Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?
 |
Morning Jolt December 29, 2014
Hope your holiday was terrific. Just What Is the 'Appropriate' Way for Police to React to Mayor de Blasio?NYPD Commissioner William Bratton, Sunday: NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said it was "very inappropriate" for police officers to turn their backs to video screens showing Mayor Bill de Blasio speaking at an officer's funeral Saturday. Giuliani said. "The mayor is not in any way to be treated with people turning their backs. It doesn't matter whether you like the mayor or you don't like the mayor, you have to respect the mayor's position." Yes, the NYPD officers acted in a disrespectful manner when they turned their backs to the mayor. It's disrespectful because a lot of men and women on the police force do not respect the mayor -- right now, and sadly, for the foreseeable future. This was not an accidental faux pas; this was the clearest way to send the signal, "Despite the fact that you are in the city's highest elected office, we don't respect you."
Let's begin by saying that any NYPD officer reacting to the news that two of his brother officers were gunned down in cold blood deserves a wide berth in processing all of the emotions from that horrific event. There's a lot of anger in the force, and they've got good reasons to be angry. A symbolic gesture like this might be a particularly powerful and not destructive way of channeling that anger. "Respect the office, not the man." Boy, some elected officials make this simple request difficult. Just how contemptuous of others can an elected official be before he's no longer automatically entitled to "respect"? Can we all agree that an elected official can do something or say something that creates a circumstance where having a title in front of your name just isn't enough to require that respect? I'm sure we can all think of particularly vivid examples . . . "Meow!" (The details of Represenative David Wu's erratic behavior and psychiatric troubles can be found here.) Why are we asked to "respect the office" of mayor, president, or other elected official? Do custom and tradition and civic life really ask us to greet every action of every elected official with "respect"? Our system allows for the impeachment of presidents and other elected officials. Is that really "respectful"? Or is an impeachment an act of respect for the office, to decide that a particular individual, through criminal or other supremely unethical behavior, must be removed, because letting him stay will damage that office and the public's respect for it? If that's the case, respect for the individual occupying high office isn't automatic, compulsory, or reflexive. It is conditional -- given in broad conditions, encompassing mere political disagreement or personality conflicts. But that respect can be revoked, given sufficient provocation. Let's go back to what de Blasio said after the grand-jury decision in the Eric Garner case: I was at the White House the other day, and the President of the United States turned to me, and he met Dante a few months ago, and he said that Dante reminded him of what he looked like as a teenager. And he said, I know you see this crisis through a very personal lens. I said to him I did. Because Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years, about the dangers he may face. A good young man, a law-abiding young man, who would never think to do anything wrong, and yet, because of a history that still hangs over us, the dangers he may face -- we've had to literally train him, as families have all over this city for decades, in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him. And that painful sense of contradiction that our young people see first -- that our police are here to protect us, and we honor that, and at the same time, there's a history we have to overcome, because for so many of our young people, there's a fear. And for so many of our families, there's a fear. So I've had to worry, over the years, Chirlane's had to worry -- was Dante safe each night? There are so many families in this city who feel that each and every night -- is my child safe? And not just from some of the painful realities -- crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods -- but are they safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors? That's the reality. And it conforms to something bigger that you've heard come out in the protests in Ferguson, and all over the country. That's an explicit statement that he fears what the NYPD would do to his son. That's a pretty hefty accusation and one that he exacerbates moments later by contending that the police force he oversees makes its decisions based upon racism: This is now a national moment of grief, a national moment of pain, and searching for a solution, and you've heard in so many places, people of all backgrounds, utter the same basic phrase. They've said "Black Lives Matter." And they said it because it had to be said. It's a phrase that should never have to be said -- it should be self-evident. But our history, sadly, requires us to say that Black Lives Matter. Because, as I said the other day, we're not just dealing with a problem in 2014, we're not dealing with years of racism leading up to it, or decades of racism -- we are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is. And that is how fundamental the task at hand is, to turn from that history and to make a change that is profound and lasting. If you doubt that section of de Blasio's speech was directed at the NYPD, then ask yourself this: when the mayor says, "Black Lives Matter," who is he saying it to? Who does he think doesn't think that black lives matter? If you're a mayor and you accuse your police force of racism, can you really be surprised to see your police force behaving in a disrespectful manner? And can you legitimately expect them to continue to respect you? With all of that in mind, I wonder how many Americans agree with the president in this cheery self-assessment? President Barack Obama says the U.S. is less racially divided than it was when he took office, despite recent protests over police treatment of black people. Obama says mistrust between police and minorities isn't new. He says it's being talked about more because the proliferation of smartphones allows more interactions to be recorded. The president says he thinks the issue of race has surfaced in a healthy way. Obama spoke to NPR News before leaving for his winter vacation in Hawaii. He says it's understandable that many people feel race relations have worsened, pointing to extensive media coverage of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York. But he says minorities who have dealt with discrimination all their lives know things have improved. Gallup's long-term polling points to consistent, generally positive assessment of race relations, and then there's this recent poll: A majority of Americans now say that race relations in the United States are bad, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which showed the most pessimistic assessment of racial issues in almost two decades. In the wake of protests over the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, just four in ten Americans told pollsters that they believe race relations in the United States are "good," while 57 percent disagreed. And nearly a quarter -- 23 percent -- classified the current state of the country's racial issues as "very bad." The data showed a dramatic slide from just 18 months ago, when a July 2013 poll indicated that a majority -- 52 percent -- offered an optimistic view of race relations. The Two Biggest Donors in Politics Are on the Left The next time somebody complains about Republicans winning because of all of that big money in politics, remind them that the two biggest donors of this past cycle were Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, aiming to help pro-cap-and-trade and pro-gun-control Democrats. Steyer donated nearly $75 million, Bloomberg $27 million. By comparison, the biggest right-of-center donor was Sheldon Adelson, with . . . $13 million. A cheapskate by comparison! ADDENDA: Thanks to Doug Ross for naming the Morning Jolt his best newsletter of 2014.
Popular posts from this blogFOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats
Friday, January 05, 2024 Good morning and welcome to Fox News' morning newsletter, Fox News First. Subscribe now to get Fox News First in your email . And here's what you need to know to start your day ... FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy, Dems. Continue reading ... BUCKLE UP - Border state candidates issue stark warning to fellow Republicans about ceding to Dems on Ukraine. Continue reading ... 'MALIGN INFLUENCE' - Montana Republicans fume over university defying calls to shutter CCP-linked program. Continue reading ... IN A 'HUFF' - Christian influencer rips World Series champ who slid into her DMs, then deleted account. Continue reading ... SQUAD GOALS - Dramatic home video captures cat saving dog's life by chasing away coyotes in backyard. Continue reading ... POLITICS 'NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE' - Some senators back House threats to shut down government over border security.
Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs
Don't miss the best new biographies & memoirs from the past month, hand-picked by our editors! Each month, Readworthy highlights the best, most acclaimed new releases in your categories! Questions or suggestions? Let us know . . IN THE MEDIA Anderson Cooper says he was 'blown away' by this instant New York Times bestseller Academy Award–nominated actor and director Griffin Dunne details his unconventional coming-of-age in Hollywood — from getting fished out of the family pool by Sean Connery to surviving his sister's tragic murder. IN THE MEDIA Get on Amazon or Learn more... IN THE MEDIA The Washington Post hails this #1 New York Times bestseller as 'a classic American story' The doctor and former NIAID director who guided Americans through the COVID-19 pandemic writes candidly about his six-decade career in public health — and the political challenges he encountered along the way. IN THE MEDIA Get on Amazon or Learn more... IN THE MEDIA A dazzling
Inside J&Js bankruptcy plan to end talc lawsuits
Women alleging J&J products caused their cancer are caught in the crossfire. Sign up for Reuters newsletters One Essential Read One Essential Read Recommended by Kate Turton, Newsletter Editor The battle over J&J's bankruptcy plan to end talc lawsuits Eron Evans, shown here with one of her daughters, died in 2016 of ovarian cancer at age 41. She had sued J&J alleging talc in its Baby Powder caused her disease. Johnson & Johnson is attempting to end litigation by tens of thousands of claimants who believe its talc products caused their cancer with a so-called "Texas two-step" bankruptcy. The maneuver involves offloading its talc liability onto a newly created subsidiary, which then declares Chapter 11. The goal is to use the proceeding to force all plaintiffs into one settlement – without requiring J&J itself to file bankruptcy
|
Comments
Post a Comment