil war still are part of this country’s culture. I don’t deny there has been progress, but that progress evidently has not been good enough.

          1. “We really haven’t as a nation acknowledged the fact that we still have problem with racism that has not been addressed.”
            **********************
            Big lie! I’m impressed. Of course, we and the Brits have done more to address racism than any other countries (350,000 deaths can’t be wrong) but do carry on. I love a master at his craft. Even propagandists.

          2. “The reasons why the idea of owning people as slaves being wrong should have been taught to every child thereafter. Sadly the same sentiments, and attitudes that survived the civil war still are part of this country’s culture.”

            I live in a little small town in central Texas. We should be in the heart of what you are claiming but living here I can tell you that what you wrote is pure B.S. It seems that woke people look at blacks and see a cause. Us poor ignorant Southerners around here look at black people and see friends.

          3. Svelaz– “We really haven’t as a nation acknowledged the fact that we still have problem with racism that has not been addressed”.

            On the contrary. We are wallowing in the subject.

          4. Svelaz, the question was whether it is the least racist moment in our countries history, not whether racism is solved. I don’t know what other era would have been less racist, and I lived through the last decade + of segregation in the Deep South.

            By the way, the “Lost Cause” movement is having it’s symbols shattered or parked all over the csouth and even NASCAR has now banned the “rebel” flag. Literally symbolism I know, but visible signs of the dying out of support for that regressive and destructive political message. The people who live by the court house now will get a say in their messaging and it won’t be about their own enslavement.

            1. book…..you have been at it since early morning. You need to disconnect, get reacquainted with the important things in life of which this is not one of them.

              unplug

        2. “however, declaring the least racist country in history would be more than difficult to assess and with variable metrics.”

          The Chinese are openly racist against ethnic minorities – those groups are small – 95% of China is Hahn, but minorities are horribly treated even murdered.

          In japan koreans are treated worse than blacks in the US, despite the fact that native japanese are nearly all of Korean descent. Though this is improving.

          Europe has rubbed the US’s nose in racism – until they absorbed large numbers of mideasterners, Now even countries like Sweden are having very serious racism problems.

          Indian’s discriminate against each other based on the tint of their skin. They do so even in the US.

          There is no significant country in the entire world with close to the racial diversity of the US. The next closest countries are the rest of the angle sphere – UK, NZ, AU, CA.

          Hispanics in much of south and central america discriminate between those whose ancestors came from Spain and those who are natives.

          I am sure if you wish to find data you will be able to confirm that the only contries with less racial problems than the US are more than 95% a single race.

      3. John says,

        “We live in the least racist moment in the least racist county in history.” This is exactly the tone deafness that many here seem to be exhibiting abundantly. There ARE racist motivations. They are happening before your very eyes everyday. But I don’t expect you to get it since you have never been in a position to experience it or be the target of systemic racism. How would you recognize it if you have never experienced it? Opining that it has been the least racist moment makes it seem like you’re just clueless about what you are talking about.

        Do you even understand what systemic racism is? Clearly there is a failure or denial to recognize that there is certainly a serious problem.

        The justice system is racially discriminatory because of the police who evidently see people of color more often as criminals and “thugs”. They get harsher penalties for offenses than whites do for the same offenses. Then there’s the problem of poor training and sloppy recruiting of new police officers who tend to be abusive or racist. That is not saying all are, but a culture that enables racists and abusive individuals obviously is pervasive enough that it is present in the majority of police and sheriff departments. White supremacists are known to apply to become LEO’s and the idea of having “qualified immunity” and opportunity to act on their racist ideologies creates a big problem that has festered for too long.

        1. “This is exactly the tone deafness that many here seem to be exhibiting abundantly. There ARE racist motivations. ”

          Of course there are. My daughter is Chinese, she experiences racism all the time.
          More so from blacks than other groups.

          “They are happening before your very eyes everyday. But I don’t expect you to get it since you have never been in a position to experience it or be the target of systemic racism.”
          You jumped the shark. Humans discriminate. We are inherently tribal.
          That mitigates slightly in more diverse countries, but it is never going away.

          But there is a difference between individual discrimination and systemic discrimination.

          Myriads of studies have been done.
          We KNOW, that factors INSIDE peoples control, have far far more impact on their future than race.

          Graduate from HS, Actually learn, do not get pregnant before you are ready to start a family. Do not commit crimes, do not take drugs. get a job – any job learn skills.

          These are the factors that will determine your future – and their effects are near constant with respect to race.

          Fail at any of these, and your odds of a good future drop fast.

          “How would you recognize it if you have never experienced it?”
          Just a few days ago, a black person spit on my daughter.

          “Opining that it has been the least racist moment makes it seem like you’re just clueless about what you are talking about.”

          I am an architect – are only architects allowed an oppinion on what buildings look like or how they work ?

          I am 62, the older you get the harder it is to find work – that is discrimination to, and I have experienced it.

          My daughter gets absolutely furious with blacks, as she experiences racism all the time – sometimes from blacks. And she is constantly told exactly what you are telling me that no one who is not black can know racism.

          Grow up. If as you say whites have no concept of racism. then why do you expect them to care about it ? Why do you expect them to do anything about it ?

          If you are right that white people should have no voice then they have no reason to care.
          If you want whites to understand, to care to do something about it, then you are going to have to accept that they are absle to understand – or the problem can not be improved.

          “Do you even understand what systemic racism is?”
          Do you ? Define it.

          “Clearly there is a failure or denial to recognize that there is certainly a serious problem.”
          If as you say there is a problem, but 65% of people can not see it.
          then nothing will be done.

          You are pleading for empathy while denying that whites are capable of it.

          “The justice system is racially discriminatory because of the police who evidently see people of color more often as criminals and “thugs”.”
          There is little or no evidence of that – this has been addressed thoroughly and statistically by many people.

          “They get harsher penalties for offenses than whites do for the same offenses.”
          That is a problem in the judicial system not policing.
          It is possible that you are even correct, but regress that data for class and see if there is still evidence – do working class whites get shorter sentences that working class blacks ?
          I do not know. Do you ?

          “Then there’s the problem of poor training and sloppy recruiting of new police officers”
          Absolutely. But that is not racism. It is also a problem in just about every job there is.
          And it tends to be worse in crappier jobs.

          The best and the brightest are going to be doctors, and engineers, and so forth as we progress down the ladder.

          The pool of people available for police jobs does not include many people with the skills to be doctors and engineers.

          This problem excebreates as unemployment declines.

          The more people who have jibs the harder it is to hire good people.

          Regardless we have to make things work with the people we have, not the ones we wish we had.

          I would note that Camden solved their problem by hiring more less qualified officers and paying them less.

          “who tend to be abusive”
          A real but declining problem.

          “or racist.”
          And your evidence ?

          “That is not saying all are,”
          Unless most are your “systemic” argument fails.

          ” but a culture”
          Absolutely there are problems with police culture – as you noted they tend to be abusive (though abuse is declining). There are a number of other cultural issues with policing.
          But there is no culture of racism.

          “that enables racists and abusive individuals obviously is pervasive enough that it is present in the majority of police and sheriff departments.”
          You keep conflating abuse and racism. You think no white people have been abused by police ? About twice as many whites are abused by police each year as blacks,

          “White supremacists are known to apply to become LEO’s”
          Yes, the police in Seattle, Mineapolis, Chicago, NYC are rife with “white supremecists”

          When is the last time you saw a white supremecist ?
          What are there maybe a dozen KKK left int he country ?

          When I was a teen there were Klan rallies a few miles from my home with a couple of thousand.

          Charlottesville was the largest gathering of “alt-right” in decades – it barely exceeded 500 and most of those groups would not qualify as white supremecists.

          There are many times more antifa in any major city in the US than white supremecists in the entire country.

          Law Enforcement does tend to draw the wrong type of people – but not inherently racists.

          Regardless what do you plan on doing ? Make “white spremecists” into doctors and engineers and make engineers into police ?

          You are going to have to figure our how to make the world work with the people you have, not the ones you wish you had.

          While you are not right about the extent of racism – if you were, there is nothing but time that will fix the problem.

          “and the idea of having “qualified immunity””
          I am opposed to qualified immunity and have fought against it for decades.
          In fact I have supported nearly all the focused proposals for police reform.

          “and opportunity to act on their racist ideologies”
          Now you have gone past racism and posited an prevelant ideologies ?

          “creates a big problem that has festered for too long.”

          So the fact that racism is radically declined over the past 60 years means it is “festering?”

          Unless you are able to face reality, you have no hope of fixing anything.

          What effect will all your lectures on systemic racism have – given that there is very little actual racism in policing ?

          You have noted many problems that are real. We can all benefit from fixing those.
          No one is getting anywhere fighting problems that do not exist, or are so tiny as to be inconsequential

Leave a Reply