November links, including a bit of rioting

 These are non-election-related links. Not many of them, but the election didn't manage to wipe out everything.

Another shooting by police. Again my initial response is that victims largely caused the incident. But my opinion changed somewhat. Parents were having a quiet moment in their car, not breaking any laws, and the police interrupted them to ask or serve a warrant. Are there better way to handle warrants? How big a problem are warrants? I'm no longer assuming that warrants are synonymous with people of low-character. 

A great article about the New York Times. It's facing a dramatic generational shift from the boomers/GenX to the millenials. 

This is election-related, but outside of the main topic which the scramble over electoral votes. Saturday after the election (Nov. 7), street parties erupted as people decided Biden had won and they took to the streets to celebrate. A week later, Trump supporters organized a rally in Washington DC. It was supposed to be a Million MAGA March, but was tens of thousands. There were also counterprotesters, and the Proud Boys organized a showing of one or two hundred. The Proud Boys got their wish and had a few fist fights and skirmishes, but not that much. Antifa was possibly the aggressor of one incident, of fireworks used against an outdoors restaurant where Trump supporters were dining, though the fireworks were directed at empty tables. A video touted as showing violent Antifa against an old man showed only part of the story, neglecting where he attacked numerous people beforehand. 

Also election related. A Democrat has to distance himself from the socialists in the Democratic party. The level of socialism hurt a lot of Dems, but not Biden. 

Conspiracy theories. Some software research group has put together a tool and model, and it looks good. And let's just review Pizzagate in depth. 

Image: businessinsider.com

Update 10/17/2024. From Just Security, an assessment on how dangerous the Proud Boys are. 

Big new vision for what the US should be

I haven't been posting, but I've been very active following the huge news events in the US, where the covid pandemic and Black Lives Matter demonstrations have superseded  even the presidential race in importance (until recently, like October).

I've been well aware of the killings that have sparked the Black Lives Matter movement. Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown. Philando Castille. Eric Garner. And many more. This spring it was Ahmaud Arbery, followed by the egregious slow-motion asphyxiation of George Floyd caught on tape as neighborhood folks pleaded with police to let him up so he wouldn't die. 

But he did die. And it was a latest stick of dynamite, setting off demonstration, looting, and vandalism in dozens of cities. My town had a BLM demonstration that was peaceful. We have a bit of BLM graffiti that isn't overwhelming in the least or destructive. 

Something clicked inside me though. It happened after looking at the 30 minutes of body cam tape of  Rayshard Brooks. There was something about it... And I realized what it was. This was a guy desperately trying to do the right thing and avoid arrest. He was polite to the police, helpful with his paperwork, not belligerent in the least until they tried to put the cuffs on him, and then he fought them like a man desperate to escape. Even as he was fighting them, he didn't yell epithets. Even as he shot a taser (grabbed off one of the cops), he didn't insult them. And then he was shot as he tried to run away. A possibly important detail is that Brooks was on parole, and a new arrest might have landed him immediately in prison. 

While I was mulling over what had happened, I read Brooks described as a convicted felon, an angry drunk, a very violent man. What I witnessed in that video was very different, and I don't think the video lied. 

Suddenly I was able to see someone who could have been a neighbor of mine. He was trying so hard to be a good guy, not cause any harm to anyone, and he ended up arrested for SLEEPING IN HIS CAR. How the fuck did things go so wrong? 

So I started to think about how it could go so wrong. He was desperate to avoid arrest after having done nothing bad, nothing irresponsible. So how did this happen?

Going Wrong #1 - Making too many people criminals

In the US, people lose a lot of their employment potential if they are convicted of a felony. And some fairly smalltime offenses get classified as felonies because of the 'tough on crime' ethos in the US. Do we really want to keep punishing someone years after their conviction? Wouldn't it be better to make it easier to go straight and be a law-abiding person? I think it would be better. 

So I want reform of our laws, particularly reducing the number of crimes labeled as felonies. I want people to no longer be considered guilty of a felony (have to report it on forms) after a certain number of years. Maybe 5 years for lesser felonies and 10-20 for more serious ones. I want three strikes laws used only for violent felonies, not shoplifting or burglary. 

I also think that more county or municipality should have a heavy dependence on fines for funding. Don't use traffic violations to fund your courts. Keep fines high enough to discourage but not so high that it strangles people. Possibly fines should be a portion of percentage of income or your electricity bill, so on a sliding scale. That way it's close to equally painful whether you are rich or poor. Definitely the poor shouldn't be soaked as they have been in many towns and counties, like Ferguson, Missouri. 

Going Wrong #2 - The Underclass

Underclasses are almost always a given in history. The poor, the peasants, the serfs, the slaves, the plebians, the workers. The owners don't want to pay too much because owners are generally greedy and want to have more profit for themselves. However, you do need workers, at least some of the time. You also sometimes need soldiers, and sometimes a lot of soldiers. And you need the next generation to carry on or old age for the last generation is going to be horrific. 

So the owners/nobility want workers who are as cheap as possible. They may pay near-starvation wages or give near-starvation rations. They probably aren't going to be generous.

In the US and probably almost every other country, we inherited this system and outlook. I think it's the worst part of our economic system because it is greedy, cruel, and dehumanizing. I don't think all wages should be equal, but all jobs should provide a decent wage for doing the work well. 

Pay should be good enough to support the person and a small family in a basic, healthful condition. That means decent shelter, decent food, education, medical, and clothing. To me, any job should pay well enough, even at the bottom of the ladder because too often there aren't higher rungs. Some extra generosity to folks at the bottom, including teenage workers wouldn't be a horrible waste when it ensures that everyone has decent wages. 

Wages aren't the sole issue. There's also housing and education. Traditionally, poor housing was what peasants had to put up with. That shouldn't be tolerated anymore. We should upgrade housing for everyone. Similarly with schools. Decent schools, good curricula, and reasonably small class sizes for everyone. 

How to get there

Maybe that seems overly simplistic, but those are the changes I'd like to see in the US. I want a country with respect for all its citizens, and decent wages, housing, and education for all its citizens. That means no group is considered dirty, underclass, undeserving, or disposable. 

Unfortunately, poor folks (blacks, whites. latinos, native americans) have been considered unimportant and disposable. So that has to stop. All people must be valued. This is a big change, but it shouldn't psychologically be that difficult. 

Can we afford these changes? With the average income in the US being $72K for household, this should be possible. However, we may not be able to maintain high levels of immigration and have good wages for all. So I would choose higher wages and lower immigration. It may also be important to emphasize small families so that the next generation isn't swollen with too many for the available jobs and resources. 

I do foresee that we'll need guest workers. I think guest workers should be paid at least the minimum wage so that there isn't a preference for guest workers over American workers. Housing should also be decent. Families as guest workers may be discouraged if the need for labor in the future may be reduced. I would maintain birthright citizenship. 

While I think this vision is doable over time, I don't believe that the US will take this path. It's outside the box and too different from tradition. It also requires more laws and regulation, less greed and more sharing. The wealthy in the US haven't been in favor of that. Just consider Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the US, and how little he pays many of his workers. His great wealth is more than he'll ever need, so it's not immoral to impose a reduction on him to raise others up. 

I think people still need incentive to work, and a good wage that takes care of your family is a powerful incentive. Being respected also makes even unpleasant jobs worth it. I wouldn't support a 'universal basic income' since that might stifle the incentive to work.

While I think crime would decrease, I doubt it would disappear. For repeat criminals who show little interest in reform, prison is proper. For one-time criminals who do reform, society should welcome them back. 

No One Left Behind

I've mentioned Black Live Matters and the problem of having an underclass. However I don't see this as an issue involving only minorities. It's bigger than that. It's a matter of seeing all Americans as 'one of us.' That includes traditionally marginalized groups, like black or Latino folks, but also everyone, including rural folks, rust belt workers, etc. Everyone. 

With this inclusion, we should no longer have out-groups that are disdained. We should cherish all Americans and not let small differences set us deeply against each other. 

So that is my big new vision for the US. I'm inspired by the possibility. I'm inspired to have finally come to understand what I'd like to see in a fair society.

Image: cnn.com

Extras. Link to the Moynihan Report back in 1965 about poverty and lack of opportunity for black families. 

Overview and link dump for US demonstrations and riots

(Catching up on posts started a while ago. This one originally written around 6/9/20.)

George Floyd, a very tall, robust black man, was killed while in police custody on May 25 in Minneapolis. A police officer kept his knee of Floyd's neck for about 9 minutes while two other officers pinned his back and legs. This killed Floyd. The video of much of the incident, including the entreaties of onlookers to let him up and check his pulse, went viral and there were massive demonstrations and some rioting and looting on the next day. Demonstrations, rioting, and looting became widespread in many cities, with demonstrations happening in many cities and towns across the US.

One of the most dramatic scenes was a crowd of rioters trying to get into the CNN world headquarters. They smashed several huge lobby windows, and only a line of police kept them at bay. The crows was dispersed after about 30 minutes by teargas shot from police outside the building. The mayor of Atlanta and other notables pleaded with rioters to stop and go home.

Taking the knee, the protest symbol popularized by the football player Colin Kaepernick, became the symbol of understanding the anger at the death and police brutality in general.

At times like this, I watch a lot of eye-witness video. This one struck me. A looter in New York City is tackled by a demonstrator who yells that the looter isn't a black ally. The demonstrator grabs the looter so tight that not even two people can pull them apart. That is a lot of passion against looting.

Because there was so much vandalism and looting, rumors sprang up indiscriminately. It was people from out-of-town coming with UHauls to haul the loot away. It was antifa being funded by George Soros and placing bricks at locations where they wanted looting. Bus loads were being sent to rural areas to loot the towns there. It was false flag operations of white nationalists or Boogaloo Boys hoping to start a second civil war.

Some of the police crackdowns are harsh, and caught on video too. More people died in the looting and rioting.

Trump was flummoxed on what to do. On June 1, he tried to make a speech and take a stand, but it was a dismal attempt. He took a walk to a nearby church that had been vandalized, and held up a bible for pictures. To allow his walk to happen, thousands of peaceful protesters were hit with rubber bullets and pepper balls, punched, truncheoned (less frequent) and herded out of the way with violence. Attorney General Bill Barr was supposed in charge of the operation though he has tried to distance himself.

Tucker Carlson, who raised the alarm about the covid-19, was raising the alarm about Black Lives Matter protesters and rioters coming to YOU.

And three months later....

The demonstrations are still going on. A few new atrocities have happened or survived. This just shows (as we knew) that Floyd's killing wasn't an isolated incident. 

Image: nydailynews.com

Update. A 2.5 hour documentary of the protests and riots in Minneapolis after Floyd's killing. 

Another roundup of links

What to do about North Korea. This is very tricky, until you realize that the answer from history is obvious. Sometime last year I spent many hours listening to a podcast detailing the history of nuclear strategy. From that I learned that you don't go crazy and make a pre-emptive strike. You sit down and sanely wait things out. That's how the least number of people will die--hopefully none will die. A friend from South Korea was relieved to find an American who gets it. Here's a great article that explains most of the situation, and it only takes minutes to read. As someone who has spent hours and days reflecting, I endorse the article. As my friend says, a pre-emptive strike would mean the destruction of all of Korea. I vote for a waiting stance, and hoping no one fires the first missile.

Black Lives Matter. A good but painful article by Jamelle Bouie on the acquittal of a police officer who shot a black man. Bouie explains that there is fear, and fear will be considered a valid reason. Makes me wonder if there's any way out.

Meme goes viral and then the shit really hits the fan. Trump tweeted out a tasteless meme of himself beating up a CNN logo. A freelance journalist identified the original creator. The journalist is pelted with violent threats. There's pushback against CNN for threatening to out the creator and extorting an apology from him. (I'm sure about the ethics of CNN threatening to out him, but his apology reads like actual, honest, well-deserved contrition.) Finally, there is the Daily Stormer, laughing at the journalist and all the threats leveled at him. Basically, they act like threats are completely justified. That should be enough of this slimy underbelly of American culture.

Real assessment of fake news - retractions. Finally, a believable story of what CNN and other MSM have gotten wrong in the Russia megastory. It should come with a reminder of what they got right, like Flynn lying, Sessions lying, Russia hacking here, there, there, and there...

Voter fraud that looks for real. Here's a report on voter fraud in Virginia. Unfortunately, it's written for outrage instead of clarity. However, it looks like Virginia has had several thousand illegal votes in the past seven years, perhaps more.

How to punk Trump. This is a guide for Putin on how to fool our foolish president. I'm not overly worried because Donald doesn't stand by his promises, so any promises he foolishly makes to Putin won't matter.

Important ACA factoid. This is an important nugget. The medical risk profile of people in the individual market isn't getting worse. That means healthier people aren't being driven out--if this report is true. No death spiral yet. We will have to see how it pans out.

Image: speedwealthy.com

Short: Experts discuss a shooting

This is the kind of information we should get about all major shootings. It's a discussion by a group of experts, kind of like the analysis after an airplane accident. In this case, it's a shooting of black man who was sighted with a gun.

Image: nytimes.com

Four stories on the Dallas shootings

I'm deeply saddened by the shooting of police in Dallas during a friendly, non-violent protest against police shootings elsewhere.

We've seen this before--people taking out their hatred by mass killings. This time it was a black man who was angry with whites, particularly police. But daily it's someone angry with this group or other, or just angry at the world. This country isn't a land where everyone has to fear going outdoors because of the high level of violence (countries like Somalia, parts of Mexico, Honduras among others). But this is a glimpse of what it could be like.

The thread of civilization that prevents the general outbreak of such violence has become thinner, and there are more such violent incidents reported even as the overall murder declines. Can you imagine if half a dozen people in every medium-to-large city decided to do what this man did, and murder as many police as possible? What if two days later another person was doing the same thing in the same city?

Actually, now that I write this, I feel confident that our police forces could handle such a situation--that the number of violent people would run out long before our police were swamped. For that I'm very grateful.

After this long prologue, here are the stories:

• The story of the Dallas police, told mostly from the viewpoint of the police chief, who is black.
• The sniper in Dallas originally planned to have bombs too, but the bombs weren't ready and the rally was too tempting. 
• There is a pool of angry people in Dallas to possibly carry on the work of the sniper. This is very worrying.
• Political reactions include both conciliation and demagoguery. 

So will this tragedy spur other angry people to act out, or will it make them rethink? I can't predict. However, I remember the Oklahoma City bombing, and how it was so horrific that it quieted the violence for a while. We can hope for that, but it would be so much better if five police officers didn't need to die for us to learn.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown

Image: fox4newscom

Update 7/11/16. A report of the radical black organizations that the shooter tried to join. None are as radical in tactics as the Black Panthers of 40 years ago, but Lakesia Washington of the Black Riders supports the shooter and the shooting.Update 

Blaming the talkers, not the shooters

Is Harry Reid right when he blames the murders and shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Republican politicians?

There are some good arguments for leveling some of the blame on them. Many of them aren't moderate in their statements, but instead ramp up the anger at those who support and provide abortions to the women who want them. They don't take the extra few seconds to remind people to try to stop abortion only through rational, respectful discussion. The GOPers as a whole have quite a history of lying about abortion, like 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion. Shouldn't the GOP be held responsible when lies like this influence someone to kill? When I put it like this, yes, it seems they should be partially blamed.

But then I tried a thought experiment--do I feel the same about protest movements that I have more sympathy for? How much do I blame the Black Lives Matter movement for execution-type shootings of police? The answer to that one is easy--I don't blame Black Lives Matter, or the vast majority of their advocates and supporters. A few protesters have encouraged the shooting of police, but very few. And even then, they weren't directly involved in shootings, so they aren't guilty of incitement or conspiracy. I'm not even sure there is a crime for what they did, if all they did is yell.

So, am I going to have a different standard for conservatives and their causes than for liberals and their causes? It might be tempting, but I'm not. People are morally responsible to the lies they tell, or for the hate speech they mutter or shout, but they're not responsible when someone else pulls the trigger--unless they cross the gray line between advocating a position and advocating specific violence.

Am I right about this position? I'm not totally sure. However, I don't want to choose what is expedient, but what is fair.

Is it a lie? Is it incitement?

Image: lifenews. com

Extra. Ed Kilgore, a mildly progressive blogger whom I read often, makes a good argument for assigning more blame. But I'm not convinced, because sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.

A vignette in America's racist history

Sadly, I don't know enough of the history of my own country. That's part of the reason I'm only now realizing the extent of racist beliefs among my own generation.

One historical issue I'll delve into are the anti-lynching laws. I've heard about them before, but I never thought very deeply about them. Of course, lynching is horrible. But it's a terrible reflection on the US that lynching was acceptable to many people. Therefore lynching opponents tried to stop lynching through force of law.

Here are three historical artifacts connected to anti-lynching law:

• The text of a 1919 anti-lynching bill supported by the NAACP. The law would have created a $10,000 penalty against any county where a lynching took place. The bill passed the House of Representative but died in the Senate due to a filibuster.
• Warren Harding (in 1921) was a supporter of this anti-lynching bill. Harding was a progressive Republican elected in part due to his support for voting rights for women. Americans were less enthusiastic about his support for black civil rights. 
• Even in 1938, the anti-lynching bill was blocked in the Senate by a filibuster.

So when did Congress finally pass anti-lynching legislation? 

It never did.

Image: cb14.raimistdesign.com

Extra. Go here to read about the lynching depicting in this image. It's the Jones lynching in Kentucky.

The fall of the Confederate flag

I wish I could say that this was a victory for civility, but it's not. People like Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell aren't dropping their support for the confederate flag because they suddenly realized its unfriendly overtones, or because they suddenly decided it's wrong to offend large numbers of people.

No, it was a cost analysis. It finally cost them too much in terms of general respect to continue supporting the flag or being non-committal about it. But I wonder how they made that calculation. Are there snap polling firms that will alert a politician to such changes in the political winds? Maybe there are. Some firms probably track hashtags, and the pol's PR czar will be watching anxiously. One large polling firm, Public Policy Polling had a poll, but the report didn't break down lack of support by state, so it's hard to tell whether there was useful information there.

Maybe anxious PR czars tracked the number of clicks on stories about the confederate flag flying high over the South Carolina capitol grounds, protected from lowering unless a supermajority of legislators saw fit to debate and vote on it. I certainly clicked on that story. I read the history of the flag in South Carolina, and how pols grumpily moved it off the State House because of a boycott.

What it really symbolized

I also checked the history of the flags' use, and how it was adopted in wake of the civil rights movement. It was a fuck-you to the federal government and to northerners and to blacks and to those who supported the principle that all men are created equal, not just all white men. Fuck all those people! Give them a big middle finger by flying an old confederate battle flag, one that is clearly different from the stars-and-stripes.

So its modern popularity started as a banner for segregationists/racists. Since then it has become many more things, including a fuck-you to all authority figures (a rebel banner), a southern pride symbol, a fuck-you to diversity and political correctness advocates, a redneck pride symbol, and so on.

Hung out to dry

Last week was a very bad week for the confederate flag. First the Supreme Court decided that Texas didn't have to issue vanity license plates with the symbol on them. Then a racist shot nine black people in a church in a southern state that still proudly flies the fuck-you-I-support-segregation flag. That's a PR disaster, I guess.

Still, I'm surprised at how quickly it turned. Has it really become unsafe or unpopular to be a crypto, under-the-radar, soft racist? Can they no longer hide behind southern tradition?

Yes, that's a big surprise. Yet it really seems to have turned. Already Walmart and Ebay have stopped selling goods with the symbol. That is lightning fast--faster than I ever would have expected. I'm astounded, and I hope someday to understand how and why it happened now.

One final thought. I wrote above that I don't think civility has broken out across the country or the South. I'm afraid it's a matter of giving up an outward symbol without changing any actions or any sentiments.

To quote Nathan Gunn, speaker of the House in Mississippi: "As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed." Translation: We got away with this hate for a long time, but the party's over.

Image: lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com

Extras. An explanation of the societal and business trends against the confederate flag. HotAir: It's the Dems' fault for "happily tolerating" the flag for years. Is it because social liberals have reached parity with social conservatives? Uh oh--more flags to change. Complete text of the racist shooter's manifesto.

Update 6/24/15. Here's an interesting report. Maybe the PR czars were following what business leaders were tweeting. Possible boycott was definitely in the air. And does Romney deserve kudos for being the first top GOP figure to call for the removal of the confederate flag? Looks that way to me.

Major black writer absolves the killer of Mike Brown

Ta-Nehishi Coates, perhaps the pre-eminent black columnist in the US, writes very clearly that Darren Wilson, who shot Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was innocent of a wanton crime:

"The investigation concluded that physical evidence and witness statements corroborated Wilson's claim that Michael Brown reached into the car and struck the officer... The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to contradict Wilson's claim that Brown reached for his gun... That he did not shoot Brown as he was running away. That Brown did stop and turn toward Wilson. That in those next moments 'several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson.' "

Coates doesn't shy away from declaring this as fact, which is good because honest people should deal honestly with facts. They need to draw their opinions based on fact, not on presupposition and bias. Coates seems to have no trouble accepting these facts now that they have been thoroughly investigated. I don't know how late Coates was in coming to accept these facts, which I discerned back in November, or perhaps earlier. Amid all the "Hands up" protests, there was a steady drip of evidence pointing toward the conclusion that Mike Brown had attacked the officer, and not the other way around.

I'm not going to look back at Coates' columns to see if he turned a corner and when. This isn't a game of gotcha to me. Instead, this was a heart-breaking incident where all the players had feet of clay. This police officer was innocent of willfully mistreating this young black man, but that wasn't true for a significant portion of the police force. The police were oppressive to the black citizens, and the anger that erupted was in proportion to that oppression.

I can easily understand the growing anger if I was being targeted for traffic stops, searches on flimsy grounds, and multiple fines for tiny infractions. If I thought I'd have to worry about being shot and killed, that's too much to bear. So I have sympathy for the protesters--the ones who actually lived in the area and were subject to the oppression. I hope this can and will change now.

To the hypesters, race-baiters, knee-jerk partisans, arsonists, and hooligans, I hope you have no incident to flock around for a very long time. You turn misery into your sport, which is just sickening. Please, go hide in some holes while the good people of this country work to heal and make this better.

Image: henrypayne.com

Extra. Predictably, some don't face facts.

The strange struggle between NYC cops and mayor

I'm having a very hard time understanding the disagreement between the New York City cops and the mayor. Why are the cops so incredibly pissed off at Mayor DeBlasio? He's not directly responsible for a maniac from Georgia shooting and killing two cops in Brooklyn. (Who's directly responsible? Obviously the guy who did it, but he killed himself so there goes the chance for vengeance.)

Is DeBlasio indirectly responsible for the cops' deaths? Wow, that's a tough one... that reasoning works only if you include as 'indirectly responsible' anyone who makes the public criticism of lethal police action. If that's true, millions of people are indirectly responsible. See--it makes no sense, at least on the surface.

The case against DeBlasio

When a situation makes no sense on the surface, there are usually factors below the surface, and that's the case here. It was fascinating to read a non-ranting explanation of why the police force is upset with the mayor. DeBlasio ran as a progressive who would end police stop-and-frisk policies and give a friendlier ear to minority complaints. In itself, that shouldn't anger the police. However, DeBlasio took that friendship to places that were bordering on offensive. DeBlasio has embraced Al Sharpton as a major ally, even seating him in a place of honor at a large public event that was supposed to be conciliatory. Sharpton has never apologized for the times he was wrong about supposedly racial incidents--not for his role at Ferguson, and not for the Tawana Brawley accusations. This is a double-standard that supports minority grievances and blames police 100% of the time, so I understand how the mayor's embrace of him angers the police. As a bit more gasoline on the fire, the boyfriend and son of a top aide to DeBlasio's wife tweeted remarks about 'pigs.' There are to be plenty of reasons for the police to be angry with the mayor.

The case against the NYC police

But it's equally fascinating to see forces within the police pour accelerant on their justified anger. Possibly even before the shooting of two officers on Dec. 20, some police circulated a request that the mayor stay away from police funerals (not it's not a new tactic). The head of the PBA (Patrolmans Benevolent Association) said that many people had blood on their hands and it "starts at City Hall in the Office of the Mayor."

And of course there's the biased media

I consider that rhetoric to be over the top, but it's not the only extreme rhetoric against the mayor. In the New York Post (a Murdoch-owned newspaper with pulp standards), a columnist wrote:

"Determined not to let a crisis go to waste, the mayor has spent the last two days cranking up the volume and the vitriol of his anti-cop agenda... Imagine that. The city is in turmoil over the Staten Island case and the mayor throws gasoline on the fire by painting the entire police force as a bunch of white racist brutes. Has he no shame? He certainly has no facts."

It's unlikely that the mayor "has no facts" or that he said anything like "the entire police force as a bunch of white racist brutes." Attributing those sentiments to him is vilification, which is obviously what the columnist intended to do. 

It's not just a local fight either. Here's Bill O'Reilly:

"...many on the left believe the American police are the guardians of the oppressive justice system. They prop it up.

Apparently that is what Mayor de Blasio believes, that there is injustice among his own police officers... That point of view that the left is putting out there saying the police are instruments of oppression rather than a protective force is causing outrage on the part of the cops themselves. Any fair-minded person can understand that. It is easy.

...'Talking Points' believes Mayor de Blasio does not respect law enforcement, has directly insulted each and every member of the New York City Police Department and should resign his position."

O'Reilly mixing in a few reasonable points, but he ends up over-the-top nonetheless--calling for the mayor to resign not for what the mayor did, but for how the most disgruntled can spin it.

Strangely (again), the head of the PBA (Patrick Lynch) got some of his own medicine, as some police shouted at him that they wanted more equipment, not the apology that Lynch insists on. Pushing ensued, but no injuries. Polls show pushback from the populace against the disrespect among the police.

Reasonable protest vs. sickening protest

So far I've given more criticism to the police and conservative media who are fanning the flames. But what has the mayor done to worsen the situation? Working with Sharpton and similar minority individuals and groups. The rhetoric of these groups varies. Some marchers against the lack of criminal charges from the death of Eric Garner chanted "Black Lives Matter" and "Hands up, don't shoot." On the other hand, one break-away group chanted for "Dead cops."

The extreme groups are definitely a problem that taint those protesting police actions. How do you draw a line between a peaceful protester and those a short distance away who are burning and looting? For the peaceful protester, the choice is tough, You may not want to give up a legitimate protest, yet you don't want to be associated with unwarranted hooligan behavior.

I personally have no trouble distinguishing between different types of protesters, but it's not just that some are responsible and some are violent. Some advocates, like Sharpton, will never change their rhetoric, even when the evidence shows that guilt and innocence weren't as originally portrayed. I don't know whether DeBlasio looks at evidence or not. I know that many of his detractors don't look at evidence, however. Is there something wrong with DeBlasio supporting retraining so that police use less force? I can't see what's wrong with that. We consider changes in medical procedures all the time to reduce negative outcomes. This is an intelligent response, not a hateful one.

Why do folks have to hate?

Maybe what surprises me the most is that too many people reach for the hateful response. There were responsible demonstrators in Ferguson who stopped looting, and then there were the looters. There are the people hoping that police will be killed ("pigs in a blanket, smells like bacon"), and then there are the ones who mocked the dying words of Eric Garner, who died during an arrest. Why all this nastiness?

And even among those who aren't as hateful as this, why can't they work to find some middle ground and understand the important issues for the other side? Do we have to vilify everyone who doesn't agree 100%?

I'm rather hoping that the people of New York City will be able to demonstrate how to let tempers cool and move on to a more productive dialogue. Maybe that hope is crazy, but the alternative is even more heated words and protests. There won't be a constant ratcheting up, cooling will happen sometime, so now is a good time for it. I recommend a new chant:

CHILL OUT!

vosizneias.com

Extras. The police chief of Nashville is an example of cooling tempers. What would happen if you screamed into the face of a white cop? It depends on the cop, what kind of day he's had, and lots of things.

Oh, the humanity in Ferguson, Missouri

Real life is always more complicated than it seems. Always. Take the first impressions of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

At first, it seemed that a cop either went nuts or was intent on killing this young black man. Now it seems that there was more to the altercation than a cop shooting a young black man for walking down the middle of the street. There's a lot more to the story.

At first, it seemed like the bullet-ridden young man was "a gentle giant" who was about to go to college. Now it seems like he used his size to intimidate a shopkeeper just minutes before he died. Maybe he behaved in a threatening way to the cop too.

At first, the other young black man seemed like a bewildered soul--his friend killed in front of him. Now he seems like an unreliable witness who leaves out important details. It's hard to know how much he's a victim vs. being a perpetrator. Will this man be able to openly talk about what really happened, or will he hide behind his partial truth?

At first, the police in the town were secretive and aggressive in handling the resulting protests and violence. Then the governor called in black state police commander who could be a fair arbiter. Will the local police learn how to address the community concerns about this terrible incident, or will they remain defensive and self-serving?

At first, the community mourned the inexplicable shooting of an upstanding young man. Then it turns out that the man wasn't so upstanding, but they are angry with the police for making them face that truth. Will they be able to deal with the truth?

Finally (for now), it seems that perhaps the cop had a reason to shoot his weapon. But did he have a reason to keep firing it, more times than the witnesses could count, at a man who had raised his hands in surrender?

There were so many poor choices in this incident:

• The theft by the young men earlier that day
• The cop who continued to shoot when the man was surrendering
• The witness who omitted pertinent facts
• The looters who took advantage of the protest to smash and steal
• The local police who increased tension with military-like responses
• The local police who are so slow in releasing pertinent facts and are lying about their reasons for what they release

Yet there are some promising signs. The state has found a fair arbiter to talk with the community and ease tensions. He can bridge the gap because he's both a police officer and a black man who grew up in a neighborhood not far away. In the community itself, some local folks have stepped up to stop others from looting during a return to looting. They're still angry, but they know that violence isn't the answer.

We need to be able to admit the imperfections, to accept that people have made mistakes, and not to assume the worst about one another. Maybe then we can learn to be better people and be fairer to each other. I have some hope for a silver lining in this terrible storm.

Image: riverfronttimes.com

Sources. Video of the robbery. The body left for hours on the street.  The unreliable witness. Two reliable witnesses. Counterproductive police response. The fair arbiter. Stopping the looters.