The BLM protests that sprung up after George Floyd's murder seemed to start a lot of this racial reckoning. Those protests were about police overreach, brutality, and how unaccountable law enforcement is in America.
Months later, we have no remedies for any of those ills. In fact, we have unidentified soldiers whisking citizens into unma…
The BLM protests that sprung up after George Floyd's murder seemed to start a lot of this racial reckoning. Those protests were about police overreach, brutality, and how unaccountable law enforcement is in America.
Months later, we have no remedies for any of those ills. In fact, we have unidentified soldiers whisking citizens into unmarked vans in Portland. Instead, we have this weak, ultimately toothless cultural war.
Which is to say: because reforming the police is an incredibly hard thing to do, we get this potemkin village progress instead of the thing a lot of our population actually demanded. White ladies won't voice black ladies on cartoons anymore but you can still get clubbed in the street for exercising your first amendment rights.
They had an insignia and are operating under clear lines of authority. The fact that the van was un-marked made for a good headline but didn't actually indicate much.
The “Antifa” on the West Coast are simply the latest incarnation of violent, anarchist leftists going back over a century. The Wobblies blew up the LA Times building in 1910 or so. They have always had a presence in Berkeley, Portland, Seattle-remember the WTO riots in 2000 or so.
As for the idiots elsewhere in the country, I think they are dumb kids-or twenty somethings-who got overexcited when things got hot after the Floyd tragedy.
It's been my experience that people who whinge about "antifa" don't actually understand what it is they're upset about. This comment does little to dissuade me of that belief.
Antifa Means Anti-Fascist. Hitler, Mussolini and Trump are great examples.
In 1933-34 a fascist group tried to take over the FDR government and failed due to the heroism of Marine General Smedly Butler who also said "War is a racket" as there was great money to be made by it.
If you have not noticed, the Military Industrial Complex is Trumps favorite charity.
A lot of rightwing nut jobs claim they are patriots - just like leftwing nutjobs claim they are anti-fascist. Both groups' claims are clearly contradicted by their actions.
Yes, it means Anti-Fascist. There is no Fascist Party in the USA for them to fight, so they instead direct their violence against anyone they don't like -- which, ironically, is what most people identify as "fascism." Also: the original Anti-Fascist group was part of the Communist Party of Germany. This is merely a historical fact, yet ALWAYS goes unmentioned by Antifa's many defenders on the Internet. Why is that?
"Also: the original Anti-Fascist group was part of the Communist Party of Germany. This is merely a historical fact, yet ALWAYS goes unmentioned by Antifa's many defenders on the Internet. Why is that?"
Mentioning it would interfere with The Narrative, and make it harder to bamboozle people.
I'm surprised I have to point that out. Is my "rhetorical question" detector is busted?
Traditionally, yes, that's what it means. Unfortunately, because we have a left in the U.S. that has so lost its way, we now have street fighters who don't understand the difference between fascism and disagreement. This is a problem and leftists refusing to talk about it is, arguable, a bigger problem.
The ultimate basis for that "bigger problem" though, is a journalist class that has tossed out any commitment they might once have had to reporting facts, opting instead for advocacy; to the point of mendacity in the service of "virtuous" activism. If that doesn't bother someone, they ARE the problem.
So these 'anti-fascists" can lie at will, stage photo-ops that misrepresent events and be comfortable in the surety that the press will go right along with them. Just like they can screech about "Gestapo tactics" and "black sites" with zero fear, as it is obvious the Fed response has been very measured and responsible.
Let's put those two points together and we see, whatever their political claims and self-definition, that they are gutless liars. Not the side I'd ever want to be on.
I, personally, think the group that calls themselves Antifa are a bunch of knucklehead young people who are bored and (mostly) filled with testosterone who are looking for any reason to act like bored, young (mostly) men everywhere - raise a ruckus and smash things. They don't have any coherent cause or strategy they can enunciate, other than burn everything down. In other words, they are not exactly freedom riders/counter sitters from the early days of the 50-60's civil rights movement. Unfortunately, they have some older, very cynical people with power and money behind them and resourcing them who believe it's in their political interests to sow mayhem. So, that's who I think they are. What they call themselves doesn't matter. They could call themselves the pro-puppy brigade and if they were burning down neighborhoods, smashing windows and accosting people on the streets I'd still think they were dangerous, aimless youth who need to face consequences. (The Nazi's called themselves Socialists, so you can see that nothing really is in a name..)
Is your argument "it's good that unaccountable armed feds arrest Americans and take them to black sites if there's looting going on"? Because I think that's a shitty argument. Kinda think the fourth amendment is an important one myself.
I'm sorry but please don't buy into the media narrative without question on this one. If you have watched video of these arrests you know that these people clearly have "POLICE - DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY" markings so that hardly blocks institutional accountability. Plus it's hard to argue with not having personal name IDs in a world of doxxing. Some LA cops had too many personal retributions for doing their jobs because their names were on their backs in sports uniform style.
First, how are they unaccountable? The U.S. Attorney in Oregon became concerned of the possibility that in two instances (in the midst of violence and mayhem) people may have been arrested without probable cause, so he immediately launched an investigation, while emphasizing that the federal officers are being attacked with all manner of projectiles.
Second, black sites? What does that mean? Does that mean they were taken away from where other rioters were for brief questioning? Do you have any evidence that anyone was held longer than the constitution allows?
Third, and most importantly, do you acknowledge that some people (including Antifa) are acting violently, and this violence needs to be addressed somehow? Otherwise, frankly, I'll stop wasting time, and hope that one day you grow up.
He's lying. He knows exactly what's going on, but also knows what buzzwords (black sites, unidentified, arbitrary) get a reaction. The federal response has been very restrained - too restrained, in my view - and they are sending out tagged officers on a peaceful operation.
The sad thing is, I can well imagine after a few more years of this, the thing he pretends to wring his hands over will actually happen for real. And when it dies the citizenry will be half tired of the cry-wolf, and half glad that someone's finally cracking skulls. A free people will look the other way from this if it means they get these anarchists out and their cities back.
I'm not lying and in fact recanted the "black sites" thing below because I was wrong. I like it around here because most people have intelligent conversations with you instead of assuming the worst (as you did here). Peace.
I disagree. We simply cannot - must not - let these constant mutations of the truth take hold. People need to be held responsible for spreading these falsehoods without *first* considering whether or not they are telling the truth. Otherwise you will be forever fighting a rearguard action. You'll be forever surrendering ground to people who have no regard for the truth and instead will force you to only focus on what they say. If you have to run around playing fact-checker while never getting to state your own case, not only do you incentivize further lying but you surrender your own agency in the discourse.
1- They're unaccountable because they have faced no consequences and I believe they will not face any. An "investigation" isn't a consequence.
2- That was how I originally saw it reported and have been educated by Louis below. I'd delete that part of the comment, but Substack doesn't allow that. Rescinded.
3- Setting aside that "Antifa" isn't real and is just a blanket term the right uses for "undesirables," yes, of course some protesters are violent. Some police are violent. I don't think the former justifies the latter, especially with the preponderance of evidence we've seen of police attacking demonstrably peaceful protesters for having the nerve to use their first amendment rights.
1- If an investigation isn't a consequence then neither is a temporary detention and a release.
2- You 'rescind' this small aspect of it without rethinking your entire thesis. You're plainly disingenuous. The snake oil you're peddling about *actual real stormtroopers you guys* is woefully weak.
3- Again, to say antifa isn't real is just dishonest. At least tens of thousands of people across the US identify with it, call themselves part of it, adopt its tactics, protect its sympathizers etc. Because it doesn't have a national leader or a website doesn't make it fake - it makes it smart. It makes it hard - but not impossible - to cut the head off the hydra, to infiltrate, and to identify its assets. These are all strengths for a decentralized, paramilitary movement operating in a surveillance state like yours.
And it has the added bonus of giving plausible deniability to liars like you.
If a protester is violent, then police violence is absolutely justified. If you like it or not, government having a complete monopoly on the justified use of force is a marker of government. If you want citizens to be able to use force against the government, you are wanting anarchy. If you go an kill a murderer yourself, you have committed murder. If the state kills a murderer, it is justice.
I have no issue with cops defending themselves. But the presence of violent protesters doesn't give police permission to behave violently against other protesters. Think stuff like what happened to Martin Gugino. There's no universe where behavior like that is justified.
Police shoving someone who is peaceful, i.e. Martin Gugino, is not dealing with violent protesters. We can all agree that using force on someone standing on the sidewalk is wrong, but you are being fraudulent putting Martin Gugino in the same category as violent protesters.
Using force on someone standing on the sidewalk when an unlawful assembly has been reasonably declared is fine. There is no permanent right to not be moved. If you assemble peaceably but someone sets a fire behind you that creates an unsafe condition and the police tell you it's time to leave, you have to. Force is justified to move you if you don't.
I say that all in part because watching the LA protests that turned violent, it was clear there was massive lack of understanding of the law among the protestors. They were taking their phones out like the police were going to get in trouble for using force on them, when in fact they were in the wrong. The police chief had a special plea the next day to organizers to help people understand the law.
We task cops with defending the public. Although Warren v. District of Columbia states that cops do not have a specific duty to protect the public, cops are still generally expected to defend everyone, not just themselves. What change would you actually like to see in the police force across the nation?
I have to disagree with you, for example, on accountability (if they intended to be lawless, they wouldn't bother with the investigation). But your tone is reasonable, so I apologize for mine in my last sentence. I value the fact that people of wide viewpoints can talk to each other here. We need this.
All good, man. I comment here because people actually seem to read and digest arguments instead of retreat to tiresome partisan or in-group nonsense. And, in my view, our disagreement re: accountability is impossible to settle till we can determine if this thing is actually a good faith investigation with any teeth on it.
This is a genuine question: without all the emotion, what is the law here? Either DHS has the legal authority to arrest folks or they don't. Which is it? Does anyone know? I honestly don't understand why this is so unclear.
It's not unclear. I want to answer your earnest question with earnestness. DHS has legal authority to arrest anyone they have reasonable suspicion committed a federal crime. So, for example, if they observed or have video of them vandalizing a federal building. They can arrest that person anywhere they find them, including blocks away 30 mins later, or at their home days later.
What some want to do is confuse the issue for political purposes. Trump wants his people to protect the federal buidlings and they are going too far in some ways, like tear gassing in streets that are not federal property. But Dems/media are politicizing and painting any arrest as out of bounds, which is just silly. They play up the "unmarked vans" as a way to claim it's police state activity instead of just not having your van burned by protestors.
As a P.S., it might sound simplistic but it helps me to understand the what the law actually is and avoid the emotionalism which seems to cloud 95% of these discussions.
Sure, but the "protect the federal buildings" is a pretext like "stand your ground" laws in Florida and other parts of the south. It give the federal gov't wide, discretionary arrest privileges with the kind of vague accountability that's at the heart of a lot of these protests: the ability for LEOs to act as they please and to face no substantive consequences for violating citizens' rights.
It's a bit like immigration. You can enforce it more or less based on politics, but if it's truly enforcing the law, it's not exactly pretextual to do it. It may be political to do it loudly. It can also be done without violating rights. But I can't comment on what is actually going on, nobody really knows much.
So according to Fox News podcast today, it's a gray area....
One expert said it's unconstitutional: the feds can protect federal property, but that's it. They can't detain people without an arrest and they can't wander around the street picking people up. They can only do local law enforcement if invited by the locality, which they weren't.
However another expert said it is constitutional and required for the executive branch to enforce federal law. So if someone vandalizes a federal building, the feds have a duty to enforce the law by picking that person up wherever they are.
But the gray area is problematic for the bigger reason that one expert said if people are murdering others in the street, there is nothing the federal government can do, if the local authorities won't contain it. That's scary. The other expert seems to think they can go in, I guess if murdering people in the streets is against federal law?
The past few decades have seen a steady erosion of fourth amendment protections for citizens and especially protesters. I'm not keen on carving out new flimsy pretexts for people being arrested.
My fear is the "protect federal buildings" rationale will be perverted easily by overzealous LEOs. That's something that should be terrifying to people on all ends of the political spectrum.
Maybe, but to me in the middle, actually getting beaten up by cops who declared an unlawful assembly one time made me research and understand that there was a valid need for them to declare unlawful assemblies sometimes.
Did you know that the day of the Kent State shootings, the protest was unlawful and the temporary ban on protest due to safety concerns had gone up to the state supreme court and been upheld? The authorities were right and did their best, probably in reasonably good faith - but were still made to look historically evil anyway.
I will clarify this a bit. DHS can arrest you for any felony committed in their presence. So any violence, assault, looting and so forth justifies DHS throwing you in cuffs. The major difference is DHS is not restrained by the policy of the local Mayor and Governor and so will make sure the arrest happens. There is zero restriction as to federal building or state/federal law, but felony crimes are the precursor event for DHS to arrest you.
1- My reply to you was kinda sarcastic/shitty so apologies re: that.
2- The issue I have with your post is pretty easy to articulate: you're saying that you shouldn't protest because the guys you're protesting against will crack your skull. I.e. don't protest the bad thing or the bad thing will happen to you. I know you don't condone it but I'm at a loss for what the remedy is, especially for regular citizens, many of who have lost their livelihood in the past three or four months and are feeling rightfully frustrated by the anemic response from their supposed "leaders."
They are no different than the federal LE officers who Eric Holder (on Obama's orders) sent to Nevada to deal with cattle ranchers (Clive Bundy et al) whose stock was grazing on federal land. The ranchers refused to move off BLM land. The feds made an criminal arrest. And, they, too, were accountable. That case was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court (a liberal majority.) The feds lost.
I support defunding and certainly demilitarizing the police and I think they should be brought under community control, but this is more a complicated issue than current popular discussion allows for. The only way this could be done successfully is if social programs that actually prevent violence were funded more heavily (or at all). This is unlikely to happen in the current neo-liberal environment. What would happen, I believe, if we defund and/or abolish the police in our current economic climate is that we would see the rise of privately funded police and security forces by the rich and we would lose even the possibility of ever bringing the police under community control. I think you are spot on about where this insane culture war is coming from.
"The only way this could be done successfully is if social programs that actually prevent violence were funded more heavily (or at all)"
100% agree with this. As an example: I live in San Francisco. We have a bad homelessness problem that is largely a mental health crisis. Investing in mental health services would be far more ethical and far more effective than calling the cops on disturbances where no one's actually in danger. The cops don't have training for this and I'd much rather them be looking into actual crimes. Better use of funding and a reduced scope of responsibility for law enforcement feels like a win-win.
More magic words. "Investing in mental health services" will provide well-paid jobs for some people (mostly white ones, btw), but most of the "homeless" won't use the "services."
You can hold people responsible for their behavior, or you can let them misbehave. San Francisco has chosen to let them misbehave.
My general issue with all the pontificating is the law of unforeseen consequences and also as you say, the "magic words". Some mentally ill people are not dangerous. I know non-violent schizophrenic people who just get scared and call the cops because they don't know what else to do. They need a social worker.
However, some folks are violent. I had a relative who was a paranoid schizophrenic. He broke into a house and tried to strangle someone (a family member). He ultimately shot and killed a neighbor and then killed himself. The reason why family members call the cops is that mentally ill people are unpredictable.
So the devil is all in the detailed execution. So the 911 operator better ask the family member calling if the person needs physical restraints or not before deciding who to send out. If you can execute well, if might work, if not it won't.
Second we can talk about funding mental health all you want, but that means there has to be available budget there. How many municipalities have all this budget excess? If the budget doesn't actually exist it's just pandering.
For example I know someone who works in SF City government. The Tenderloin (an area with massive issues with homeless mentally ill people) was in fact created by locating all the mental health and social services in a single geographic region. Unless you actually house people there may not be a lot that can be done. Or what if you choose to build housing for the homeless in SF, homeless people steam in, while the average tech worker can barely afford to pay rent? How will that eventually play out?
This isn't to say do nothing. But sometimes we have to live with some kind of trade- offs. There might be small tweaks, such as enforcing duty to intervene or better training on why not to sit on someone neck for 8 minutes, that might have better effect then all these overhauls.
"How many municipalities have all this budget excess? If the budget doesn't actually exist it's just pandering."
This is the crux of the "defund the police" idea. You remove some of their outsized budget and redirect it to social services. We need mental health services more than we need cops with military vehicles, right?
On the other point, I live in SF and the homeless problem here is nuanced and tough to discuss in comments. My cousin is a social worker here who does free healthcare in the Loin (among other hot spots) and says a ton of people really do use the services and really do pull themselves out of homelessness. It's just there are always new people coming in to avail themselves of those services because most neighboring cities don't have similar services. So you get an influx of homelessness because you're trying to do your best to solve the problem. Then there's the subsection of people who simply refuse to get help, the actual violent crowd, addicts, and on and on. It's incredibly complex.
Cops are just simply not the right person to deal with most of the non-violent population here. They have no training and no desire to police homelessness either.
I’m sure most cops would gladly give up mentally ill service calls, shall we say. The question is if social workers are prepared to deal w/ the 5%(just throwing a number out, I don’t have the stats) of such calls that turn physical/dangerous.
I'd assume they would as well. I guess the best we could do in this scenario is hoping the social workers called the cops when things got violent and if the person was being violent beforehand, that the cops were called instead.
There's no simple solution for any of this and homelessness is among the most impossible to solve. To recenter though: we should just be asking cops to do less and solve real crimes, not raise money for the state or arrest people drinking in the park or some other silly BS.
I'd add that for those "raise money for the state" actions, the police are pressured to get their quotas, either from the chief, the mayor, etc. Of course the mayor probably forgets all about that when he has to go feign outrage. Political kabuki, but now it's spilled into the audience...
Yes, good points. It's very nuanced out there. My budget points are more about that I would suspect a lot of cities can't even afford decent basic policing. SF is a very wealthy community. I don't how much their city budget reflect the rest of the country. But I really don't have data one way or the other.
We do indeed have plenty of budget, devote a lot of it to the homelessness crisis, and a lot of empathetic, good people work on the problem...but the numbers really never change. It's frustrating and nobody has a solution, regardless of the money that's thrown at it.
One question seldom considered: what would a "solution" look like?
Consider e.g. drunk driving. If everyone would spontaneously decide to never drink and drive again, that would be a "solution" to the problem of drunk driving. But since the evidence indicates that such a decision will never occur, what constitutes a solution to drunk driving?
But I wish to point out that the issue isn't just violent vs. non-violent mentally ill people. People who shit in the street are a public health menace, regardless of why they do it. People who scream obscenities at passers-by are degrading the quality of life of the majority, even they do it because of bad brain chemistry. Societies have to make choices about which behaviors they will tolerate, and enforce their rules.
Yes, I think they are misbehaving. Because they are.
I understand that a lot of this is due to brain diseases that make them arguably not responsible for their actions. So what? The fact remains that most of them will behave in an anti-social manner. And the only real choice we have is allow them to do so, or force them to stop.
Agreed-but closing the mental hospitals was a bi-partisan trend 40 years ago. Right-budget cuts. Left-“empowerment” or whatever for the mentally ill, who cares if they choose to sleep in a shopping cart.
You're right on that and fixing that mistake seems low on people's priority list. Politicians have never really given two shits about homeless people and they're unlikely to change on that.
All I can speak to is where I live, but homelessness seems low on everyone's list of priorities---politicians and voters alike. There are obviously some truly motivated charities and non-profits doing really good stuff but they're swimming against a strong current of apathy here.
"Treatment" is just a word. Usually, treating mental illness is not like injecting an antibiotic, and a they are almost immediately all better.
If a homeless person is schizophrenic, they can be returned to sanity with drugs, but the side effects leave many unwilling to take them. And they don't work for all (my late wife was a psychiatric nurse, so I got an earful about the realities).
Then there are the drug addicts and drunks. Overwhelmingly, they do not want to be sobered up.
I'm all in favor of offering treatment to whose who will take it, and benefit from it. But the fact remains that many won't take it, not all who take it will benefit from it, and the public has an interest in how people behave in public spaces. In reality, there is no magic procedure for making everyone agree. We come back to the fact that the only ways the human race has found to control behavior involve some use of force.
So do you let people do whatever they choose, or do you punish misbehavior, including removing people from society permanently?
So...more money funneled to college-educated "experts" and more bureaucrats to do the funneling will solve the problems? You really DO think problems are solved by your good intentions and few magic words, don't you? And you have the gall to call others ignorant? Wow.
How do you define "community control"? I define it as voters electing councilmembers, and the council in turn controlling the police. Based on that, the police are already under community control. The glitch is the union. If the union is powerful enough then it becomes uncontrollable. So this is the main problem with the police, and we have the exact same problem with teachers. So if we want true community control, let's ban public employee unions.
How do you define "defund"? If you mean transfer an incremental portion of funding to a different entity that would in turn take on certain responsibilities, that makes some sense. If you mean starve them for cash so they can't operate then no. It makes no sense.
The proponents of "defund the police" have been pretty clear that the goal is to redirect parts of the police budget to different social programs. No one serious is arguing the latter.
And, as much as I'm staunchy pro-union in most areas, I agree re: police unions. Teachers absolutely still need theirs though---the problem with our country certainly isn't that workers have too many rights.
I do believe there are lots of people seriously arguing the latter. I don't think they should be taken seriously, but I believe they are. It's pretty much what Minneapolis council voted on.
The problem with teacher and police unions is when the worker "rights" conflict with the public need, and the purpose for their existence in the first place.
These unions buy elections to make sure they aren't held accountable.
The realities of teaching in America vs. policing in America show where our priorities actually are. Pretty difficult for me to group those unions together for anything other than bland, surface-level concerns.
Those unions can be grouped under the heading: Takes our money and uses it to hire their own bosses, then take actions that aren't in our best interests.
Agreed our priorities are off. Are you old enough to remember the ad line "Pay me now or pay me later?" We tend to choose to pay more later.
The House passed a bill in late June that was similarly unloved and ignored in the Senate. We need to tackle these problems locally if we have any chance of solving them. Hell, both Trump and Biden's solutions involved *more* funding for police.
After all, nothing like the consequence of an increased budget to sort out a problem.
Never insinuated that most people want the police "removed" (whatever it is you think that means). All I pointed out was that the first domino in this whole discussion---the murder of Floyd---has been ignored in service of easy change and fugazi progress. Point also remains that smaller, local action is going to be more successful than praying the most feeble part of the US government will attempt to fix any part of the problem.
The movement was hijacked almost from the beginning.
It's an election year, after all.
Maybe I'm still a little optimistic that SOME change can come of this, because the black community has been getting it right up the ass since the 13th amendment and after the 1960s, the police became more and more militarized.
I want to see an end to the painful merry-go-round they are stuck on.
The militarization of our police forces has ratcheted up significantly since 9/11. This is the first real national reckoning with that fact and I share a little of your optimism because of that. Can't fix what we don't acknowledge.
Of course, the most likely outcome nationally is the GOP ignoring it while the Dems kneel in kente cloth and then ignore it afterwards.
I started out fully skeptical of defund police. But now I actually believe defunding Minneapolis police may be necessary.
My logic
1) Daniel Ellis's piece on Minneapolis conditions
2) FOUR unarmed shootings of national impact out of 20 overall nationally since Ferguson. That's beyond all possible normal level.
3) former chief interviewed in 2017 said that he had zero way to enforce culture - because union contracts gave too many outs to police on discipline issues. Once the city ran out of $ to give them incontract talks, they started giving on management/discipline issues.
The contrast of seeing cops in the streets kitted out in barely-used military equipment versus nurses wearing rain ponchos as PPE has been pretty telling about our society's priorities.
The one thing I think everyone agrees on---even those who balk at the push for defunding---is that cops who break the law need to be held accountable. That's it. It's a small ask. If a cop shoots a restrained, unarmed man, he needs to be arrested and charged. Genuinely think these protests wouldn't have happened if they woulda just arrested the guys who killed Floyd instead of dithering and circling the wagons.
You are saying that unless we arrest in less than four days it's a problem? I think that presumes too much knowledge of actual events - I note we still have yet to see the footage or what the Hennepin prosecutor said was evidence that spoke against charges. I also think that protests are related more to underlying conditions than the spark.
It's genuinely unclear if these officers would've been arrested had protests not spread. And the video evidence of what happened is clear enough that an arrest should've taken place. It certainly would've if the murderer wasn't wearing an uniform.
I'd also take that prosecutor's evidence with a grain of salt, personally. Especially because the evidence we *do* have is damning on its face.
sorry, 4/20 were in Twin Cities area I mean. and my overall point is defund = complete change to remove the union and restart the force from scratch due to uncontrollable culture.
The police officers who were present at Floyd's death are on suspension and face murder and accomplice to murder charges.
It will of course take forever to try them, but that is an inescapable consequence of previous "reforms" of the court system. It was over a year between filing charges in the murder of Justine Damond and the conviction of Mohamed Noor.
...and yes: people need to take these concerns directly to City Hall. The mayors, the city councils, the chiefs of police -they are the ones responsible for all of this.
This comment is more coherent than Taibbi's post. Matt doesn't close the circle as to why this happening. He equates the left with Corporate Democrat Neoliberals who take activist language and leave the class and systemic analysis. Pretty disappointing piece by Taibbi, he's grifting off the anti-woke (whatever that means) backlash. It's like Gamergate all over again.
Also worth wondering how much of this phenomena is in academia and the media vs. the rest of society. Being that so many of us (including Taibbi) are stuck inside staring at our screens all day, it's hard to figure how widespread any of this is in the normal world most of us inhabit.
I think a lot of it started in academia and the development of post-modern ideas from philosophies that described the world to ones that should be the basis of policy. There is a lot to say about how the over-producution of phds, neo-liberalism, the defeat of the traditional left, and the corporatization of the university converged and gave rise to what we're now seeing.
I've noticed all manner of toothless BLM statements from companies with lily white board rooms, certainly.
In California, we have to do harassment trainings once your company hits a certain size. They're genuinely boring things where you sit at your computer and learn that you should grab your coworkers' ass. I can see the anti-racism training programs becoming mandatory as corporate CYAs too.
I'll just say that I don't exactly trust corporate America's commitment to any of these principles and assume they're making noises for a few months and will do nothing substantive at all.
Yes, the major beneficiaries of BLM are going to be charlatans like Robin DiAngelo who make bank for, essentially, teaching corporations a) how to better police workers and b) how to avoid any responsibility in a lawsuit.
The worst part is I've worked at several companies that did these trainings *and* covered up or ignored harassment at the executive level. I was deposed as a witness in that case and everything!
America has this pathological way of forcing everything onto a job. You get your healthcare through a job. You get diversity and harassment training from your job. Offices around my way have near-mandatory "bonding" trips and happy hours. Corporate racism training is another step in this direction. It's infantile and lame.
Haha. Thanks Alice. I work in tech and its a gigantic problem in the industry. Manchildren who expect their employer to pay for their laundry service and lunch every day are exasperating and weird.
CEOs and Boards of Directors are caving to demands and adopting these measures in the hopes of saving themselves. I fear they are going to be sadly mistaken.
I'm in CA and have done the harassment trainings. I agree it's a joke and mostly for corporate CYA.
But I do not agree all the large corporate measures are toothless. Consider what they are doing to FB to force it to censor speech in a certain preferred way. Consider why Matt has this site.
I have a friend who works at Starbuck's who now fears for her job because she won't wear their corporate BLM shirt.
These measures are real and will hurt people. I consider it harassment.
Me again...wanted to add: I think one big reason is that upper-middles don't want to be thought or called racist, so they go along with every new accusation of wrongthink. Not always, of course. But also, corporations are very keen on keeping their youngest employees happy. And this is what the youngest employees want and expect.
The BLM protests that sprung up after George Floyd's murder seemed to start a lot of this racial reckoning. Those protests were about police overreach, brutality, and how unaccountable law enforcement is in America.
Months later, we have no remedies for any of those ills. In fact, we have unidentified soldiers whisking citizens into unmarked vans in Portland. Instead, we have this weak, ultimately toothless cultural war.
Which is to say: because reforming the police is an incredibly hard thing to do, we get this potemkin village progress instead of the thing a lot of our population actually demanded. White ladies won't voice black ladies on cartoons anymore but you can still get clubbed in the street for exercising your first amendment rights.
I believe the federal officers in Portland actually do have insignia. If that turns out to be wrong, I will have a concern.
But as for unmarked vehicles: Antifa is rampaging in Portland. What do they do when they see a marked police vehicle?
They had an insignia and are operating under clear lines of authority. The fact that the van was un-marked made for a good headline but didn't actually indicate much.
Honest question: what do you personally think "Antifa" is?
The “Antifa” on the West Coast are simply the latest incarnation of violent, anarchist leftists going back over a century. The Wobblies blew up the LA Times building in 1910 or so. They have always had a presence in Berkeley, Portland, Seattle-remember the WTO riots in 2000 or so.
As for the idiots elsewhere in the country, I think they are dumb kids-or twenty somethings-who got overexcited when things got hot after the Floyd tragedy.
Total ignorance. Go to a dictionary or Wickipedia.
Useful idiots sums it up for me.
It's been my experience that people who whinge about "antifa" don't actually understand what it is they're upset about. This comment does little to dissuade me of that belief.
It been my experience that defenders of the so-called antifa have a limited grasp on reality.
But it works for them, reality or not. Again, a problem with the irresponsible, compliant press.
Antifa Means Anti-Fascist. Hitler, Mussolini and Trump are great examples.
In 1933-34 a fascist group tried to take over the FDR government and failed due to the heroism of Marine General Smedly Butler who also said "War is a racket" as there was great money to be made by it.
If you have not noticed, the Military Industrial Complex is Trumps favorite charity.
A lot of rightwing nut jobs claim they are patriots - just like leftwing nutjobs claim they are anti-fascist. Both groups' claims are clearly contradicted by their actions.
Yes, it means Anti-Fascist. There is no Fascist Party in the USA for them to fight, so they instead direct their violence against anyone they don't like -- which, ironically, is what most people identify as "fascism." Also: the original Anti-Fascist group was part of the Communist Party of Germany. This is merely a historical fact, yet ALWAYS goes unmentioned by Antifa's many defenders on the Internet. Why is that?
"Also: the original Anti-Fascist group was part of the Communist Party of Germany. This is merely a historical fact, yet ALWAYS goes unmentioned by Antifa's many defenders on the Internet. Why is that?"
Mentioning it would interfere with The Narrative, and make it harder to bamboozle people.
I'm surprised I have to point that out. Is my "rhetorical question" detector is busted?
Traditionally, yes, that's what it means. Unfortunately, because we have a left in the U.S. that has so lost its way, we now have street fighters who don't understand the difference between fascism and disagreement. This is a problem and leftists refusing to talk about it is, arguable, a bigger problem.
The ultimate basis for that "bigger problem" though, is a journalist class that has tossed out any commitment they might once have had to reporting facts, opting instead for advocacy; to the point of mendacity in the service of "virtuous" activism. If that doesn't bother someone, they ARE the problem.
So these 'anti-fascists" can lie at will, stage photo-ops that misrepresent events and be comfortable in the surety that the press will go right along with them. Just like they can screech about "Gestapo tactics" and "black sites" with zero fear, as it is obvious the Fed response has been very measured and responsible.
Let's put those two points together and we see, whatever their political claims and self-definition, that they are gutless liars. Not the side I'd ever want to be on.
I, personally, think the group that calls themselves Antifa are a bunch of knucklehead young people who are bored and (mostly) filled with testosterone who are looking for any reason to act like bored, young (mostly) men everywhere - raise a ruckus and smash things. They don't have any coherent cause or strategy they can enunciate, other than burn everything down. In other words, they are not exactly freedom riders/counter sitters from the early days of the 50-60's civil rights movement. Unfortunately, they have some older, very cynical people with power and money behind them and resourcing them who believe it's in their political interests to sow mayhem. So, that's who I think they are. What they call themselves doesn't matter. They could call themselves the pro-puppy brigade and if they were burning down neighborhoods, smashing windows and accosting people on the streets I'd still think they were dangerous, aimless youth who need to face consequences. (The Nazi's called themselves Socialists, so you can see that nothing really is in a name..)
They have a website: itsgoingdown.org
Is your argument "it's good that unaccountable armed feds arrest Americans and take them to black sites if there's looting going on"? Because I think that's a shitty argument. Kinda think the fourth amendment is an important one myself.
I'm sorry but please don't buy into the media narrative without question on this one. If you have watched video of these arrests you know that these people clearly have "POLICE - DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY" markings so that hardly blocks institutional accountability. Plus it's hard to argue with not having personal name IDs in a world of doxxing. Some LA cops had too many personal retributions for doing their jobs because their names were on their backs in sports uniform style.
And "black sites" seems completely unfounded. They take them into the federal building they arrest them next to.
First, how are they unaccountable? The U.S. Attorney in Oregon became concerned of the possibility that in two instances (in the midst of violence and mayhem) people may have been arrested without probable cause, so he immediately launched an investigation, while emphasizing that the federal officers are being attacked with all manner of projectiles.
Second, black sites? What does that mean? Does that mean they were taken away from where other rioters were for brief questioning? Do you have any evidence that anyone was held longer than the constitution allows?
Third, and most importantly, do you acknowledge that some people (including Antifa) are acting violently, and this violence needs to be addressed somehow? Otherwise, frankly, I'll stop wasting time, and hope that one day you grow up.
He's lying. He knows exactly what's going on, but also knows what buzzwords (black sites, unidentified, arbitrary) get a reaction. The federal response has been very restrained - too restrained, in my view - and they are sending out tagged officers on a peaceful operation.
The sad thing is, I can well imagine after a few more years of this, the thing he pretends to wring his hands over will actually happen for real. And when it dies the citizenry will be half tired of the cry-wolf, and half glad that someone's finally cracking skulls. A free people will look the other way from this if it means they get these anarchists out and their cities back.
I'm not lying and in fact recanted the "black sites" thing below because I was wrong. I like it around here because most people have intelligent conversations with you instead of assuming the worst (as you did here). Peace.
sorry i saw this late, +1 to your civil conversation comment
All good, SC.
You recant 2% of your disingenuous simpering without seeing how that might endanger the rest of your fraud?
Come on, man. No one benefits from incivility.
I disagree. We simply cannot - must not - let these constant mutations of the truth take hold. People need to be held responsible for spreading these falsehoods without *first* considering whether or not they are telling the truth. Otherwise you will be forever fighting a rearguard action. You'll be forever surrendering ground to people who have no regard for the truth and instead will force you to only focus on what they say. If you have to run around playing fact-checker while never getting to state your own case, not only do you incentivize further lying but you surrender your own agency in the discourse.
Just lemme know when you're sending me the hairshirt, man.
I disagree with you. No one will stay if we name call. No one I want to talk to, anyway. Just ignore or disagree.
Notice how myself and the person I was actually talking to found common ground through shared humanity and open discourse?
Weird how a measured approach works while your approach of shrieking like a child is failing.
Wonder why that is.
I don't doubt your humanity, and nor do I ever.
I also have a zero-tolerance policy for liars.
These aren't conflicting positions.
Being misinformed, then recanting isn't "lying." It's actually called "learning." Stop digging in.
Well done. I misinterpreted your position as well.
1- They're unaccountable because they have faced no consequences and I believe they will not face any. An "investigation" isn't a consequence.
2- That was how I originally saw it reported and have been educated by Louis below. I'd delete that part of the comment, but Substack doesn't allow that. Rescinded.
3- Setting aside that "Antifa" isn't real and is just a blanket term the right uses for "undesirables," yes, of course some protesters are violent. Some police are violent. I don't think the former justifies the latter, especially with the preponderance of evidence we've seen of police attacking demonstrably peaceful protesters for having the nerve to use their first amendment rights.
1- If an investigation isn't a consequence then neither is a temporary detention and a release.
2- You 'rescind' this small aspect of it without rethinking your entire thesis. You're plainly disingenuous. The snake oil you're peddling about *actual real stormtroopers you guys* is woefully weak.
3- Again, to say antifa isn't real is just dishonest. At least tens of thousands of people across the US identify with it, call themselves part of it, adopt its tactics, protect its sympathizers etc. Because it doesn't have a national leader or a website doesn't make it fake - it makes it smart. It makes it hard - but not impossible - to cut the head off the hydra, to infiltrate, and to identify its assets. These are all strengths for a decentralized, paramilitary movement operating in a surveillance state like yours.
And it has the added bonus of giving plausible deniability to liars like you.
If a protester is violent, then police violence is absolutely justified. If you like it or not, government having a complete monopoly on the justified use of force is a marker of government. If you want citizens to be able to use force against the government, you are wanting anarchy. If you go an kill a murderer yourself, you have committed murder. If the state kills a murderer, it is justice.
I have no issue with cops defending themselves. But the presence of violent protesters doesn't give police permission to behave violently against other protesters. Think stuff like what happened to Martin Gugino. There's no universe where behavior like that is justified.
Police shoving someone who is peaceful, i.e. Martin Gugino, is not dealing with violent protesters. We can all agree that using force on someone standing on the sidewalk is wrong, but you are being fraudulent putting Martin Gugino in the same category as violent protesters.
Using force on someone standing on the sidewalk when an unlawful assembly has been reasonably declared is fine. There is no permanent right to not be moved. If you assemble peaceably but someone sets a fire behind you that creates an unsafe condition and the police tell you it's time to leave, you have to. Force is justified to move you if you don't.
I say that all in part because watching the LA protests that turned violent, it was clear there was massive lack of understanding of the law among the protestors. They were taking their phones out like the police were going to get in trouble for using force on them, when in fact they were in the wrong. The police chief had a special plea the next day to organizers to help people understand the law.
And I mentioned I have no issue with cops defending themselves from actual violence. We're agreeing with each other here, Gavin. It's all good.
We task cops with defending the public. Although Warren v. District of Columbia states that cops do not have a specific duty to protect the public, cops are still generally expected to defend everyone, not just themselves. What change would you actually like to see in the police force across the nation?
I have to disagree with you, for example, on accountability (if they intended to be lawless, they wouldn't bother with the investigation). But your tone is reasonable, so I apologize for mine in my last sentence. I value the fact that people of wide viewpoints can talk to each other here. We need this.
All good, man. I comment here because people actually seem to read and digest arguments instead of retreat to tiresome partisan or in-group nonsense. And, in my view, our disagreement re: accountability is impossible to settle till we can determine if this thing is actually a good faith investigation with any teeth on it.
Cheers.
This is a genuine question: without all the emotion, what is the law here? Either DHS has the legal authority to arrest folks or they don't. Which is it? Does anyone know? I honestly don't understand why this is so unclear.
It's not unclear. I want to answer your earnest question with earnestness. DHS has legal authority to arrest anyone they have reasonable suspicion committed a federal crime. So, for example, if they observed or have video of them vandalizing a federal building. They can arrest that person anywhere they find them, including blocks away 30 mins later, or at their home days later.
What some want to do is confuse the issue for political purposes. Trump wants his people to protect the federal buidlings and they are going too far in some ways, like tear gassing in streets that are not federal property. But Dems/media are politicizing and painting any arrest as out of bounds, which is just silly. They play up the "unmarked vans" as a way to claim it's police state activity instead of just not having your van burned by protestors.
This sounds logical and jibes with my intution. Thanks.
As a P.S., it might sound simplistic but it helps me to understand the what the law actually is and avoid the emotionalism which seems to cloud 95% of these discussions.
Sure, but the "protect the federal buildings" is a pretext like "stand your ground" laws in Florida and other parts of the south. It give the federal gov't wide, discretionary arrest privileges with the kind of vague accountability that's at the heart of a lot of these protests: the ability for LEOs to act as they please and to face no substantive consequences for violating citizens' rights.
It's a bit like immigration. You can enforce it more or less based on politics, but if it's truly enforcing the law, it's not exactly pretextual to do it. It may be political to do it loudly. It can also be done without violating rights. But I can't comment on what is actually going on, nobody really knows much.
So according to Fox News podcast today, it's a gray area....
One expert said it's unconstitutional: the feds can protect federal property, but that's it. They can't detain people without an arrest and they can't wander around the street picking people up. They can only do local law enforcement if invited by the locality, which they weren't.
However another expert said it is constitutional and required for the executive branch to enforce federal law. So if someone vandalizes a federal building, the feds have a duty to enforce the law by picking that person up wherever they are.
But the gray area is problematic for the bigger reason that one expert said if people are murdering others in the street, there is nothing the federal government can do, if the local authorities won't contain it. That's scary. The other expert seems to think they can go in, I guess if murdering people in the streets is against federal law?
That's a big difference of opinion.
The past few decades have seen a steady erosion of fourth amendment protections for citizens and especially protesters. I'm not keen on carving out new flimsy pretexts for people being arrested.
My fear is the "protect federal buildings" rationale will be perverted easily by overzealous LEOs. That's something that should be terrifying to people on all ends of the political spectrum.
Maybe, but to me in the middle, actually getting beaten up by cops who declared an unlawful assembly one time made me research and understand that there was a valid need for them to declare unlawful assemblies sometimes.
Did you know that the day of the Kent State shootings, the protest was unlawful and the temporary ban on protest due to safety concerns had gone up to the state supreme court and been upheld? The authorities were right and did their best, probably in reasonably good faith - but were still made to look historically evil anyway.
I will clarify this a bit. DHS can arrest you for any felony committed in their presence. So any violence, assault, looting and so forth justifies DHS throwing you in cuffs. The major difference is DHS is not restrained by the policy of the local Mayor and Governor and so will make sure the arrest happens. There is zero restriction as to federal building or state/federal law, but felony crimes are the precursor event for DHS to arrest you.
That relic was repealed decades ago.
(4th amendment)
1- My reply to you was kinda sarcastic/shitty so apologies re: that.
2- The issue I have with your post is pretty easy to articulate: you're saying that you shouldn't protest because the guys you're protesting against will crack your skull. I.e. don't protest the bad thing or the bad thing will happen to you. I know you don't condone it but I'm at a loss for what the remedy is, especially for regular citizens, many of who have lost their livelihood in the past three or four months and are feeling rightfully frustrated by the anemic response from their supposed "leaders."
All good points. Depressing points, but good points. Appreciate your attitude & patience, Louis. Kudos.
They are no different than the federal LE officers who Eric Holder (on Obama's orders) sent to Nevada to deal with cattle ranchers (Clive Bundy et al) whose stock was grazing on federal land. The ranchers refused to move off BLM land. The feds made an criminal arrest. And, they, too, were accountable. That case was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court (a liberal majority.) The feds lost.
I support defunding and certainly demilitarizing the police and I think they should be brought under community control, but this is more a complicated issue than current popular discussion allows for. The only way this could be done successfully is if social programs that actually prevent violence were funded more heavily (or at all). This is unlikely to happen in the current neo-liberal environment. What would happen, I believe, if we defund and/or abolish the police in our current economic climate is that we would see the rise of privately funded police and security forces by the rich and we would lose even the possibility of ever bringing the police under community control. I think you are spot on about where this insane culture war is coming from.
"The only way this could be done successfully is if social programs that actually prevent violence were funded more heavily (or at all)"
100% agree with this. As an example: I live in San Francisco. We have a bad homelessness problem that is largely a mental health crisis. Investing in mental health services would be far more ethical and far more effective than calling the cops on disturbances where no one's actually in danger. The cops don't have training for this and I'd much rather them be looking into actual crimes. Better use of funding and a reduced scope of responsibility for law enforcement feels like a win-win.
More magic words. "Investing in mental health services" will provide well-paid jobs for some people (mostly white ones, btw), but most of the "homeless" won't use the "services."
You can hold people responsible for their behavior, or you can let them misbehave. San Francisco has chosen to let them misbehave.
My general issue with all the pontificating is the law of unforeseen consequences and also as you say, the "magic words". Some mentally ill people are not dangerous. I know non-violent schizophrenic people who just get scared and call the cops because they don't know what else to do. They need a social worker.
However, some folks are violent. I had a relative who was a paranoid schizophrenic. He broke into a house and tried to strangle someone (a family member). He ultimately shot and killed a neighbor and then killed himself. The reason why family members call the cops is that mentally ill people are unpredictable.
So the devil is all in the detailed execution. So the 911 operator better ask the family member calling if the person needs physical restraints or not before deciding who to send out. If you can execute well, if might work, if not it won't.
Second we can talk about funding mental health all you want, but that means there has to be available budget there. How many municipalities have all this budget excess? If the budget doesn't actually exist it's just pandering.
For example I know someone who works in SF City government. The Tenderloin (an area with massive issues with homeless mentally ill people) was in fact created by locating all the mental health and social services in a single geographic region. Unless you actually house people there may not be a lot that can be done. Or what if you choose to build housing for the homeless in SF, homeless people steam in, while the average tech worker can barely afford to pay rent? How will that eventually play out?
This isn't to say do nothing. But sometimes we have to live with some kind of trade- offs. There might be small tweaks, such as enforcing duty to intervene or better training on why not to sit on someone neck for 8 minutes, that might have better effect then all these overhauls.
"How many municipalities have all this budget excess? If the budget doesn't actually exist it's just pandering."
This is the crux of the "defund the police" idea. You remove some of their outsized budget and redirect it to social services. We need mental health services more than we need cops with military vehicles, right?
On the other point, I live in SF and the homeless problem here is nuanced and tough to discuss in comments. My cousin is a social worker here who does free healthcare in the Loin (among other hot spots) and says a ton of people really do use the services and really do pull themselves out of homelessness. It's just there are always new people coming in to avail themselves of those services because most neighboring cities don't have similar services. So you get an influx of homelessness because you're trying to do your best to solve the problem. Then there's the subsection of people who simply refuse to get help, the actual violent crowd, addicts, and on and on. It's incredibly complex.
Cops are just simply not the right person to deal with most of the non-violent population here. They have no training and no desire to police homelessness either.
I’m sure most cops would gladly give up mentally ill service calls, shall we say. The question is if social workers are prepared to deal w/ the 5%(just throwing a number out, I don’t have the stats) of such calls that turn physical/dangerous.
I'd assume they would as well. I guess the best we could do in this scenario is hoping the social workers called the cops when things got violent and if the person was being violent beforehand, that the cops were called instead.
There's no simple solution for any of this and homelessness is among the most impossible to solve. To recenter though: we should just be asking cops to do less and solve real crimes, not raise money for the state or arrest people drinking in the park or some other silly BS.
I'd add that for those "raise money for the state" actions, the police are pressured to get their quotas, either from the chief, the mayor, etc. Of course the mayor probably forgets all about that when he has to go feign outrage. Political kabuki, but now it's spilled into the audience...
Yes, good points. It's very nuanced out there. My budget points are more about that I would suspect a lot of cities can't even afford decent basic policing. SF is a very wealthy community. I don't how much their city budget reflect the rest of the country. But I really don't have data one way or the other.
We do indeed have plenty of budget, devote a lot of it to the homelessness crisis, and a lot of empathetic, good people work on the problem...but the numbers really never change. It's frustrating and nobody has a solution, regardless of the money that's thrown at it.
One question seldom considered: what would a "solution" look like?
Consider e.g. drunk driving. If everyone would spontaneously decide to never drink and drive again, that would be a "solution" to the problem of drunk driving. But since the evidence indicates that such a decision will never occur, what constitutes a solution to drunk driving?
Good points.
But I wish to point out that the issue isn't just violent vs. non-violent mentally ill people. People who shit in the street are a public health menace, regardless of why they do it. People who scream obscenities at passers-by are degrading the quality of life of the majority, even they do it because of bad brain chemistry. Societies have to make choices about which behaviors they will tolerate, and enforce their rules.
You think schizophrenics are "misbehaving," huh? What a simple world you must live in.
Yes, I think they are misbehaving. Because they are.
I understand that a lot of this is due to brain diseases that make them arguably not responsible for their actions. So what? The fact remains that most of them will behave in an anti-social manner. And the only real choice we have is allow them to do so, or force them to stop.
So which do you choose?
Giving them treatment and not siccing the cops on them. This isn't a complex idea.
Agreed-but closing the mental hospitals was a bi-partisan trend 40 years ago. Right-budget cuts. Left-“empowerment” or whatever for the mentally ill, who cares if they choose to sleep in a shopping cart.
You're right on that and fixing that mistake seems low on people's priority list. Politicians have never really given two shits about homeless people and they're unlikely to change on that.
Agreed. But they will care, if we make it clear that they will lose office if they don't.
The difficulty is getting the public to agree on a course of action.
All I can speak to is where I live, but homelessness seems low on everyone's list of priorities---politicians and voters alike. There are obviously some truly motivated charities and non-profits doing really good stuff but they're swimming against a strong current of apathy here.
"Treatment" is just a word. Usually, treating mental illness is not like injecting an antibiotic, and a they are almost immediately all better.
If a homeless person is schizophrenic, they can be returned to sanity with drugs, but the side effects leave many unwilling to take them. And they don't work for all (my late wife was a psychiatric nurse, so I got an earful about the realities).
Then there are the drug addicts and drunks. Overwhelmingly, they do not want to be sobered up.
I'm all in favor of offering treatment to whose who will take it, and benefit from it. But the fact remains that many won't take it, not all who take it will benefit from it, and the public has an interest in how people behave in public spaces. In reality, there is no magic procedure for making everyone agree. We come back to the fact that the only ways the human race has found to control behavior involve some use of force.
So do you let people do whatever they choose, or do you punish misbehavior, including removing people from society permanently?
So...more money funneled to college-educated "experts" and more bureaucrats to do the funneling will solve the problems? You really DO think problems are solved by your good intentions and few magic words, don't you? And you have the gall to call others ignorant? Wow.
Most definitely we should not be expecting cops to be our mental health system. That is the root of much of our trouble.
How do you define "community control"? I define it as voters electing councilmembers, and the council in turn controlling the police. Based on that, the police are already under community control. The glitch is the union. If the union is powerful enough then it becomes uncontrollable. So this is the main problem with the police, and we have the exact same problem with teachers. So if we want true community control, let's ban public employee unions.
How do you define "defund"? If you mean transfer an incremental portion of funding to a different entity that would in turn take on certain responsibilities, that makes some sense. If you mean starve them for cash so they can't operate then no. It makes no sense.
The proponents of "defund the police" have been pretty clear that the goal is to redirect parts of the police budget to different social programs. No one serious is arguing the latter.
And, as much as I'm staunchy pro-union in most areas, I agree re: police unions. Teachers absolutely still need theirs though---the problem with our country certainly isn't that workers have too many rights.
I do believe there are lots of people seriously arguing the latter. I don't think they should be taken seriously, but I believe they are. It's pretty much what Minneapolis council voted on.
The problem with teacher and police unions is when the worker "rights" conflict with the public need, and the purpose for their existence in the first place.
These unions buy elections to make sure they aren't held accountable.
The realities of teaching in America vs. policing in America show where our priorities actually are. Pretty difficult for me to group those unions together for anything other than bland, surface-level concerns.
Those unions can be grouped under the heading: Takes our money and uses it to hire their own bosses, then take actions that aren't in our best interests.
Agreed our priorities are off. Are you old enough to remember the ad line "Pay me now or pay me later?" We tend to choose to pay more later.
Weirdly enough, my pops used to talk about that ad. Was a big car guy (unsuccessfully, but damn it he tried). Haven't thought about that in aaaaages.
It was amazingly influential and struck a chord with a generation.
Unfortunately we didn't apply it to our society as well as we applied it to our cars and houses.
Police unions sponsor Democrat candidates.
Somebody wants their inconvenient truth back.
I saw a Black Twitter tweet to the same effect. All this changing of brand names, and fine but what about reforming police brutality? Crickets?
Tim Scott did have a bill, but his dem colleagues refused to discuss in public. Therefore, nothing was done on the legislative front.
The House passed a bill in late June that was similarly unloved and ignored in the Senate. We need to tackle these problems locally if we have any chance of solving them. Hell, both Trump and Biden's solutions involved *more* funding for police.
After all, nothing like the consequence of an increased budget to sort out a problem.
Well... here's a news flash for you: the majority of your fellow wage-slaves don't WANT the police removed or even partially neutered at this time.
Moreover, the ruling class wouldn't be funding this shit show if it didn't serve their efforts at maintaining the concentration of wealth.
It's a scam and the poor are the punchline. It has nothing to do with race, even if "law" has been used to keep certain races down more than others.
It's never been so clear as it is now.
After the 1960s, business giants in the US and UK re-circled the wagons and doubled down on this.
They've got the consent now... and they're going to go for it. We'll end up like China.
Never insinuated that most people want the police "removed" (whatever it is you think that means). All I pointed out was that the first domino in this whole discussion---the murder of Floyd---has been ignored in service of easy change and fugazi progress. Point also remains that smaller, local action is going to be more successful than praying the most feeble part of the US government will attempt to fix any part of the problem.
Oh, I agree with you here.
The movement was hijacked almost from the beginning.
It's an election year, after all.
Maybe I'm still a little optimistic that SOME change can come of this, because the black community has been getting it right up the ass since the 13th amendment and after the 1960s, the police became more and more militarized.
I want to see an end to the painful merry-go-round they are stuck on.
The militarization of our police forces has ratcheted up significantly since 9/11. This is the first real national reckoning with that fact and I share a little of your optimism because of that. Can't fix what we don't acknowledge.
Of course, the most likely outcome nationally is the GOP ignoring it while the Dems kneel in kente cloth and then ignore it afterwards.
I started out fully skeptical of defund police. But now I actually believe defunding Minneapolis police may be necessary.
My logic
1) Daniel Ellis's piece on Minneapolis conditions
2) FOUR unarmed shootings of national impact out of 20 overall nationally since Ferguson. That's beyond all possible normal level.
3) former chief interviewed in 2017 said that he had zero way to enforce culture - because union contracts gave too many outs to police on discipline issues. Once the city ran out of $ to give them incontract talks, they started giving on management/discipline issues.
The contrast of seeing cops in the streets kitted out in barely-used military equipment versus nurses wearing rain ponchos as PPE has been pretty telling about our society's priorities.
The one thing I think everyone agrees on---even those who balk at the push for defunding---is that cops who break the law need to be held accountable. That's it. It's a small ask. If a cop shoots a restrained, unarmed man, he needs to be arrested and charged. Genuinely think these protests wouldn't have happened if they woulda just arrested the guys who killed Floyd instead of dithering and circling the wagons.
You are saying that unless we arrest in less than four days it's a problem? I think that presumes too much knowledge of actual events - I note we still have yet to see the footage or what the Hennepin prosecutor said was evidence that spoke against charges. I also think that protests are related more to underlying conditions than the spark.
It's genuinely unclear if these officers would've been arrested had protests not spread. And the video evidence of what happened is clear enough that an arrest should've taken place. It certainly would've if the murderer wasn't wearing an uniform.
I'd also take that prosecutor's evidence with a grain of salt, personally. Especially because the evidence we *do* have is damning on its face.
sorry, 4/20 were in Twin Cities area I mean. and my overall point is defund = complete change to remove the union and restart the force from scratch due to uncontrollable culture.
The police officers who were present at Floyd's death are on suspension and face murder and accomplice to murder charges.
It will of course take forever to try them, but that is an inescapable consequence of previous "reforms" of the court system. It was over a year between filing charges in the murder of Justine Damond and the conviction of Mohamed Noor.
...and yes: people need to take these concerns directly to City Hall. The mayors, the city councils, the chiefs of police -they are the ones responsible for all of this.
Token senator? jeez...you see no issue with your statement above?
This comment is more coherent than Taibbi's post. Matt doesn't close the circle as to why this happening. He equates the left with Corporate Democrat Neoliberals who take activist language and leave the class and systemic analysis. Pretty disappointing piece by Taibbi, he's grifting off the anti-woke (whatever that means) backlash. It's like Gamergate all over again.
Also worth wondering how much of this phenomena is in academia and the media vs. the rest of society. Being that so many of us (including Taibbi) are stuck inside staring at our screens all day, it's hard to figure how widespread any of this is in the normal world most of us inhabit.
I think a lot of it started in academia and the development of post-modern ideas from philosophies that described the world to ones that should be the basis of policy. There is a lot to say about how the over-producution of phds, neo-liberalism, the defeat of the traditional left, and the corporatization of the university converged and gave rise to what we're now seeing.
You haven't noticed all the American corporations jumping on the bandwagon?
I've noticed all manner of toothless BLM statements from companies with lily white board rooms, certainly.
In California, we have to do harassment trainings once your company hits a certain size. They're genuinely boring things where you sit at your computer and learn that you should grab your coworkers' ass. I can see the anti-racism training programs becoming mandatory as corporate CYAs too.
I'll just say that I don't exactly trust corporate America's commitment to any of these principles and assume they're making noises for a few months and will do nothing substantive at all.
Yes, the major beneficiaries of BLM are going to be charlatans like Robin DiAngelo who make bank for, essentially, teaching corporations a) how to better police workers and b) how to avoid any responsibility in a lawsuit.
The worst part is I've worked at several companies that did these trainings *and* covered up or ignored harassment at the executive level. I was deposed as a witness in that case and everything!
America has this pathological way of forcing everything onto a job. You get your healthcare through a job. You get diversity and harassment training from your job. Offices around my way have near-mandatory "bonding" trips and happy hours. Corporate racism training is another step in this direction. It's infantile and lame.
I wish I could like that comment a thousand times.
Haha. Thanks Alice. I work in tech and its a gigantic problem in the industry. Manchildren who expect their employer to pay for their laundry service and lunch every day are exasperating and weird.
CEOs and Boards of Directors are caving to demands and adopting these measures in the hopes of saving themselves. I fear they are going to be sadly mistaken.
I'm in CA and have done the harassment trainings. I agree it's a joke and mostly for corporate CYA.
But I do not agree all the large corporate measures are toothless. Consider what they are doing to FB to force it to censor speech in a certain preferred way. Consider why Matt has this site.
I have a friend who works at Starbuck's who now fears for her job because she won't wear their corporate BLM shirt.
These measures are real and will hurt people. I consider it harassment.
Oh trust me it's in the corporations nowadays.
Me again...wanted to add: I think one big reason is that upper-middles don't want to be thought or called racist, so they go along with every new accusation of wrongthink. Not always, of course. But also, corporations are very keen on keeping their youngest employees happy. And this is what the youngest employees want and expect.
Do you really not know what "woke" means? Have you tried a websearch?