Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

I have no desire to rumble with you either!😂

Believe it or not Frank, I do read what you write here. I even refer back to things you’ve written in years past. And I don’t mean that in a negative way.
For instance, I know from your older posts that you long for a shift to the left of American politics, but you just want to be mindful that the attempts to shape agenda are not so radical that they self-destruct.
So I understand your carefulness in framing what you say about where to draw the line between sensible, and radical left.

My motive for asking is mostly just for clarity and definition about where those lines are, in the view of people whose opinions I appreciate, like you.

But, you do understand why we must defund the police? Do you just think blockheads will reject it on the name without considering the vital logic behind doing it…?

And I want you to know I read, and appreciate, all you write here also, Snood. We are of like minds...with occasional differences. And we both have temperaments that, reasonable minds, want to keep in check.

Sorta like the "keep in check" some of the very far left ideas I want my political candidates to have, but have to keep them in check in the interests of not alienating the necessary middle.

Sometimes, doing that pisses me off. There are times I want the left to be as forceful for the things we want as the right is for the things they want (or want to destroy.)

(Sometimes I wonder why they are called conservatives, when they seem less to want to conserve as to destroy.)

I want more than anything for a UBI. I consider that (along with universal healthcare) to be the keystone of true progressive policy. But to argue too strongly for the UBI by a politician...is like arguing for the "unknown" feature of gods. It will almost certainly lose you LOTS more votes than it will get you. And if you do not get elected, you cannot move the agenda forward in any way...not even the subtle ways that may work to get us there.

Peace to you, my friend. Nancy and I both tested positive for covid last week...and I am anxious to get out of self-imposed quarantine. But the cough associated with covid is still kicking my ass. I feel great otherwise, but I do not want to be in public while I continue coughing so much. I owe it to my fellow human.

We do not HAVE to defund the police...and we WILL NOT defund the police. Somehow we have got to get the police (and our military) under control with regard to personal freedom sensibilities. Anyone who does not see our police forces as critically slanted against people of color...is purposefully blind. I'm kind of lucky in that department. I have a dozen cops in my family...and most are OUTSPOKEN about the need for their fellow cops to stop the bullshit. It is entirely possible for a cop to be both white...and non-racist. Unfortunately, that is not the rule as yet.

Yeah, we've got to deal with it...but defunding the police (even though I once wrote some posts defending it) is not a good idea at all.

Yes. He said Trump's words were "reckless". He doesn't have much spine, this fellow. Not that we didn't already know.

Yes indeed. Another happy consequence of Tuesday's voting. Just speaking personally, I find myself delighted when sociopaths are weakened.

Some lefties think we need to rename the Defund the Police movement.

For anyone reading along who doesn’t understand what ’defund’ means, it means:

1. Our police are now armed like militaries, likely to crush citizen protests with tanks and assault rifles. So, danger to citizens is one point.
2. Education has been defunded for decades, mental health services are gutted. We need to reallocate federal money to produce an educated populace and find decent services—residential and therapeutic—for people who are homeless or one psychotic episode from a mass shooting event. Real problems can be solved with reallocation of funds, but it takes desire to fix these problems. Our current crop of elected villains does not want an educated populace or to solve homelessness.
3. Many times, armed skinheads in police costumes with guns are called to help a family in distress and end up murdering a family member. Many times, this call could be routed to a well-trained social services dispatch who have the training, knowledge, temperament, and ability to give meds. Public services could be diversified to HELP the public in an intelligent way.

I’ve witnessed the defunding of American education. It’s a tragedy.
I hope more people will look beyond slogans and identity constructs and everything designed to distract us and research the content of lefty policy movements—-and stand behind them when they are actionable solutions.

Anyway, Frank, if we only have a short time left here, wouldn’t we be happier making noise about what’s right rather than following this long dull line to hell?

It's called sarcasm. I'm mid-seventies. 18 to 150 works for me. I believe most prisoners should have this civil right, too.

here

Is there even a single Dem in Congress who has called for this? Rightwing voices have taken the phrase/motto of citizens who are understandably angry as hell over centuries of maltreatment of (mainly) African Americans and have been using it to paint the left as proponents of the notion. That's a lie, obviously. But Lash finds it convenient to echo the rightwing disinformation tactic.

One thing this week you've posted that made sense.

Defunding was a flashy but misleading slogan.

It's mainly about taking treating mental illness off the police plate.

The first long term mental facility built in Texas was by the Harris County Sheriff. The first contact with mental health is the US is the police about 90% of the time.

You’re so uninformed.

Formerly progressive Democrats caved to fear about the term ‘defund the police.’ They could have explained the content of the program—or just called it something else—but they just walked away from the life-saving, smart response to a bloated, swaggering, over-armed militaristic police force.

Agree with that 100%.

Except for your claim about Blatham. Blatham is one of the most informed here. I've learned from almost everything they've posted.

Reagan created this damn mess and no one has tried to solve it.

The treatment of mentally ill Americans is a national disgrace—and the dangerous, horrifying streets of SF and LA et al with homeless encampments filled with unserved mentally ill people are an intentional creation of our government.

I’m glad you’ve thought about it clear-eyed. Just don’t know how to approach the solution.

Trying to organize a local cooperative for mutual support. Do not know where to start but it’s better than arguing online🥸

Talk on Twitter of some Democrats helping make Liz speaker of the house. Bummer.

Rather'd Liz than McCarthy.

From the vantage point of the present, one week after votes were cast, it's apparent that the many criticisms of Dem leadership in the WH and both houses of Congress over the last two years was misplaced. I suspect that up the road a bit, the criticisms of Garland and the DOJ are likely to be understood as equally misplaced. Neither Biden nor Pelosi nor Schumer, for example, are shown to be incompetent or untalented.

Two factors strike me as important here. First, impatience, by which I mean a juvenile and uneducated demand to something like instant gratification of desires. Second, the commonplace utilization of agitprop designed to foster dissatisfaction among supporters of a political party with its leadership designed to break down consensus, enthusiasm and hope. Without doubt, there's more to it but those two factors are identifiable.

Leaving this here for anyone who wants a better understanding of the’Defund the police’ movement.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/amp/

Big excerpt, more at link:

George Floyd’s death has galvanized much of America to move the needle toward police reform ideas—such as defunding police—that were previously viewed as radical.

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

Different from abolishing and starting anew, defunding police highlights fiscal responsibility, advocates for a market-driven approach to taxpayer money, and has some potential benefits that will reduce police violence and crime. Below, I outline some of the main arguments for defunding the police.

Calls for service

Data show that 9 out of 10 calls for service are for nonviolent encounters. Now, this does not mean that an incident will not turn violent, but police at times contribute to the escalation of violent force. Police officers’ skillset and training are often out of sync with the social interactions that they have. Police officers are mostly trained in use-of-force tactics and worst-case scenarios to reduce potential threats. However, most of their interactions with civilians start with a conversation.

Advocates for the defund movement like Phillip McHarris and Thenjiwe McHarris argue that shifting funding to social services that can improve things such as mental health, addiction, and homelessness is a better use of taxpayer money. This approach further enhances the push to decriminalize and destigmatize people with mental health conditions and addiction problems. Ever since the overcriminalization of people addicted to crack cocaine in the 1990s, some scholars, practitioners, and policymakers have said that this shift is long overdue.

Additionally, the research I have conducted with hundreds of police officers show that they respond to everything from potholes in the street to cats stuck up a tree. Police officers are also increasingly asked to complete paperwork and online forms. Obviously, documentation is important and desperately needed. The overwhelmingly blank report in the killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville that listed her injuries as “none” highlights the importance of documentation. It could be argued, however, that reducing officer workload would increase the likelihood of solving violent crimes. Police officers are overworked and overstressed. Focusing on menial tasks throughout the day is inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. Other government actors should be responsible for these and receive adequate funding for doing them.

Homicide clearance rate

Police officers are not as successful as people think at solving violent crime. My Brookings colleagues Andre Perry, David Harshbarger, Carl Romer, and Kristian Thymianos argue that “the failure to prosecute murderous police typifies a bad overall track record with solving violent crimes: Approximately 38% of murders, 66% of rapes, 70% of robberies, and 47% of aggravated assaults go uncleared every year.” Maybe in baseball or basketball these rates make a player an all-star, but the public expects police officers to be more successful at solving violent crime.

More importantly, police stops relative to charges and convictions are relatively low. To show how egregious this is, a study of the NYPD stop-and-frisk program found that well over 90% of people stopped by the police were not committing any crime and did not have any contraband or weapons on them. Overwhelmingly, the people stopped were Black and Latino, and physical force was used half the time. Interestingly, police were more successful at identifying criminality for whites versus Blacks. This is because officers use suspicious behavior when interacting with whites and use skin tone as the metric of suspicion when interacting with Black people. More police on the streets may be used to control the movement of Black bodies rather than solving crime. This is why the New York State Supreme Court ruled stop-and-frisk as unconstitutional. No-knock warrants and chokeholds should follow this pattern.
____________________

(This will save so many people, and emphasize the service in public service.)

Only if we do not have to run for office and actually attain it in order to have significant influence in what happens.

You, and the people who were so vocal for Bernie in 2016, were at least partially responsible for Trump coming to power. I personally think your (universal) responsibility in the matter was significant...rather than incidental.

Trump actually getting that office will probably go down in history as the worst thing that ever happened to America...including our Civil War.

You would be doing much more to help our nation and "what's right" by...

...well, by not helping. Because what you and the many like you are doing is to make matters much worse.

That is, though, for you to decide.

Name them and show they "caved".

Link to wherever the "program" is codified.