Do we ever mean what we say?

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2020

Abolition of the police:
Christy Lopez is a professor at Georgetown Law School and co-director of the school’s Innovative Policing Program. She graduated from Yale Law School in 1994.

We're going to guess that she knows a million times more about policing than we do. Even better, we're pre-inclined to agree with the assessment shown below, based upon general observations.

The passage comes from an op-ed column in today's Washington Post:
LOPEZ (6/8/20): To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.
As with most things, you almost surely can't "fix" policing. You can, of course, work hard to improve it.

Otherwise, that passage strikes us as very sound. We're going to guess that police officers and police departments haven't asked to be "over-relied on." Reimagining the role of police sounds like a good deal all around.

(We also ask police officers to show up in the dead of night in situations involving guns and unknown people. Because we've never had to do something like that, we tend to be slow to judge those people who do, even if they are "working-class.")

That passage by Lopez struck us as insightful and sound. Other parts of her column struck us as perhaps unintentionally funny, though this isn't exactly her fault.

Do we ever mean what we say? In print editions, Lopez's column bears this headline:
Defund the police? Here's what this means.
It's true! Activists have been saying that we need to "defund" the police. And, to a wide array of people, this proposal will sound very strange.

The proposal may sound even stranger once Lopez has paraphrased it. She does so at the start of her column. Here's how the column begins:
LOPEZ: Since George Floyd’s death, a long-simmering movement for police abolition has become part of the national conversation, recast slightly as a call to “defund the police.” For activists, this conversation is long overdue. But for casual observers, this new direction may seem a bit disorienting—or even alarming.
Good lord! Right out of the gate, Lopez says a movement exists, and has long existed, in favor of the abolition of police. She says this has been "recast slightly" as a call to defund the police.

She says these calls "may seem alarming" for casual observers. Plainly, that will be true.

Now for the good news! As she continues, Lopez says that defunding the police doesn't really mean defunding. She also says that abolishing the police doesn't really mean that!

Do we ever mean the things we say? Lopez explains the muddle like this:
LOPEZ (continuing directly): Be not afraid. “Defunding the police” is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds, and engaging on this topic is necessary if we are going to achieve the kind of public safety we need. During my 25 years dedicated to police reform, including in places such as Ferguson, Mo., New Orleans and Chicago, it has become clear to me that “reform” is not enough. Making sure that police follow the rule of law is not enough. Even changing the laws is not enough.

[...]

Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight—or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.

Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety. It means recognizing that criminalizing addiction and poverty, making 10 million arrests per year and mass incarceration have not provided the public safety we want and never will. The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery. That aspect of policing must be literally abolished.
"Defunding?" That really means shrinking! "Abolition" means reducing.

Do we ever mean the things we say? Just a few weeks ago, activists were explaining that when we said you should "believe women," we never meant that you should believe all women. Now it turns out that we don't mean defunding / abolition either!

On the other hand, Lopez does say this:

"Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety."

Say what? It sounds like abolition does mean abolition after all. It just won't happen today!

Later in the paragraph, though, we learn that it only means abolishing the part of policing which "has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery."

Boilerplate takes over there. Such language will often harden the mystical chords within the tribe while driving others away.

According to top anthropologists, we human beings are hard-wired to invent monsters in other tribes. It has always been this way; we're not sure the impulse is helpful.

A possible counterexample: When NWA said "[BLANK] the police," we're going to guess they meant that!

99 comments:

  1. "According to top anthropologists, we human beings are hard-wired to invent monsters in other tribes."

    Meh. You zombies are hardwired to parrot your liberal cult's talking points; that's all you're hardwired to do, dear Bob.

    As for destroying the police, it's quite possible that your cult's sponsors decided that favela/shantytown model, with free flow of drugs and order maintained by gangs would be beneficial for them.

    After all, this is what Soros-sponsored "color revolutions" often lead to in the rest of the world...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ma0 ma0 * ,!, ,!,

      Delete
    2. Why don’t they call it “Police Transmogrification”?

      We could learn to spell it.

      Delete
    3. Ha ha ha ha!!!! This is all such a big joke. Ha ha ha, you are so funny about serious stuff all the time. Ha ha ha!!!!

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 3:27pm, I’m so pleased to have lifted your spirits.

      Delete
    5. I'll bet you make faces during the moments of silence in honor of the dead...

      Delete
    6. How did you know? That is so deliciously scary!

      Delete
    7. Ha ha ha ha!!! You are so funny. Ha ha ha. And all those dead people are so funny too. Ha ha.

      Delete
    8. I want to share a testimony of how Dr OSAGIE herbal mixture cream saved me from shame and disgrace, my penis was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing ,and i was also having weak erection problem i had so many relationship called off because of my situation,m i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for Which was very painful and then i saw some few testimonies about this herbal specialist called Dr OSAGIE and decided to email him on so I gave his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me and we discussed, he gave me some comforting words and encouraged me also ans then gave me his herbal pills and cream for Penis Enlargement Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, " and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9.7 inches longer and am so happy contact Dr OSAGIE via drosagiesolutionhome5 @ gmail. com Via whatapp +2348034778129.

      Delete
    9. I want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help.
      For more details about Dr Emu visit his Website: http://emutemple.website2.me/

      Delete
  2. “Because we've never had to do something like that, we tend to be slow to judge those people who do, even if they are "working-class."

    You mean working class people like Officer Chauvin, whom Somerby has judged?

    George Floyd had been an on-again off-again member of the working class too, although at the time of his death he was unemployed. He probably never earned as much as Chauvin, or even the rookie officers at the scene.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Economically anxious" means "racist as fuck".

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Later in the paragraph, though, we learn that it only means abolishing the part of policing which "has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery."

    Boilerplate takes over there. Such language will often harden the mystical chords within the tribe while driving others away. “

    Even though Somerby “admits” “We're going to guess that she knows a million times more about policing than we do.”, he labels Lopez’ statement here “boilerplate”, and complains that it may “drive others away.”

    He doesn’t exactly say it is wrong, but he does claim that its purpose is to “invent monsters in other tribes” and that it “isn’t helpful.”

    Lopez mentions nothing about tribes, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, nothing. She isn’t accusing any group.

    If Lopez is right, then her unflinching statement of the problem is helpful, because it’s necessary to understand this truth. It’s unfortunate if there are “others” who are offended by the truth, and I find it strange that Somerby seems to be demanding Lopez and others practice some form of political correctness and tone down her language for the sake of “sensitive” readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “If Lopez is right, then her unflinching statement of the problem is helpful, because it’s necessary to understand this truth. It’s unfortunate if there are “others” who are offended by the truth, and I find it strange that Somerby seems to be demanding Lopez and others practice some form of political correctness and tone down her language for the sake of “sensitive” readers.”

      TDH sounds very open to her ideas. That’s because they aren’t unreasonable and are worth considering. Especially as to how extensive a role the mental health community will play in this plan.

      In her piece, Lopez is not only trying to persuade, but assuage fears that rise from what is implied by “defunding the police”.

      It she wants to sell these ideas to the largest portion of the public, her words matter.

      Delete
    2. Cecelia, you can’t state Lopez’ truth any other way without obfuscating or temporizing. I don’t get the sense that she is trying to “sell” anything. She is interested in an unvarnished discussion of the truth.

      Delete
    3. mh, she’s is attempting to persuade the public to fundamentally change an institution.

      As zealous as you are, surely you understand that persuasion should rightly be the first resort.

      Delete
    4. I’m curious to know what you think I am zealous about. My main concern here is to express my concerns with Somerby’s post.

      At any rate, how do you persuade someone that police departments were historically used as extensions of white supremacy without saying that? It provides a historical focus for the criticism and the need for reform. She is making a factual statement.

      I mean, I could demand that folks not mention the preservation of slavery as the basis for the Civil War, because that might upset some Southerners. But then, that obscures the historical truth.

      Delete
    5. You don’t say it in that way. You start by making the case that police officers are over utilized. That this has put them in situations where they have little training and that this has caused tensions within several different ethnic communities.

      You say that well-trained people can be brought in to do this as a way of letting the officers handle more serious things.

      You say that “defunding the police” does not mean disbanding or dismantling the police.

      Delete
    6. If I recall, Somerby was against the 1619 Project too. It's purpose was to trace back how much of our current social practice is the legacy of slavery. There seems to be pressure to conceal that from current awareness, and Somerby is on the wrong side of an effort to educate people about the historical context of current racial tensions. Why? Most liberals support such efforts.

      Delete
    7. How much safer and more secure will black people and other minorities feel if you describe these efforts as efficiency and cost saving measures instead of intended to eradicate racial bias in policing?

      Southerners and white people will be more supportive of such changes, portrayed her way, because they will be reassured that the fundamental power structure with them on the top will not be affected, just budgets. Meanwhile, minorities will have to worry about social workers taking their kids away, instead of cops, and tow trucks taking their cars instead of being stopped and frisked. Does that sound like an improvement to you Cecelia? Perhaps yes, if your goal is to handle threats to white supremacy more efficiently. But if you want to abolish and eradicate white supremacy, you are going to have to inconvenience a few white people. Sugar coating that isn't going to help once the reality of the plan becomes clear to them -- as any paranoid will readily discover.

      Delete
    8. "Southerners and white people"

      Could you elaborate on the details of your 'racial' taxonomy, dear dembot, please? Is this something new, fresh from your zombie cult's HQ?

      Delete
    9. Being Russian, I understand that you may not understand the role of the South in the war to abolish slavery. There's probably an article on Wikipedia you can look up.

      Delete
    10. I don't really care if you're Russian or not, dear dembot. I just wanted your explanation on the "Southerners and white people" snippet.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous5:11pm, good point.

      Social workers make southerners and cops look like...welll....social workers...if social workers were nice...

      Delete
    12. OK, let me do better: Being Russian, you may not understand the role of the South in the war to abolish slavery. You and your BFF Cecelia think this is all a big joke. It isn't.

      What Southerners and white people have in common is that you seem to be insisting that there will be no progress as long as the discussion is framed in terms of racial history and not efficiency or budget considerations. You guys really don't like being called racists, but there is no avoiding that term based on your behavior. Nikes!!!

      Delete
    13. Yeah, Chekhov you ain't, dear dembot. At least that's clear.

      Delete
    14. Mao,
      You are going to vote to re-elect the Establishment server, correct?

      Delete
  5. It's kind of obvious, after thinking about it for five minutes, that the scope of police duties and responsibilities needs to be drastically curtailed. We need to have more social workers, mental health professionals, and law enforcement paraprofessionals who are able to intervene in the majority of the cases. SWAT teams and special equipment should not be part of community policing at all. Period. Other countries have successfully de-criminalized all types of narcotics. I am not proposing that we should be selling heroin along with candy in movie theaters (for one thing it would be horribly overpriced); but we should allow a safe haven for people who have are addicted. As far as, pot -- well, nothing needs to be said there.
    In this particular instance, passing a counterfeit $20 is not a crime and should not be treated as such. At most they should have gotten his name and that interaction should have ended with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "At most they should have gotten his name and that interaction should have ended with that."

      And that is where the racism comes into play.

      Delete
    2. And while "racism" may be very hard to eliminate wholesale, reducing the scope of police duties and responsibilities should help.

      Delete
    3. Here's a start:

      1. decriminalize driving while black
      2. decriminalize walking while black
      3. decriminalize jogging while black
      4. decriminalize sleeping your home during the execution of a no-knock warrant while black
      5. decriminalize living at an address different than the one on the warrant when police arrive at the wrong address while black
      6. decriminalize looking like someone who committed a crime but not actually being that person while black
      7. decriminalize shopping at Walmart while black
      8. decriminalize playing with a toy gun in a park while a black child
      9. remove the death penalty for commission of all minor crimes and misdemeanors including parking tickets while black

      And then you could start in on all the things that black people get shot for that white people, criminal and not, get to do without similar consequences, from acting up in school to arguing with an officer to asking that the law be enforced when others are breaking it (e.g., walking a dog off a leash to murdering you while you are jogging).

      Delete
  6. ‘"Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety."

    Say what? It sounds like abolition does mean abolition after all. It just won't happen today!’

    Somerby is intent on turning Lopez’ worthwhile piece into something laughable. At least he can sit there and find “unintentionally funny” things in a very serious essay. (Even though those aren’t “exactly” her fault, whatever that is supposed to mean.)

    His criticism hinges on the use of a couple of words.

    Meanwhile, he seems to misunderstand what Lopez means by “public safety”, and why reformers question whether that is the proper role of police.

    Lopez links to a lot of background material so that her readers can learn more about this important debate.

    Somerby could join that debate if he weren’t mainly interested in scanning the essay for liberal “boilerplate” and ways to once again mock “us” for not meaning what “we” say. In so doing, he demeans and relegates an important and worthwhile discussion to another item in his “liberals suck” Rolodex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I am saying is the Lopez piece doesn't comport with the law.

      Delete
    2. If you were really deadrat, you would have cited the relevant part of the criminal code that Lopez has broken.

      Delete

    3. ‘"Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety."

      Say what? It sounds like abolition does mean abolition after all. It just won't happen today!’”

      When has this and free Nikes ever not been the goal?

      Delete
    4. Yes, George Floyd just wanted free Nikes.

      I'll bet the cops wanted his Nikes and that's why they took him out of the car and laid him on the ground like that. To better examine his Nikes. Cause this is all about those Nikes, and fried chicken and watermelons, right Cecelia?

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse5:35pm, nothing new here. We all want and long for a society where both police officers AND social workers are unnecessary.

      And for all time, we will all want free sneaks.

      Delete
    6. MY point was that this is not about Nikes at all. That you think it is says volumes about you and where you stand on racial issues.

      This isn't about making police or social workers disappear. It is about making them treat ALL people fairly and doing their best work for everyone, not just a favored few with white skin.

      Delete
  7. "As with most things, you almost surely can't "fix" policing. You can, of course, work hard to improve it."

    Of course we can "fix" policing, in the sense that it is not working well for us now but could be made to do so.

    Why would Somerby say this? It seems to arise from the general nihilism that pervades many of his essays.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Because we've never had to do something like that, we tend to be slow to judge those people who do, even if they are "working-class.")"

    Why does Somerby bring in "working class" with respect to the police? In Los Angeles, police have college degrees, some have law degrees. Nationwide, one third of police have a college degree. A high percentage of the psychology majors on the CSU campus were aiming for police careers because it is a satisfying, public service job. The time when police came from the military is long past, given today's volunteer armed forces. Those who screen applicants look for a public service orientation, not athletic skills, and they shun aggressiveness.

    So why does Somerby label police "working class"? Perhaps to align them with Trump's base? Perhaps to hide the growing numbers of minorities who are police? Perhaps to claim an economic status that doesn't fit the group -- starting salaries in Los Angeles are around $60K.

    Or maybe he is using some circular reasoning. If working class men tend to support Trump, then someone who is a Trump supporter must be working class. The fallacy of reasoning from the consequent. Guys like Chauvin may be throwbacks and rookies like Lane may not be Trump supporters at all, may have college degrees and most likely do not consider themselves "working class" but public servants, government employees and city workers.

    Somerby's stereotyping is off key today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery. That aspect of policing must be literally abolished."

    Somerby says "do we ever mean the things we say?" and claims that Lopez isn't using the word abolition to refer to actual abolition. She is. The passage above, which appears directly above Somerby's bemoaning statement, clearly says that abolition means abolishing.

    And while we're at it, why doesn't deadrat ever accuse Somerby of lacking reading comprehension skills?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speak my name, and I appear by your comment.

      i don’t accuse TDH of failing to read for comprehension because I don’t find him failing to read for comprehension very often. Unlike some of the Anonymi Ignorami here for whom the skill seems as out of reach as for a dog to learn algebra. Some, like you, for instance.

      Lopez does use the word abolition but in contradictory ways.

      First she says,

      “Since George Floyd’s death, a long-simmering movement for police abolition has become part of the national conversation, recast slightly as a call to “defund the police.” (Emphasis mine.)

      Now, if I said I had a plan for the abolition of the electoral college, would you assume that I meant I proposed to eliminate the system whereby states are allocated votes for President based on their Congressional representation? Or would you assume that I meant only to get rid of some aspect of the system, say, by eliminating the role of the President of the Senate in counting the electors’ choices?

      Well, not you in particular. Some random sensible person.

      Lopez seems to endorse the latter view, when she says that defunding means “shrinking the scope of police responsibilities” and that what we must “literally” abolish is “that aspect of policing” to do with violent and unjustified control of the lives of black people. (Again emphasis mine.)

      That would be clear except that she also says that abolition means “reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating our reliance on policing to secure our public safety” (Still emphasis mine.)

      Unless we’re living in a world where investigating crime and capturing criminals isn’t part of public safety, then Lopez says she’s in favor of eliminating the police, but just not yet.

      Clear now?

      Delete
    2. Julian Castro: "Teachers shouldn’t be forced to buy their own supplies while our police departments purchase combat vehicles."

      Delete
  10. Somerby asks why doesn't "believe women" mean the same thing as "believe all women"? Is he for real? The word "all" modifies the meaning of the sentence. If it didn't, why would you need to include it?

    If a crowd is chanting "believe the women" isn't that a catchier, more succinct message than "take women's complaints seriously by investigating them and not ignoring or suppressing their accusations"? Somerby understands how language works. When someone displays his type of literal, limited, superficial reading, it is called deliberate obtuseness.

    Then we have to ask, why would a man display such obtuseness instead of being willing to consider whether women's complaints might have some basis? Why wouldn't he be willing to pursue them, instead of his knee-jerk reaction of "bitches be lyin'" each and every time? Gee, I don't know. Could it be...sexism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile, while on the one hand x number of men are beating the crap on their wives and girlfriends, when while this is going on, and the woman calls 911, we'll have a social worker head over to take care of it.

      Delete
    2. No, we were to believe all women because women didn’t put themselves under such public scrutiny and reveal such painful humiliation unless something had truly happened to them.


      Delete
    3. I think beating the crap out of someone qualifies as an actual crime. I know a lot of men don't agree with that.

      Why would you use an example of a crime that has traditionally been ignored by police, to illustrate the problems arising from shifting certain calls from police to other professionals? There is an irony in that. Often such crimes are identified by ER doctors, who find evidence of past unreported trauma in x-rays. A social worker is better at convincing the women to file charges. Putting the husband or boyfriend in jail often eliminates the support for the family and doesn't solve any of its problems, but maybe the wife or girlfriend gets killed when he is released. If the first police call about noise results in effective counseling, perhaps the whole chain of events will be different. Diversion and intervention instead of punishment may not be as bad as you anticipate.

      Other countries have implemented these approaches and it seems to work out better for them than our system does for us.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia, the word "believe" does not mean "accept as truth uncritically" but asks that others accept and investigate as if a crime as reported had taken place. You need to hear the word in the context of what has been happening historically, where women are dismissed as hysterical or vengeful or dishonest, and their complaints were suppressed, ignored, trivialized, and not investigated (or if they were and were proven, there were no consequences for the men involved). The word "believe" speaks to the reaction by authority in which women are told "calm down honey, I'm sure you were just upset or over-excited, you don't mean that and I think things will look different to you in the morning." Women get accused of having morning after remorse, or wanting to get back at someone, or being attention-seeking, or confused because it is the wrong time of the month, or fuzzy headed about the facts and mistaken about who they are accusing, or of wanting what happened because look at her clothes! And so on. You need to understand the word "believe" in the context of the organized "disbelief" of women's accusations.

      Somerby doesn't want to listen to Lopez about racial history because he doesn't want to consider any proposals in any context. He thinks it is logical to ignore context, when all behavior occurs in a context that influences what it means, why it occurs, and the motives of those engaging in that behavior. Policing serves a function in our society. We need to understand where that came from in order to understand how to change things.

      Somerby is too smart not to understand this. That's why I believe his arguments here are disingenuous. He is as much an obstacle to racial progress as you are Cecelia, but you at least signal where you're coming from. Somerby pretends to be liberal so that others might pay more attention to his arguments -- but he is as far from liberal as you are -- and probably paid by the same Republican slush fund.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous5:31pm, you can do all the legerdemain you wish. That was what was said, and that was what was meant.

      Delete
    6. anon 5:21 - that was my (attempted) ironic point. On the one hand the complaint is that cops and the legal system are too soft on abusive men - but now this new meme that is catching on quickly is you don't send cops to deal with domestic disputes. It would be nice if all the good guy and gal liberals would somehow think critically a little bit.

      Delete
    7. Divide and conquer. Set women against blacks and no one wins. Today, we think in intersectional terms. A domestic dispute isn't the same as a man beating the crap out of his wife or girlfriend -- that is outright assault.

      You seem to be saying that we cannot disband police while simultaneously putting in jail men who commit assault. I don't believe that is true.

      Delete
    8. From Alice in Wonderland:

      ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

      You want to define things to suit your argument. That's dishonest and manipulative. Word games don't get anyone anywhere, but that's all Somerby seems to want to engage in any more.

      Delete
  11. “Do we ever mean what we say?”

    Lopez, as an expert, is trying to provide nuance to the discussion of police reform. She herself is not going to be out in the streets holding up a sign saying “Defund” or “Abolish the Police.”

    Clearly, Lopez means what she says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is actually trying to confess. He is saying that HE never means what HE says, now that he is shilling for the Trump campaign and being paid by the word in rubles.

      Delete
    2. I think I saw that on Nick at Nite. That FBI agent, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., brought in this shrink wearing flower power bell bottoms, who said the exact thing about this commie Russian agent doubling as a dog groomer.

      Delete
    3. A normal person would get tired of being here all day, making quips and interfering with discussion. That's why it seems pretty obvious that someone is paying you to disrupt activities among liberals. We know from the Mueller report that this happened in 2016, when Russia-paid trolls pretended to be Bernie bros and harassed Hillary supporters, or planted ridiculous made-up stories for people to be outraged about (that is David's job here). If you are not a paid Russian or Trump campaign operative, prove it by going away.

      Delete
    4. Militant, paranoid, tyrannical Anonymouse5:43pm, Russians have better taste in trolls than the likes of me.

      Delete
    5. @5:43 PM

      Bullying has been tried here, more times than I can remember, dear dembot.

      It failed. Try begging.

      Delete
    6. You find your amusements where you can.
      I come here for the phony crocodile tears for looted businesses.
      I like to imagine those posting believe we're buying their sanctimony.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 6:51pm, I thought you came here for the same reason as 99% of the rest of the commenters.

      To exercise your God-given right to cast aspersions on the blog.

      Delete
    8. Let's get real here people. The time for change has come. Let's get on the freedom train and take a ride.

      Delete
    9. "I like to imagine those posting believe we're buying their sanctimony."

      No one is that cynical.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia, you are here to bait liberals at a moment when we are sad, angry, and stressed. That is unkind. You need to shut up and go somewhere else to make your little jokes.

      Delete
    11. 8:39,
      Be thankful you weren't here last week, when she was throwing herself onto the fainting couch over broken shop windows.
      It was quite a pathetic display.

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse 8:39pm, this is not your salon. If the blogger tolerates me here along with anonymices and women vouching for spell casters, then I don’t have to shut up.

      If you’re here to be sad and angry and stressed over every freaking thing the blogger says, then I certainly have the right to be here to rejoice in him. Even when he slices and dices Trump.

      This isn’t some liberal media vehicle or platform so you can’t censor me.

      Delete
    13. "This isn’t some liberal media vehicle or platform so you can’t censor me."

      The Right-wing reverence for private businesses end where the victimization shtick begins.

      Delete
    14. "...the blogger tolerates me here..."

      Tolerates?
      Bob encourages Right-wing bigots to post here.

      Delete
    15. “The Right-wing reverence for private businesses end where the victimization shtick begins.”

      I suppose the converse to the usual Anonymouse simplification is that you’re for censorship and monopolies.

      Delete
    16. “Bob encourages Right-wing bigots to post here.”

      Ah. The Anonymouse way of defining a freewheeling open blog forum.

      Delete
    17. I suppose you know exactly the point I was making, but you hope playing stupid might make me think you don't.

      Delete
    18. I missed it. Which liberal media vehicle or platform took away Cecelia's binky?

      Delete
    19. No, Anonymouse 9:51pm, I’m just suggesting that even Anonymices make distinctions.

      Delete
    20. “I missed it. Which liberal media vehicle or platform took away Cecelia's binky?”

      None of them. I only rate minimum wage blog trolls telling me to shut up.

      Delete
    21. "No, Anonymouse 9:51pm, I’m just suggesting that even Anonymices make distinctions."

      When you take the epic hypocrisy of Right-wingers out of it, that makes sense.

      Delete
  12. Meanwhile (from Daily Kos via Alternet):

    "As protesters hit the streets night after night last weekend and reporters followed to cover the events, law enforcement agencies went out to do their own type of vandalism: slashing and puncturing people’s tires.…"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob rightly says, "According to top anthropologists, we human beings are hard-wired to invent monsters in other tribes."

    In the case of George Floyd, liberals somehow ignore the fact that the monsters are in their own tribe. It was Democrats who left Derek Chauvin in the police force. It was Democrats in Ferguson who left Darren Wilson on the police force. In fact, almost all of the police misbehavior against blacks took place in cities long governed by Democrats.

    Liberals seem to believe that by denouncing these atrocities VERY LOUDLY, they are exempt from blame for atrocities committed by their tribe. In, liberals seem to believe that their loud denunciations mean that the other tribe is somehow to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David nailed it. All white people, Conservatives and Liberals are to blame for allowing the blatant racism of not only the police, but society itself, to continue. As David was inferring, now is the time to end systemic racism in this country once and for all.
      Thanks you, David. This is very courageous of you, in the face of an entrenched white supremacist society.

      To those exercising their First Amendment rights across the country, we hear you

      Delete
    2. I, too, have to give David credit. Even though it may erode some of the privileges he's had in the way society works, he still sees the moral imperative of ending systemic racism now.
      Bless you, David. We could use more white people like you in this country.

      Delete
    3. I fully support the 1st Amendment right "...right of the people peaceably to assemble."

      Delete
    4. Now that a moment of accountability is here, David wants to make common cause with liberals because we are all white? No thanks. Another cynical, self-serving move to smear the left.

      The protesters out there in the streets are diverse. We are joining with them to change society, not with the likes of David in Cal.

      Delete
    5. David in Cal,
      Undeniably, the police rioting during a peaceful assembly by the people has really heightened the contradictions between both groups.

      Delete
    6. 'contradictions' should read 'contrasts' in my 9:00 pm post.

      Delete
    7. “The protesters out there in the streets are diverse. We are joining with them to change society, not with the likes of David in Cal”

      Or when David in Cal referenced the 1st Amendment right to peaceable assembly, it means that he appreciates the 1st Amendment to peaceably assemble.

      Delete
    8. I'm not so sure you are correct. He seemed pretty comfortable with the police rioting last week, in response to peaceful assembly.

      Delete
    9. Cecelia, did you know that when it snows my eyes become large and the light that you shine can be seen?

      So, shut up.

      Delete
    10. Fake deadrat, I’ve heard better lines, but right now, I may find this one my fondest.

      Delete
    11. My favorite line is "economically anxious".
      Sounds so much better than "Right-wing bigot", even though it means the same thing.

      Delete
  14. I am not surprised by the subterfuge. Ms.Lopez has an agenda, and she is not willing to share it.

    They are leading us to what Ruth Wilson Gilmore has been advocating for years now. Eliminate the prison system. 2019 she had a long piece in NYTImes. Before that full service at NPR. Take away the police and prison not requires. Be a mistake to miss the connection.



    ReplyDelete
  15. Excellent Somberly at his best. Policies like having social workers deal with homeless people are concrete. They will gain acceptance from people across class and race and can unite. (Even many of the police probably think this is a good idea.)

    Phrases like the "unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people" are Orwellian and mean everything and nothing at the same time. (Like the rhetoric around police extending white supremacy.) These phrases are meant to stop thinking. Because of their vague, open ended nature, they will be used to push any policy without real thought or democratic input.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "having social workers deal with homeless people are concrete"

      Meh. Color me skeptical, dear. I'm afraid this is still claptrap, just a different kind.

      "deal with homeless people" - how? What social workers do (mostly) is filling out forms, typing reports, assessments, etc. Paperwork. Data entry.

      Sure, some of the homeless do need help with filling forms, I'm sure. But those probably aren't the police clientele.

      Police work is not something established by decree, especially in a half-continent/320 million population country with radically different conditions all over. It evolves, develops, transforms, adapts. In its own way in each locality.

      Delete
    2. Turns out, Mao isn't just a HUGE supporter of the Establishment, he's also a typical racist/ Conservative.

      Delete
  16. Hahaha Trump down 14 points to Biden. Even some of his deplorables are jumping ship. Mao Mao and Chlamidia headed down to the bunker cyanide pills in cheek awaiting the Antifa surge. Trumpy scared that his corpulent corpse will be desecrated has Mao mao render him down to 5 gallons of utility grade lard.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I want to use this great opportunity to thank Dr love for helping me to get my girlfriend back after 7 months of breakup. My girlfriend breakup with me because he see another boy at his working place and told me he is no longer interested in me and live me in pain and heart break. I seek for help on the internet and i saw so many good talk about this great spell caster Dr love and I contacted him also and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me which i use to get back my girlfriend within the period of 48 hours and i am so grateful to him for the good work he did for me,that is why i also want to let everyone who is in need of help out there to also seek help from him so he can help.His email;(drloveteple@gmail.com ) or whatsapp: +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete
  18. My Name is Dr AZIBA, Herbal Remedy Product is 100% guarantee for Penis Enlargement growth and Thickness you can Contact Me via Email Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com For Best natural male enhancement Product with 100% guaranteed results. I prepare top Herbal selling male enhancement product with herbal formula and no side-effects And also for other Disease or virus such as HPV,HSV,HERPES,HEPATITIS, DIABETES,CANCER and lots More, Contact Me Via Email: Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com and WhatsApp +2348100368288 Or website https://naturalherbsmedicine.webs.com/

    ReplyDelete
  19. My Name is Dr AZIBA, Herbal Remedy Product is 100% guarantee for Penis Enlargement growth and Thickness you can Contact Me via Email Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com For Best natural male enhancement Product with 100% guaranteed results. I prepare top Herbal selling male enhancement product with herbal formula and no side-effects And also for other Disease or virus such as HPV,HSV,HERPES,HEPATITIS, DIABETES,CANCER and lots More, Contact Me Via Email: Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com and WhatsApp +2348100368288 Or website https://naturalherbsmedicine.webs.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. My Name is Dr AZIBA, Herbal Remedy Product is 100% guarantee for Penis Enlargement growth and Thickness you can Contact Me via Email Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com For Best natural male enhancement Product with 100% guaranteed results. I prepare top Herbal selling male enhancement product with herbal formula and no side-effects And also for other Disease or virus such as HPV,HSV,HERPES,HEPATITIS, DIABETES,CANCER and lots More, Contact Me Via Email: Priestazibasolutioncenter@gmail.com and WhatsApp +2348100368288 Or website https://naturalherbsmedicine.webs.com/

    ReplyDelete