Well Ive given up talking to people about it. I miss my cat too much to be rational about it. I cant afford Air Jordans or AR15s like the teenage kids have. I just had my cat. It was one of the few pleasures in my life, and they left it to die in agony on my front lawn. And not one black person did anything. They stood across the street and watched it scream in pain, then pretended they saw nothing. I am going now.

:clap: I barely escaped the Bronx by the early 80s. My closest homies were then, and still are today, German-Black, Bajan, Italian & Chinese - sons of working class immigrants, like me; they all managed to survive 'the 'hood' too. I totally relate, brutha. :100:

Checks and balances. — Pfhorrest

The totality of the reforms suggested provide the "checks and balances" currently lacking and needed. You're missing the forest for trees, P.

You sound more like a victim than a survivor, friend. Sorry, as a survivor I just don't have enough sympathy left in me for both survivors and victims. 'Occupational hazard' re: my triage-mindset. Stay safe. :mask:

:up:



I appreciate it. I'm glad for you too. Whether it's New York, Oakland, Philly, or Mumbai, the locale matters not. All around the world it's the same song. Makes you wonder "if heaven got a ghetto."

Makes you wonder "if heaven got a ghetto." — Wolfman

:halo:

The class-race connection StreetlightX highlights has the interesting implication that a lot of structural racism can be fixed without explicitly addressing race at all. If you help all poor people equally regardless of race, you disproportionately help black people automatically because the poor are disproportionately black. — Pfhorrest

I just want to add that this is a basic Marxist point, and a reason why, among socialists, you will always hear the refrain that race issues and gender issues cannot be addressed without at the same time addressing class issues. The primacy of class analysis is not to the exclusion of race, but to its augmentation. The same can be said of gender issues too. If affordable and easy to access childcare, for instance, is largely inaccessible, the burdens of this largely falls upon women, who tend do the labour of child-rearing in disproportionate rates.

Or to take an issue that links all three - consider domestic abuse. Rates of domestic abuse are always higher among the poor (a lack of financial options means abused women lack the independence to escape abusive partners, for instance), and if the poor are disproportionately black - well, lo-and-behold, black (and hispanic women, in America) experience double the rate of battering compared to their white counterparts. Things like this is why it’s not a matter of tackling individual ‘bad apples’ and so forth. Structural issues are complex because things are always so interconnected and harder to see because of it. Without an eye for it, one can simply draw the conclusion: black people beat their wives more, therefore.... (and yes, the correlation drops off as soon as you compare well-off blacks with well-off whites).

Alternatively, the MLK speeches that @boethius has been posting say all this far more eloquently than me.

I just want to add that this is a basic Marxist point, and a reason why, among socialists, you will always hear the refrain that race issues and gender issues cannot be addressed without at the same time addressing class issues. The primacy of class analysis is not to the exclusion of race, but to its augmentation. — StreetlightX

Yes. Racist & Sexist discriminations are modes of systemic policing that help enforce and maintain Class exploitation. Don't you think 'white grievance' populism is a (not so) new form of - hyper-mediated - false consciousness?

Don't you think 'white grievance' populism is a (not so) new - hyper-mediated - false consciousness? — 180 Proof

White grievance populism is identity politics at its worst. It abstracts whiteness as a cultural identity in a vaccum, disconnected from economic and institutional bases and then constructs, as its Other, black, brown and other 'identities' which function as threats. Tethered to no real life conditions - only the exponential power of concocted imagary and narrative to 'identify' with - it has the capacity for unlimited violence. The right perfected identity politics - in practice - long before the left even gave it a name.

I guess it could be called false conciousness, although I have theoretical gripes with that notion.

This thread is in danger of becoming, hopeful, conciliatory, and illuminating. Are we seeing, and being part of a process of pain and our lashing out at each other, becoming a source of awakening? Is this happening in the world or just our bubble?

Thank you for sharing that, really. It's great to hear from someone working in a police department. You make very good points in your comment.

I also don’t like any idea or symbol that serves to separate police officers from the people they serve. I wouldn’t allow officers to wear those thin blue line patches as an accessory on their uniforms. I understand it is meant to support officers, but it isn’t necessary and many times serves to reinforce an imaginary bifurcation of citizens and officers -- the latter of which belongs to the former anyway. — Wolfman

Just like with the military, when those who serve start to feel there "outside" from the society, that the civilian society is something different that doesn't care about them, then you start getting problems. If the criticism turns into hatred and abhorrence of the police, things just turn worse and the "police community" that feels separated just hunkers down. Luckily that can be avoided, but it takes an effort.

I don’t like how some police officers are so prideful, and even arrogant. I think law enforcement agencies need to do better in encouraging an ethic of humility throughout their departments. My lieutenant always told me, “Just because you wear the uniform, doesn’t mean you are above the people you serve. You serve them.” — Wolfman

That humility should be part of professionalism. There's a way to get people who serve in uniform to do better when you get them to understand that the best police force is the "smart" and professional one which can tackle underlying problems by good policing cooperation with other authorities and the community and doesn't use the brute force in every issue. Unfortunately Hollywood promotes the idea that the best cop is the door crashing, hard hitting F-the-regulations renegade, as if that's the guy who will save the day. It has a really bad effect, actually. Because that is what many assume police to be as, let's face it, typically we aren't customers of the police daily.

But in any case this isn't just the police. It's the society itself and the people and there you go to far larger problems in the American system. But just like the Armed Forces did a lot by integrating blacks and not keeping them in separate black units. Wasn't easy, but did succeed. That police work improves could be part of the bigger solution.

The US could do lot to improve it's police and it has the possibility to do it.

How bad things just could be, just look south of your border. Mexicans truly don't respect the police. When there is deep distrust and disrespect for the police, the force basically stops functioning. As in many Third World countries, the usual way people think of the police is that they are thieves in uniform. You get this total collapse of the legal system. And that disrespect and distrust from the community is just overwhelming. It is shared by everybody: the rich and the poor.

You can literally see it from the way the Mexican police officer slouches in his car, how many of them are overweight and basically the appearance is of someone who doesn't take pride in himself. Or then there are the few in full tactical gear, heavily armed with automatic weapons wearing balaclavas and speeding in their trucks with their tactical team to the next location to fight the war. My wife is Mexican and we have nearly every year stayed there. Just to give an anecdote, my mother-in-law was driving me and my wife and kids in an upscale part of downtown Mexico City. A policeman approached that car to stop because I think we had passed a red light. My feisty mother-in-law just yelled at him: "I have two small children in this car, I don't have any time for you now!" and just continued away. And the police, who were actually many present there just where left standing there. I told my mother-in-law never to do that in Finland. She just laughed, but agreed to behave differently here.

But back to the US, I fear that the most immediate obstacle is now Trump as he genuinely wants to pour gasoline to the fire now and show his credentials in being the "Law and Order" President. Perhaps his recklessness will get other leaders to behave better.

The main thing to address, I think, is how to combat prejudices and biases that may exist at the subconscious level. — Wolfman

With due respect for your post, there are two things that worry me about what you've said. First, that prejudice is the main thing to address. It is something to address, but in isolation, I don't see how it can be effective. This is because prejudice is a result, and end-product, and not a starting point or origin. A few pages back I posted a link to some evidence that addressing racism on an individual level among police is largely ineffective. What does seem to work are concrete mechanisms of accountability that translate into structures of incentive and disincentive that shape the emergence - or non-emergence - of prejudice in the first place. And those structures by definition cannot be instituted at an individual level but only at an institutional one.

That means oversight boards with teeth, not governed by police, or not only police. It means changes to funding structures, tied directly to policing outcomes. It means making changes to use-of-force policies like these ones. And it also means addressing prejudice on an individual level, just as you said. The point you make about dark glasses, and learning history, and arrogance are great. But only as part of a suite of reforms that must necessarily be trans-individual and institutional. If incentive structures are not changed, if these reform is not tackled at a 'population level', it's hard to see why these changes will take root. I'll add too that taking pressure off individual cops by instituting institutional change can only ever be good for cops themselves, who can rely and lean on those larger structures for support.

They only know that they are angry and I wear the uniform. — Wolfman

Second worry: is this really the case? This strikes me as an underestimation of their epistemic position. Literally 'what they know'. I - and others - have been watching in horror as police forces have quite literally unleashed terror upon peaceful demonstrators in the last few days. I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic, I really mean it when I say that there have been acts of domestic terror worthy of that title. And I simply don't believe this can be put down to 'bad apples'. The scale of brutality - across multiple cities, coast to coast - points again to structural issues. I don't think it's fair to say that police are just protecting small mom and pop businesses, even if they may also be doing that. They are also charging at protestors, shooting non-protestors outside their own homes, destroying city-approved medical aid stations - a literal war crime in any other circumstance -, and radio calls to run protestors over. And these are tiny samplings. These things too, are what protestors know, above and beyond a uniform.

I don't think this can be put down to 'godd cops' and 'bad cops'. Something else is at work here. And this is not directed at you personally, but where is the widespread condemnation of widespread police violence by police? Why, given what we've seen, have there not been outrage on behalf of the police themselves? Why is there not universal denunciation, from police departments all across the US, and promises to do better? Why are police seemingly not holding themselves to high standards? If these are bad cops - where are the good cops? Why are they not speaking? This absence is also, I think, something people know. I hope this doesn't come off as attacking you. I don't mean to do anything of the kind. I do want to push back a little, and wonder what you might say to address concerns like these.

Don't you think 'white grievance' populism is a (not so) new - hyper-mediated - false consciousnes — 180 Proof

Maybe place specific? Some of it is I think. Some of it is scapegoating applied to genuine economic issues (see Chester's talking points for an example).

I grew up in a rare conservative bastion in Scotland; mostly an agricultural community; I didn't even see any POC in person until I was 15. The town's had less and less jobs over the course of my lifetime - more boarded up shops, major industry leaving, no institutions of higher learning, less and less funding for the failing state schools and no private schools in sight. The ruling classes won't touch it with a barge pole; except on their holidays. So there's lots of gentrifying investment; the place has loads of coffee shops and pubs and hairdressers and hotels, each business doesn't last long unless they're franchised. It's a holiday and retirement area for people who made a better living elsewhere.

The racist sentiment there is actually directed towards the worsening economic conditions; it was a poor community before the industries left and before the massive erosion of the welfare state. It's the immigrants' fault that our town is like this; they're coming here taking our jobs (mechanisation killed most of them, industrial flight killed the rest). they're putting a squeeze on farmers' livelihoods (focusing on the price competition from EU food imports rather than the subsidies). It's a scapegoat.

So when some fucker complains about the local travelling folk being unable to get a job, living off government welfare, while the fucker has to work long hours in precarious jobs and put in loads of illegal unpayed work, they're actually interpreting the structural violence of class which they're subject to in terms of an imaginary opposition of class interest along race lines.

In terms of media narrative (or ideological state apparatus), it pays to foster a blame narrative on immigrants and POCs for the same reason it pays to foster distrust along radical/centrist lines in the anti-racist protests; the interests of capital are in you fighting with your allies and not knowing who they are, even when a white working class Brit has way more interest in common with a third gen Indian working class family.

I think whites coming from the lower rungs of the class ladder feel alienated from the centrist/liberal structural racism narrative, because they're actually subject to comparable (though certainly better) conditions.

Maybe it's worthwhile remembering the origin of the term "redneck"; it's a derogatory class signifier against those whites that had to work in the fields. It looks to me in the same ballpark as the "divide and rule" and hate mongering/scientific racism/white supremacy facilitating competition between the indentured servants of the Irish and black chattel slaves, ultimately "justifying" their subordination and subjugation while giving structural incentives/validation to fight between themselves.

Whiteness has always been a justification narrative of the ruling classes, if my fellow pasty skinned celts @Baden weren't necessarily considered white...

We are not responsible, for the mental illness that has been afflicted upon our people by the American government, institutions, and those people in positions of power.

I don't give a damn if they burn down Target, because Target should be on the streets with us, calling for the Justice that our people deserve.

Where was Autozone at the time when Fernando Castillo was shot in a car, which is what they actually represent. Where were they?

So if you are not coming to the people's defense, then don't challenge us when young people and other people who are frustrated are instigated by the people you pay. You are paying instigators to be amoung our people out there, throwing rocks, breaking windows and burning down buildings. So young people are responding to that, they are in rage. And there is an easy way to stop it.

Arrest the cops.

Charge the cops.

Charge all the cops.

Not just some of them, not just here in Minneapolis, charge them in every city across America where our people are being murdered. Charge them everywhere.

That's the bottom line.

Charge the cops. Do your jobs. Do what you say this country is supposed to be about, the land of the free for all. It has not been free for black people, and we are tired.

Don't talk to us about looting. Y'all are the looters. America has been looting black people. America looted the native americans when they first came here, so looting is what you do. We learned it from you. We learned violence from you.

We learned violence from you.

The violence is what we learned from you.

So if you want us to do better, then damn it, you do better. — Tamika Mallory, Minneapolis

Comrade Carlson.

In terms of media narrative (or ideological state apparatus), it pays to foster a blame narrative on immigrants and POCs for the same reason it pays to foster distrust along radical/centrist lines in the anti-racist protests; the interests of capital are in you fighting with your allies and not knowing who they are, even when a white working class Brit has way more interest in common with a third gen Indian working class family. — fdrake

David Smail has some interesting stuff on this. Notably the notion of a personal event horizon. So for reasons of international (American) economics and politics, Northern UK industrial towns go into decline, aided by a government based in the South with other priorities. But what the inhabitant sees is the collapse of industry, unemployment and poverty, leading to cheap housing, sweatshops, and so immigrants settling. But making the connections requires a global understanding that is rare. What one experiences are local events I'm doing badly, the town's doing badly, and the place is full of foreigners. The real sources of the decline are over the horizon, so one settles on whoever is newly around, whether that is the Pakis or the middle-class tourists. In either case, they are actually slowing the economic decline not causing it, but it's hard to see that from ground level.

Other people think their troubles are their own fault rather than due to distant economic forces, and get depressed etc. Not something discouraged by the authorities.

This is not going to stop.

Why is the title referring to systemic racism in particular and not just racism in general? The Floyd murder (which I assume is the background for this topic) was probably not just an instant of systemic racism but also plain old fashioned individual racism.

If there is racism in the American police force (and I think it’s quite obvious that there is) that doesn’t automatically qualify as systemic racism. If a black person in police custody is more likely to be beaten than a white person, that would only reflect the attitude of individual officers and not be systemic. If blacks are more likely to be suspected by the police because of their skin color, that would also be plain racism. But if blacks are more likely to get into situations where they could be potential suspects, that would have a more systemic character.

When something is systemic it reflects a deeper set of causes. Blacks are disadvantaged all the way through the system. They are on average poorer and receive less education and that again makes it more likely that they turn up as criminals. If you called the Floyd murder an instance of systemic racism only, that would make the four officers less individually guilty and that’s hardly the case.

Why is the title referring to systemic racism in particular and not just racism in general? — Congau

Mostly for conciseness's sake. I thought about writing racism and systemic racism in the OP title but it sounded awkward so I just specified that you can talk about both afterwards:

Please put comments on racism, systemic racism, and police brutality in the US, along with the public reaction to these phenomena, here. — Baden

That means oversight boards with teeth, not governed by police, or not only police. It means changes to funding structures, tied directly to policing outcomes. — StreetlightX

This is interesting because I am in agreement with you. Sinyangwe’s twitter post uses Oakland Police Department as an example of a more “reformed” law enforcement agency that experienced a reduction in police shootings, and unjustified use of force incidents (among other things) after entering federal receivership, and officers who were involved in unjustified use of force incidents were terminated. Well, this is my police department that he is referring to, and my internal affairs section that worked to weed out and prosecute these officers.

There are some officers who are not pleased with the idea of federal receivership, but I don’t mind. Most of the problems that arise from being under a receivership are those that you would ordinarily find in any bureaucracy (they come with the territory, so to speak). But I don’t have many gripes with it at a theoretical level.

If these are bad cops - where are the good cops? Why are they not speaking? — StreetlightX

Speaking for myself, I have been speaking, and more importantly, acting. If the media wants to come talk to me, they are welcome to do so. The media is, however, notoriously selective in the material they cover. The majority of cops I know have been supportive of the protest. Some of them have kneeled with protestors, exchanged hugs, and made Instagram posts, among doing other acts of solidarity. I can’t speak for other officers or other departments because every department has its own culture (a more general police culture, but also a more specific localized one).

If someone puts an example of alleged police misconduct in front of me, I will analyze it and render a judgment based on my own training, experience, care, and prudence. If departmental policy is violated, I will recommend that administrative action be taken against that officer. If the officer is involved in criminal activity, I will recommend pursuing criminal charges.

It is very easy to get fired under federal receivership. In the past two years I’ve seen more good officers get fired for political reasons than bad ones not getting fired. If there is any perceived cloud of doubt surrounding an officer, they are usually fired and replaced to err on the side of caution. There’s actually only one recent case where I wanted an officer fired from the department, but he wasn’t because he had a very good lawyer.

In any case, I usually don’t mind the idea of more oversight. It never affected me [much]. A lot of the points brought up in the twitter post have already been addressed by the department in a robust way. Not only can we not shoot at people driving away in vehicles, but we can rarely even pursue them anymore (and if permission is given, the chase is usually terminated rather quickly or else California Highway Patrol will take over), due to the possibility of hitting innocent drivers and pedestrians. It’s kind of funny because now criminals know about that policy, so if they want to get away, they can just speed away, and no one can do a thing about it. Sometimes we can track them down, but other times it is more difficult, like if they’re driving a stolen (10851) vehicle.

I don’t mind police demilitarization to a degree. I must admit some of this might be due to jealousy. LAPD has 19 helicopters and we have only one. How is that fair? But no, all levity aside, I don’t think outfitting police departments with grenade launchers or anything like that is the way to go. But I will say that places like Oakland are extremely dangerous. Not long ago we were ranked as the most dangerous city in California, and in the top five most dangerous cities in America (this has been slowly changing, in part due to receivership, a change in departmental policies, more training, more scrutinized hiring practices, and the like). People on the streets here are known to carry automatic assault rifles. Many D boys (drug dealers) and other criminals also wear body armor. It is not a rare occurrence to find these guys wearing up to level 3 bullet-resistant body armor that is capable of stopping most kinds of small arms fire. If I have a job as a police officer to catch bad guys, I’m not going after these people outgunned. I have a family of my own, and I rather like living. I can’t tell you how many bodies I have seen in the morgue riddled with rounds from an AK-47. For those unfamiliar with that weapon, it shoots 7.62 caliber rounds, which is capable of defeating the level 3/3A armor that police officers ordinarily wear.

Actually, in 2009 four Oakland police officers were killed on the same day. Two of those officers were killed by an SKS rifle, which shoots the same aforesaid 7.62 caliber rifle rounds. The officers were amazing people. Ofc. Romans was a happy-go-lucky kind of person who always had a smile on his face. He was the epitome of community policing. Even when he went into “ghetto” areas like the Acorn Projects, the little kids would run up to him for hugs. He would buy them ice cream and carry them around on his shoulders. Ofc. Sakai was a very humble, intelligent police officer. He was a UC Berkeley graduate and an avid volunteer in the Oakland community. A lot of the selfless things he did were never known until after he died because of his humility and soft-spoken nature. These guys were some of the best that society had to offer, and they were taken away by Lovelle Mixon, a pedophile, rapist, and murderer. After these guys died they had a freeway named after them (small consolation). Something else happened too. A large number of people gathered in Oakland with customized t-shirts that read, “Justice for Lovelle Mixon.” Some carried signs with the deceased officers’ faces on them with devil horns or funny moustaches drawn on them. They chanted, “No justice, no peace. Fuck the police.” I don't want to see anything like this happen ever again.

Why is there not universal denunciation, from police departments all across the US, and promises to do better? Why are police seemingly not holding themselves to high standards? If these are bad cops - where are the good cops? Why are they not speaking? — StreetlightX

There are those too, you know.

Mansfield Police Chief Ron Sellon released a statement denouncing the actions of the Minneapolis police officers involved in the death of George Floyd as he assured town residents that his department is "commitment to the fair and equal treatment for every person."

Four days after the death of George Floyd, Vallejo Police Chief Shawny Williams issued a statement denouncing the events which led to the man’s death in Minneapolis police custody. “This tragic incident, committed under the color of authority, is a violation of what we stand for,” Williams said in a statement released Friday night. “We acknowledge that communities nationally and locally are angry, and we are emphatic to how communities may feel about these devastating events.”

Indianapolis police Chief Randal Taylor on Thursday denounced the actions of the Minneapolis officer shown on video kneeling on the neck of George Floyd before Floyd died in their custody. "As a 30-year law enforcement veteran, I cannot understand or justify the actions captured on video in Minneapolis," Taylor said on Twitter Thursday night. "Police officers swear an oath to protect the lives of our community members — including those in our custody."

And the list goes on, StreetlightX, that is just on glimpse of google search on the subject.

And the reason why there isn't an universal denunciation? Well, there isn't a universal organization of police departments in the US. Nobody can say "on behalf of all policemen..."

Thanks for sharing this insight.

Why is the title referring to systemic racism in particular and not just racism in general? — Congau

Baden's reply notwithstanding, I understand racism as shorthand for manifest systemic discrimination that, whether by explicit policy or 'unwritten norms', empowers governmental & non-governmental agents to exercise their personal prejudices to the detriment of individuals stereotyped "racially" (i.e. identified with color/ethnic out-groups), and so I consider "systemic racism" to be redundant. When someone uses a phrase like "racism in general" I translate that to mean more precisely personal, or customary, prejudice, which is experiential-based but not institutionally empowered. My preferred shorthand: personal prejudice + institutional (class-caste normative) power = racism.

Everyone, regardless of color/ethnicity (or gender), is susceptible to being prejudiced, but only those persons who control, manage, represent, support and/or (seek to) benefit from institutionally enforced prejudice are racist. Yes, in the American context for instance, it's possible to be a "Black racist" but that's as improbable in 2020 as it is for national & state governmental institutions, or large and medium-sized corporations to be run and controlled by Black chief executives and senior management who set agendas and standards - very roughly speaking, that's about 3% or 33 times less than Whites - so it's reasonable to guesstimate (conservatively) that for every "Black racist" there's (charitably) 20-odd to 30-odd "White racists"; thus, the prevailing socio-economic status quo (e.g. Police, Prosecutors, Bankers, Insurers, Educators, et al).

In sum: Blacks - bigots or not - do not significantly control the lives and livelihoods of White people in any sector of American society and, therefore, talk of "racism in general" or "Black racism" is simply a canard that rhetorically deflects from the social construction of Racism in trying to 'naturalize' it by suggestion or innuendo.

STOP MISSING THE RACISM FOREST FOR THE PREJUDICED TREES.

Just like with the military, when those who serve start to feel there "outside" from the society, that the civilian society is something different that doesn't care about them, then you start getting problems. If the criticism turns into hatred and abhorrence of the police, things just turn worse and the "police community" that feels separated just hunkers down. Luckily that can be avoided, but it takes an effort. — ssu

Yes, I agree. A lot of police stop hanging around their regular non-police friends after a while because they just have more in common with their co-workers. There's also a sort of bond that is forged when you share your blood, sweat, tears with someone. But I think you need to remain as grounded as possible and retain as many of your non-cop friends as possible. Working for a police department will change you. I thought as a far-left liberal I would be immune to this effect, but I was not.

That humility should be part of professionalism. There's a way to get people who serve in uniform to do better when you get them to understand that the best police force is the "smart" and professional one which can tackle underlying problems by good policing cooperation with other authorities and the community and doesn't use the brute force in every issue. Unfortunately Hollywood promotes the idea that the best cop is the door crashing, hard hitting F-the-regulations renegade, as if that's the guy who will save the day. It has a really bad effect, actually. Because that is what many assume police to be as, let's face it, typically we aren't customers of the police daily. — ssu

Yeah, that's true, and a lot of people join the police department for all the wrong reasons. Some people slip through the cracks. Police departments are furthermore paramilitary organizations where sometimes there is a lot of testosterone in the air. Combine this with long work hours, stress, physical and mental fatigue (and even abuse), the threat of violence, etc., and people can be really on edge. Officers have to wear many hats during the course of their job. Some officers are more concerned with being "warriors" but I think they should primarily view themselves as counselors or mediators.

Just to give an anecdote, my mother-in-law was driving me and my wife and kids in an upscale part of downtown Mexico City. A policeman approached that car to stop because I think we had passed a red light. My feisty mother-in-law just yelled at him: "I have two small children in this car, I don't have any time for you now!" and just continued away. And the police, who were actually many present there just where left standing there. I told my mother-in-law never to do that in Finland. She just laughed, but agreed to behave differently here. — ssu

Oh, that's funny. I've traveled to Mexico quite a few times and I've twice had to bribe the policia to get out of being arrested for crimes that I never committed in the first place. The corruption there is VERY obvious and isn't even disguised. It is simply a way of life.

Cool infographic going around.

Ha. The ~$150m LAPD 'budget cut' that I mentioned earlier is almost entirely a cut to planned budget increases - which were probably on their way due to COVID anyway. The total LAPD budget? $1.86 billion. 17% of the city's total budget. Fucking ridiculous.

Awesome infographic.

Same story as healthcare, pump more money into a shitty system and you get a worse outcome. Terrible for everyone except special interests. I didn't realize it was that bad re policing though until now.

"THAT'S NOT A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER, THAT'S YOUR FOOT ON MY NECK."

~Malcolm X (re: AmeriKKKa)

Taking a MF breath 8 minutes 46 seconds later ... on the occasion of the Minneapolis, Minnesota Memorial for George Floyd and all those who've been - will be - murdered with impunity by White Supremacy and its agents since 1619.

Do you love this troubled country enough to open your eyes and refuse to lie to yourself about her and all that we don't want to see? I wonder.

That's almost twice as much money per capita as the entire police corps in the Netherlands and includes for us the forensic labs, port authority, police academy and immigration control as well.

Homework.

Why mass protest works to make your shitty leaders slightly less shit:

"Faced with staggering unemployment numbers that are likely to remain elevated through the election, Senate Republicans are reversing their positions on ending a federal increase of state unemployment benefits after July.

GOP senators fear that the wave of protests, riots and other forms of social unrest that has rocked major cities around the country is linked to the bleak economic picture and that their majority is on the line.

But many Republican senators, including members of the leadership, now say the federal government should continue to enhance state unemployment benefits or provide a back-to-work bonus of $450 per week for laid-off workers who return to their jobs."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/501035-gop-shifting-on-unemployment-benefits-as-jobless-numbers-swell