671 Comments

Cruelty, under the guise of caring, is the hallmark of the left today.

Expand full comment

There is an old saying (forgot who said) that "no tyranny is so pernicious and that which is purported to be done for one's own good"

I agree with you one million percent. I have shaken my head at the blind ignorance of progressives to people dying.. LITERALLY DYING.. on the streets in elevated numbers.

Who suffers with elevated crime? mostly the black and brown people they say they are helping.

What makes me happy (well not happy but maybe a little hopeful) is that more and more urban minorities are waking up to this reality.

On a macro level, I am also happy we are STARTING to see pushback to liberal media/culture. Box office is down for woke movies (some of that is pandemic and economics, some of it is people are tired of being lectured), conservative media (like Ben Shapiro) is doing very well, Elon Musk WILL close on the Twitter deal.

It's not even that i'm so conservative. I'm not. It's that we need a balance and this moralizing narcissisms\ and top-down control HAS to stop. The tactics employed by the institutional left and their media/cultural handmaidens are right out of the Soviet Union (not that severe obviously but cut from the same cloth) and I'm not for it.

Expand full comment

Gosh where have we heard this before? "Some reformers claimed that serious mental illnesses were the result of poverty and inequality, not biology, and argued that they could be cured through radical social change." Only an uneducated moron Democrat) would say something as stupid as this.

"...the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and lesser-known disability rights advocacy organizations and coalitions, which have sought to de-fund psychiatry, de-police cities, and de-stigmatize untreated mental illness.

From the 1960s to the 1980s, the ACLU and its allies successfully fought for laws to severely restrict the ability of family members and police to require the mentally ill get treatment. An often unacknowledged irony is that the homeless mentally ill themselves are at grave risk on the streets where they are frequently victims of violence and crime."

The ACLU could care less about the welfare of the general population. They have gone off the rails. They see the evidence of what they have wrought but their hubris refuses to let them admit it. They would rather break out with the pox than admit they were wrong.

Expand full comment
Oct 7, 2022·edited Oct 7, 2022

Polecat, you are 100% correct. In 1975, O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in mental health law ruling that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. The successive correlations to that law are three-fold: 1) Explosion of homelessness 2) Mass shootings 3) Untreated drug and alcohol addiction. What's really crazy is that at least one of the psychiatrists who fought for this law wrote an editorial in the NYTimes 9 years later--admitting that a massive "mistake" was made in not requiring involuntary institutionalization of the mentally ill (at least until the illness is treated). Many, many people have died and suffered because of this terrible law. Considering the advances made in mental health therapy and video/audio surveillance and communication devices (for families and hospitals keeping tabs on patients, and easy contact for families), there is NO EXCUSE for this failure of a ruling to stand. I recommend a book called My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill (available on Kindle) by Clayton E. Cramer--which is a thorough history and fascinating of mental health treatment in the USA--and covers the disastrous Supreme Court ruling that essentially shut down all the state-run mental health facilities that used to be available.

Expand full comment

And the states did a happy dance when the institutions were shut down. It got rid of a big expense the states were bearing.

Expand full comment

And sadly, now the homeless situation, coupled with the rampant crime from the drug-addicted and mentally ill, probably costs a thousand times more than than the semi-sufficient state-run institutions ever did. The main culprit in closing the institutions was not Reagan, but the ACLU, which regularly sued these institutions for various actions--making the patients "work" (Gardening, cooking, cleaning--what one may consider therapeutic jobs) and insisting that patients should be allowed to have sex with each other (which opens up another can of worms).

Expand full comment

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't see much similarity with the old Soviet Union. On the contrary. Do you think anyone could ever walk over the Soviet border? That border was secure. Pich a tent on the Red Square? A drunken person was not allowed on the streets of Moscow, let alone mentally ill. Criminals faces severe jail time. Meritocracy was everything.

And no one could be in their post forever.

This is not Soviet, this is some weird, psy op experiment.

Expand full comment

We're getting there, and we are a lot closer than people realize. It was only a short time ago that some Dem elected official suggesting putting Trump supporters in re-education camp. And, under Merrick Garland, the DoJ has gone berserk with how they approach taking political opponents into custody: absolutely berserk Medical associations are trying to revoke licenses of doctors who look after their patients before they look after the government line; CA even will/has passed a law to achieve that goal. And you have government leaders colluding with big tech to censor free speech. And you have government leaders colluding with big pharma to force an experiment, untested vaccine on the population so a few people could get incredibly wealthy.

LP is right.

Expand full comment

Yip LP 💯 correct!

Expand full comment

"Meritocracy was everything" I disagree. Nepotism was everything.

Expand full comment

You mean like the Cuomos?

LP, thanks for keeping me in check. Nepotism was of course rampant, and we all knew that the child of a " so and so" would get to any school they needed to get into, but there were only so many children of "so and sos" so for the rest of us the system was based on meritocracy: you do well in school, you do well on entrance exams and you get into the school you wanted. No social engineering, equity on anything like that.

Expand full comment

The Soviets were not meritocratic. They had quotas for Jews and other disfavored groups

Expand full comment

Still is.

Expand full comment

Well, the Soviet Union is what you get after the Left achieves its victory. The goal now is to use crime and disorder as a tool to bring down Western civilization. Once that is accomplished, those "allies" will be discarded.

Expand full comment

I have said that all along. The Democrat/Socialist Party has active communists in the house and senate, Bernie Sanders and AOC and her crowd.

Expand full comment

Completely. And until good, regular Democrats leave their party in droves—not to become Republicans, but to break the emotional chains that bind them uncomfortably to a death-wish base—this will only get worse and worse.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I hope that happens sooner or later. I may not always agree with the Scoop Jackson liberal, but we want the same things for our fellow citizens. We may disagree on how to get there, but that's negotiable. But American liberals absolutely must decouple themselves from the Left. Otherwise they will eventually realize that, to the Left, they are expendable.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Not so sure about the cruelty, Gordon. But blind incompetence? Probably. Misplaced guilt? Surely. I believe that we (not just the US, but other Western nations as well) suffer from what I might call the "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Syndrome."

Whereby liberals (and other political stripes) grew horrified by what so many mental institutions had become, where some were incarcerated while still sane - and then threw the baby out with the bathwater and closed almost every one of them down, instead of vastly improving conditions, care and vigilance within them.

Decades later, we are living through the effects of that.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Government has utterly abdicated its obligation to protect its citizens - whether from each other and from themselves.

Expand full comment

So mentally ill people are too ill to be held accountable but too well to be treated at an inpatient facility? Perfect. So people who aren’t capable of making sound decisions are free to do whatever they want in society and the rest of us have to pay the price. These people need help, but they also need to be take out of society until they’ve proven that they can participate peacefully in society. Perhaps some never will, and hail is no place for them, but a treatment facility that cares for them and protects the rest of us seems logical and sensible. The ACLU has lost the plot.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 6, 2022·edited Oct 6, 2022

Fair assessment. However, let's all remember, the mentally ill are exponentially far more likely to be victims of crime, rather than perpetrators. The overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by everyday, walkin' around "normal/sane" people.

Expand full comment

And those people are criminals and need to be locked up in prison.

Expand full comment

I wish we could live in a world where policy disagreements didn't lead to a moral indictment. That left right bubble needs to pop.

Expand full comment

Yeah....exactly how did you come to this?

Expand full comment

This is an example, green energy, critical race theory, critical vendor theory, school choice, Ukraine...the examples are too voluminous to list.

Expand full comment

The ACLU lost its way decades ago. Today they oppose government efforts to compel potentially dangerous people to take helpful medications. Concurrently they support government mandating vaccines for people who don’t need them even if they may cause harm or violate freedom of religion. Fascism has many points of origin. One is the early 20th century Progressive Movement and its cult of the experts. The statism of elites is America’s greatest danger today.

Expand full comment

Progressives are not progressive and liberals are not liberal.

Expand full comment

And the experts aren't experts at anything.

If Fauci was as good at preventing illness as Aaron Judge is at hitting homeruns... if Buttiegieg was as good at solving supply chain issues as Yo-yo Ma is at playing the cello... if Yellen understood how inflation happens as well as Matt Taibbi can turn a caustic phrase... then maybe the experts could be called that appellation. Until then, they're all morons.

Expand full comment

I appreciate the comparison of care mandates and vaccine mandates Bill.

Expand full comment
founding

Michael is, once again, on the right track. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s going near far or fast enough. One great benefit of civilization is that people have become civilized. Living on the street, for whatever reason, is uncivilized and completely unacceptable in 2022. Period, full stop. As tragic as these deaths are, the elephant in the room is much bigger than our once great society is paying heed to. Every city, big or small, should maintain a zero tolerance for homelessness. It could be as easy as citizens and local law enforcement working together to quell 90% of temporary homelessness in order to get these folks back to productive citizens again. Once that is accomplished,our healthcare system would be forced to handle the remaining 10%. We ALL need to participate no matter where we live.

Expand full comment

Homelessness is certainly a major problem, but the reason why so many are homeless is because of drugs. Whatever the reason they are on drugs is almost irrelevant, because the addiction has literally destroyed their brains. Even if they got clean, they wouldn't be productive citizens. We have to address the root problems to prevent this in the future. I don't understand, for example, why the government gives out money to people without anything in return -- like drug tests. Because there are many people who take the government $$ and then buy drugs and alcohol. As long as the government is funding their addiction, they will remain addicted and on the streets -- stealing to support their habit when they run out of welfare money.

Expand full comment

Not all on drugs. Some are victims of circumstance, with no traditional options. Find the sane and sober and give them an address. Then they can get a job and earn their way out of their dilemmas. Find the insane and treat them, getting them off the streets while they try to heal. Find the criminals, convict them for their crimes, and put them in prison. This takes effort by our leaders, who are not leading on this issue. Instead, they keep promising that, if elected, they will address homelessness. Sadly, they seem to like having the issue more than solving it.

Expand full comment

I agree … those who want help should be given help. But the overwhelming numbers of people on the street are addicts, which is my point. But I do support a helping hand. Sometimes people just need a break.

Expand full comment

And the CCP and the Mexican drug cartels appreciate the business!

Expand full comment

True, but as was explained, the ACLU will force the police and administration to let people live and die on the streets. Short of draconian laws, there is appears to be no solution.

Could you emagine the uproar from the left if SF or LA forcefully housed the homeless?

Expand full comment

Senator Weiner already tried to get a guardianship law for crazy people in the streets of sf. Jennifer Friendbach, head honcho of the homeless coalition, fought against it. Fixing the homeless might actually put her out of a job. This speaks directly to what the author is saying.

Expand full comment

"It could be as easy as citizens and local law enforcement working together to quell 90% of temporary homelessness in order to get these folks back to productive citizens again." Um ... how do you propose to do that? How does one get seriously mentally ill, drug addicts and/or alcoholics "back to productive citizens"? Even for the homeless who are none of the above (a minority), that's a momentous task.

Michael has written in detail before about the "homeless industry". It is not only the ACLU. All the groups involved in "helping" are activist groups who believe in "housing first" and are adamant that the mentally ill should be able to refuse treatment (much less institutionalization). None of this is ever going to change (well, except to get worse). So if you live in or spend time in cities in America, you just have to take your chances.

Expand full comment

Just about every crackpot scheme the prof believes in and forces on the students he "teaches?"

Expand full comment

And it starts EARLY in education. It doesn't wait till the college years

Expand full comment

It seems past time to treat the prof like the troll he is: meet him with silence.

Expand full comment

Celia, that is exactly what he is. He never addresses a post head on. He diverts and makes what he thinks is a "snappy response". He never gives specifics, always loony left generalities and never backs up anything he says.

Expand full comment

I ignore him for the ignorant troll that he is. If you respond to him, you are wasting your time and just feeding his damaged ego.

Expand full comment

I too hate when people use their free speech.

Citation: U.S. Constitution.

Expand full comment

I suppose I should quit playing the role of his foil........

Expand full comment

You should. The guy's a moron.

Expand full comment

He claims to be a college professor. I bet he can't even spell university much less teach at one.

Expand full comment

Me too Bruce. You have all probably been shaking your heads at all my efforts to give the benefit of the doubt and be nice.

Expand full comment

I tried but now I am taking y'all's advice. Whats really weird to me is why someone would spend so much time (and subscription $) on something you don't agree with and absolutely no benefit comes your way. I don't enjoy horror movies or really even the sci fi genre so I would never spend 2 hours and $15 to go see one of those movies. I truly don't see what the upside is for him.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

$5 isn't that much.

Aren't you guys always claiming "others" (i.eLeftists, Libtards, Democrats, etc. are living in THEIR ideological bubbles? Isn't that your big claim to fame "Free Speech Warriors" not fallin' for the propaganda? Lol.

So...you're basically paying to get stroked, agreed with constantly, reaffirm biases, stay in YOUR ideological bubble, etc.? Sad.

Actually, intially subscribed to lett people know about Bari Weiss' "Cancel culture" hypocrisy...all the other is grayy.

Expand full comment

I too hate when people exercise their free speech.

Expand full comment

Lol....you're not well acquainted with academia, are you?

Expand full comment

Probably spent more years than did you listening to their nonsense. But no time purveying it.

I have, however, had to deal with your "products." Not a happy lot.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

People are not products.

The rest of your statement is disjointed.

Expand full comment

good intentions = unintended consequences.....

the hallmark of the left.

Expand full comment

I would leave out the good intention part.

Expand full comment

Well I think the majority of classic liberals think their way is best and are thinking emotionally vs rationally. Now the rest of the extreme progressives - I don't know. And the elite progressives have one thing in mind - power.

Expand full comment

Well, they intend to do themselves good...

Expand full comment

I'm trying to like your comment but system won't allow it

?????

Expand full comment

That happens to me 50% of the time! Not sure why that is...

Expand full comment
founding

Same happened to me yesterday! Not sure why??

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

No it did not pass in the system. I voted for it but common sense is not part of the progressive thought process. Jennifer runs a powerful agency that receives untold millions to run it (look her up) so she wields alot of influence. It's maddening. Now the Mayor wants to increase the budget to 1 billion, yes with a B. It's nothing but an industrial complex at this point. I live in SF. We would see the street outreach vans parked down at Crissy Field "taking a break". Yeah right. Omg, I just realized what you were saying about the "system". Lol, sorry for the rant and yes I have the same issue at times

Expand full comment

So...all those intersect with mental health services?

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Comstock

You are cluelessly wrong about Ukraine.

Expand full comment

If the reports are true of a peace deal at the beginning of the conflict that was scotched by Biden and his bloodthirsty harridan, Noodlehead, then all the death, destruction and economic turmoil was avoidable and Biden - the senile imbecile - has unnecessarily brought us closer to nuclear war than since the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago.

Expand full comment

"If the reports are true of a peace deal at the beginning of the conflict that was scotched by Biden ..."

"If" is the biggest elephant in this room, Bruce. I've gotten lost in the thunderstorm of "facts" about Ukraine and any "peace deal." Who knows what's true right now?

If there was a proposal, I'd love to know the details. One that says "Putin keeps everything he stole in exchange for 'peace,' " hell, I'd reject it too.

Expand full comment

Agree. If we had a real free press, instead of a bunch of lapdogs functioning as the propaganda arm of the DNC, we might know the truth. So we're all just speculating at this point. But the really disturbing part is that both Ukraine and Russia appeared to be ok with it. If so, this was all an avoidable tragedy. If not, just another rumor.

Expand full comment

My father was a dentist in a VA hospital for the mentally ill.

When Pennsylvania started allowing patients to sign out with no physician approval in the 1970’s dad said they’d injure and kill others.

And so they did.

They still do.

Yet somehow their “right” to roam free is more important than accosted and murdered innocent human beings.

So this isn’t a new problem. This is self-induced lunacy by government fiat and truly a destructive political stunt.

I’m unclear how people sworn to uphold the constitution can deliberately harm people directly or indirectly by inaction.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

When I was young I thought my dad was raving mad she he said the problem was they let the loonies out. Apparently, my dad was 100% sane, smart, and knew exactly what the problem was. Now I know why my dad was so mad when he read the papers and watched the news.

Expand full comment

Because the people sworn to protect and uphold do it all from their Ivory Towers! They are not affected by the destructive policies they support. We, as a society, need to engage and vote all of those that do harm OUT

Expand full comment

Some are a threat to others, to be sure, but 90% of them are mostly a danger to themselves.

Expand full comment

Which is also unacceptable. It is not the act of a compassionate society to let people kill themselves just because they can, when they are mentally ill and could be helped.

Expand full comment

Why on earth are we so obsessed with forcing people to stay alive?!? They are the ones who have to live their life. If they find life unbearable, it seems the height of cruelty to prevent them from choosing to leave it.

Expand full comment

Celia the most sane person here today.

Expand full comment

Not so much "forcing them to stay alive" as helping cure them of the delusion that they would be better off dead.

Expand full comment

And if it isn't a delusion?

Expand full comment

That would go against millions of years of evolution that ingrained survival as one-a the two primary instincts of humans, right?

Expand full comment

Sorry, but I gotta disagree strongly with this.

Because people will often find that "unbearable" life becomes bearable, if they give it a chance. Cruelty to give the chance to them? Force it on them? I'm not seeing that.

Expand full comment

There a difference between offering a lifeline and lassoing someone.

Expand full comment

The end result would be the same in both cases. Only necessary in a few.

Expand full comment

While mental illness removes choices, treatment can give options. If, after treatment and restoration of mental competence, a patient still determines their burden of life is too great, they still have the option of leaving their life. During the height of a mental illness exacerbation, their ability to make good choices is impaired.

Expand full comment

Even people who kill themselves harm others. For life.

Expand full comment

90% of protests were also non-violent and not destructive.

Expand full comment

Yea they are. This is why Philly is dangerous.

Expand full comment

Not where I live

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

I doubt you would know how often the mentally ill hurt or kill themselves. The media only cover when the mentally ill harm or kill an innocent person, so their self-harm is virtually unreported.

Expand full comment

Although it is a little publicized statistic that as much as 60% of what is termed "gun violence" is suicide. That doesn't fit the typical gun control agenda. For far left progressives, one of whose agenda items is access to assisted suicide, it begs the question, why do we then want gun eradication?

Expand full comment

Completely agree, but as this article makes clear, at least half the problem lies with NGOs like the ACLU.

Expand full comment

Which are run by the left, but I agree with you

Expand full comment

Exactly right about that. The NGO space is really just an extra-governmental extension of the left, disguised as non-partisan to maintain its charity tax status. If churches end up having to pay taxes, so should NGOs.

Expand full comment

There's a theme in all this. Absolute ignorance of REAL human fallibility driven by fallible, gullible, moral narcissists: "Powerful groups have effectively prevented dangerously mentally ill people from getting treatment." The same ilk that insist cutting off your kids' secondary sex organs is "saving" them. The same useful idiots behind defunding the police. And on and on and on. This is about THEM. Their moral superiority. It's NOT about ensuring the best outcome for everyone.

Last year on the day after Thanksgiving, I was attacked on the subway by a schizophrenic, whose vitriol included that I deserve to die for being white and he was just the hero who would eradicate me and my fellow white people from the face of the earth. He spat all over me between stations. To this day, I will never understand how such a clearly deranged, enraged person somehow withstood the palpable urge to beat me to death.

But the trauma this would cause anyone is no concern of the morally superior.

Another case in point: I gave a talk on dying alone and ending up in a potter's field, with two case studies on how this happened. The (mostly white, female) audience felt no compassion because -- ironically -- the women who died alone and unclaimed where white. They immediately returned the discussion to inmates, about whom they "care" much more -- despite the fact that inmates don't actually die alone in their bathtubs with no one to notice until the building starts to stink. The other interesting feature was that they were completely ignorant to this as THEIR future, and defied my suggestions on how to prevent it (get married, have kids). Those they want to "save" won't be there for them in the end, but they seem oblivious to this.

Somehow, some way, we have to stop listening to these busy bodies.

Expand full comment

We need to stop listening to them in the same way we hustle past the deranged lunatic shrieking into the void. They are insane. With beliefs that would have gotten them committed just a decade ago.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Just a lighter note on a serious subject:

Your 'shrieking into the void' comment brings back memories of my brother and I walking down the streets of Manhattan as we so often did, remarking on the many examples of people barking out loud nonsense to no one in particular. Our tag line was that they might have been unemployed actors just rehearsing their lines as they headed to their audition.

Expand full comment

And now they're just as likely to be an investment banker or corporate lawyer barking nonsense into his or her mobile phone mic. And yet......

Expand full comment

Ahh..

and yet..

Expand full comment

If the white feminists you spoke to really cared about female inmates, who are overwhelmingly women of color, they would fight like demons to remove the trans-identified males, many convicted of murder and rape, and almost all with fully intact male genitalia, from women’s prisons all over the country. What could possibly go wrong (and has)?

The same anti-reality ideology that allows severely mentally ill people to languish and die on the street and commit violent crimes, informs the absurd notion that a six foot two rapist with testicles and breast implants needs housing in women’s prisons for “her” own protection and out of respect for “her” gender identity.

Expand full comment

When You're right, You're right.

Expand full comment

anti reality ideology is a spot on description.

Expand full comment

They get away with their society-damaging nonsense because they never have to deal with the consequences.

Expand full comment

Kinda like the politicians in NY only now getting alarmed about a few thousand illegal migrants.

Expand full comment

Not yet, anyway. They do ride the subway and walk the streets of NYC.

Expand full comment

I suspect that the wealthy white females who comprise the biggest cohort promoting this nonsense don't ride the subway.

Expand full comment

I get where you’re coming from, but as a New Yorker, it’s my observation that just about everybody rides the subway. Even those people who can afford to take an Uber can’t deny that the subway, absent its random delays and breakdowns, is the most convenient way to avoid the bumper-to-bumper traffic in New York and get where you’re going on time.

Expand full comment

From what I have heard anyone that can avoids going anywhere too far from where they already are. Another reason small businesses struggle. People aren't afraid of covid they are afraid of being victims of crime.

Expand full comment

I'll have to take your word for that. My only personal encounter with a subway system was in London in 1980. But almost every day I read stories of assaults on the NYC subway. I would rather deal with traffic than subject myself to that risk.

Expand full comment

Isn't it crazy? That there is such a PROFOUND blind spot on the part of progressives' to certain types of people. I have a friend who is an older, white progressive (retired teacher). And she OPENLY said to me "yeah I don't care about what happens to poor white people. Only black people." Like ok, I get it you're focuses on one group but to openly say you don't care? I questioned her on it and she doubled down.

And I like to think of her as a nice person. She sent me happy fall card with a pumpkin latte on it! But that's always been in the back of my mind.

Expand full comment

I’m sure she hangs out with her poor black friends a lot, gossiping over pumpkin lattes.

(BTW, we’ll see what happens to all the supposed concern for poor people “of color” when they stop voting for Democrats.)

Expand full comment

We've already had an abundant display of how Democrats feel about black conservatives. The racism of the party never went away; it just got channeled into "helping" blacks in ways that simultaneously encouraged them to vote Blue AND did long-term harm to them.

If more Hispanics start voting Red, I bet the Democrats' border policy will change.

Expand full comment

It certainly will. Itll be funny in 20 years when democrats want more immigrants from secular european countries and republican want more immigrants from latin america and christian africa. I love how time and the constancy of change upends the narratives that people fight vociferously for their whole lives

Expand full comment

Nice people don’t believe in and support evil ideas.

Expand full comment

Bill Burr, the comedian, has an AWESOME bit on white women and how they took over social justice. He did a monologue on SNL. The audience cringed. I LOVED it:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xgXJ5_Q34&t=376s

Expand full comment

wrong link. this one goes to a mono about black people and what month they get

Expand full comment

Start from the beginning. He does the but about white women a little into it.

Expand full comment

Lol...."Defund the police" was about reallocation of a % money of overly militarized, bloated PDs, to alternate services such as mental health, social services, etc....but everybody hated that idea.

Expand full comment

No it wasn't. It was a polemic. A pro-criminal, anti-law and order screed to glorify and excuse criminals.

Expand full comment

No. It was to allocate some bloated/overmilitarized funding of PDs to social, family, health services, etc. Everyone hated it. The "polemic" was that "Leftist" want to send social workers to stop bank robberies and get everyone killed...kinda what you just typed.

You get what you pay for. You also get what you DON't pay for. Mentally ill people stabbing folks and pushing them in front of trains? Oh, well. Let's just go with what we all seem to like better: more militarized police to shoot mentally ill people more efficiently.

Expand full comment

Great hyperbole. We need our police to protect the populace from the mentally ill. More police, less ill people pushing folks in front of trains and stabbing others. I can’t understand how you advocate for the opposite.

Expand full comment

Probably because mental illness and crime are two different things? And mentally ill people are exponentially more likely to be victims than perpetrators? And the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by the non-mentally I'll?

Again, you are proving my point. Solve it on the back-end.

Expand full comment

“On the backend”? You mean after the crime has been committed? Yes of course solve that. But I advocate preventing as much crime as possible, and it doesn’t matter to me if the perpetrator is mentally ill or a common street thug. I propose doing this by having more police, and for that cohort being highly visible. Hire as many social service folks as you wish to do the important work they do, but hire and properly train far more individuals in an authority role - police - that will hopefully reduce/prevent anyone from terrorizing the innocent.

Expand full comment

OK, so you are doubling down on the intent, can you provide the source of your opinion on that intent? I'm going to venture a guess that well over 3/4's of the pro-"defund-the-police" proponents and a large percentage of the people actually involved in the movement have got no clue as to the costs and allocation balances and availability and efficacy of any the "defund" (not read: re-allocate certain funding) police proposals.

Quit clutching pearls when confronted with the fact that the movement was a corrupt, propaganda scheme. Look at its leadership and those that lurked in the shadows (and why).

But, I could be wrong, let's see proof/support of your opinion.

Expand full comment

Exactly. From what I saw, it was mostly “pick an arbitrary large number, slash police budgets by that amount, and figure out the details later.” There may have been defund advocates with an actual thought-out, reasonable plan, but they did not appear to be the ones driving the bus. If I’m wrong about that, well, seems there was a serious messaging problem that handicapped the movement.

Expand full comment

Messaging was atrocious. Fox News/Newsmax was better. Which is why everyone here keeps talking about "Sending social workers to a bank robbery."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/19/7-myths-about-defunding-the-police-debunked/amp/

Expand full comment

Oh, I won't even bother to ask for support for your "bloated, over-militarized PDs" lol.

Propaganda, it's what's for dinner, and you've had thirds and have licked the mixing-spoon, it appears.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Of course you won't bother. That's how one stays ill-informed. Classic, outstanding text on the issue. Consider reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Expand full comment

I'll stop with this last piece, but make sure you don't bother to read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/19/7-myths-about-defunding-the-police-debunked/amp/

Expand full comment

Lol. You probably think being a police officer is an exceptionally dangerous job and they're woefully underpaid as well, too.

Seems you've had quote your fill of copaganda as well.

Expand full comment

Yes...as soon as you provide your source that "Defund the Police" means to abolish PDs and replace them all with social workers.

Expand full comment

I got it!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis

It is not too much of a mental stretch to see that several of the academics interviewed pretty much say "abolish and replace." It is even from Vox...👍

A distillation for public consumption? Yup. But you get my drift...

And thanks for posting on here Comprof. There is probably not a better and more pleasant person to interact with in this forum who single-handedly strengthens the views of sanity.

Expand full comment

You missed the memo, Comprof. It purchased houses for BLM grifters, decreased and demoralized police departments, and increased crime. I just watched the entire George Floyd video and you should too, before carrying on with your "moral" crusade that has actually killed more people of color than any corrupt police officer ever did. People like you are the real danger to society.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

And you have missed the facts/date

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/19/7-myths-about-defunding-the-police-debunked/

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/myth-of-the-ferguson-effect-is-hard-to-kill/

You JUST now watched the entire George Floyd video? Kinda late to the party, don't you think? What do you mean the "ENTIRE" video....is there video of him murdering or assaulting someone before the cops arrived? Why has no one seen this "entire" video yet?

You watched it....and you say "You should too." Sounds like you think what happened was acceptable. Ok. Lots of Americans probably feel that way. Cool - if I'm reading you wrong- let me know.

You're not concerned about "people of color" stop reverse virtue-signaling.

Maybe protestors should have taken a knee or something? That probably would have been real popular/effective and people would have been super reasonable in their responses and not become unhinged at all.

Now....are we just talking about ONE corrupt police officer.....or CORRUPT OFFICERS/PDs (multiple, throughout history starting in the 1800s, when PDs were formed) - cause I doubt your argument would hold up to the data. Also, when did this "moral" crusade come into being, in your opinion?

Anyway, let's dispense with the BS. America doesn't like ANY protest, from anyone, least of all from those outside the dominant culture, so you can save that gaslighting for someone else.

Expand full comment

You’re right that most of the people promoting “Defund the Police” (in the running for the world’s dumbest, most self-defeating slogan) wanted reallocation (and most also displayed about as much nuance in their understanding of the issues as you do here).

But there were also some who meant “no more police” and saw this as the moment to promote the “abolition” movement that had been percolating for years in certain activist and academic circles. They view the people insisting, “No, we don’t really mean stop funding police” as weak-kneed centrists and sellouts. See for example: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-abolish-the-police-mean

They’re probably angry that their moment is gone. They did get as close as the wacky Minneapolis city council voting to dismantle their police force.

Expand full comment

Well, posterboards and signs don't leave a lot of room for explanation/articulation of details.

Personally, don't see the point of the discussion. America likes being reactive, not proactive - prefer LE to be problem-solvers on the back-end.

So, don't really see the point of complaining about "mentally ill" mass shooters or when a mentally ill person shoves someone in front of trains.

The only popular union in America seens to be police unions. Money is better spent on incarceration or hiring more cops, or more recently, just have everyone open-carry. Fine. Those are all options.

To me, even if the proposition of "defunding" were explained with perfect clarity, we'd still have the majority against, "Having social workers stop bank robberies."

So....might as well just live with it. Nothing is changing.

Expand full comment

Um, reactive is how the justice system works. Pro-active measures are the institutions of family and community. The "social contract," remember?

Many government social programs currently reward the destruction of the family and community. Want better? Change those policies.

Expand full comment

Are you really a professor? Sigh …

Expand full comment

Yep. Have to deal with data....like this.

https://www.invictuslawpc.com/most-dangerous-jobs-osha/

Guess what? With benefits, overtime, asset forfeiture, etc.....not underpaid either.

Expand full comment

I wasn’t referencing that. I have no reverence for the police (probably more *respect* than you do). It was really more just a quip about your overall tone and the quality of most of your posts. The role you try to play here is fine and could be a valuable one — except you’re not very good at it.

And I actually am not surprised that you’re a professor; I was in academia a long time, and I know what professorship does and doesn’t mean.

Expand full comment

Tell you what, Comprof: YOU rely on these brilliant social workers to protect YOUR family. Just don't try to make me do so. I'll take a cop with a gun any day of the week!

Expand full comment

Even better, a gun, period!

Expand full comment

Fine. We can all just shoot it out. Whatever. That's one option.

Expand full comment

The NYPD who came to my apartment for access to camera footage in the investigation of an infant slaughtered in gang crossfire at a playground around the corner had grown up in Brooklyn in the 90s and joined the force to protect their communities so no kids would have to dodge bullets on their way to school like they did. The (black) grandmother of this infant declared that she WANTS police protection. These detectives told me that the night before, due to new restrictions on handling perps, they literally had to stand back and watch some asshat spray a shopping street with bullets. Perhaps the social worker could have gone in there and stopped it because you know, social workers are what -- GOD? Some special species equipped with special powers?

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Sigh....once again.We have another winner It's not about "Sending social workers to a bank robbery." or to a situation with armed violence.

It's about reallocation a portion of bloated/overmilitarized LE budgets to help with mental illness, family/health services, BEFORE people get into crisis/turn violent

Every mass shooting is a result of "mentally illness," right? But God forbid we try a supplemental route. So, stop complaining about them. Apparently we like them.

Don't worry, your anti-proactive stance is very American. In this culture, we like solving problems with bullets on the back-end. So, the decisions we've made, as a culture, is to encourage everyone to carry a gun in public and/or keep increasing militarized police so they can get to mentally ill people more efficiently AFTER they've fallen through the cracks and shoot them in a more efficient manner.

You get what you pay for. You also get what you don't pay for. Mentally ill people stabbing folks and pushing them in front of trains. Oh, well. Just another day that ends in Y.

Hopefully, you never have anyone in your family dealing with a mental health crisis, in home or outside, because that "anyday" cop with a gun that shows up is 99.9% likely to kill them....but shit happens.

Expand full comment

"It's about reallocation a portion of bloated/overmilitarized LE budgets to help with mental illness, family/health services, BEFORE people get into crisis/turn violent."

Yes, we need to intervene and treat before someone else gets pushed into the path of a train. But reallocating police budgets won't do the job.

Police budgets are hardly bloated. The money funds day-to-day police operations that are critical to maintaining public order, and that's about it. I'm sure some line items are padded, particularly in administration, but so is every line item in every budget in the United States, public sector or private. Cop shops are not a bastion of wild spending, and if you don't believe me, do some ride-along with your local police. Enjoy the rattle-trap cars with computers that don't work 20 percent of the time.

Next: camouflage clothing, tactical gear, armored vehicles, weapons, and other military gear? They're provided to departments for free via the Department of Defense. By and large, cop shops are not buying this stuff, they get it gratis, so it has zero impact on police budgets.

Should cops quit dressing like soldiers in the Stan? Absolutely. There is no earthly reason for a cop to trot around city streets in jungle or desert camouflage. They're peace officers, not SEALs. Blue and tan police uniforms say "police." Camo and tactical gear shout "soldier." Get rid of the war look and things calm a bit. Even SWAT teams don't need soldier suits.

The military tools cops DO need are rifles, armored vehicles, tear gas, ballistic shields, and other protective gear. Every squad and detective car needs one or two rifles, helmets, shields, and protective gear---if street cops have to intervene in the next school shooting, they have to hit the ground running and need the gear to do so. Every department occasionally needs an armored vehicle and the rest. Since taxpayers already forked over for them once, why not repurpose them as police items? I'd rather re-use the stuff than melt it into scrap.

DOD items in and of themselves are not the problem. Their use is. Better for the FBI and law enforcement accreditation agencies to update standards and practices on use of this stuff than to ban it.

We can argue all day whether police budgets are allocated correctly. But "bloat" is minimal. Eliminating it--assuming you can define what is or isn't bloat and waste--will not pay for the social welfare and mental health intervention services that most everyone agrees we need. Cops don't want to deal with the mentally ill, they'd rather leave that to specialists so they can catch crooks. Let's free them to do that. But cutting PD budgets 20-50 percent--yes, some cities tried that and reversed course when crime exploded--is stupid.

We need well-funded cop shops, and we need well-funded intervention services. They are not the same thing.

Final notes:

"Any day that a cop with a gun shows up is 99.9% likely to kill them" is utter bullshit. Cops interact with citizens 60 million or more times a year . . .

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf

. . . and in all those annual interactions, cops shoot and kill 1,000 citizens, which includes criminals, suspects, mentally ill, arrestees, and innocents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

Expand full comment

Too many of the mentally ill who get shot would not have been in that situation to begin with if they were appropriately institutionalized.

Expand full comment

I completely agree. My point was that cops do not shoot and kill waves of mentally ill people as the commentator suggested. I'd prefer the number be zero, but until we begin taking treatments seriously, deaths will continue.

Expand full comment

Shane you say "we can argue all day" and that's exactly what Comprof will do if you engage.

Expand full comment

I wish I'd known that before I jumped in :-) I thought he was a serious commentator. Thanks.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

You mean the 99.9% is bullshit....so I guess being a cop isn't really that dangerous after all, right Shane?

Read Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop."

Expand full comment

Since 99.9 percent of the mentally ill who interact with cops are NOT shot and killed as you claimed, then yes, your statistic is utter bullshit.

And while being a cop is not the most dangerous job on earth, it's not nearly as safe as you seem to believe. Cops are routinely assaulted and abused. It is a hard physical job that brings on strokes and heart attacks. Adrenaline blasts and recedes, blasts and recedes, affecting their health. Cops do not have to be murdered in order to have a dangerous job.

On "warrior cops . . ."

I write crime novels, and before that, was a Chicago newspaper editor. I have taken warrior cop seminars, completed live-fire training courses, read the literature including Balko, and know some of the leading warrior cop advocates. Your fears are overblown. Like most other things with catchphrases, "warrior cop" is more marketing schtick than reality, used primarily to sell expensive seminars to cop shops around the world. Not to say some of what they teach isn't useful, but the benefits accrue more to the training company than the students.

Actual "warrior cops" are those who pay attention to their surroundings, act appropriately to the moment, react instantly to danger, defuse what they can, escalate what they must, and go home after their shifts. I presume you like to go home after work? Why shouldn't they?

You want an example of an actual warrior cop? Here's one from Naperville, Illinois, where I lived for more than three decades. It is a suburb of Chicago with a crime rate among the lowest in the nation for midsized cities. Despite that, a routine traffic stop became a nightmare in less than two seconds. You think you could have stayed as cool and on-point as this cop? Or would the guy have sunk the hatchet into your head?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y09g2tNGHrg

Expand full comment

This article, however, shows how difficult it is to effectively use public safety money for mental illness treatment - those in need of treatment are being “protected” from being treated. If the choice is between jail for an unstable mentally ill person or mandatory treatment, I would pick treatment every time. Unfortunately, this is not an option open to us. The excessively compassionate have deemed mandatory treatment for the mentally ill to be cruel.

Expand full comment

I agree, Sandy. Even a good jail is far more cruel than any treatment center. If something is going to be mandatory, better the latter than the former for the sake of the person. Urban county jails are the nation's largest mental institutions, and that's a crying shame. There's no treatment in jail, just harsh warehousing.

Expand full comment

Yeah....or maybe people don't want their taxes increased and mental health services are extremely underfunded?

Yep. This is just another example of "wokeness," right behind veganism.

You get what you pay for. You also get what you don't pay for.

Expand full comment

Nothing wrong with veganism, though I prefer my meat red and tasty. But I agree that we get what we don't pay for in treatment of mental illness: we pay higher taxes for local jails to warehouse the ill than we'd spend treating the problem with compassion and sense.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

No, everybody hated the ACAB/Fuck 12/They’re Literally Hunting Us For Sport ranting and stopped listening before some of the ranters finally mentioned mental health services. The riots and grift and racially divisive rhetoric were also a tad bit distracting. Maybe lead with the mental health part next time.

Expand full comment

You know what's interesting....America doesn't like non-violent protests either.

10,100 protests. 570 were violent. Which is odd, because from what I've been hearing a lot on here is that America was burned to the ground last summer.

Expand full comment

Well, yes, $2 billion in damages and a significant number of deaths from Nothing-To-See-Here, Mostly Peaceful violent "protests" will tend to draw people's focus. What did you expect?

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Well, yes,.

10,100 protests

570 violent

Yep, mostly peaceful is accurate. Has your city been rebuilt yet?

But let's not kid ourselves. America doesn't like nonviolent protests either, so people are gonna bitch either way.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Nah. The only union Americans like are the police union.

Why lead with the mental health issue? America prefers to solve it on the back end.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Not quite sure what the union reference is about, but...why lead with mental health? Because 2020 was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get some of what you wanted with regards to criminal justice reform, and mental-health-related reforms might actually have worked. But much of what BLM and the Defund movement went for instead, IMO, was hasty and reckless, and is currently backfiring and/or being walked back in many places. It's not clear to me that, in 20 years, Defund will be able to look back on any lasting victories from 2020. Anyway, 'America prefers to solve it on the back end, so why even try?' is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Yeah....America was well on it's way to revising/updating/improving it's entire mental health system until the uppity Negroes got it the way. Lol.

All that progress, destroyed in one summer. So sad.

- We need to fund mental health!!

- Ok, you cool with a tax raise?

- Hell no!!!

- We need to fund mental health!!!

- Ok, maybe PDs could trim budgets?

- You wanna send social workers to stop bank robberies!!!

Expand full comment

"Uppity Negroes." Silly me, I thought you actually wanted to have a serious discussion about this. Thanks for disabusing me of that.

Expand full comment

Then allocate new money to mental health and social services. Almost no one opposes that.

But only insane liberals would shrink or shut down law enforcement in the hopes that criminals will suddenly go straight. What idiocy.

Expand full comment

Leftist DAS are already effectively shutting down law enforcement by releasing dangerous criminals on bail and refusing to press charges for crimes (like theft) that they deem "insignificant." Many of the gun problems in our cities are a result of the failure of prosecutors to implement enforcement of laws that are on the books to keep criminals who use guns in their crimes in prison (and away from the rest of society) for much longer terms.

Expand full comment

The father that was shot during parent's weekend in NY was killed by 2 men that had committed gun crimes and were let out. Why make new laws if existing ones aren't enforced?

Expand full comment

Exactly. Gun banners don't really care about getting criminals off the streets. They don't want *those* guns; they want conservatives' guns.

Expand full comment

Celia, if strict gun laws worked, Chicago would look like Mayberry. I guess the left hasn't figured that out yet.

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

What a novel idea?!....maybe some PDs could come out of their budget for that or will you pay more taxes?

Your choice, Terry.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

"...overly militarized, bloated PDs..." I believe that if one asks 100 people on the street what this means, there would be definitions all over the map with some offering similar responses.

In my municipality, phoning 911 gets the question "Do you need police, fire, or ems?". If there is no obvious fire/smoke or apparent medical issue (asking the person on the street to render a diagnosis), pd will get the call. In the defunded world that might result in the responding pd calling some other agency but then they have to get close enough to make that judgement call, don't they?

When local DAs don't prosecute offenses formerly prosecuted (because our incarceration numbers are higher than the nearby cities, contiguous states, or those other western countries) the local pd is dis-incentivized to arrest. Couple that with the drop in moral that causes officers to drop their letter as soon as they qualify for a pension or just look elsewhere because, in part, of the "defund police" movement and one has to have a pretty egregious offense to get a timely response (not enough headcount on the street).

"...If men were angels, no government would be necessary..." - Federalist Paper #51.

Expand full comment

Might consider an outstanding canonical text that traces the evolution of policing from 1800s - through Drug War era - to today.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

Here we go again.....you're the 7th or 8th person with the "Social Workers to Stop a Bank Robbery" thesis.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/19/7-myths-about-defunding-the-police-debunked/

Maybe we could look at things to help/mitigate BEFORE someone goes into crisis. Nah...that would be too proactive, which is not really American culture. Would seem to make sense to make some supplemental efforts as well, since EVERY mass shooting is apparently called by "mental illness," right?

Look, really pointless discussing this. Americans like solving things with bullets on the back-end. Ok, fine. Then everyone needs to stop complaining about rare instances of mentally ill people shoving people in front of trains or stabbing someone. Just deal with it. We apparently like it.

Expand full comment

My remarks were obviously not clear. A citizen phoning in to report "three men armed with what appear to be rifles entering the bank" will certainly get passed to police. The 911 call reporting "unknown trouble" will likely get passed to police rather than social services, with a rationale that is reasonably clear. Unless that "social worker" is teamed up with a commissioned officer, sending the social worker alone is asking for trouble.

You mention help/mitigating before the crisis, and it is a good idea. A few years back in the city next door, pd responds to " a man in the road, acting weird". The man had ongoing mental issues of which his family knew. Where were they? Two officers respond, he charges them, one drawing a taser, the other a side arm. Tragedy results along with litigation and endless wrangling of what should have been/should not have been done. I emailed the reporter covering the story in the metropolitan paper asking "Where was the family? Why didn't they ask the police for a BOLO?" No reply.

I agree not every 911 call requires an armed response. How does a situation get triaged to determine the appropriate responder? Pointless to discuss? Perhaps, but at least here one can have reasonable exchange with people without someone screaming.

BTW, pairing the mental health/social worker with an officer might be the best possible coverage but how much will people be willing to pay for this?

Expand full comment
(Banned)Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

You example of the man in the road is a good one. Can we ensure everyone won't end up in the road? No, but hopefully, we can get to them before this happens.

Your closing point is equally important. America, an extremely individualistic and pathologiclally selfish culture, is not culturally hardwired to pay for this with tax increases....yet we complain about it and blame crime on the mentally ill when they are exponentially more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

So, where is the money coming from? Not from a tax increase can guarantee you that.....but we'll keep complaining. And saying EVERY mass shooter, etc. is "mentally ill."

You get what you pay for. And sometimes, you get what you don't pay for.

It's much easier to just let untrained police handle it on the back-end and if someone gets killed well, so be it.

Plus, PDs have done an OUTSTANDING job convincing 80-90% of the population that the only reason they're alive is because of them.

Did you run across the story about the woman heading home from work, maade a wrong turn during some protest, police stopped her car, busted out her windows, beat her up and snatched her kid out of the car.....then they put a photo of a female officer carrying the kid on their Twitter feed with, "This child was found alone and barefoot in the middle of a riot and the only thing this officer cared about was protecting this child. We are the thin blue line, the only thing standing between you and anarchy."

The busted for their BS, but was an excellent example.

Expand full comment

My Dog. You are 100% right on the money with that correct correlation.

Expand full comment

Yeah....this has a "14 Words" feel/undercurrent to it.

Expand full comment

I've noticed those who peacock their Compassion® are interested almost exclusively in faraway problems or historical problems or contrived problems. And never the real, immediate, this-requires-I-do-something problems.

Expand full comment

It's a form of virtue signaling. They make noises about the problem, then shame others for not caring enough and contributing to fixing it.

Expand full comment

In fact I saw that writ large on the subway the other day as a "dressed to signal progressive" young woman gave a dollar to a demented vagrant harassing passengers with a very self-satisfied smile. I'm sure she had tingles up and down her legs for the rest of the day.

Expand full comment
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022

And it was an act she made certain to work into every vapid conversation she had with her prog warrior buddies the rest of the week.

Expand full comment

For sure Jon!

Expand full comment

Just one dollar? pfft.

Expand full comment

Compassion: giving a dollar to a screaming lunatic while sipping on your $6 Starbucks latte, then exploding with self-satisfaction.

Expand full comment

I'm sure she posted about it on her social and 100's of "likes" from other virtue signaling followers.

Expand full comment

NC lol that’s what I thought!

Expand full comment

Did she film it for extra compassion points?

Expand full comment

I think we should ditch the term "virtue signaling" and call it what it really is: A fashion statement.

Expand full comment

I frequently refer to most of the political positions young people and Hollywood take as 'fashion statements'. Vapid and adolescent.

Expand full comment

We need to call it what it is: Vice Signaling. Virtue signaling is just self-promotion, which is the sin of Pride. Vice.

Expand full comment

Ty - excellent point 👍

Expand full comment

Good idea memento.

Expand full comment

I think we should do "reverse virtue signaling" where we castigate people from particular groups for "not really caring" when they don't go about solving problems/issues in the manner that we deem appropriate.

Expand full comment
Oct 7, 2022·edited Oct 7, 2022

Actually we castigate them not because they don't go about solving problems in the manner we deem appropriate. We castigate them because the manner in which they attempt to solve problems doesn't work, and in fact only creates more problems. Sixty years of progressivism with the only result being employment for otherwise unemployable progressives.

Expand full comment

Go back and read what you wrote again.

Expand full comment

Yes! Very similar to the Tragedy Hipster:

"Why is everyone concerned about [terrible event/problem]? What about [obscure event/problem]?"

Expand full comment

Luckily, we're all proving them wrong by being on this board, fighting the good fight.

Expand full comment

Vote all the Democrats out. That's the first step of what we all can do to begin bringing sanity back

Expand full comment

I can't stand the R's (for the most part, some exceptions) . This election and likely 2024, I am going to vote for the Republican candidates for that one reason and that alone - the Democrats must be stopped.

Expand full comment

Like I posted in a previous comment, no smart, rational person really runs in government anymore.

Expand full comment

I'd prefer Trump as POTUS for life.

Expand full comment

I know you’re being sarcastic, but the great Maga king could certainly fix a lot of these problems, given time and congressional backing. And did.

Expand full comment

a perfect description of "boutique altruism"

Expand full comment

I am SO going to run with that.

Expand full comment