A comment I just posted to a NY Times article about de Blasio's "missteps"

[markpkessinger]

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The three reporters who wrote this article (In Police Rift, Mayor de Blasio’s Missteps Included Thinking It Would Pass) seem to be carrying water for the NYPD. Here is a comment I just posted to it:

Mark Kessinger

“You can’t just say, ‘Look, I’m saying I support you, so change the way you feel,’ “ one police officer said. Invoking a failed marriage, he added: “Even if you go through the motions of trying to reconcile, the feeling isn’t there.”

Oh, good grief! To this statement, I can only quote Bill Maher, from his show on Friday, Jan. 9:

"Seriously, if our deal with the police is that we have to constantly reassure them how much we love them, or else they throw a tantrum, we aren't supporting them, we're dating them!"

The notion that there must be some special "feeling" between the NYPD and the mayor, absent which there can be no healing or reconciliation, demonstrates just how absurd and delusional the mindset of many in the NYPD has become. Police officers are employees of the city, and the Mayor is the elected chief executive of their employer. Cops need not love their chief executive, nor agree with him. But they should still be expected to do their jobs and to do them professionally, and to respect the chief executive's office, even if they may not be fond of the current holder of that office -- in the same way that employees of any corporation need not love their CEO personally, but are still expected to do their jobs and to be respectful towards the CEO, or else find alternative employment!

As for the Mayor's "missteps" and "gaffes," while we may quibble about one or more of these issues, they are not "missteps" or "gaffes" merely because the NYPD doesn't like them.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[raging moderate]

2. good comment

thank you. I tried to rec, but the button just disappeared.

[raging moderate]

3. oh, there it is. rec'd.

holding cat. one hand only. anyway, great letter.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Excellent letter.

Thanks for doing it.

[daleanime]

5. Nice!

[staggerleem]

6. This is why people hate unions.

The beginning of the deBlasio backlash was a statement by the head of the NYC Police Union. The Union guy twisted the comment the Mayor made regarding how his African-American son should be careful if/when confronted by police, and made it sound far more negative than originally intended, and it all just escalated from there.

Bill Maher made this point in that same show as well. The union's point of view, apparently, is that if you do not give 100% of your support to 100% of police officers, 100% of the time, then you are "COP-HATER"! Sorry, but NOBODY is in the right ALL the time. Not my father (even though he seemed to think so,) not the Mayor, not the President, and certainly not the cops. A serious person (or organization) recognizes and admits his (their) mistakes, apologizes for them, learns a lesson, and (we can only hope) grows from the experience. Denial of the possibility that one might be in error is, perhaps, the ultimate dead-end.

[nichomachus]

11. The police union is a "union" in name only

It's really named the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association.

It's not that freaking benevolent either.

It's a bunch of self-serving jerks.

The main job of the police departments is to keep union members and other working people in their place.

[branford]

12. A union does not lose legitimacy, legal or moral, because you do not like their politics.

All unions are "self-serving." They represent their members, and only their members, and even have a legal duty to support "bad" members. It does not matter if a union represents police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, longshoreman, pipe fitters, auto workers, teamsters, janitors or anyone else.

I will never cease to be astonished how when it comes to police unions, many on DU parrot the arguments of Scott Walker, the Kochs and the Heritage Foundation.

Opposing the statements and positions of the police unions is certainly appropriate, but questioning their legitimacy is simply ridiculous.

[merrily]

29. People hate unions because employers tired of paying union wages invested a lot in

making people hate unions.

If you want to talk about the faults of the NYPD union, in particular, fine. But, please don't put all unions in the same bucket and please don't put all anti union sentiment in the same bucket.

Signed, a woman who probably never would have made it out of high school, let alone college, if it had not been for the ILGWU fighting for wages and working conditions, because two parents working still would not have been enough to support the four of us. My sister and I would have had to quit high school and get a job to help my parents support the family, just like my father in law had to. Or because another Triangle Shirtwaist Fire might have orphaned my sister and me.

Do union leaders and some union members have their faults? Sure. But saying this kind of thing is the reason people hate unions ignores a hell of a lot of the history of both unions and employers.

[dsc]

7. reading the article most of the complaints are ridiculous

but a couple are legit. He should apologize for those (the two cases where he blamed the police for his misbehavior) and tell them to pound sand on the rest.

[jeff47]

10. Right after the PBA apologizes for killing unarmed black men. (nt)

[branford]

13. Who exactly did the PBA kill?

The NYCPBA has over 50,000 active duty and retired members. They are the legitimate elected union representative of the patrol officers in NYC. It is also their fiduciary duty to defend any officer accused of wrongdoing, as with any other union.

You can certainly oppose their political positions and statements, but accusing them of murder is ridiculous and ineffective hyperbole.

[jeff47]

14. They are claiming to speak for the officers

so they could apologize on behalf of their officers that, say, use an illegal chokehold that kills an unarmed man who's horrible crime was asking what the police were arresting him for.

They could also apologize for their officers that, say, shoot someone in a dark stairwell.

[branford]

19. Should all unions apologize when a member commits a bad act, or only the police unions?

As with all unions, they exist to advocate for and protect the rights of their members. Expecting them to apologize is not only ludicrous, it may actually violate their duty of fair representation, beyond the fact that as an organization, they have nothing to apologize for.

With respect to the Garner case, note that the chokehold was not "illegal," it was only against department policy, and the officer and union have taken the position that the maneuver used on Garner was not actually that which was prohibited by the department, an entirely unsurprising position for a union tasked with defending the officer.

Although I personally believe that the evidence could have supported an indictment, I was hardly surprised that the officer's union backed the officer, then and now. It's the type of behavior one would expect from any union, and the law and customs do not change simply because you or I do not like the positions taken by the union.

[jeff47]

20. When they murder people and then demand reverence, yes.

And apologizing would be one of the smallest possible things they should do.

With respect to the Garner case, note that the chokehold was not "illegal," it was only against department policy

Which means it's assault and battery. Which is illegal.

I was hardly surprised that the officer's union backed the officer

If that was all they did, they'd be fine in my book.

They're now behaving like petulant two-year-olds, demanding blind obedience and reverence to them. Because of the horrific crime of a father warning his son that racist police officers exist.

I like unions. This one needs to be utterly annihilated, along with the NYPD, so that a real police force can be built in its place.

[branford]

21. You apparently only like unions when you agree with them.

It's apparently a contagious affliction for many on DU. Much to the consternation of some here, conservative unions enjoy the same rights as their more liberal brethren.

I could explain to you how your analysis about the incident and union activity is incorrect from a legal and political standpoint, and I know this because I'm a trial attorney in NYC who's practiced labor law and worked for the NLRB, and as I've done on numerous threads over the last couple of weeks, but I sincerely doubt at this point that you're interested in a real discussion.

Good luck "annihilating" the over 5 unions comprising the NYPD, with many tens of thousands of active and retired members in a very pro-union state and city like New York, no less actually eliminating and replacing the NYPD, a police force with over 35,000 officers, with an approval rating higher than the mayor.

If you want to discuss why the law supported an indictment of the officer in the Garner case or critique the inflammatory statements by the PBA, you'll find me to be a willing participant and likely ally. However, when you begin to question the legitimacy of unions, any unions, or expect them to act against their own interests or that of their members, you'll find me to be an implacable and unwavering foe.

[JDPriestly]

25. In this case, the union is acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are offended because

the mayor pointed out a fact -- the police pick on people of color. It's simply true. When the members of the union discriminate they are violating the law and the issue becomes obeying the law against discrimination, not the rights of the union. No union has the right to discriminate. The police unions do not have the right to arrest or kill minorities in situations in which they would not arrest or kill a white person.

[jeff47]

52. Yeah, that's why I totally left out destroying the NYPD

Oh wait...I didn't do that. In fact, I did the exact opposite.

Good luck "annihilating" the over 5 unions comprising the NYPD

Hey look! You're leaving out the part about annihilating the NYPD again and pretending it was only about the unions.

Hrm....so odd to have to resort to lying when your position is supposed to be so strong....

However, when you begin to question the legitimacy of unions, any unions, or expect them to act against their own interests or that of their members, you'll find me to be an implacable and unwavering foe.

Yes, it was totally unacceptable for a father to tell his son that racist cops exist.

If you were actually interested in discussion, you wouldn't start with lying about what I said. And you wouldn't be so stupid as to do it when my statements are written down right next to your response.

[JDPriestly]

27. The union has the right to defend its member especially if it argues that the charge against the

member is false. What the union does not have the right to do is to discriminate against people of color and then rebel against the mayor because the mayor points out the discrimination. The union is in the wrong. They can defend their members without turning their backs on their civil boss who was elected by the people. The job of the NYPD is to keep the peace and enforce the law while respecting and obeying the civil law and their civil commanders. Their top civil commander is the mayor.

[branford]

30. The police are employed by the city, and answer to the police commissioner,

not the mayor. No police officer, or any other public employee, no less an independent organization like a union, is required to be loyal or subservient to any mayor, whether its the current NYPD and Mayor deBlasio, or the past teachers union and Mayor Giuliani. They are entitled to both "rebel" and turn their backs on the mayor. The police are not the military. They are civilian, unionized, public employees with all the protections, constitutional, statutory and contractual, inherent therein.

Nevertheless, if you want to criticize the statements or political positions of the PBA or other NYPD unions, or even ways to reform or improve police procedures and behavior, I not only have no objections, but I might very well agree with some of your suggestions. My concerns are about judging thousands of police officers because of the conduct of a few and questioning the legitimacy of police unions because they hold or espouse positions you or others do not agree with.

Lastly, the police unions do not discriminate against people of color, individual officers do so. The unions engage in collective bargaining, representing and advocating for police officers, and other related labor activities. The union is a private organization that does not engage in any actual policing. It is very important to distinguish the differences among the police unions, individual officers and the police department itself. You should additionally note that about half the NYPD are minorities, particularly the patrol officers represented by the PBA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department

[JDPriestly]

33. The police should respect the mayor as an elected official.

The police officers are not elected. What is the stance of the police commissioner with regard to the behavior of the police in New York City?

I live in Los Angeles. Our police have some problems. But they are far more respected and trusted than those in NY.

Our County Sheriff's Department has had a lot of problems including abusing prisoners. They even abused the prisoners they took charge of after the arrests of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. Problems in the LAPD tend to be rather isolated. There are some but not the way there are problems in NY.

The police officers of NY have a reputation for picking on minorities. That half of them are minorities would not change the facts that have earned them that reputation.

Mayor De Blasio was speaking from his own fears as a father when he talked about the dangers to minority kids when stopped by the police.

The police who are members of minorities should not be offended by the Mayor's statements. He was speaking from his heart. I'll bet that some of the police officers have the same talk with their sons that De Blasio had with his.

[branford]

37. The NYPD actually has a higher approval rating than the mayor.

It's the reason why deBlasio still speaks so highly of the NYPD while under political assault by the various police unions. The mayor understands how the police helped make our last liberal (and minority) mayor, David Dinkins, a one-term disaster, and he wants to learn from Dinkins' mistakes.

You should be careful not to extrapolate your own opinions or perceptions about the NYPD and those who agree here on DU with the wider electorate in the city. While I'm certainly not here to defend the PBA's statements or individual officer's conduct, the majority of which I find inflammatory, counterproductive and simply untrue, I will not deny the political and legal realities here in NYC, particularly when the mayor has implicitly done so.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=2120

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/new-yorkers-who-like-cops-dont-like-de-blasio/

More importantly, the police, other public employee or anyone else do no need to "respect" the elected mayor. No one gives up their right to free speech or politically oppose an elected official because of civilian public employment. We are a democracy, not a feudal monarchy. When conservatives governed NYC for 20 years, and they fought many vicious and bitter battles with numerous public sector liberal unions like the teachers and nurses, no one demanded that they show "respect" to Giuliani and Bloomberg, and the police are under no obligation to show similar deference to a liberal mayor now. The laws and rules do not change when those we agree with are in power, regardless of whether it is President Obama or Mayor deBlasio.

[sabrina 1]

8. Great letter. They are like whining two year olds and all they've done so far is prove that we

don't need so many of them. So I guess we have to thank them for that.

[hfojvt]

9. this goes back to any worker

Does the worker feel appreciated?

How much should the worker feel appreciated?

I wonder though if the whole world isn't caught in a cycle of negativity. If you think about it, almost all the city council is going to hear from the public - is complaints. And then does the city manager ever hear anything from the council except complaints? And so on.

And it takes three positive comments to balance a negative comment.

I, myself, like to think I do pretty good work, and that I am an asset to my employer. But they have pretty much never treated me that way. I remember when I was sitting in the department head's office, and she was harshing on me about some stupid email. Some other city department had complained about an email I sent.

Anyway the whole message that I got from her was - I do NOT see you as a valued and respected member of MY team.

It's really hard to stay motivated, especially when other people seem to get away with doing A LAP (As Little As Possible). And if workers have some way to get together and push back against management, against their employers, then maybe they can put the shoe on the other foot, make the employer answer a little bit to the employee.

And politics are funny things too, because I wonder how the story would play if Giuliani was still mayor and the police were complaining about him.

[JDPriestly]

24. Good points. And if the NYPD's tantrum was about not being appreciated, that would be

easy to deal with. But the fact is the NYPD is in a power struggle with the Mayor. The NYPD is refusing to take fair criticism and to try to do a better job. I'm sure that in your work you really try to do your best and to improve your work if criticism is justified. That is the difference. The NYPD needs to cooperate with the civil authority which is the mayor.

[hfojvt]

55. it's sometimes hard to tell if criticism is "justified"

Although I have been criticized for using too many sports analogies.

Consider Cal Ripken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Ripken,_Jr.

Over 3,000 hits
Iron man record of 2,632 games
19 times in the all star game
2 times American league MVP

and so on.

Notice what wiki leaves out. This little all time record that he holds

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/GIDP_career.shtml

And look at who is number 3 on that list (and was #1 for many years until Ripken knocked him off the top spot.)

I mean, it IS fair to criticize somebody if they hit into a double play, isn't it? Or does it make more sense to look at the big picture instead of constantly seeming to be LOOKING for the negative? You can always find legitimate reasons to complain if you really look.

You have to try to convince the workers that the criticism IS fair. Employer to employee is a relationship, even if it is not dating. I mean, don't we, as liberals, want it to be a good relationship? But because a Democrat is on top we tell working people "suck it up soldier and follow orders"

[Cha]

15. The very sensitive NYPD except when they have victims in an illegal choke hold.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Thank you, Mark, excellent letter to Editor.

Good Luck to Mayor de Blasio of NYC .. like "Jim of MA".. said in his letter.. "nobody voted for the cops".

[markpkessinger]

17. You have to wonder . . .

. . . if any of these cops, what with their delicate sensibilities and thin skins, would last a week working in the private sector -- where most bosses don't spend a great deal of time or effort reassuring their employees of their undying love and devotion.

[Cha]

18. Exactly.. I know they have a tough job but they make it tougher on themselves.

[Liberal_Dog]

16. K & R

Great comment.

[spanone]

22. k&r.... the mayor's only missteps are not firing some of these goons.

they are strictly city employees.

the mayor ran and was elected on NYPD reform....that's their real beef with him...imho.

[merrily]

31. Fire them, for exercising their First Amendment rights against a politician?

I wholeheartedly believe that DiBlasio is getting crap because he is a Democrat, period. However, firing these people for exercising their First Amendment rights would have been a huge mistake, legally and from a p.r. standpoint. Buckling under to them would also be a mistake, IMO. It may be a fine line, but that is what the Constitution requires.

[Lucky Luciano]

47. First amendment doesn't protect you as far as keeping your job goes.

[branford]

48. It most certainly does if you are a public employee, as are the police. nt

[Lucky Luciano]

49. That is not the first amendment then. That may be a separate contractual thing

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

...that I know nothing about. That said, the pigs need a major fucking overhaul.

The most thuggish of the pigs need to be located and fired - in lieu of that, permanent desk duty and paperwork might encourage them to quit. Maybe Xe is hiring? Murderous racists fit in well there.

[branford]

53. The First Amendment does indeed apply to public employees,

and the police officers receive significant additional protections under federal, state and local labor laws, as well as their collective bargaining agreements. Your suggestions for discipline, including desk duty, would be impermissible both as a legal and political matter,

Public employees are unlike employees in the private sector who generally have no free speech protections, absent a contract or limited circumstances such as certain civil rights statutes.

The basis of my knowledge is the fact I'm a trial lawyer in NYC, who has both worked at the NLRB and privately practiced labor law.

[Lucky Luciano]

54. That is all very unfortunate.

For the record, I am all in favor of union busting the police.

That said, I doubt the first amendment mentions anything about government employees. So, it must be a separate law that says government employees will be granted the equivalent of first amendment rights when it comes to job security. Just asking - I know zero about labor law.

[branford]

56. The First Amendment, among other things, prevents the government

from infringing on or punishing citizens' speech. The provision is broad and encompassing, and many decades of jurisprudence has determined that there is no need to explicitly reference government employees in the amendment for it to provide them protection.

When someone works as an employee of a government entity, unlike the private sector, they have certain employment protections consistent with the Constitution, generally including only being able to be fired for cause and due process. Disciplining a public employee based on their speech is similarly unacceptable, absent certain very difficult requirements, with an entire body of law which has developed concerning the subject. As an oversimplification, unless the public employee's can reasonably and seriously be construed as speaking on behalf of the government itself without authorization, the employee will almost certainly prevail. Other factors may include whether the employee was on or off-duty and if they were wearing a uniform.

In additional to the above constitutional protections, various labor laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, provide additional security to employees, particularly those in unions and/or engaging collective action. Most collective bargaining agreement add yet another layer of job security to union employees. For instance, the nature, type, extent and procedures for discipline of NYPD officers is strictly regulated by all applicable contracts. I would additionally note that even if discipline might be lawful, political realities in pro-union states and cities like NYC would make mass discipline of unionized police officers tantamount to political suicide.

The peaceful collective protest by NYC police officers while off-duty, as has become evident, will not result in even the threat of discipline. Actually busting any of the multiple police unions in not within the realm of possibility, and any attempts would set legal and political precedents that would be catastrophic to other public employees in more sympathetic unions.

[merrily]

51. If you work for the government, it does--and should.

There are laws that modify that to a degree, but there's no law against turning your back while you are attending a funeral.

[JDPriestly]

23. K&R.

The mayor is the civil authority. The NYPD are his employees. That's all. The NYPD can advise the mayor based on their experience. But if they can't support the mayor as their boss, they should resign.

[merrily]

32. The Mayor acts for the taxpayers, who are the employers of both the Mayor and the NYPD.

[JDPriestly]

35. Not the taxpayers, the voters. All the voters who hopefully are all the people.

Even if you don't pay taxes, you still are the employer of the Mayor and the NYPD.

[merrily]

36. Typically, your employer is the one whose money pays your salary.

The job description of the police is to serve all the people, but the ones paying their salaries are the taxpayers (and income taxes are not the only taxes, so it would be a rare person found in NYC who was not also paying a sales tax, room tax, a meal tax, etc.) You could also say that everyone in NYC is a taxpayer, whether directly or indirectly.

In any event, the important point I was making is that the police are not employees of the Mayor.

[DeSwiss]

26. K&R

[merrily]

34. I love this cartoon for many reasons, one of them being that a family

funeral service is not a public forum for protesting anything, not when the godhatesfags nutters do it, not when members of the NYPD do it, not when anyone does it.

Just as point though, I did not see cops all turn their backs on DeBlasio at the funeral. Maybe they did and I missed it. However, the bit I saw showed the majority outdoors facing the screen when DeBlasio was speaking.

[branford]

38. The back turning was strictly for the cameras,

and only occurred outside at both funerals. There were no theatrics or political displays inside either church or visible to the families during the services.

The police unions are very savvy, particularly since they have fought, and often ultimately won, political battles with every mayor in modern NYC history, even their supporters like Giuliani. The unions know exactly what they're doing, and are no fools, despite the opinion of many here on DU. I wish other municipal unions had the determination and shrewdness of the police unions here in NYC.

[merrily]

39. Inside or outside, it was still a family funeral and protests were inappropriate, IMO.

"Strictly for the cameras" is supposed to make it more palatable? Publicity is what most protestors are after.

[branford]

40. I'm not defending the actions by the officers,

just noting that their actions were planned and deliberate, intending maximum exposure with least possible offence to the families. The police unions are not amateurs in the political realm of NYC, and should not be treated as such.

The police and their families also generally tend to be a conservative and insular group. I live and work in NYC, and I've heard no complaints about the union's actions directly from any family members, nor do I expect to. If the mayor and his allies believe that the families of officers Ramos and Liu will help them politically against the police unions, they will likely be very disappointed.

The one thing that might calm things between the mayor and police unions is a new contract. The police were working without a contract for five years, and much of the current dispute between them is equally economic as political. Although contracts were just recently entered into with some of the smaller unions and allied groups like corrections officers, negotiations failed with the PBA representing thousands of patrol officers. The matter will shortly enter mandatory, and very bitter, arbitration. I hope the contract is resolved soon for the sake of the city.

[merrily]

41. Sure seemed as though you were, as do most of your other posts about the police,

but your intent is irrelevant to both my posts on the subject; and the content of both your replies to me is also irrelevant to both my posts on the subject.

[branford]

42. Acknowledging that the police have a legal right as citizens and unionized public employees

to engage in political protest, even when it is distasteful or demonstrates a clear lack of respect for the mayor, is not the same thing as actually agreeing with the content of the police officers' actions. Similarly, my disagreement with the PBA's conduct and statements does not change the political reality that the polls appear to favor the police unions over the mayor, as they have almost always done in the past, and Mayor deBlasio's own statements and actions are evidence of this reality.

[merrily]

43. Straw man. That is not what you said, nor did I say a thing about police not having a legal right

to protest. To the contrary, please see Reply 31.

I'll be very candid with you, perhaps to a fault, but no one has "accused" me of being excessively diplomatic.

The posts of your that I have read lead me to believe that you most definitely have an agenda when it come to the police, though many of your posts deny that. An odd number of denials, IMO.

Having an agenda is fine with me. I have several agendas, such as being pro-union, anti-Third Way/DLC philosophies, etc. No one with any reading comprehension who follows my posts would believe otherwise.

Disingenousness about having an agenda, however, is not okay with me.

That said, my opinions about your posts in general has not been the basis of the content of any my replies to you. Tone, maybe. Content, no.

[branford]

44. If you've followed my posts about the NYPD, as you seem to indicate,

you should know that my one big issue is labor rights.

I usually post when many here try to delegitimize the police unions or demand or try to justify disciplining or terminating the employment of the protesting officers, usually without any due process, because of some vague and incorrect notions of "disrespect" or "insubordination."

I do not appreciate hypocritical and fair-weather union supporters. The police in NYC, just like the teachers, nurses or janitors, have significant constitutional, statutory and contractual protections. The rights of union and public employees are not dependent on taking liberal positions or demonstrating fealty to politicians, conservative or liberal. If the police could be disciplined, the resulting precedent would be catastrophic to other public employees. Sadly, when I remind people of this simple fact, I'm too often and quite ludicrously accused of being "pro-cop" or far worse.

The best analogy for my position concerning police unions is basic free speech. I may not agree with what you have to say (and I generally do not agree with recent PBA statements and conduct), but I will defend you right to say it.

[merrily]

45. I have not followed your posts, but I have noted several of them while reading a few police threads

about the shootings and this thread. And have not noticed very many of your posts if any, on other topics.

Consistent with my prior post of TMI, here's more TMI: I don't believe you are coming clean about your agenda.

As far as your not appreciating fair weather supporters of unions, whatever that means, I don't appreciate any implication that that label applies to me. To the contrary, please see Reply 29.

Don't know about you, but I've said what I have to say on this thread about unions, etc. and the like and this exchange is threatening to devolve in the purely personal; and, with this post, I've about exhausted my interest in that. So, I am out of here as far as this exchange with you. Maybe I'll see you again on a topic other than whether public protests are appropriate at private funerals, which was really what supposedly started this particular exchange.

[TheKentuckian]

57. The only union I've seen you supporting are the cops, I don't remember your outcry as our own party

attacks and hobbles teachers. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen you state that you consider the police to be more "blue collar" and more worthy of solidarity. That is what card players call a "tell".

I've seen you rush to the defense of torturers, murderers, and thieves of the greatest magnitude.

All I see is wiping, dangling, and rationalizing for evil and a lot of excuses why those on the bottom of the shitpile need to suck it and why their killers and tormentors have to be propped and excused up from you in the final analysis regardless of the interesting paths used to get to the final destination, protecting the positions and power of regressive forces at the expense of the needs of the people and the principles of justice for all.

+1,000 for thoughtful routing

- several million for destinations that consistently end up supporting and defending entropy and injustice.

I doubt this is even intentional so my challenge is to harness that creativity in a way that pushes back against entropy as fiercely, consistently, and directly as process, systems, and principles are used to rationalize the indefensible some times. I further state, it isn't even that hard a lot of the times, no stunning stretches of reasoning and logic required to bend toward justice where it is lacking in the present.

[merrily]

46. Not sure what your repeating those points after I've addressed each of them is supposed to

achieve. However, repetition of your points while ignoring mine is totally consistent with posting behavior that is all, or substantially all, agenda driven. So is drawing the kinds of distinctions you seem always to be drawing in your posts.

[ND-Dem]

28. the cops don't love bill anymore. boohoo

[ctsnowman]

50. lol Love it.

"we're dating them"