The George Floyd effect. Monuments down. MS flag gone. Worldwide protests. Police more violent than protestors.
I was just on a Zoom get together with our son and grandsons in St. Paul. Our son said that Frey is a "weenie" is not liked. He knew him before he was mayor. Our son campaigned for Keith Ellison.
The mayor of St. Paul, Mel Carter, is liked a lot. His father was a policeman. He went to the same high school as our grandsons.
I’m asking myself how I would have responded if I had been in Frey’s shoes. Even with the luxury of time and repose, I don’t know yet. I’m pretty sure every reply I’ll be able to come up with ends with me, like Frey, walking away so the crowd can have its say.
Smedley said:
STANV said:
drummerboy said:
Was he really being asked to abolish the police?
"Defund the police" is like "Abolish ICE". A very poorly framed phrase for a very useful policy outcome. As usual, the left sucks at framing. I hope it withers away to something more meaningful.
Yes. He was asked if he would abolish the police. The demonstrator's leader said that that is what they wanted. Watch the video if possible.
This is what I’m talking about. If the election is framed as a choice between this nonsense and trump - trump wins.
Why is it nonsense? Its been done. About a 150 years ago the NYC police department was dismantled. The municipal police was dissolved and replaced it with the metropolitan police. I'm sure there are other instances.
If the department is loaded with entitled and recalcitrant rogues you can dissolve and replace it. Let state police and the national guard protect the municipality while a new department is built.
Or are we now so gutless that a dissolution and rebuild is not possible? When the air traffic controllers went on strike they thought themselves needed. No one and no organization is indispensable. To treat anyone as such is asking for trouble.
Letting a whole department go is a lesson that may resonate very well, maybe even better than the demonstrations.
Anyway, its a decision that should be left to the citizens of Minneapolis.
Our other son, who lives in Westfield, was also on the Zoom get together. He and our grandson went to a rally in Westfield today where there was a "sea of white faces" (which is not surprising.) There were about 500 people there. It was organized be two students at Westfield High School - one African American and one white. Murphy and Tom Malinowski were there.He said that the kids were really fired up - it really is up to them. We've seen that here in SOMA.
Floyd said:
Why is it nonsense? Its been done. About a 150 years ago the NYC police department was dismantled. The municipal police was dissolved and replaced it with the metropolitan police. I'm sure there are other instances.
More recently, Camden’s police force was disbanded and replaced by county law enforcement.
I haven’t done a thorough search for details, but the push for community-led safety in Minneapolis doesn’t sound as if rebuilding the department, like New York, or working with another department, like Camden, is on the table.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
STANV said:
drummerboy said:
Was he really being asked to abolish the police?
"Defund the police" is like "Abolish ICE". A very poorly framed phrase for a very useful policy outcome. As usual, the left sucks at framing. I hope it withers away to something more meaningful.
Yes. He was asked if he would abolish the police. The demonstrator's leader said that that is what they wanted. Watch the video if possible.
This is what I’m talking about. If the election is framed as a choice between this nonsense and trump - trump wins.
per my earlier comment, are there really a whole lot of voters left who find Trump credible on these kind of issues? If anything, Trump is banging the drum on "Democrat Party wants to abolish police departments!!" makes it even less believable to most people.
Well if trump just says it, yes by itself that has very little credibility. But if any significant Democrats say it, and trump repeats/amplifies it’s that’s a different story in terms of its potential to stick.
After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
Floyd said:
Smedley said:
STANV said:
drummerboy said:
Was he really being asked to abolish the police?
"Defund the police" is like "Abolish ICE". A very poorly framed phrase for a very useful policy outcome. As usual, the left sucks at framing. I hope it withers away to something more meaningful.
Yes. He was asked if he would abolish the police. The demonstrator's leader said that that is what they wanted. Watch the video if possible.
This is what I’m talking about. If the election is framed as a choice between this nonsense and trump - trump wins.
Why is it nonsense? Its been done. About a 150 years ago the NYC police department was dismantled. The municipal police was dissolved and replaced it with the metropolitan police. I'm sure there are other instances.
If the department is loaded with entitled and recalcitrant rogues you can dissolve and replace it. Let state police and the national guard protect the municipality while a new department is built.
Or are we now so gutless that a dissolution and rebuild is not possible? When the air traffic controllers went on strike they thought themselves needed. No one and no organization is indispensable. To treat anyone as such is asking for trouble.
Letting a whole department go is a lesson that may resonate very well, maybe even better than the demonstrations.
Anyway, its a decision that should be left to the citizens of Minneapolis.
Of course there should always be remedies for systemic issues with police departments. As I recall, NJ did some oversight with Edison PD some years back after officers did a lot of haywire stuff. There probably should be more of this.
I’m talking about a different thing, I’m talking about a knee-jerk reaction to the George Floyd murder to defund police departments.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
STANV said:
drummerboy said:
Was he really being asked to abolish the police?
"Defund the police" is like "Abolish ICE". A very poorly framed phrase for a very useful policy outcome. As usual, the left sucks at framing. I hope it withers away to something more meaningful.
Yes. He was asked if he would abolish the police. The demonstrator's leader said that that is what they wanted. Watch the video if possible.
This is what I’m talking about. If the election is framed as a choice between this nonsense and trump - trump wins.
per my earlier comment, are there really a whole lot of voters left who find Trump credible on these kind of issues? If anything, Trump is banging the drum on "Democrat Party wants to abolish police departments!!" makes it even less believable to most people.
Well if trump just says it, yes by itself that has very little credibility. But if any significant Democrats say it, and trump repeats/amplifies it’s that’s a different story in terms of its potential to stick.
After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
AOC is really stuck in your craw, huh?
Smedley said:After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
ISWYDT: “Past That Wing” was the anti-airplane GND motto.
Except the Green New Deal didn’t call for replacing all air travel with high-speed trains; a poorly phrased summary did, blessing the world with “sea train” jokes, before it was quickly retracted.
Smedley said:
Well if trump just says it, yes by itself that has very little credibility. But if any significant Democrats say it, and trump repeats/amplifies it’s that’s a different story in terms of its potential to stick.
After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
Insofar as our politics is often unduly influence by BS bad faith arguments, all of these things are a concern for Democrats. If we weren't such a numbingly stupid country, we'd be able to discuss these issues on their merits, considering all the nuances.
But because most of our voters aren't smart enough to see through the kind of dumbass arguments you're suggesting, it does make it hard for the party of reality to go up against the party of unreality.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well if trump just says it, yes by itself that has very little credibility. But if any significant Democrats say it, and trump repeats/amplifies it’s that’s a different story in terms of its potential to stick.
After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.Insofar as our politics is often unduly influence by BS bad faith arguments, all of these things are a concern for Democrats. If we weren't such a numbingly stupid country, we'd be able to discuss these issues on their merits, considering all the nuances.
But because most of our voters aren't smart enough to see through the kind of dumbass arguments you're suggesting, it does make it hard for the party of reality to go up against the party of unreality.
Seems like a super negative and cynical way of acknowledging some validity to my argument.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well if trump just says it, yes by itself that has very little credibility. But if any significant Democrats say it, and trump repeats/amplifies it’s that’s a different story in terms of its potential to stick.
After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.Insofar as our politics is often unduly influence by BS bad faith arguments, all of these things are a concern for Democrats. If we weren't such a numbingly stupid country, we'd be able to discuss these issues on their merits, considering all the nuances.
But because most of our voters aren't smart enough to see through the kind of dumbass arguments you're suggesting, it does make it hard for the party of reality to go up against the party of unreality.
Seems like a super negative and cynical way of acknowledging some validity to my argument.
I think the people "concern trolling" about it right now are the ones amplifying it, for the benefit of Trump.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
ISWYDT: “Past That Wing” was the anti-airplane GND motto.
Except the Green New Deal didn’t call for replacing all air travel with high-speed trains; a poorly phrased summary did, blessing the world with “sea train” jokes, before it was quickly retracted.
Well hopefully they learned from that debacle and AOC won’t put out a similar police defunding plan to replace guns with confetti cannons, batons with plastic lightsabers, and jail cells with psychiatrist couches.
Smedley said:
Seems like a super negative and cynical way of acknowledging some validity to my argument.
******* Donald Trump is our ******* president. it seems my assessment is nothing more than an acknowledgement of reality.
Smedley said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:After AOC went public with that half-baked green new deal proposal with sea trains and whatnot, I put nothing past that wing of the party in terms of ridiculousness.
ISWYDT: “Past That Wing” was the anti-airplane GND motto.
Except the Green New Deal didn’t call for replacing all air travel with high-speed trains; a poorly phrased summary did, blessing the world with “sea train” jokes, before it was quickly retracted.
Well hopefully they learned from that debacle and AOC won’t put out a similar police defunding plan to replace guns with confetti cannons, batons with plastic lightsabers, and jail cells with psychiatrist couches.
AOC is the most exciting (and competent) Democrat to come along in years. Too bad you can't see that. She scares the crap out of the R's - that should be enough to tell you something.
Hopefully we'll see more Dems come along in the likes of AOC, and less like Pelosi.
ml1 said:
STANV said:
The article from the Star Tribune supports your point. I guess "Completely Revamp the Police Department" isn't catchy or sexy enough.
it's also too nuanced for people to understand -- "stop funding the militarization of local police departments."
as a country, we are just too ******* stupid. it's a wonder we've survived this long.
terp said:
proving my point that the issue has too much nuance for most people. One city discussing disbanding a brutal police force does not equate to "the Democrats want to defund the police!"
It's also not unprecedented
The City That Remade Its Police Department
Camden, N.J.’s detailed rules on use of force are a model for reform but not a panacea.
nohero said:
I think the people "concern trolling" about it right now are the ones amplifying it, for the benefit of Trump.
yes. Pretty much.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Well hopefully they learned from that debacle and AOC won’t put out a similar police defunding plan to replace guns with confetti cannons, batons with plastic lightsabers, and jail cells with psychiatrist couches.
AOC is the most exciting (and competent) Democrat to come along in years. Too bad you can't see that. She scares the crap out of the R's - that should be enough to tell you something.
Hopefully we'll see more Dems come along in the likes of AOC, and less like Pelosi.
DB, I like both AOC and Pelosi. IMHO they compliment each other. Somewhere a baby is being born who, as a Congresswoman 30 years from now, will attack AOC as too moderate.
Smedley, the opposition is always going to "spin" distort and lie. Are there Republicans who worry about Rep. Matt Gaetz calling for the "hunting down" of protesters or hope he won't call for Concentration Camps?
BTW, as to replacing "jail cells with psychiatrist Couches" I saw a clip of a Police Chief complaining about the Police being given the job of dealing with mental illness.
flimbro said:
terp said:
flimbro said:
Re "pain" I suspect that you're missing the much bigger picture and the point of this entire thread- but we'll move on.
Again, I want what all Americans have by birthright- no more, no less. I have no expectations regarding material outcome which is obviously determined by my personal choices, talents, luck, and aptitude. What we're all talking about here is the systemic process of depriving all African Americans of their rights- period.
Better question- what do you want from these protests? How would you like it to end? What would please you? What will you do post rebellion- back to business as usual or will you implement a new set of actions based on what you've learned?
I expect to fight for the same exact things next month as I did three months ago. The only difference is that I expect to be joined by many more hearts and minds. The extent of their dedication, sacrifice, and allyship remains to be seen, but I know that they've (including you) been changed (however incrementally) by what's transpired in the last ten days.
What would I like the outcome to be? Thank you for asking.
I would like it if people came together and recognized who the real adversaries are. The real adversaries are not shop owners. They are not individuals who may protest for other rights. They are not people who disagree with you politically.
If we are talking about systemic racism, the real enemies are our institutions. While there are hostile people out there(See my earlier post), I find that on an individual level, most people are friendly and polite. It's when you start seeing people in groups and thinking in groups where things go astray. Its my opinion that we should deal with each other as individuals. And yes, we should strive to make those interactions as fruitful and as equitable as possible. People should be as free to associated with who they want, defend themselves as they see fit, and should only be punished when they hurt others. Some shorthand here is: We shouldn't hurt people, and we shouldn't take their stuff.
[snip]
Well, this explains a great deal. I think, equal parts oblivious white privilege peppered with simple naivete.
I love this one: "It's when you start seeing people in groups and thinking in groups where things go astray." (No sh!t, can you give any examples? LOL.)
American society is based on subjugating people based on 'groups'. Whiteness as a concept exists and provides benefits to white folks because it separates white people from everyone else by grouping all others into easily recognizable groups. While whiteness gives it's members the right to be seen as an individual, members of the groups or 'others' are stripped of their individuality and viewed as monolithic. You don't have to consider the feelings of a group after you've painted all it's members with the same brush, that consideration is reserved for individuals. (That's why you often hear protestors ask demonstrators to'"Say his/her name". That's an effort to raise the victim from faceless anonymity to personhood)
People being friendly or polite has absolutely nothing to do with institutionalized racism. Racism is not being 'mean' to other people and cannot be eradicated simply by convincing mean people to convert to being nice people. The idea that this still needs to be said in 2020 and to an adult no less, is remarkable.
Institutionalized or systemic racism is designed to restrict goods, services, and general socio-economic mobility to a group of people so that those goods, services, and socio-economic opportunities can be enjoyed exclusively by another privileged set.
Racism makes it impossible to 'deal with each other as individuals'- that's pretty much the whole idea of racism as a matter of fact. The entire history of this country is based on grouping people into subsets and then relegating them to predetermined social strata- decided and enforced by a ruling class. You're aware of this right? That means marginalized citizens have no opportunity to plead their case or defend their rights- because they don't have any rights. That means they never have an opportunity to "simply deal with each other as individuals" as you suggest.
When I was young in the mid-1960s my family moved to what was then a white section of town. Our next-door neighbor, a young white woman always smiled and waved at me during the day. She thought I was cute. Sometimes she waved at my mother- but very seldom. In the evening on the nights before a pickup, this friendly white woman would send her teenage son over to empty their trash cans on our front lawn. At night the friendly white lady's husband would wait for my father to go to work and then call and threaten my mother on the phone. In later years this same friendly white woman spat at my mother and her friends when we picketed outside of the Board of Education.
My folks could have saved themselves a whole lot of marching and yelling if they'd just asked the friendly white lady to be nicer and to also please ask her husband not to be so mean.
Who knew?
I don't think there is anything in my post that contradicts what you say about systemic racism. I call that out in our institutions. I feel like what I said was quite in line with what your are saying here. I was saying that I think all people should be treated like individuals, and you echoed that.
That is a horrible story about your neighbor. I'm sorry that you had to experience that. Do you still find that you are dealing with that level of hostility from individual? That is a serious question.
ml1 said:
terp said:
proving my point that the issue has too much nuance for most people. One city discussing disbanding a brutal police force does not equate to "the Democrats want to defund the police!"
It's also not unprecedented
The City That Remade Its Police Department
Camden, N.J.’s detailed rules on use of force are a model for reform but not a panacea.
That is really encouraging IMO.
terp said:
flimbro said:
terp said:
flimbro said:
Re "pain" I suspect that you're missing the much bigger picture and the point of this entire thread- but we'll move on.
Again, I want what all Americans have by birthright- no more, no less. I have no expectations regarding material outcome which is obviously determined by my personal choices, talents, luck, and aptitude. What we're all talking about here is the systemic process of depriving all African Americans of their rights- period.
Better question- what do you want from these protests? How would you like it to end? What would please you? What will you do post rebellion- back to business as usual or will you implement a new set of actions based on what you've learned?
I expect to fight for the same exact things next month as I did three months ago. The only difference is that I expect to be joined by many more hearts and minds. The extent of their dedication, sacrifice, and allyship remains to be seen, but I know that they've (including you) been changed (however incrementally) by what's transpired in the last ten days.
What would I like the outcome to be? Thank you for asking.
I would like it if people came together and recognized who the real adversaries are. The real adversaries are not shop owners. They are not individuals who may protest for other rights. They are not people who disagree with you politically.
If we are talking about systemic racism, the real enemies are our institutions. While there are hostile people out there(See my earlier post), I find that on an individual level, most people are friendly and polite. It's when you start seeing people in groups and thinking in groups where things go astray. Its my opinion that we should deal with each other as individuals. And yes, we should strive to make those interactions as fruitful and as equitable as possible. People should be as free to associated with who they want, defend themselves as they see fit, and should only be punished when they hurt others. Some shorthand here is: We shouldn't hurt people, and we shouldn't take their stuff.
[snip]
Well, this explains a great deal. I think, equal parts oblivious white privilege peppered with simple naivete.
I love this one: "It's when you start seeing people in groups and thinking in groups where things go astray." (No sh!t, can you give any examples? LOL.)
American society is based on subjugating people based on 'groups'. Whiteness as a concept exists and provides benefits to white folks because it separates white people from everyone else by grouping all others into easily recognizable groups. While whiteness gives it's members the right to be seen as an individual, members of the groups or 'others' are stripped of their individuality and viewed as monolithic. You don't have to consider the feelings of a group after you've painted all it's members with the same brush, that consideration is reserved for individuals. (That's why you often hear protestors ask demonstrators to'"Say his/her name". That's an effort to raise the victim from faceless anonymity to personhood)
People being friendly or polite has absolutely nothing to do with institutionalized racism. Racism is not being 'mean' to other people and cannot be eradicated simply by convincing mean people to convert to being nice people. The idea that this still needs to be said in 2020 and to an adult no less, is remarkable.
Institutionalized or systemic racism is designed to restrict goods, services, and general socio-economic mobility to a group of people so that those goods, services, and socio-economic opportunities can be enjoyed exclusively by another privileged set.
Racism makes it impossible to 'deal with each other as individuals'- that's pretty much the whole idea of racism as a matter of fact. The entire history of this country is based on grouping people into subsets and then relegating them to predetermined social strata- decided and enforced by a ruling class. You're aware of this right? That means marginalized citizens have no opportunity to plead their case or defend their rights- because they don't have any rights. That means they never have an opportunity to "simply deal with each other as individuals" as you suggest.
When I was young in the mid-1960s my family moved to what was then a white section of town. Our next-door neighbor, a young white woman always smiled and waved at me during the day. She thought I was cute. Sometimes she waved at my mother- but very seldom. In the evening on the nights before a pickup, this friendly white woman would send her teenage son over to empty their trash cans on our front lawn. At night the friendly white lady's husband would wait for my father to go to work and then call and threaten my mother on the phone. In later years this same friendly white woman spat at my mother and her friends when we picketed outside of the Board of Education.
My folks could have saved themselves a whole lot of marching and yelling if they'd just asked the friendly white lady to be nicer and to also please ask her husband not to be so mean.
Who knew?
I don't think there is anything in my post that contradicts what you say about systemic racism. I call that out in our institutions. I feel like what I said was quite in line with what your are saying here. I was saying that I think all people should be treated like individuals, and you echoed that.
That is a horrible story about your neighbor. I'm sorry that you had to experience that. Do you still find that you are dealing with that level of hostility from individual? That is a serious question.
Oh no- not at all, nobody does, everything is peachy now.
Right? Tell me about it.
Not unless you count all that legislation prior to 1964 (or 1866 if you want to delve into that library of yours)
terp said:
If we are talking about systemic racism, the real enemies are our institutions. While there are hostile people out there(See my earlier post), I find that on an individual level, most people are friendly and polite. It's when you start seeing people in groups and thinking in groups where things go astray. Its my opinion that we should deal with each other as individuals. And yes, we should strive to make those interactions as fruitful and as equitable as possible. People should be as free to associated with who they want, defend themselves as they see fit, and should only be punished when they hurt others. Some shorthand here is: We shouldn't hurt people, and we shouldn't take their stuff.
Imagine a slightly-sloped wooden floor, perhaps with a somewhat-wide crack between the slats, or with a groove in it. For a lot of us, given the settling of old buildings over time, this probably doesn’t take too much imagination. If you place a marble on the “uphill” portion of the floor, it’s inevitably going to roll down, fall into the groove or crack, and keep on rolling along the same path, pretty much nearly every time. It doesn’t really matter how shiny or dull that marble is, how old or new, if it’s clear or green or clear with multi-colored core, it’s going to end up running downhill along that groove.
The analogy only goes so far – a marble rolling under the force of gravity is not the same as an individual able to choose their own course of action and move in the direction they choose. What both marbles and individuals do share, though, is that there are large forces acting upon them – gravity in the case of the marble, and the weight of history and social context upon individuals.
If an individual ignores history and social context and just acts according to what’s “natural,” then are they really that different from the marble?
Racism is one of the forces that shape the context we live in. If we ignore this, then it doesn’t really matter how nice or polite we are, we’re going to roll along the same groove. To end up at a different place requires an active choice to resist the path we’d “naturally” go down.
I mentioned already that while I’m happy to talk foreign policy on another thread I won’t on this one, so to that point I’ll just ask, if someone says nice things about, say, people from Syria, and are personally kind and polite to anyone from Syrian descent they encounter, is that enough to change American actions in Syria?
More on topic with of this thread, some things to consider:
- when choosing what neighborhood to live in, how actively do we weigh choosing an integrated neighborhood? Do we think about this at all, or just go with the natural tendencies that push us toward homogeneous neighborhoods?
- when choosing what school to send our children, what weight do we give how integrated the school is? Do we consider this at all, or only look at test scores, etc?
- when voting in local elections, what weight do we give issues of police -- their funding, what they plan on doing with those funds, etc?
- how do we respond to members of our social and family circles when they make comments or jokes that reinforce racial stereotypes?
- in general, how much effort do we make to be aware of the racist "groooves" in our society, and how often do we actively choose to resist them?
STANV said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Well hopefully they learned from that debacle and AOC won’t put out a similar police defunding plan to replace guns with confetti cannons, batons with plastic lightsabers, and jail cells with psychiatrist couches.
AOC is the most exciting (and competent) Democrat to come along in years. Too bad you can't see that. She scares the crap out of the R's - that should be enough to tell you something.
Hopefully we'll see more Dems come along in the likes of AOC, and less like Pelosi.
DB, I like both AOC and Pelosi. IMHO they compliment each other. Somewhere a baby is being born who, as a Congresswoman 30 years from now, will attack AOC as too moderate.
Smedley, the opposition is always going to "spin" distort and lie. Are there Republicans who worry about Rep. Matt Gaetz calling for the "hunting down" of protesters or hope he won't call for Concentration Camps?
BTW, as to replacing "jail cells with psychiatrist Couches" I saw a clip of a Police Chief complaining about the Police being given the job of dealing with mental illness.
Would you like to see AOC barnstorm the Midwestern swing states this summer / fall with Biden and / or the VP candidate?
Smedley said:
Would you like to see AOC barnstorm the Midwestern swing states this summer / fall with Biden and / or the VP candidate?
In some neighborhoods, yes. In others, no. You are stereotyping both AOC and Midwesterners. I have no doubt that AOC would get a much better reception in a Hispanic neighborhood of Kansas City than in Chatham, New Jersey.
And thank you for that @DaveSchmidt but to be honest I don't think I have the stamina to wade through all of that with terp. I should have been clearer.