That was then, this is now, Minneapolis racial animus edition

Are you familiar with the earlier history of Minneapolis, say from the 1960s and 1970s?  From an article by Jeffrey T. Manuel and Andrew Urban, here is one passage about two mayors:

In 1969, four-term Democratic-Farmer Labor (DFL) mayor and former University of Minnesota political science professor Arthur Naftalin declined to run for a fifth two-year term as the mayor of Minneapolis, leaving the contest open amid the social turbulence of the late 1960s. Naftalin was a close associate of former Minneapolis mayor Hubert H. Humphrey and a practitioner of Humphrey’s brand of liberalism. They believed that government’s role was to manage and coordinate different interest groups within society, such as business leaders, members of organized labor, and racial minorities, so that the city would function efficiently and social conflict could be avoided. By allocating money to various social programs, they believed urban problems such as crime and poverty could be solved. In an unexpected move, Charles Stenvig, a 41-year-old detective in the Minneapolis police department and president of the police federation, threw his hat into the ring as an independent candidate for mayor. Running an unconventional campaign that spent little money and relied on volunteer labor, Stenvig won the 1 969 election by pledging to “take the handcuffs off the police” and to crack down on “racial militants,” criminals, and student protesters. Capturing 62 percent of the vote against a moderate Republican opponent, Stenvig shocked the city’s political establishment with his convincing victory. Running again as an independent in 1971, Stenvig defeated Harry Davis, Minneapolis ‘s first black mayoral candidate, receiving a remarkable 71 percent of the vote.


Naftalin’s connection with academia was a sharp contrast to Stenvig’s open animosity toward higher education.


Naftalin argued that with “proper computers,” a single executive authority could easily – and rationally – control a widely- scattered metropolitan area. For Naftalin, a rational executive would have to make unpopular decisions based on his or her expert knowledge of what was best…


Thus, at several points during his career Stenvig tried to censor what he believed were immoral publications…

And this:

At the national level, many observers were surprised that race could even be a political issue in Minneapolis given the city’s numerically small minority population… Although the city’s African American population was relatively small it was concentrated in several neighborhoods, which led to frequent incidents of alleged police harassment and the belief that residents of black neighborhoods were treated unfairly by the overwhelmingly white police force.


When a 12-year-old African-American boy was attacked by a police dog and dragged down the street by two policemen, many saw it as confirmation of Stenvig’s attitude toward blacks.


Far from a naïve reactionary, Stenvig presented a political ideology that was sharply critical of liberalism and rejected social scientific knowledge and abstractions as useful guides for governance.

The article is interesting throughout, and is likely to remain so.  And you can read here about the 1967 race riots in northern Minneapolis.


Tyler's already reached the point of hoping that the mob will eat him last: "We had to reach back 50 years to a guy who has been dead for a decade, and he's not a Republican, but we found someone who's not a Democrat who we can blame for today's self-destruction."

TC is merely pointing out the value of vicious dogs and censorship wielded by those in power when they have nothing but contempt for the educated.

Fifty years ago or today - who can even tell any more?

"The educated . . . in power" have had ample contempt for most other Americans for at least fifty years: that is, while feathering academic and administrative nests, our beloved cognitive elites have overseen and staffed and managed America's dysfunctional "education system" for decades and decades already in order to yield an adult American populace some 20% of which is illiterate (in English) and another roughly 20% (at least) which is sub-literate (reading on eighth-grade, sixth-grade, fourth-grade, or second-grade reading levels, e. g.)

(The cited figures conform nicely with the metric that over 40% of recent cohorts of college/university freshmen required "remedial English instruction" in order to commence with their post-secondary careers.)

America's contempt for its beleaguered academics and slovenly cognitive elites is vastly understated today, and our current cohorts of academics and cognitive elites deserve much-deserved credit for whatever contempt they've earned over their cognitively elite careers.

"Educated elites" aren't running school systems below the college level. These school systems are, for the most part, all controlled by elected local officials. Thus, one would expect that they would reflect the same anti-intellectual feelings of Americas as a whole, and that is the cause of their failings.

Most unfortunately, our slovenly cognitive elites deserve all the much-deserved credit I'm willing to impute to them.

They, after all, set the academic standards for teacher certification and credentialing (for "credentials", mind you, not for an "education" worth more than the bogus teaching credentials).

They, after all, set the curriculum standards for "education majors" in post-secondary settings.

They, after all, staff the school accrediting associations.

Et cetera et cetera et cetera.

By their deeds our slovenly cognitive elites have shown us all just how contemptuous they are of most Americans.

As an elite, I'm tired of the contempt of regular Americans. I'm an elite because I worked hard and busted my ass to get to where I am today. I didn't get no handout. I don't use drugs. I didn't party my life away. I worked like hell and now I made it. If that makes you jealous, then f**** you too.

There is always luck in every success and failure.
There is always narcissism in every level of success.
There is often charity and community in the early stages of an underachiever's life.
There is seldom charity and community in the early-middle stages of an over-achiever's life.
To be ambitious in working hard and taking opportunity is one thing; but to be ambitious by under-mining others, devaluing family and community opportunities, cronyism, and having a ruthless never-take-no attitude is another. Only you can know the path of the destruction and other-sacrifice, if made, that you have utilized to get where you are. I am not convinced that most, or even many, who start life in the bottom 50% without support, finish high school and under- and post-graduate studies in the top 10% of a STEM/business/ econ program, work in the private sector/ consultancy, and have a healthy/ devoted family/ community system hit the top 10% of society mid-career and later. Narcissism is not meritocracy. Individualism is to be valued, but not as an ultimate end.

> There is always luck in every success and failure.

Yes, but luck is generally the difference between a small consulting company that is pulling in $300K/employee and a company like MIcrosoft that is pulling in $800K/employee.

I think that overwhelmingly if you look at where people have ended up at the age of 40, luck had very little to do with it and their spot was determined by probably 4-5 very bad (or good) decisions they made.

If someone exits high school with poor reading and math skills, has a child before the age of 20, has trouble holding down a job, and has a side business selling drugs, their place in life at the age of 40 is pretty much locked. Luck cannot fix it short of winning the lottery.

Plenty of bad luck for that child...luck is most prominent in where you are lucky enough to be born: in the US or the Congo? In a stable two parent family or to a single mom in a ghetto? Warren Buffett has repeatedly said his success is mainly due to the luck of being born in America, in a stable family.

> being born in America, in a stable family.

Well yes, but luck is relative. Would you rather be one of Buffet's kids or one of the Joad's kids (from Grapes of Wrath)? Both had good, loving familes families.

And at some point you must acknowledge that having two stable parents isn't luck per say--it's generations doing the right thing. If you cannot get one generation of your lineage to do the right thing (graduate, not have babies you can't afford, keep a job), then no luck will save you.

My kids are lucky, but they are "lucky" because I've worked hard. I'd not call my situation lucky when making a dozen overseas flights per year and missing dinner with the family half the year throughout my 30's.

In other words, do not confuse luck with multiple generations doing the right things.

I'll say it again: Very little of what you have at the age of 40 is determined by luck. Much is determined by very big choices you made long ago.

No you misunderstood. The circumstances of your birth are entirely luck. That doesn't negate to hard work your ancestors may have done to create stable families. But the person you are is in large part because of those circumstances that you had no control over, no choice in the matter. In fact, very MUCH of who you are at age 40 is determined by luck, starting with who your parents are.

You've somehow equated narcissism with hard work and merit yet you don't see your own condescension and contempt for those that put their nose to the grind wheel so their children can see a better life. Good job. Are you a socialist by any chance?

I find all such Labels flawed since even the G7-Rich world is fraught with endless hypocrisies and merit-shaming; the Unions are full of bullying, cronyism, and tribalism despite chants of Brotherhood; the White-collars are convinced of their own righteousness, yet they disparage the other Classes, undermine their colleagues under claim of 'healthy competition', and sycophant to their superiors; and the Blue-collars proselytize of honest work and noble values, yet are the first to demonize other groups under accusations of 'unnatural', reject intellectual/organizational prowess in work as 'fluff', and aspire to little else but the deserved end of the working day/week and the entitled pension. For I am the most right of all, yet the most abhorred: the quintessential Cynic. The truth is that all you can do is play the probabilities and raise your Kid to persevere, thrive beyond their comfort zone, be open to opportunity, and just maybe the dice will come up 7. Hopefully, our work- and possessions-obsession will create a bigger pie for all. Until we have a world where all is guaranteed (abundance) but nothing is easy or without sacrifice, it will be endless conflict and an ongoing false dichotomy of us/them.

Just like 4chan, I come here for the comments.

Teachers, education majors, and school administrators are not exactly what I usually think of when I think of “cognitive elites.” How many graduates of top universities end up being teachers below the college level?

This is the product of the David Brooks-Charles Murray attempt to define down the concept of "elite" so that it means little more than someone who meets two of the three criteria: 1) has a college degree; 2) earns at least $50,000 per year; 3) does not own a pick-up truck.

Right, I feel like “elite” is just a code-word for “liberal” now. There is no fair definition of elite where a random teacher on a state accreditation board is an “elite” but Donald Trump is not.

In my opinion, an “elite” must at a minimum have some kind of leadership role in an organization that has a significant impact on the lives of a large number of people. Just having a degree and driving a particular type of car does not make one an “elite.”

> some kind of leadership role in an organization

If you are educated and skilled (top 1-3% in your cohort) then by definition you are fairly rare and likely exert outside influence on your cohort. It might be the school PTA, it might the 100 person development team at your company, it might be the city council.

Those that are guiding and steering those groups are the influencers. The "elite" tag brings with it a hint of hypocrisy. That is, "I want this for you because it make me seem progressive, but in my family, this will never be allowed because it destroys the family."

Take legalizing pot: It has had virtually no impact on white teens. But a massive impact on black teens. The reasoning is that cops and minorities are more prevalent in high-crime areas, legalizing has increased the supply, and thus minorities under 21 are found more readily with pot (and generally smoke it more often).

An "elite" happily supports legalizing marijuana, even if it hurts minority communities. But will come unglued if her kids are smoking it even though he might smoke it occasionally. Similarly, silicon valley workers are notorious for limiting screen time to small slices of the day. Poor parents are happy to let their kids stay on line for 10 hours a day. Lottery is used by a tiny slice of the top 50%, but a sizable % of the poor people invest heavily in lottery.

And on and on.

The flip side too is elites don't see rules applying to them. The gov of MI famously had her husband trying to get their boat in the water for the recent 3 day weekend, in spite of lockdown making it illegal. They didn't care. They still wanted to go boating. Same with IL gov flying his family all over in a private jet in violation of lockdown. And Chicago mayor getting her haircut weekly.

So, elite = top few % of cohort that is happy to apply rules to the bottom 50% that they KNOW will ultimately hurt the bottom 50%, AND has no problem sidestepping laws that otherwise apply to them.

Teachers and school administrators are part of what Irving Kristol called "the new class", which has disproportionate influence in shaping the culture, and not because simply because they "control" the schools by getting their supporters elected to the school board and the like, but because "they are our educational system." Equally significant, it is "an ambitious and frustrated class."

Educated elites control the teacher colleges. They also control the state curricular boards with few exceptions. Even at the local level, school board members are disproportionately likely to have advanced degrees and to be current or former teachers who ascended through the teaching schools, the graduate programs, and the union.

And lest we forget even when you elect a school board that opposes the dominant positions coming out of the teaching colleges, suddenly you find that the NEA or AFT have these contracts, that they will strike if you attempt to implement popular reforms opposed to the unions, and many of them will use their position over the children to undercut your authority.

Frankly, the real power over education lies with the unions. By the numbers they are vastly more likely to have advanced degrees, vastly more likely to self-identify as "liberal" or "very liberal", and vastly more likely to contribute politically. The union leadership? Pretty much little more than a powerful faction within the Democratic party.

If local control is a real thing why was I, with the backing of local elected officials, unable to teach advanced students basic medical anatomy (which I am fully qualified to do at the post-graduate level)? We hit road blocks from the local union, the state mandates, and even rules coming out of DC.

Whatever the org chart says, the rules are written and enforced by people who are not reflective of the median voter.

Aren't members of the school board elected in your neighborhood? That would make them reflective of the median voter?

Depends on what you mean by "median voter".

If we mean the average voter in that particular election, maybe. School board is the quintessential low information race where voters confess to having zero knowledge about candidate's positions and tend to base their votes off endorsements and yard signs. This highly favors candidates who may explicitly oppose the preferred policies of the median voter, but are able to muster a slew of endorsements from teachers, administrators, and the like while also benefitting from relatively influxes of union cash. But yes, if we are willing to say that the median voter most prefers high name recognition then these elections reflect that.

If, however, we define the median voter as the median voter over all elections held. Then no, not in the slightest. Many school board elections are off cycle, the turnout is miserable, and whoever can remind enough people to get to the polls wins. When you poll the preferences of voters on issues they routinely support things, like broader access to charters, school prayer, and teacher accountability, at super majority rates that then get voted down by the school board.

Certainly I have seen precisely zero school board members campaign against charter schools or any of the extant voucher proposals. Yet once elected they mysteriously govern opposed to all of those and just so happen to vote through pension goosing and many other union friendly things that were never in their campaign literature. Of course when I look at the contributors to their campaigns, I do see a wholly host of union funds.

Frankly I think the most honest signal is how oversubscribed so many charter lotteries are and how dramatically homeschooling has been increasing. Given the costs of both (e.g. losing the free transportation of public schooling, having to have a parent at home or least with a highly time flexible job) I can only imagine how many parents would pull their kids out of public school if they could afford it.

Certainly my old high school attests to this. They routinely have 20 or 40 fold more applicants for their scholarship positions than they can fund even with generous gifts to sustain the program. Of course, the fact that they routinely educate their average scholarship student (who is required to be poor to qualify) outperforms the average public school student across the road (who is, by the numbers, not poor).

Much ado about nothing.
How many years were there 'notable' riots since the 50s when the Unemployment rate was under 6 with no state above 9? Almost never.
The Idle Hands of Special Interest is the (rioting) devil's work.

Or you could ignore the simple law of cause and effect like you are doing and make it about Tyler.

Cause and effect? You mean the fact that fifty years of Democratic rule has produced not a shred of improvement in racial issues? Cause and effect seems pretty devastating for the party that's been in power all that time, don't you agree?

50 years of Democratic rule? I might agree if you suggested Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr and GWB might not belong in Trump’s Republican Party, but it is pretty rich to define them as Democrats and part of “fifty years of Democratic rule.”

I didn't see Tyler promoting any particular political agenda. It's an interesting but not surprising glimpse of the history of that period. One year earlier, Richard Nixon won the election largely on the promise of restoring law and order. It is as much a warning to Democratic leaders to take basic law and order seriously or else cede ground to Donald Trump.

Tyler's comments is directly supporting the Democratic narrative that the riots are somewhat justified by past racism and hostility to government academia.

No, the Democratic narrative is that the anger and frustration is warranted and real.

I am not aware of anyone in Dem leadership who says riots are warranted. Can you prove that claim of yours?

Just because threats of violence and official encouragement of that on the right is routine does not mean you can project that also on the left.

13 Biden campaign staff are donating to pay bail money for people arrested at these incidents. Sure, definitely won't openly admit to supporting rioting or looting, but they are supporting people who are very likely involved in rioting or looting.

Next, these are violent mobs using deliberate, planned, coordinated, violent mob tactics, that an overwhelmingly left-wing ideology, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and they are encouraged by Democratic leaders and often have ties to left-wing groups. I'm sure every single Republican voter in the nation wasn't perfectly behaved throughout this, but the recent mob violence, rioting, and looting are overwhelmingly a left-wing phenomenon. Democratic leaders are blaming right-wingers and white supremacists for the looting, but that is just not truthful.

Yes, Minnesota gov said the state was hit by broad DoS attack just as the rioting began. He also indicated that looking at arrest records, he noted that 20% of arrests were from out of state.

But what is clear is this is NOT white supremacists doing all this (as CNN wants you to believe). It is antifa/anarchists, homegrown, with some funding and planning behind them.

There are protesters, who by definition are not breakign anything. They are good and virtuous with a legit grievance. But the minute you break or take something, you become a rioter. Rioters are bad and their actions are unjustified. The police response to rioters should be swift and severe.

The country has roughly fewer than 20 unarmed blacks killed by police each year, and a similar number of whites. I wish it was zero, but given 40M police interactions each year, I'm frankly surprised it's not larger.

The saddest part is if you ask a kid today "how many unarmed black men do you think are killed by cops each year?" you get answers ranging from "I have no idea" to 5,000 to 50,000. The protesters have no clue. When you explain that less than 20 are killed by police each year, you can see the wheels turning a little.

Most that are protesting are protesting over something for which they have no idea what the underlying data actually shows. That part makes me sad.

What is sad is that you seem to believe that the protests are simply about the killing of unarmed black men.

As if black folks could somehow only realize that it didn't happen very often statistically, then they'd all go home and be happy.

No, I get what the protests are about. But if asked each protester the question I asked, and each responded with an answer that was 100X greater than reality, then it suggests that the anger might be reduced if the real numbers were known doesn't it?

I saw a black teen on TV last night telling the news channel here in Seattle "We built this country and we'll burn it down"

But while blacks did produce much of the forced agricultural output of the south, that all paled into comparison to the economic output in the North. The north was a massive economic machine, fueled by innovation and sweatshops staffed by white immigrants.

So, if you falsely believe that your ancestors' forced labor built much of the country AND that 10,000 unarmed black men each year are killed for no reason by cops, then, yeah, I get why you are mad.

But the reality is that the US was largely built by massive innovation and factories from the early 1800's on, and that today cops are killing fewer than 20 unarmed blacks per year.

These are two very, very different realities. One readily justifies the anger, the other does not.

yeah, well, it seems to be the media's job to find the dumbest most salacious person to interview, whether left or right.

Cue the "keep government out of medicare" lady. (Or that dingbat who recomnended we might ingest Clorox)

Not really good counter-examples. Medicare is a system where the gov simply pays the bills, and the private sector does everything else. Technically, she's right: Medicare as she and her doctor know it is 100% between she and her doctor. The gov simply pays the bills. Kind of like kids and cellphones. They *think* it's their phone (they pick the apps, the wallpaper, they carry it everywhere) but the parents pay the bills. So, when a kid says "bring me my cellphone" it makes sense even though it's technically incorrect. They must be reminded from time to time that it's mom's cellphone and mom's simply letting them borrow it.

The lady knows very well who pays the bills. But she doesn't want the gov coming between her and her doctor.

Oh, turns out the lady was a public policy guru. Aright, like I said, the media conveys snapshots of ignorance.

Ok, let's talk about all those Fox viewers who still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and held vast stores of WMDs. That was enough for them to support a ruinous expensive illegal war that unleashed massive death, instability, and violence that is still propagating.

Are you suggesting that without that misunderstanding of the supposed casus belli facts, they would have withdrawn their support for the war?

> Are you suggesting that without that misunderstanding of the supposed casus belli fact

The facts to go to war with Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You can read the Iraq war resolution that Hillary and everyone else signed. It indicated precisely why we went to war. 9/11 wasn't part of that.

If my reason for supporting a cause is based on wrong information that would make me change my mind if I knew the real facts, then yeah, that's a problem. But nobody that supported the war over 9/11 needed 9/11 to go to war. That die was already cast. The Iraq Resolution makes that clear. And remember, Bush relied on Bill Clinton's CIA to hear the war would be a "slam dunk"

I'm talking about the case where people feel they were wrong by a thing that they werent' actually wronged by.

If we took action against China for the virus, and we later found out the virus started in Italy, then yes, the retaliation against China was wrong. But you seem to be arguing that if you feel strongly enough that China was responsible, in spite of evidence to the contrary, then it's fine to impugn China.

Racism in the US is a problem, but it's probably #100 on the list of things hurting black families. If you live in an inner city school and graduate at the top of your class you are getting free full-ride college somewhere. Adn if you get free college somewhere, you will be a massive support network to ensure you graduate. And if you graduate, there will be all out bidding wars from the top companies in the US to hire you. You will get to pick the best package. And you will for sure catapult from the bottom 20% to the top 20% in a single generation without having to spend a dime.

All you have to do is graduate at or near the top of your class in an inner city school.

But sadly, we have a generation of black kids that believe white america is actively working against them at every turn. That could not be further from the truth.

Can you imagine raising your children, telling them every day that the entire town hates them. When someone doesn't hold the door it's because you are George's kid. When someone cuts in line, it's because you are George's kid. I cannot think of a more horrible thing to tell a child. Yet we have an entire media infrastructure stating that to be a daily fact without hardly any evidence.

We have black athletes making $40M/year claiming they are treated unfairly in America.

It makes no sense. Not saying there's no racism. I'm just saying the daily slights you feel are felt by everyone and aren't not racism. It's normal society.

A lot of media and politicians quite deliberately fire crowds up and incite anger and rage. Humans aren't a ultra rational species, they can get angry and unreasonable, and lots of media and politicians exploit that for their own purposes,


yeah, it's true, the right doesn't bother rioting. I mean, except when they do. They usually just prefer to show up with assault weapons, and take over state and federal facilities, while professing their dreams of redemptive 'final' violent confrontations with liberals, blacks, cops, or whoever.

Oh, I mean, when they are not dropping entire buildings with fertilizer bombs.

I'd talk about aggressive police violence, and the macing, assaulting and arrest of nonviolent people, media, etc. by the police. But I am pretty sure that's not on the radar of freedom-loving people of the right like you - as long as it is directed towards the left.

I presume you are referencing the Timothy McVeigh bombing. Earlier, I was thinking of the same thing. That's absolutely right-wing terrorism. I fully supported McVeigh's anger at the feds killing 76 innocent people, I would have supported peaceful protests, but not what he did which was kill another 168 innocent people that had nothing to do with the Branch Davidian massacre.

There are plenty of incidents of right-wing terror. I don't support that at all. If I could, I wish I could prevent McVeigh from doing what he did.

I don't support violence against the political left or the media at all. I don't support shooting looters. I do think they deserve harsh consequences. I do get angry when I see thugs shot and killed Patrick Underwood. I definitely don't think George Floyd deserved to be killed. Nor Tony Timpa.

Tyler is a Dem and is always very careful to protect his team.

Hey, has anyone heard of Daniel Shaver? Of course you haven’t. Google him and you’ll see there’s a reason his murder by police didn’t receive non-stop national coverage.

The reason the Shaver incident didn't get wall to wall coverage is that there are no advocacy groups publicizing that like BLM. Tony Timpa Is probably a more direct parallel scenario with a white man killed by police kneeling on him.

Considering about twice as many whites are killed by the police than blacks, there are likely be many such examples. Of course, blacks only make up 13% of the population, while whites about 56%, so one might expect black deaths to be about a quarter the white number. Although, considering blacks commit about half of all violent crimes, perhaps one should expect they would have greater number of interactions with the police. How many is the "right" number of death by cop for any group?

Zero would be best obviously, but the actual number doesn't really constitute the most significant risk to the population. The yearly risk being about the same as a day of skiing. Sure let's look into ways to improve that, but it seems like enough anger to burn down the city might be coming from something else.

Where was the "All Lives Matter" crowd when the Shaver incident took place? Oh right, that was just an anti-BLM group not an actual group that cared about police brutality.

Perhaps I hid it in too many words. But my point is they shouldn't care about police failures, or not as much as they do. Your doctor is about a thousand times more likely to kill you by negligence. (300,000+ deaths per year due to *preventable* medical mistakes.)

Humans are bad at judging risks. They are also bad at directing their actions and anger towards areas that might produce the most benefit. And so here we are.

What happened to George Floyd and Tony Timpa and Daniel Shaver was wrong, police tactics should improve.

These violent riots and looting are surely driven by other factors. This country has millions of people, lots of people have various angers and resentments for all kinds of reasons, and this recent time presented a convenient opportunity to act on them.

Some reports out today are indicating the "knee on one side of neck" was taught at a non-lethal technique for subduing those that wouldn't sit still after being cuffed.

The training indicates that the neck is an excellent control point and by only compressing one side, the airway cannot be blocked. And I think the autopsy is showing similar: the guy could breath. He basically died from a heart attack it sounds like, brought on by the stress of being arrested and fighting against the police who were trying to subdue him.

If this is true, the officer's trial just got more interesting.

"Some reports out today are indicating the "knee on one side of neck" was taught at a non-lethal technique for subduing those that wouldn't sit still after being cuffed."

That doesn't make much sense, logically. If you are lying face down with your hands cuffed behind your back, your range of motion is already extremely limited. Hold his shoulders and legs to the ground and what's he going to do? I bet the average middle school wrestler could have handled this situation better than any of the four Keystone Kops who were on the scene.

> That doesn't make much sense, logically.

The reason for the move might be to ensure the victim cannot bash his head. Holding them down with your hand means you cannot do other things, whereas using your knee means your hands are free.

And he wasn't really face down. But yeah, I agree. I'm just saying get ready because if the police department teaches this is non-lethal and Floyd had a bad ticker, then the cop probably won't be found guilty. And that would explain why the other officers weren't panicked--because this guy was doing a move they all learned.

I just don't get why they didn't load him in the police car.

The video shows police unsuccessfully tried getting him in the police car.
He was resisting/struggling and that is how he ended up laying prone on the street with a knee on his neck.

....the cop is going to jail for manslaughter, not murder. As he should. That was awful policing and resulted in an unnecessary death followed by massive rioting. The cop is culpable, and will be punished. His wife already left him.

It was appropriate policing, by the book. Floyd could have prevented the incident from beginning to end, and he would be alive today if he had done what he should have done. The officer did a good job. Some people just resent being arrested (can't blame them, infringes on their freedom to loot), but there are better and worse ways to deal with it. Guys with bum tickers ought to know better than fight it out on a sidewalk with multiple LEOs when they (the suspect) could win a big pay-out if their complaint actually has merit.
By the way, it is true (I know that because I read it here) that his wife left him, but he wanted her to go anyway. She was overweight, shrill, and generally unattractive. Otherwise the LEO was NOT culpable and WON'T be punished. That's a fact.

“Far from a naïve reactionary, Stenvig presented a political ideology that was sharply critical of liberalism and rejected social scientific knowledge and abstractions as useful guides for governance.“

That’s it in a nutshell - the stupid people refuse to let their betters run things.

Liberalism, now rebranded as “progressivism “ has a fatal flaw: no feedback mechanism to correct errors. Good intentions are simply enough. If it were to re-evaluate its activities in order to determine their effectiveness, good intentions would no longer be enough and The whole philosophy would collapse. It has mutated into naked totalitarianism.

The transmuting of the Left towards "Progressivism" was one of the "interesting" developments of the early 21st century.

Conjecture: Both a response to the problems liberal ideology faced from radical Islam, and a desire to distinguish from common ground with libertarians and re-brand as completely opposite conservatism. If liberal ideas can't deal with repressive ideologies they adopt a pro-secular ideology which can "do" repression, dropping focus on liberty also distinguishes from libertarians, and finally, what branding what can be more opposite the desire to conserve than the desire to replace the outmoded?

Add masses of young elite-aspirant educated Millennials not enjoying too much in the way of salary and asset growth and family founding from university to mid-career, add a slice of ethnic generation divide for taste, and we get to where we're going today.

What are you talking about? I doubt too many people even care about “radical Islam.” “Radical Islam” is a boogeyman trotted out by people who mostly don’t know a single Muslim yet think Sharia law is just around the corner because that’s what they read in right-wing media.

Liberalism has a long tradition of dealing with “repressive ideologies”: i.e. you can do what you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Thus, people should be allowed to practice “radical Islam” themselves and with others who consent to be in that community as long as they aren’t forcing it on others through things like terrorist attacks which the vast majority of Muslims, even radical ones, play no part in, or voting in Sharia law, which Muslims being a tiny minority obviously lack the power to do.

I'm impressed that you don't think how to deal with radical Islam was an important topic shaping political thought in the early-mid 2000s in the wake of 9/11 (also when Progressivism came to be the new moniker de rigueur)! That's a strange position even by your standards. ;)

What does radical Islam have to do with progressivism? Radical Islam was a motivating force on the right, as I stated, and it explains in part why the right has become more authoritarian towards civil liberties and immigration, but people on the left generally don’t care about it so much.

This is pretty presentist.

If you literally can't remember the debates from the 2000s, and when Progressivism emerged again as a self descriptor, and the debates at the time about how liberalism roiled with internal debate on that (and no, they did not accept a pat "Let people do what they want until they practice terrorism"), then debating the intellectual history of the very early 21st century is going to be a bit of an empty debate.

Huh? "Islam is a religion of peace" so sayeth George W. Bush, the same guy that let the Taliban tour his office and whose family made business and other side deals with the Bin Laden family. Compassionate conservatism enabled the growth of ISIS. Methinks your memory has blocked out what abject failures the right was in those days.

I don't think that has a lot to do with the thread under discussion.

The majority of American muslims would prefer sharia over the US constitution. So what exactly do you mean by "radical"? (pew research, since you'll likely ask about the source.)

Liberals have few options if a group refuses to play their tolerance game. So it might be wise to pay attention to any intolerant groups in the area.

Yes, but they have no power to impose sharia, being less than 1% of the population. There are lots of fringe groups that have illiberal ideas from white supremacists to communists, and a liberal society is perfectly able to tolerate them, allowing them to express their views and form their own associations while protecting the freedom of others to do the same.

In the US. At the moment. There are projections of 30% in some European countries by 2050. At those numbers they are unlikely to assimilate to standards of liberalism common to their host country. What shall the liberals do if a third of the population believes death by stoning is appropriate for adultery and homosexuality? Distribution won't be even, with those numbers would they not have large majorities in some local communities. Will you still be willing to live there?

The southern strategy, that is.

the northern liberal elite strategy
of blaming the current rioting,
arson & looting on white supremacists seems implausible

I think some of them have realised the implausibility and are now blaming it now on White anti-fa, but of course not because they're anti-fa (which is great and anyone who blames anti-fa is evil or something?), but because they have "White privilege". That's life in 2020 I guess.

What’s the point being made here? That a Republican in the past is the fount of all the current troubles? Or, “gee a no-nonsense politician would be a good person to have in charge now.”

The politician in the spotlight was an independent, not a Republican. Try reading at the least at a third grade level before writing comments.

'Capturing 62 percent of the vote against a moderate Republican opponent'

Thanks to independents like Stenvig, RINOs have gone extinct, and people who feel perfectly fine taking the handcuffs off the police and cracking down on “racial militants,” criminals, and student protesters are the bedrock of today's Republican Party.

Well, no. It is not thanks to independents like Stenvig. Rather Stenvig was an early sign of a growing problem in America - the hatred of educated Americans for ordinary, especially White, Americans. They captured the Democratic party, as here on an explicit platform of disenfranchising the voters and giving them what the Upper Middle Class think is best for them in the name of science. That left their voters with fewer places to go.

Stenvig, as an independent, could stand on a platform of not-hating-ordinary-Americans. As could the Republican. Stenvig was more credible which is not surprising given that most Republicans, not just RINOs, are fellow Upper Middle Class liberals in all but name.

The leftward shift of the Democrats continues. Now they have fully embraced rioting and looting. But there are fewer ordinary law-abiding American voters around this time. So it may work for them. It may not.

Sure it was. Unless you think today's Republican Party is full of Rockefeller Republicans, while supporters of George Wallace are not welcome at all. Which you do actually believe from your comment.

Since this web site does not allow posting Atwood's actual words concerning the political pivot the party of Lincoln made in response to the Democrats starting to support long established Republican ideals concerning full personhood and citizenship for all Americans, this discussion will simply dead end.

There is no denying that supporters of DNC member George Wallace was not welcome in the Republican party. Unless they renounce racism. The Republicans have *always* been the party of anti-racism. Unlike the Democrats who have relied on inciting racial hatred to get election for decades. Only now they no longer incite hatred *of* Blacks.

As for RINOs, well I liked Paul Ryan but it is clear what sort of Republican he was. And Mitch still is. Stenvig was part of the rejection by ordinary voters of the idiots with Ivy League credentials. They are slowly taking over the GOP. A good thing too.

David Duke will be surprised to hear that. 'In December 1988, Duke changed his political affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

In 1988, Republican State Representative Charles Cusimano of Metairie resigned his District 81 seat to become a 24th Judicial District Court judge, and a special election was called early in 1989 to select a successor. Duke entered the race to succeed Cusimano and faced several opponents, including fellow Republicans John Spier Treen, a brother of former Governor David C. Treen; Delton Charles, a school board member; and Roger F. Villere, Jr., who operates Villere's Florist in Metairie. Duke finished first in the primary with 3,995 votes (33.1%). As no one received a majority of the vote in the first round, a runoff election was required between Duke and Treen, who polled 2,277 votes (18.9%) in the first round of balloting. Treen's candidacy was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other prominent Republicans, as well as Democrats Victor Bussie (president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO) and Edward J. Steimel (president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and former director of the "good government" think tank, the Public Affairs Research Council). Duke, however, criticized Treen on a statement the latter had made indicating a willingness to entertain higher property taxes, anathema in that suburban district. Duke, with 8,459 votes (50.7%), defeated Treen, who polled 8,232 votes (49.3%). He served in the House from 1989 until 1992.'

Luckily, that is a perfect example of so much for subtlety. Especially since Duke's election sits in the middle of the time between Stenvig and today.

You think the fact that there were about 8000 people in Louisiana who voted for David Duke proof that the entire Republican party is racist? Well of course you do sweeties. You could hardly do otherwise.

But most people will note the vastly larger number of Republicans who were appalled by this and campaigned against Duke. Calling for voting for the Crook not the Racist.

But still, the Democrats remained the party of the KKK. So Duke is, at best, an outlier. To get to him you have to ignore the vastly larger number of Democrats who have been proud to be part of the Clan. Woodrow Wilson for instance.

'You think the fact that there were about 8000 people in Louisiana who voted for David Duke proof that the entire Republican party is racist?' Of course not.

But it does make this statement look a bit less than serious - 'The Republicans have *always* been the party of anti-racism.' Occasionally, they slip up, and elect a Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe that incident was too subtle for anyone to notice at the time?

The Republican party is not a totalitarian party. They have open elections. The fact that once someone with a racist past managed to convince all of 3000 people to vote for him is utterly irrelevant. It is you grasping at straws.

The Republican Party has always rejected racism. It is the party of the NAACP and most Civil Rights bills. Duke is just the exception that proves the rule.

'The Republican Party has always rejected racism.' For some reason beyond the obvious use of language no longer acceptable in this comment section, quoting Lee Atwater, former chairman of the Republican National Committee explaining just how the Republican Party made vast advances in the South, always seems to be discouraged.

But why believe Atwater, he is clearly another one of those people who hates Republicans. Though if you don't believe Atwater talking about exactly the time talked about in the post, you also won't believe him saying Reagan did not need to use racism to win.

Racists vote for the candidate they feel most likely to be racist. A deplorable fact, but one that is too blatant to be waved away. It is why Duke continues to pick up at least a few percent of the vote in every election he runs in, even after being repudiated by both major parties over decades. It also explains how Duke endorses candidates.

I don't know about Louisiana and David Duke but it's the independents that choose our president. The registered Democrats and Republicans cancel each other out. The largest, by far, voting block is the independents.

You overlook the fact that in Louisiana, the primary is an open system -If no one gets a majority the top 2 candidates (not the ones chosen by each party) go on to the general election.This was done b/c 100+ years ago the Democrats could be pretty sure that the top 2 candidates would BOTH be Democrats- thereby excluding the GOP candidates and ensuring their domination of the state. In the election with David Duke the primary had at least 4 candidates- the top 2 vote getter were both scoundrels b/c the vote was so split up. At no point was Duke “chosen” by the GOP.

George Wallace won huge majorities of 60%+ in the Deep South in 1968. The previous election, Republican Barry Goldwater won equally large margins in the Deep South, and the subsequent election, Republican Richard Nixon also won equally large margins in the Deep South. Just as a matter of math, one must conclude that the vast majority of George Wallace's supporters were Republicans in the election before and have been Republicans ever since.

Only if one is dumb enough to look at the state level rather than the state. In Texas, for instance, in '68 Nixon won the urban and suburban countries and the Panhandle, Humphrey carried the southern, highly Hispanic, counties, and Wallace won some eastern rural counties. Humphrey carried the state due to the margins. In '72, Nixon won everything except half the southern counties and Cottle county (by 7 votes). Yet Nixon's margins were lower in the Wallace strongholds than the state as a whole, let alone his strongholds (which had been trending Republican under Eisenhower).

Or take Georgia. Nixon won a handful of pro-Union counties in Northern Georgia. and ran well ahead of his statewide numbers in Democratic strongholds (like Fulton). In '72, again Nixon, who won 75% of the vote did best in the pro-Union bastions and again did best in the burbs. His results in Wallace strongholds are mixed.

To whit when you go down to finer data levels we see that in the South the Republicans were building strength in the burbs throughout the 50s (and arguably the 40s), this was their strength in the South for generations. The racist Wallace supporting locales were typically less Republican than these areas and tended to return Democrats to congress longer than the burbs.

Overall, Nixon's win in the South in 72 was maybe 5% above his national norms. And the best predictors of his performance was not racial attitudes, but religion (hence why Carter swept away so much of Nixon's gains and why Regan recaptured them when Carter governed from a secular-left coalition).

Frankly, I suspect race politics kept the South Democratic after 68. After all, it was not until the 90s that less than 60% of the congressional delegation was Democratic. And this in a region that is fervently more religious than the nation, fervently more anti-union than the country, fervently more pro-military, and fervently more fiscally conservative (going down to their own budgets). I suspect a good many Southerners kept voting for Congressional Democrats as long standing members could mute, delay, or otherwise diminish racial issues in a way the Republican members could not during the long Democratic majority before 92.

The election results in Georgia are:
1968 - 43% Wallace, 30% Nixon, 27% Humphrey
1972 - 75% Nixon, 25% McGovern

This shift is explained by the vast majority of Wallace and Nixon supporters going to Nixon, while the majority of Humphrey supporters went to McGovern.

Looking at these maps, it's pretty clear that the counties that were strongest for Wallace (in Southern Georgia) then swung hardest to Nixon in 1972, while the counties that went for Humphrey (such as Fulton County) remained a much lighter shade of Nixon:;

Many of these areas did later return to their Democratic roots and voted for Carter over Ford, but Ford was a moderate Republican who did not lean into the Nixonian Southern Strategy.

"Swung hardest" is pretty much entirely reverting to the mean. Nixon carried the place at 75% of the vote, pretty much by definition the largest swings are going to be in places where he did the worst the previous run.

The truth is that in '68 Humphrey won 26.7% of the vote. McGovern could not even manage that. He only hit 24.7%. If every Wallace voter and every '68 Nixon voter went with Nixon, Nixon still comes up short of his actual vote totals.

And this should not surprise us. A noted red-baiting cold war hawk who was running against a Social Gospel peacenik should see a lot of people vote the hawk in one of the states with the highest rates of military service in the country (and several major bases).

And looking on in '76, all of Wallace's top counties in '68 did not just revert back to Carter, but voted for him at higher rates than the state as whole.

There is no consistent pattern. Places motivated entirely by race? Yet they voted for Carter, the man who said that the "time has come to end Segregation" more than the rest of the state in '76? Or how about 80? Carter, the native son, still won … but there is no clear link between the Wallace results and those of Carter or Reagan. Both win some heavily Wallace counties and both lose some heavily Wallace counties. And there are Wallace strongholds that split the difference.

As I said, what makes an awful lot more sense to me is that prior to '68 the Republicans were making inroads in Georgia, but the fit of the median Georgian voter to Republican party platforms was stymied by race issues. When the race issues became moot (as both national parties were endorsing platforms well outside of the acceptable view for the median Georgian voter), the natural tendency of hawkish, less secular voters to vote for their peers actually became salient.

And if this is actually all about race issues and somehow Republicans dog whistling their way in. Why did it take 34 years for a Republican to win the governorship? Why did also take that long to win the congressional delegation?

The truth is Nixon's gains in the South occurred both within and outside of Wallace strongholds. His highest margins, and even more so his highest vote totals, were outside of the Wallace strongholds. Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi … there is no uniform swing to Nixon (or Ford or Reagan) at the county level that correlates well with Wallace's success.

Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were all strongest, everywhere in the country, in the burbs. Wallace was strongest in rural areas and his prime counties were not reliably Republican until his average voter was dead.

Republicans did not need to be racist for a Southern Strategy to work. They just needed to be about as anti-racist as the Democrats. Once the Democratic party, finally, joined the Republicans in voting for basic civil rights the issue was largely moot and the South finally voted more like a collection of small government, Evangelical, hawkish states than as faction voting Democratic just to preserve segregation. They elected small government, Evangelical, and hawkish senators (be they Democrats like Zell Miller or Republicans like Mack Mattingly) and congressional representatives who also fit this mold.

I mean seriously. Imagine if the parties were perfectly identical on race issues. Do we think Georgia with its strong pro-life margins (even in the African American community), right-to-work, and exceedingly high church attendance rates would somehow be a natural constituency for the Democrats post-Humphrey?

The Republicans didn't need to be racist to win. They just needed the Democrats to stop being more racist than them.

Again, look at those maps. The areas that went for Wallace in 68 are deep red for Nixon in 72. The areas that went for Humphrey in 68 are only light red for Nixon. It’s clear that the majority of Wallace voters switched to Nixon, while the majority of Humphrey voters did not. Of course, there are also Nixon-to-Nixon voters such as the ones you are talking about in the burbs who were not motivated by racial issues, but I don’t think it can be denied that the majority of Wallace voters (who were mostly motivated by being racist as that was essentially Wallace’s platform) then voted for Nixon and are, or would be if they were still alive, Republicans today.

I’ll agree with your concluding paragraph that the Republicans needed the Democrats to be less racist than them. However, considering that the country as a whole has become much less racist over the last 50 years, it still supports the racial resentment theory of Republican success if the Democrats became much less racist since the 1960s, while the Republicans stayed the same or became a little less racist, making the Republicans the comparatively more racist party in the post-Civil Rights era.

The anomaly in need of an explanation is not Georgia voting Republican in '72. The whole country basically went Republican. Nor is it that Georgia went heavily Republican in the 90s and 00s. It was why did the place vote Democratic from say '46 to '68?

After all, FDRs biggest congressional opponents were Southern Democrats who opposed his industrial policy, his unionism, and many of his social programs. Likewise, Truman's economic policy was drastically out of step with Georgia's and by the time we get to '64 even foreign policy is slipping out of alignment.

The explanation, which of course is backed by scads of filibusters and votes, is that mid-century racists sold out their economic agenda to keep their segregationist one intact. LBJ watered down the vast majority of the civil rights legislation that passed the Senate during his time there. The House seniority system protected the Dixiecrats and let them table even more legislation.

Once that trade is off the table it would have taken a miracle for the Democrats to keep the place voting so far away the median voter on basically every other policy.

The truth is the Republicans did best in some of the least Wallace friendly places in the South. These were growing burbs that a bunch of other data suggests were far less racists than the rest of their states. They had been trending Republican since at least Ike if not going back the late FDR years.

The majority of Republican votes in '72 (let alone '76 or '80) appear to have come from non-Wallace voters. Wallace voters appear to have been quite comfortable voting for Carter, but not any of the Nixon '68 voters. And certainly the Wallace folks kept voting for scads of Democratic congressmen and Senators for literally another generation (and let us not even discuss local elections).

If you resurrected the Wallace voters they, like most of the avowed racists today, would be self-proclaimed independents. Certainly we have plenty of examples, like Thomas Metzger, where the Klan elected to run as Democrats just as we have plenty of examples where other white supremacists elected to run as Republicans.

Your initial contention was, the "vast majority of George Wallace's supporters were Republicans in the election before and have been Republicans ever since."

Except that they voted for Carter in a large number of counties and voted for Nixon by less than his statewide shares in numerous states (e.g. Texas). Except that they backed Democratic congressional candidates for another 20-30 years in the main. Except that a third of them voted for Clinton, twice.

A vastly superior explanation is that Wallace voters went from being solid Democrats to being swing voters. As the actual Wallace voters died out, their descendants became Republicans because the old party loyalties built on the racist bargain simply did not exist.

Not wanting 12-year-olds to be attacked by police dogs and dragged down the street by police is “hating ordinary Americans”?

Ordinary 12 year olds should not be attacked by police dogs. Black 12 year olds are not in the ordinary American category, so tweet havoc and let slip the vicious dogs to deal with them. Or shoot them in a playground - it isn't like anyone is going to be legally punished for it. Including not providing first aid in the aftermath.

That's a straw man. No one actively wants 12 year olds to be attacked by police dogs. Some people are less angry about it than others, and many care depending on which racial/religious/political faction the victim was affiliated with.

was Ronaldus Magnus, who, as governor of California, did a fine job cracking down on racial militants, criminals, and student protesters.

But his evil twin, who raised taxes, is rightfully condemned to the dustbin of history by today's true Republicans.

Which ignores the fact that it was Reagan who made tax cuts a core Republican principle, unlike RINOs who do the bidding of Democrats as tax collectors for the welfare state.

As always, the followers of Reagan never acknowledge Goldwater, who was more interested in a balanced budget than the sort of travesty that exists today under Trump.

Academics in the softer sciences are off in la-la land. The ones in the real sciences are far better but they don’t have a lot of social courage.

So you can’t listen to the academics.

"The ones in the real sciences are far better but they don’t have a lot of social courage."
I see, scientists don't have the "courage" to be as racist as you are. Oh, God!

I think we have ample proof that using the weak evidence of the "social" sciences to engineer society simply doesn't work. Thanks to the Constitution we're still #1 at this end of the universe.

His point is that you can say bye bye to the blue wave in the 2020 elections if the violent protests keep up and the non Democratic candidates take on the law and order mantle, and we know Trump will. Plus, many swing states are overwhelmingly white and many white voters on the fence will gladly vote for Trump if they see Democrats as the party of these protests. He’s just using an anecdote to point out some predictions that line up well with social science research on these topics.

Naftalin's approach to running a city sounds like Robert McNamara's "whiz kids" approach to running the Vietnam War. A naive faith in GIGO computer models and replication-crisis "social scientific knowledge" isn't going to provide real solutions, then or now.

Not that simplistic alternatives will necessarily improve things. Maybe the best we can hope for when lurching from one extreme to the other is "out of the fire and into the frying pan" instead of vice versa.

More virtue signaling from Citibank:

It's ironic given their self-image, but the baby-boomers and the silent generation were easily the most reactionary in American history.

They bought into a form of conservationism that would have been shocking before it became dominant, and is shocking now that they finally have less sway.

Part of it was obviously a reaction to the civil rights movement, but there's a book to be written about how they were the first and last group to grow up and come of age under a dominant centralized mass media.

If you want to understand where we were, watch 'Network' it's become the perfect time capsule. There was a certain kind of alienation created under mass media and its propaganda, its unreality, that almost required the right-wing backlash.

I mean, we're still dealing with the most decayed senile form of that baby-boomer politics in Trump, but at least now there's enough of a countervailing set of forces from younger groups that we can have some distance from the Boomer moment, and wonder at its oddity.

The youngest Baby Boomers were 23 years old in 1969 and the voting age was not lowered to 18 until 1971. You cannot pin right-wingers winning elections in 1968 and 1969 on Boomers. Those were elections driven by older generations. And keep in mind it was those same older generations who elected people around the same time who championed progressive causes such as Medicare, the creation of the EPA, and the Civil Rights Act.

I suspect the real electoral power of Baby Boomers was not felt until the late 1980s when all Boomers were between their mid-20s and early 40s.

Any time you treat a racial group as a “pet” group to be “managed” and “provided” for this is the outcome you get.

In many ways, it’s not the legacy of slavery that African Americans are trying to overcome its

Red lining
Zoning laws
Anti density laws
“Urban renewal”
“The war on poverty”
Government road building
“The war on drugs”

Remember there is a poor black ghetto in every major American city because we have laws in this country that produce that outcome.

And then we turn to the national political landscape to try and “help” African Americans when their real political issues are confined to local jurisdictions.

We’ll end up getting some federal “anti police murdering black people law.” But it won’t actually begin to solve the legal problem at hand.

Any time you treat a racial group as a “pet” group to be “managed” and “provided” for this is the outcome you get.

You know, for a moment there I thought this was going to be an attack on the Democrats. After all, they have been "managing" Blacks since 1614.

Red lining

Some of the best real estate in America was reserved for African Americans. Prime sections of New York, LA, San Francisco and Chicago were guaranteed housing for Blacks. By all means, tell me how this in any way whatsoever disadvantaged Blacks. The government took 19th century homes in NY, houses worth millions of dollars in the hands of Whites, and ripped off their owners by insisting they be sold for next to nothing to Black people. By all means, let me buy a brownstone in New York for a few thousand dollars. That is the sort of oppression I could live with.

Zoning laws

Strange how zoning laws work the other way in California.

“The war on poverty”

What bastards White people are! How dare they give the average African American something getting on for three quarters of a million dollars in poverty relief!

“The war on drugs”

Apparently there is some law of nature that certain communities must ingest drugs.

Remember there is a poor black ghetto in every major American city because we have laws in this country that produce that outcome.

Well yes and no. We had laws that said only Blacks could live in some of the best parts of America. But there was no law that said Blacks had to trash those areas. As we see in New York. Remove the Blacks and suddenly gentrification means those homes are worth millions of dollars again. The poverty is not caused by the ghetto but by the residents.

We’ll end up getting some federal “anti police murdering black people law.” But it won’t actually begin to solve the legal problem at hand.

Indeed. Because there is no solution that involves giving more money. What is worse, the next outcome - going Fetal redux - will just results in thousands of more dead young Black men and more crime in poor neighborhoods. Resulting in more problems.

I hate to speak for Harry, but I think he is referring to culture and laws that that have enshrined African Americans into a separate caste of Americans, both culturally and, increasingly, legally. The primary impact on the Afican American community is to encourage self-segregation and to emasculate young black males by denying them accountability for their actions.

Not really, African-Americans in the rural South away from any “local jurisdictions” fare worst of all.

They fare worst of all because people in rural areas fare worst of all.

That doesn’t invalidate my original argument. Blacks that would like to integrate into the modern US are mostly housed away from whites as a function of local policy.

It's not always policy to blame but I generally agree with your point.

After reading about the incident l doubt the murder charge will stand. After all the outrage and pissing is done, the simple facts are that dude committed a crime and repeatedly struggled and resisted arrest. He was a large, strong guy, so a serious threat. The cops were trying to control him, he was trying to escape.

And the preliminary medical examiner’s report indicated that he didn’t die of asphyxiation-

And yet, they were bragging about how quickly they brought murder charges against the cop. Almost all large cities have been run by Democrats for quite a while. The last Republican mayor of Minneapolis served in 1973.

Ignore the video. It was a new way for the officer to administer first aid for his pre-existing medical condition.

A video of the incident, or someone paid to defend their client?

THough if there wasn't a video, we probably would not even be disucssing this. Much like if there was not a video, the 911 recording of this woman would have clearly demonstrated how fearful she was of her life.

Complete BS. There was no Michael Brown video. There seemed to be a kerfuffle about him.

And there IS Daniel Shaver video, and that was the most horrifying police murder of all time. You’ve never even heard of him.

You are discussing Floyd because it’s an election year and the Dem news outlets want you to discuss it — right now. End of story.

I find this murder to be more disturbing. Have you heard about it? "Asset forfeiture distorts law enforcement priorities; instead of chasing violent criminals, some police target wealthy citizens. Early in the morning of October 2, 1992, a small army of 31 people from eight law enforcement agencies smashed their way into 61-year-old Donald Scott’s home on his 200-acre Trail’s End Ranch in Malibu, California. The raiders were equipped with automatic weapons, flak jackets, and a battering ram.[20] Scott’s wife screamed when she saw the intruders, Scott came out of the bedroom with a pistol in his hands, and police gunned him down. After killing Scott, the agents thoroughly searched his house and ranch but failed to find any illicit drugs.

Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury investigated the raid and issued a report in 1993 that concluded that a “primary purpose of the raid was a land grab by the [Los Angeles County] Sheriff’s Department.”[21] Bradbury revealed that at a briefing before the raid took place, government agents were informed that the ranch had been appraised at $1.1 million and that “80 acres sold for $800,000 in 1991 in the same area.”[22] The law officers at the briefing were told that if they discovered as few as “14 marijuana plants” on the ranch, the entire property could be seized.[23] Bradbury also concluded that a Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy had lied to obtain a search warrant and declared: “This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant. This guy should not be dead.”[24] Los Angeles officials claimed that a confidential informant told them that marijuana was being grown on Scott’s ranch, but the informant denied ever making such a statement."

That's a bit of a parlor trick. That case received plenty of coverage from the media at the time as did many other police shootings in the past 12+ years. Few of the victims in these cases have their names etched in the memory of most people after more than a year or two pass, though. If you were to tell people it was the shooting in Arizona that involved that dorky looking young cop with the arm tattoos who shot a guy as he was crawling on the ground and provide a visual reference or two, I think most people would know who and what you are talking about. I also don't think many people will remember the names Oscar Grant and Johannes Mehserle -- as I didn't until I googled "oakland BART station police shooting" just now.

They had him with his hands cuffed behind his back lying face down on the ground.

Try an experiment: lie face down on the ground, put your hands behind your back as if they are handcuffed and try to get up without rolling over. Now imagine if you had just one not particularly strong police officer holding your shoulders in place and applying modest pressure to your lower back. It would be impossible.

Earlier footage shows him handcuffed and sitting on the ground and he has to be helped to his feet by one of the officers.

Not just Minneapolis, riots in LA, Nashville, SLC, NYC, OKC, Detroit, Atlanta, Seattle, DC, Philly, Vegas, Denver, Miami, Dallas, Cleveland, even Des Moines and much, much more. This is a nation wide people's revolt in the middle of a pandemic and an economic depression with 30% unemployment. America is turning into a shithole that ran out of toilet paper. 2020 is a historical year and will be written about long after.

The one saving grace is that those foreign powers who interfered in 2016 with such devastating effectiveness are very kindly refraining from influencing events in this election year.

It could be that the foreign powers are now harvesting the seeds of destruction they planted years ago.

Foreign powers huh? Why yes, there are liberal equivalents of Alex Jones on multiple outlets.

I guess Putin ultimately killed George Floyd absolves all blame of the exceptional country and its people.

"It" being random murder by police?

If no one holds that line, next stop Rodrigo Duterte.

You would think "law and order" was a simple enough concept to understand. But for Charles Stenvig or Donald Trump those can also be code words.

It's easy enough to spot. Do you love law and order while mistrusting courts? Do you expect police and not judges to enforce the law?

Do you routinely pardon law breakers up to and including corrupt sheriffs or those who commit war crimes?

That is not law and order folks.

Irrelevant. The criminal history is from 13+ years ago and the police, aside from not having any legal authority to dole out extrajudicial executions, probably had no knowledge of it at the time. George Floyd will forever remain innocent until proven guilty of the counterfeit money charge. For all we know, he received the counterfeit note unwittingly as change or as payment for doing an odd job.

I have to say that 2020 is REALLY not turning out to be an advertisement for big city living, is it?

Having switched his residency to Florida from NYC.

2020 is not really an advertisement but rather an indictment of the entire American system.

A repeat of the suburbanization of and decentralization of American life that occurred in the 20th century might do a few good things to your culture tbh.

Until we give the police the empower to carry out summary executions your point is irrelevant. It is unlikely they knew of his record & we have this thing called the Constitution that covers much of these territory. IIRC we don’t allow the local PD to be judge, jury & executioners on the scene.

If you go to Stenvig's Wiki page you will see that he lost subsequent elections later on, ran for Secretary of State, and lost, and retired to Arizona.

Was re-elected to a third, non-consecutive term at the end of 1975.

And, today, the police chief is black, and is handcuffed by a police union and management agreement going back to the past.

From news reports, the current sheriff ran against a law and order guy and won. The current sheriff, a gay guy, stepped forward, from a position as a transit police officer, because the department had problems. He won.

Maybe you should focus on the power of the police union, its agreements that go back to the past administrations, and how they hamper getting rid of bad officers.

And, Stenvig was the one who was responsible for the police union agreements which made it difficult to get rid of bad cops.

"As Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey calls for reform and the district attorney files criminal charges against the officer, Derek Chauvin, activists are demanding changes to a department they say has long been plagued by racism and misconduct. Kroll, who has been accused of using excessive force and making racist remarks in the past, is standing behind his colleague as the public backlash mounts. “Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers,” he said on Tuesday, before the department fired Chauvin and three other officers who did not intervene in Floyd’s death.

The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis union became powerful in the 1970s, after one of its former leaders, Charles Stenvig, was elected mayor. Kroll became president of the union in 2015. Today, protesters and other activists in the city say the union, not the police chief, holds the most sway over officers and their behavior on patrol. “The only authority they respect is Police Federation President Bob Kroll,” Tana Hargest, a Minneapolis-based artist and activist, tweeted a day after Floyd’s death. “[T]here’s nothing our elected representatives can or will do to bring them to heel.”

Fer Sher! Most unions work diligently with management to unload the losers in their ranks, provide benefits at a level that's affordable in the long term, and keep wages reasonable. Minneapolis is the exception to the rule.

> At the national level, many observers were surprised that race could even be a political issue in Minneapolis given the city’s numerically small minority population… Although the city’s African American population was relatively small it was concentrated in several neighborhoods, which led to frequent incidents of alleged police harassment and the belief that residents of black neighborhoods were treated unfairly by the overwhelmingly white police force.

Is it possible that segregation itself, independent of police treatment, gives rise to a feeling of being treated differently?

Of course it does. That's what happens when a vestigial white governing structure rules over a non-white citizenry.

The problem is not segregation but integration. These problems arise, over and over, from the clash of differing behavioral norms. Passing a counterfeit $20 bill may be Serious Business in Minneapolis's majority-white police department but in more seasoned jurisdictions they'll tell the store manager they will get to it when they get to it. Arrests are fraught events; for police departments dealing with gangland levels of disorder, counterfeit bills are just not worth it. "That's what insurance is for," is the common refrain in low-trust US jurisdictions.

We need more segregation, and more local autonomy, so people can coalesce in communities of shared behavioral norms and values. The post-1965 American model just traps the parties in an abusive relationship.

Very interesting. Minneapolis has a certain stereotype of not being like other gritty Midwestern big cities, but I guess that stereotype isn’t or at least wasn’t true. I wonder if Minneapolis will lose some of this good reputation. Sanitizing one’s history is not necessarily a bad thing if one learns the lessons of those histories and treats people right going forward, but if problems rooted in that history persist, then that history will keep coming back.

Could it be "Law And Order" or "Police Reform" that comes from this:

From the Mpls StartTribune (note: Republicans are getting on the bandwagon)

"A day after Floyd died, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-East Gull Lake, tweeted that the “evident injustice in the disregard for [Floyd’s] humanity is appalling.”

“Going forward, I will work with other local and state leaders to see this pattern never repeat itself,” added Gazelka, whose caucus has vowed to make the June special session a fight over the governor’s emergency pandemic powers.

The recommendations before the Legislature came from a 16-member task force that spent more than a year on discussions and public hearings around the state. They include creating an independent unit to investigate cases of deadly force and to increase the power of the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board to allow officers’ licenses to be suspended or revoked at the request of a supervising officer or sheriff.

State Sen. Jeff Hayden, a DFL assistant minority leader who represents the area where Floyd was arrested, said Thursday that police reform needed to be part of any bonding bill discussions when the Legislature returns. Otherwise, he said, “we are not going to have business as usual and start passing bonding bills and start passing all the other things that we need.”

Why would it really matter if Republicans were on board or not? Police policies and training are local issues, and progressive mayors and city councils have been in charge (in most cases for decades) of essentially ALL of the cities with curfews and violent protests. So why weren't local police reforms implemented long ago?

Some might not want to connect the dots from the Gallagher pardon to police knocking down old men .. but they are clearly there. See also:

This is definitely a national tone, and Trump's America.

Oh, Joe Arpaio is obviously one of the worst politicians in the U.S. But Trump's 'tone' affects big city progressive mayors local exactly? Educate us -- show us those detailed connections from Arpaio to Minneapolis.

I'd seriously worry about anyone who could read that link and not see it in plain text. Second paragraph.

This paragraph:

A number of law professors and political scientists described the pardon as troubling and unusual. Several experts on authoritarianism described the pardon as illiberal and said that it undermined the rule-of-law. U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton, who handed down the guilty verdict, did not vacate Arpaio's conviction, ruling that while the pardon relieves Arpaio of the burden of punishment, it does not change the facts of his crime.

Establishes the link between Arpaio and progressive mayors not making it a priority to implement police reforms!?? So -- what -- those mayors had independent reform committees all set up and ready to go and then saw the news about Arpaio and gave up because....reasons?

You're coming pretty close to "It's just this war and that lying son-of-a-bitch Johnson".

Today is a sad day in America, and even as bored as I am with self-quarantine, I'm not going to take the bait that "progressive mayors" are responsible for this shift in police culture.

Shift!? What shift could you possibly be talking about? Who was president when Michael Brown was shot? How about Philando Castile? Laquan McDonald? Walter Scott? Tamir Rice?

It's amazing how the Trump White House was able to project its tone back in time into the Obama presidency. Your attempt to place responsibility for these incidents on Trump's 'tone' while exonerating those politicians who have long been in a position to do something directly about the problem it is pathetic. You very obviously care much more about your 'team' not being blamed than doing something about the problem (which, of course, all but guarantees that nothing will change). Disgusting.

Hmmm -- I'm guessing you don't know who is mayor of Salt Lake City. Hint -- she's young, female Democrat with a degree in Gender Studies.

That link shows policemen, with armored vehicles and riot kit, all wound up and ready to go. Sadly the only one they can vent on is an old white man with a cane. So they do.

Now, completely unaware of the irony, you say "yeah, but the mayor is a liberal, and a girl!"

Do you want to accuse me of partisanship again?

I am zero hope that you could actually rewind and look at the situation rationally.

For what it's worth, my analysis is this. Riots are bad precisely because everyone gets out of control. That's why we made sure our kid stayed out of downtown last night.

The madness of crowds is not just an empty phrase.

It can affect police as well as protesters. That is why you need discipline and standards from the top on down. That's why you don't pardon rule breakers who abuse their authority.

And that sir is a rational and nonpartisan response.

Riots are bad precisely because everyone gets out of control.

Now there's a brave, insightful take on the situation.

That is why you need discipline and standards from the top on down. That's why you don't pardon rule breakers who abuse their authority.

The local police simply do not work in a hierarchy that ultimately reports to the president. And the idea that the pardon of Joe Arpaio was some kind of triggering event when incidents of police brutality have been ongoing for decades is simply absurd. There's nothing whatsoever rational about your 'analysys', except it was apparently the best you could do to blame Trump. It's not just that this analysis is ridiculous, it's that it's self-defeating. Electing Obama did not cause nor solve nor exacerbate nor ameliorate these problems nor would electing Biden. That's because these are issue of LOCAL politics and policing. The party you apparently support has overwhelming political control over these cities and police forces and has had for a long time. Look in the mirror, figure out your mistakes, get to work and make the necessary changes and quit trying to deflect and blame scapegoats who live elsewhere and really aren't involved.

But electing Trump sure helped!

Slocum, so your point is "They are evil Dems!"? Color me unconvinced.

My point is that the police in big cities who've been behaving badly have been under almost exclusive Democratic Party control for a very long time. Why have not these progressive mayors and city councils addressed the problems before now?


Oh, I am so glad I can count you in on police reform.

Well, yes, you can. Here's a partial list of reforms I've long supported: 1. End use of civil asset forfeiture. 2. End the use of fines and fees to finance local governments. 3. End late-night, no-knock raids and knock-and-announce raids (which amount to the same thing). 4. End routine use of SWAT teams in drug raids. 5. Get rid of excess military gear in police departments. 6. Prevent cops from asking to search cars during traffic stops (as well as the use of drug-sniffing dogs during same). 7. Fire cops whose dash and/or body cams mysteriously stop working at (in)opportune times.

Note that these are all reforms that any local police department could adopt on its own with requiring any state, local, or national laws being changed.


Which of your listed reforms do you think Donald Trump would support?

Some--he has made some efforts in this direction. But it doesn't really matter because the point is that all of them can be enacted locally. Don't mistake me for a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him in '16 and won't in '20. I'm just arguing against the lazy, self-exonerating B.S. from the left that somehow Trump is at fault for police abuses in cities that they have run for years/decades. And how, BTW, could anybody who cares about this stuff support Biden either (given his role in the 1994 crime bill as well as the RAVE act). I certainly couldn't and won't vote for him either. But I'll bet you will.

City politics is much more complex than the simplistic notion that all power is in the hands of "progressive" elected officials. Remember that Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor of NYC partly on the strength of his opposition to the concept of civilian police oversight. Elected officials must navigate various interest groups, police unions*, county DAs, and limited resources.

* It's very interesting how rarely either side mentions this. Conservatives forget their usual distaste for public employee unions and liberals I guess don't want to be seen crapping on unions of any sort.

Of course politics is complex. But when you have a city that votes for Obama and Clinton at a 80-90% level, how exactly does that not give a mandate to a progressive mayor to do what she (and her voters) want? Suppose Lori Lightfoot loses the support of the police union -- how is that going to prevent her reelection in an overwhelmingly Democrat-voting city? Or are you saying that lots of city residents who vote for Democratic candidates in national elections are crypto law-and-order conservatives when it comes to local politics? Perhaps so. But in any case -- progressive (or 'progressive') blue cities heal thyselves.

Actually, we saw early in DeBlasio's first term what happens if the mayor loses the support of the police. The police decline to make arrests, middle-class residents and small business owners become very upset, and the business leaders who finance campaigns speak sternly to the mayor until he comes to heel. You think DeBlasio or Lightfoot or any big city mayor wants to face a primary opponent with the financial support of the local chamber of commerce, real estate board etc., plus the police unions? You will note that DeBlasio, having learned his lesson, basically endorsed the police who plowed their car through a crowd of demonstrators last night.

I don't dispute there are a number of progressive mayors and councilors in office today and if they fail to implement explicitly promised reforms, they would have themselves to blame. I am more questioning your claim that similar people have ruled over these cities for decades.

Even just twenty years ago, traditional machine politicians were the norm in many big cities and it's a mistake to try to impute ideology or national political issues to local politics. Was Rudy Giuliani a progressive? How about Philadelphia D.A. Lynne Abraham who bragged about the number of death sentences she was able to secure? I think you are relying heavily on stereotypes of what voters in blue cities are like and you would be surprised indeed at the number of burghers who may go all in for team blue when it comes to national politics but can be conservative when it comes to local issues.

I think you are relying heavily on stereotypes of what voters in blue cities are like and you would be surprised indeed at the number of burghers who may go all in for team blue when it comes to national politics but can be conservative when it comes to local issues.

Oh, I'm not surprised at all. Except it's not just the burghers (there aren't enough of them to elect a mayor), it's the rank-and-file citizens of blue cities who are worried about law and order (and vote accordingly). The fact that putative progressive voters support Obama and Clinton nationally but demand aggressive police tactics locally is exactly the damn problem that Democrats need to solve.. Full stop. It's on urban Democrats to solve this. Republicans are bystanders. They don't live, rule, or vote in the big cities where these abuses continue to occur decade after decade.

Tyler deleted a bad tweet which I think attracted good answers.

Something has happened in America, and we have lost our sense of what law and order really is. Sad clips are rolling in from all over,

Tyler, your post is misleading about Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota in 1967-1970. I arrived there on May 27, 1967, to pursue my Ph.D. in Applied Economics. After spending a couple of weeks there, I attended the AEA's English Course for Foreign Graduate Students in Boulder, Co, but by the end of August, I was settled in the Twin Cities. Until the end of August 1968, outside the classrooms, all talk was about the political unrest associated with the Vietnam War, including senator Eugene McCarthy's challenge to President Johnson in the primaries and since April 1968 the collision between McCarthy and Humphry (remember that both were old members of Minnesota DFL party). Since I had been involved in my home country's politics for years before moving to Minneapolis, during my time there I used to follow U.S. politics closely.

I don't remember any graduate student or professor interested in the local politics of Minneapolis. Despite the riots of July 1967 in the city, the limited discussion about racial tensions was centered on what happened in Detroit (I became so interested that just after watching the Dem Convention in Chicago, August 1968, I visited Detroit to see the incredible destruction of the city's downtown --in 1990, I visited it again because my eldest daughter was a graduate student at Cranbrook and I explained to her how much had NOT changed since August 1968). Your reference to the riots in Minneapolis is misleading because it ignores what happened simultaneously in other cities, in particular Detroit. President Johnson appointed the Kerner Commission that issued a report, largely ignored by old hypocrites that today cry for the new riots.

After the November 1968's presidential election, Humphrey joined the University of Minnesota. His disciple A. Naftalin was still Minneapolis mayor (he had been reelected just before the riots and served until July 1969, months after the inauguration of President Nixon). At the time Naftalin resigned to pursue a new term, the political discussion in the University was still centered on the war. I attended some of Humphrey's lectures (time and space allowed me to do it) and he never referred to racial tensions or Minneapolis' politics. McCarthy was no longer a senator but he was still making noise about the war. My point is that at that time racial tensions were not an issue in the university where most administrators, professors, and students were liberals (an exception was Malcolm Moos, the University's President, and former Ike's speechwriter, famous for inventing "the military-industrial complex" idea in 1959).

Also, I'm surprised by your reference to Manuel and Urban's paper on Stenvig because at the national level other mayors and politicians led the pursuit of "law and order". It seems that your interest is in Manuel and Urban's attempt to understand "how Stenvig successfully opposed liberalism's reliance on social scientific explantations to address issues such as crime" (p.196). Well, I assume that today Manuel and Urban may be interested in understanding liberalism's fake reliance on scientific explanations to address all issues, from crime to the pandemic. And I bet that, if elected, President Biden would continue ignoring the Kerner Report (I hope it's not because of his terrible memory) and appoint the Kerner II Commission.

I have just read this tweet

It looks like progressive projects didn't solve any of the old social problems. They just layered it with a whole new layer of insanity. Now the whole mess is spontaneously combusting.

Actually, the dominant racial controversy in that era didn't have much to do with African-Americans but instead involved the natives, especially the urban Minneapolis and St. Paul residents who made up much of the American Indian Movement and didn't have the unanimous support of their reservation counterparts. Their efforts led to the February 1973 fiasco at Wounded Knee, SD. Leonard Peltier remains imprisoned to this day for his role in the affair.

You might also want to look at how the Mpls police union makes it difficult to get rid of bad cops, and how Stenvig was responsible for protecting them. See my note above and this link:

The Minneapolis Police Department, like many others, isn't especially racist in its handling of the arrested:

Lt. Mike Sauro: After midnight on January 1, 1991, Lt. Mike Sauro was working off duty in uniform, at a club for a New Year's Eve party, when he arrested and handcuffed Craig Mische, then a twenty-one-year-old student at the College of St. Thomas, during a rowdy event. Mische claims he was kicked and beaten by Sauro in the club's kitchen while his hands were cuffed behind his back. Witnessestestified that they saw Mische being hit by Sauro, while officers contended that Mische was the aggressor.

In September 1992, federal prosecutors decided not to pursue the case, explaining, "We do not believe there's a reasonable likelihood that a jury would find [Sauro] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Local prosecutors also reportedly decided not to prosecute Sauro in relation to the alleged Mische beating. Mische filed a police misconduct civil lawsuit, and the city council decided against settling with Mische for $415,000, and instead went to trial. Their decision followed Sauro's campaign on television and radio news shows, defending his record and convincing the public and the council that the city would win if they went to court.

Sauro was wrong, and his conduct and the department's indifference cost the city $700,000, the largest civil award in a police misconduct case in the city's history; with attorneys' fees the case would cost the city over $1 million. The jury found the city liable for "maintaining a custom of deliberate indifference to complaints about excessive force in the department." At the time of the civil trial, Sauro had in his nineteen-year career reportedly been the subject of thirty-two internal affairs complaints, many alleging excessive force; none were sustained, and he was promoted through the ranks. In the Mische case, the department reportedlydecided not conduct an internal affairs investigation at all because its findings could have had a detrimental effect on the city's attempts to defend itself in the civil trial.

Sauro had been the defendant in an excessive force lawsuit that was settled for $350,000 in 1991. And in 1996, the city agreed to pay $300,000 to another plaintiff in relation to an alleged beating by Sauro on the same night as the Mische incident. In December 1996, the city settled for $25,000 with yet another plaintiff alleging excessive force used by Sauro in a September 1992 incident. While a sergeant, Sauro led the 1989 mistaken raid on the home of an elderly couple who were killed in a fire set off by the officers' use of a "flash bang" grenade - an incident that reinforced distrust of the police in the black community and led to the creation of the CRA.

Despite the large civil jury award and two attempts to fire him, Lieutenant Sauro has successfully fought efforts to have him removed from the force. In July 1997, an appellate court upheld an arbitrator's ruling that Sauro had been fired improperly in 1995 and should be reinstated with seniority and back pay. Sauro's lawyers had argued that the complainant's injuries were not consistent with his testimony and that the mayor's attempt to rescind a suspension ordered by the police chief and to instead dismiss Sauro constituted double jeopardy. Sauro was fired a second time by Chief Olson in July 1996 after an internal investigation into another incident. Chief Olson reportedly found Sauro's conduct, "incompetent, unprofessional and inappropriate, at best. At worst it constituted criminal assault." The dismissal was subsequently reversed by an arbitrator who cited the alleged victim's inconsistencies and lack of credibility. Lieutenant Sauro was again reinstated with rank and back pay. In an interview with Human Rights Watch, Chief Olson stated that the arbitration system was perhaps the greatest barrier he faces in his efforts to hold police officers accountable for misconduct.

Wow. The problem is the president of the Minneapolis Police Union. It must be the first time that Mother Jones complains about the president of any union.

So we are supposed to believe that neither the governor of Minnesota, nor the mayor of Minneapolis, nor the police chief of the Minneapolis Police Department has had any responsibility on what happened to George Floyd. Please read at least the entries in Wikipedia about the history of the Minneapolis Police Department, the governor, the mayor, and the police chief. More importantly, read about the murder of Justine Damond and ask yourself first why it became an international conflict that precipitated the firing of the previous police chief, and second why there were no riots.

Ask yourself about the long history of the DFL party and its control of the state and the city. And relate that history to what the history of the city's Police Department.

Bill, now Minnesota AG wants you to believe that rioters are white supremacists led by the president of the Minneapolis Police Union (Mother Jones must be coordinating the response).

At the same time, rioters are accused by Trump of fighting for social justice and his removal, while Biden's staffers are donating to pay bail of rioters. Wow.

that was then this is now hydroxychloroquine edition
after months of histrionics the tries

Saw this a couple days ago. Got to +1 on the scientists fighting the good fight to remain objective.

Should the anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in the Lancet prove to have been rushed out for dubious purposes, I doubt any of the "President Trump is killing people by advocating this!" bunch will spare much of a thought for people who've avoided hydroxychloroquine due to that study. Probably it would be, at best, "Well, it's better to take the precautious principle; we weren't really wrong" or somesuch.

Good thing the stores are destroyed just in time for the lockdown to end but curfews to start. I bet the stock market will still go up.

Breaking news from Minneapolis

"Big steps toward a much worse world"

Another month coming to an end and that's all we're seeing. It's time to move on, cut back on online participation here and elsewhere, retire the moniker, focus on something else. Sorry for the off-topic personal note. I'm out.

Actually came here to say the same thing. Life is too short and since my neighborhood is literally on fire, I’ve got more important things to worry about than the cognitive dissonance here.

Meanwhile, over on Fox News, the liberty-loving right is arguing for MORE survielance, more police powers, and more use of terrorism as a rational for heavy handed authoritarianism. Using the riots as a rational to extend the Patriot Act.

You know, just as long as the target is the left. And no one makes them wear masks in a pandemic.

So the long hot summer of '67 was analyzed by the Kerner Commission, a blue ribbon assortment of the elite do-gooder haut monde and right thinking mullahs, issued its 1968 report which can be completely summarized in two words: "blame whitey."

From the Kern report:

""What white Americans have never fully understood but what the Negro can never forget — is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it."

So of course the rioters were rewarded with hundreds of billions in spending and elevated to a mythological nobility.

The riots achieve their purpose. And so they have continued ever since. Low risk, guaranteed payout from feds. Plus satisfaction of hating whitey gives sense of superiority.

The Kern analysis is endlessly repeated. It is all the academicians know. Nothing changes.

We will only get more of the same unless the federal government steps back and stops rewarding the rioters and the Chatty Cathy pull-string doll academicians. The country is broke and these are the two highest return on spending cut options available. Time to pick the low hanging fruit savings.

"The country is broke"
Huh? Just roll in from another planet, did you? We were just able to put trillions of dollars toward bailing out not 'rioters' but upper middle class and above stockholders.

What is interesting is that Stanvig was the person responsible for forming an alliance with the Minneapolis Police union which through contract negotiations made it very difficult to terminate bad cops. See links I posted above.

So, why don't we discuss Law and Order, and police support of candidates, as regulatory capture: police unions get rules that make it difficult to terminate bad or non-performing cops?

If you take a long look at the Stanvig legacy, it is one of fostering and protecting police conduct which no longer matches the population being served, and making it difficult for police chiefs and elected officials to make necessary changes.

But, you won't see regulatory capture being raised here. In fact, you will probably see Trump trying to stand next to any policeman he can find.

They may keep there distance, however, because of the fear of contracting covid.

Now do the teachers unions, AFSCME, and California prison-guards and their roles in driving government pension plans off the cliff. Are the police unions better at protecting bad cops than the teachers unions are at protecting bad teachers? Anyway, I'm pretty sure you could get a whole lot of Republican support for abolishing all public-sector unions to prevent that kind of 'regulatory capture'. Are you on board?

Gee, when did you discover that unions go to great lengths to create rules that make it difficult to fire their members be it cops or teachers? And why have Democratic politicians who have dominated big city politics for so long done so little about it if they cared about the issue?

Ask yourself:

Did Stanvig run as mayor with the full support of the Police Union?
Did Mayor Guilianni run with and seek the support of the Police Union.

Will Donald J. Trump seek to saddle up next to the Police Union.

There are Democratic Mayors, including the Minneapolis mayor, you know, who urge police reform, but can you name me one Republican mayor who has. Or even a governor.

Post below.

You've found two long-gone law-and-order Republican city mayors. Giuliani left office almost 20 years ago. Stanvig left office over 40! years ago and since then the Minneapolis mayor's office has been continually occupied by Democrats. Blaming big city police union rules and behavior on Republican mayors is absurd. If Democrats can't make meaningful reforms in city policing after nearly half a century of continuous rule, what on earth are they good for? Democratic mayors don't need to 'urge', they need to ACT (they are the ones with the power to do so).

You get the Frank Rizzo award for

Here is an article which traces the Police Union power under Stenvig and how it last till today and how others have tried unsuccessfully to limit it.

Here is something about the Police Union president:
"Mayor Frey has, in turn, been critical of the union leader. “If he was sincere about wanting to bring trust and support about a public safety,” Frey told the Star Tribune, “he should spend more time getting to know residents and less time getting publicity from Donald Trump.”

After Floyd’s death, activists are pointing fingers at Kroll [the union president]. “We believe that this department wide sickness emanates directly from leadership—specifically the President of the Minneapolis Police Federation,” members of Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors, a network of American Indian organizations in the Twin Cities, wrote in a statement. “Mr. Bob Kroll has a long history of bigoted and ignorant remarks in the press, and public displays of allegiances with known purveyors of racism.”

As head of the union, Kroll has pushed for aggressive policing. Last year, Mayor Jacob Frey banned a “warrior-style” training for officers that has been linked with other officer-involved killings, including of Philando Castile in 2016 in Minnesota. As Mother Jones revealed in an investigation, the training promoted a “killology” view of law enforcement that urged officers to be prepared to use more force, not less. Kroll described the mayor’s ban as illegal and vowed to continue making the training free through the union for any officers who were interested. “It’s not about killing, it’s about surviving,” Kroll said of the training at the time.

For Kroll, Trump has been a natural ally. “The Obama administration and the handcuffing and oppression of police was despicable,” Kroll told CBS Minnesota after speaking at the president’s rally last year. “The first thing President Trump did when he took office was turn that around…he decided to let cops do their job, put the handcuffs on the criminals instead of us.” Before the rally, Kroll’s union sold “Cops for Trump” T-shirts, which brought in close to $100,000, as a way to protest the mayor’s prohibition on officers wearing their uniform to political events. Kroll wore one of the red shirts to the podium as Trump introduced him as “the great gentleman on television.”

Slocum, don't you know by now that I am always waiting for you to say something so I can come back with more facts to your baseless and unsupported claims.

It's like fishing.
You always take the bait.

So the mayor and the police commissioner are helpless? The Minneapolis Police Department is a workers' collective run by its union president? Sounds like an AOC fantasy.


Here are some facts and background appearing tonight in the WSJ supporting my comments. And, going into more detail, particularly about the police union.

If you do a little research, and ignore your prior believes, you can learn a lot.

Here is the link:

If there is a police union, isn’t there a contract which governs the union?

Is this contract negotiated every few years?

If so, doesn’t that usually mean everything is on the table for negotiation?

If the city had issues, couldn’t it have negotiated for something else?

Who approved the contracts over the years? Did the city council ever have to vote on it?

Read the article. Previous items I have posted indicate that the State is considering legislation to override the contract with legislation.

The contract provisions started with Stenvig who formed an alliance with the police unions. See previous posts and the WSJ article. It is an interesting research item and I would encourage you to research this from the links I posted. Good luck.

Do you want to bet that the next mayor of Minneapolis is another version of Stenvig?

Might you consider that the significance of the past week is that Trump might well beat Biden, who is afraid to criticize looters and rioters? Welcome back to Election Day 1968.

As for Biden's VP choice, MN's Sen. Amy K is now out of the running. I expect Sen. K. Harris of California will be his choice. That will appeal to the Democrat base but not to the swing voter. Biden's VP is likely to become president in the next four years if Biden is elected.

I would bet that a Stenvig person would not make it, based on the composition of the electorate.

As I pointed out, in the last election, a law and order sheriff was voted out and replaced by a former Transit police officer who ran on a ticket of modernizing the sheriff's office. The composition of a city is different than the composition of a suburb. It's also a younger demographic.

By the way, if you find that anarchist or right wing groups, including the groups that are gun rights groups, are involved in this in any way, you will see a backlash against them. There have been enough stories to support the claim that there are some outside right wing/gun/anarchist/bouliboys involved in disruptive dangerous activities. If this is true, look for a backlash.

It is also reported that a large truck ran into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators today.

FYI: " A tanker truck barrelled north through a crowd of thousands of protesters marching on the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis just before 6 p.m. Sunday.

Minneapolis police surrounded the tanker after it stopped in the middle of the bridge, guns drawn. It was unclear whether anyone was injured or taken into custody.

Drew Valle, a special education teacher at Minneapolis Washburn High School, said cars still driving on the roadway were going slowly to the right of the throngs of people when the truck came speeding towards the marchers.

"He wasn't stopping. He was beeping loudly and driving into a crowd of people," said Valle, visibly shaken. "That's the same kind of malice that brought us her. It's a callous disregard for someone's humanity."

Thousands of people were marching to protest the death of George Floyd had shut town two major interstates in Minneapolis and St. Paul on Sunday afternoon.

Westbound Interstate-94 in St. Paul was shut down midafternoon as about 1,500 people left a rally at the State Capitol and marched toward Minneapolis before exiting on Lexington Parkway and returning east on University Avenue."

A confusing story. It sounds like truck was both "barrelled" accross and "stopped" at the same bridge??

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

"Think what's happened in our cities when we've had riots and problems and looting. Stuff happens!"

( [Woke] Rumsfeld, 2003)

Comments for this post are closed