Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 05:00 PM Dec 2014

If you're wondering just what the hell is going on between the cops and the mayor in NYC...

...I invite you to read this fully excellent breakdown and explanation. I have been a long-time admirer of Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo, but with this - an analysis of just what the hell is going on between the cops and the mayor in New York City - he absolutely parks it. Some of his finest work. Read it.

Who Do You Work For?
By Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo

23 December 2014

Here in New York, over the last few weeks, we've seen a turbulent and tragic series of events which might seem far-fetched in its plot line if had it unfolded in a novel. Protests erupted in the aftermath of a Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner, an event which was itself catalyzed and primed by the roiling protests in response to the death of Michael Brown near St Louis. Major street protests followed. And then, as if to bring all the tension to a head, a deranged and violent man perpetrates what can only be called a street execution of two police officers waiting in their car in Bed-Stuy. The fact that the alleged assailant, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, attempted to kill his ex-girlfriend hours earlier in Maryland suggests there was some deeper, more personal impulse to violence and self-destruction behind his rampage. But there is no getting around the fact that at a minimum he grabbed on to the wave of protest against police brutality to provide some logic or rationale for his violent end.

So now we have police and their critics, each with their own righteous aggrievement, thrust together for a collision with no good outcome for anyone involved.

Before the killing of the two officers, actually just a day before, I wrote this post about Pat Lynch, the head of the biggest NYPD police union. By then, Lynch had asked officers to fill out forms requesting that the Mayor not attend their funerals if they died in the line of duty. This was followed by a union meeting in which Lynch appeared to call for a slowdown of police work in response to a lack of "support" and "respect" from the city's political leaders and went as far as to say de Blasio "is not running the city of New York. He thinks he’s running a fucking revolution.”

As I said at the time, the head of the police union isn't an active member of the force. So he gets leeway serving officers might not. But still, as the official spokesman of the officers' labor organization this seemed like really over the top rhetoric. And with that lead-in it probably wasn't that surprising to see his vitriolic response following the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu in Brooklyn. At a press conference, Lynch didn't pussy-foot around with talk of rhetoric creating climates of tension or anything like that. He went right for it.

(snip)

The conflicts over policing are ones that need to be worked out at the grass roots level in the hard but critical work of police-community relations and at the grander level of city politics. But what has been disturbing to me for weeks, well before this tragedy this weekend, is the way that at least the leadership of the police unions has basically gone to war against the Mayor over breaking even in small ways from lockstep backing of the police department in all cases and at all times. When we hear members of the NYPD union leadership talking about being forced to become a "wartime" police department, who exactly are they going to war with? WTF does that mean? And who is the enemy?

The whole thing: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/who-do-you-work-for

136 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you're wondering just what the hell is going on between the cops and the mayor in NYC... (Original Post) WilliamPitt Dec 2014 OP
K&R.... daleanime Dec 2014 #1
"The enemy" is anyone who falls below a certain line: Ron Green Dec 2014 #2
"The Fear and Nostalgia Class". That's a good one. calimary Dec 2014 #118
Protection racket. n/t moondust Dec 2014 #3
That's exactly what this is, protection racket pure and simple. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #102
Sounds like a threat too. Strong-arming. calimary Dec 2014 #119
yep. who knows where this clown show may be going? 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #124
While Lynch seems to want to blame 'protests' and 'protesters' for the two officer deaths, Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #4
That^ BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #6
Totally that!!! calimary Dec 2014 #120
Exactly! They (He) made their bed. LiberalFighter Dec 2014 #133
am I supposed to take a writer seriously if he can't write a grammatically correct headline? antigop Dec 2014 #5
Your loss WilliamPitt Dec 2014 #8
my loss "as usual" -- what is that supposed to mean? His grammar isn't correct. nt antigop Dec 2014 #13
No, you are dismissing the substance of what the writer is saying on a very important topic . . . markpkessinger Dec 2014 #15
nope...if someone wants me to read an article, he/she can start with a headline that is antigop Dec 2014 #18
oh really heaven05 Dec 2014 #21
yes...if someone is supposed to be taken seriously as a writer. Knowing when to use "who" and antigop Dec 2014 #22
okay you're perfect heaven05 Dec 2014 #24
I'm not presenting myself as a "journalist", "writer", or "editor"...that's the difference. nt antigop Dec 2014 #25
Then don't read it if you don 't like his style. bravenak Dec 2014 #26
LOL heaven05 Dec 2014 #28
never said I was perfect. I'm not presenting myself as a "writer" or a "journalist" ...nt antigop Dec 2014 #29
Josh Micha Marshall Jim Beard Dec 2014 #64
Post #54. Will should thank you! nt antigop Dec 2014 #65
If you want to get really chickenshit about it tularetom Dec 2014 #34
"Never use a preposition to end a sentence with." greiner3 Dec 2014 #116
You're ignoring the fact that language changes and evolves over the years and that KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #52
No, I refuse to listen to the Rolling Stones because I prefer classical music. nt antigop Dec 2014 #57
quod erat demonstrandum - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #58
au contraire....post #54. LOL! nt antigop Dec 2014 #60
The Rolling Stones aren't journalists or writers or editors. Big difference. Post #54. nt antigop Dec 2014 #61
Wow, just wow. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #108
You're going to miss an awful lot of important news if that is your sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #93
Sabrina, you're a bright person. Think about it! nt antigop Dec 2014 #113
I bet thou whinest about those who don't use "thou", too. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #106
No one on the planet exists for the purpose of catering to you. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2014 #67
We should do that all the time. zeemike Dec 2014 #46
open a news site or paper & find one where elehhhhna Dec 2014 #77
what???? heaven05 Dec 2014 #17
see post #18. nt antigop Dec 2014 #19
What should it be? Quantess Dec 2014 #23
LOL, I bet you are a blast to hang out with. So sick of the grammar police. nt Logical Dec 2014 #27
oh, wow....I guess it's too much to expect for a writer to use proper grammar. nt antigop Dec 2014 #31
I imagine people like you in the crowd of the Gettysburg address whining about grammar and....... Logical Dec 2014 #36
um, no. It shows sloppy writing/editing and won't get my attention to read it. nt antigop Dec 2014 #38
You forget to capitalize 'um'. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Logical Dec 2014 #39
I'm responding on a message board....not writing articles as a writer or journalist. antigop Dec 2014 #42
u rite badd, u mak nooo cents Logical Dec 2014 #45
Lol! Fascinating that more than half the posts so far on this subject is neverforget Dec 2014 #66
Internet Comment Board Outrage Syndrome. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #87
just put that fool on ignore.. frylock Dec 2014 #100
Who do you love? vanlassie Dec 2014 #40
Technically, "Whom do you love?" :) - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #53
Tell THAT to Bo Diddley! vanlassie Dec 2014 #59
He sounds like one of those people who think they are superior to "the rabble"... Odin2005 Dec 2014 #109
So true. Likes attention. nt Logical Dec 2014 #121
Elipses contain 3 periods, not 4. I can't take you seriously. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2014 #68
"Elipses"??? LOL! nt antigop Dec 2014 #75
I'll sell you the extra L for one douchenozzle point. You have some to spare, yes? DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2014 #79
Youse gotta be on da spectrum... gregcrawford Dec 2014 #101
Disagreement: deurbano Dec 2014 #117
"Who" and "whom" are not prepositions. Thanks for the kick. nt antigop Dec 2014 #122
You didn't read it: <<"Who were you talking to?" vs "To whom were you talking?" [over-formal]>> deurbano Dec 2014 #125
uh, yes I did. Sorry if you didn't understand it. nt antigop Dec 2014 #126
I did understand it... and happy holidays. deurbano Dec 2014 #127
Why even comment on this article? justiceischeap Dec 2014 #33
no, it's not a "desperate plea to be noticed." nt antigop Dec 2014 #35
Not the reaction I assume you hoped for. nt Logical Dec 2014 #37
No, more a desperate effort to derail and distract. Better to lead the discussion into a swamp TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #136
Writers do not write headlines. Springslips Dec 2014 #41
Post #38. It's sloppy writing/editing. nt antigop Dec 2014 #43
As ever, WilliamPitt Dec 2014 #44
eh, you noticed that, huh? LOL!!! nt antigop Dec 2014 #48
Kick!!! bravenak Dec 2014 #51
Congrats! You got it! nt antigop Dec 2014 #114
I Love attention.nt bravenak Dec 2014 #115
In case you haven't noticed, Will...that was the intent. I jumped in first with a smartass comment antigop Dec 2014 #123
Merry Christmas, old friend. WilliamPitt Dec 2014 #129
Give that little one a hug for me, ok? nt antigop Dec 2014 #130
Consider it done. WilliamPitt Dec 2014 #131
Or people doing layout at twenty past the last minute. (Been there, done that.) merrily Dec 2014 #76
I you can't be bothered to Bartlet Dec 2014 #47
He got the headline right. "For whom do you work?" Is not morningfog Dec 2014 #69
I once answered an intercom with "it's me" and got corrected by the, um, gentleman I was visiting. merrily Dec 2014 #78
I believe it's better to say 'it is I' robbob Dec 2014 #97
"It is me" is actually grammatically correct for English. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #110
As usual, you are insightful. merrily Dec 2014 #135
It is not incorrect as you claim. You are however a d-bag. JanMichael Dec 2014 #71
You just kicked Will's thread. nt antigop Dec 2014 #72
Don't like it? Don't read it. 99Forever Dec 2014 #83
Post #48. Thanks for kicking Will's thread! nt antigop Dec 2014 #88
And I will kick it again. What of it? 99Forever Dec 2014 #89
C0ngraets an highjakng teh 0p. L0oniX Dec 2014 #91
pssst....LOoniX....Post #44. Thanks for the kick. nt antigop Dec 2014 #92
Good lord! Ishoutandscream2 Dec 2014 #94
I think this entire thread should be hanged packman Dec 2014 #95
"For Whom Do You Work?" would not strike the right tone. Marr Dec 2014 #96
"Whom" is dead in contemporary English. Language changes, deal with it. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #107
So, Archie Bunker is the head of the police union in New York City now? Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #7
Yes, the union elected an Archie Bunker who adores Fox News. The rhetoric is similar. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #9
I heard what that dick said at his press conference, and as far as I'm concerned, he's trying . . . Major Hogwash Dec 2014 #81
Or to get the Mayor killed adigal Dec 2014 #85
He has been head of the PBA for 15 years . . . markpkessinger Dec 2014 #16
Where are the people in the middle with the common sense? Jim Beard Dec 2014 #62
Uh, yes, the cop murder WAS different . . . markpkessinger Dec 2014 #63
"the people in the middle with the common sense" TBF Dec 2014 #86
Assholes protect their own. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #111
Will, this piece from the Daily Beast may help explain DinahMoeHum Dec 2014 #10
Lynch, to me, the name says it all heaven05 Dec 2014 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Dec 2014 #32
Cops are AUTHORITARIAN assholes. Period. DeSwiss Dec 2014 #11
You don't have to be an authoritarian to be a cop. zeemike Dec 2014 #50
Exactly Boreal Dec 2014 #56
all cops? CullenBohannon Dec 2014 #99
It's called Insubordination Demeter Dec 2014 #12
K & R mountain grammy Dec 2014 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Dec 2014 #30
i'd hate to be in the mayor's shoes. scary predicament. NYPD sounds like a scary club. spanone Dec 2014 #49
so, Will, did I help drive traffic to your thread? (teehee!) nt antigop Dec 2014 #54
Are you bragging about your flame bait? morningfog Dec 2014 #70
For whom do you work? WilliamPitt Dec 2014 #74
Intimidation Politics...as usual gagarux Dec 2014 #55
Don't go chasing waterfalls, Jish AngryAmish Dec 2014 #73
Similar thing happening in Minneapolis also. glinda Dec 2014 #80
My guess is Bush holdovers from Homeland Security Lars39 Dec 2014 #82
I think fear of the police union is why Gov. Dayton remains publically anti-marijuana. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #112
True to that. But I am not so sure about giving money to Dems. They appears to be some strong glinda Dec 2014 #134
K&R 99Forever Dec 2014 #84
K&R for Josh Marshall Martin Eden Dec 2014 #90
Very similar to Seattle, with Guild here defending cop who killed John Williams suffragette Dec 2014 #98
I want to memorize this for our new advisory group duhneece Dec 2014 #103
Hmmm in 1997 the PBA also circulated forms requesting Guiliani not attend their funerals underpants Dec 2014 #104
Expect the Pigs' union to give a fortune to his opponent in the next mayoral election. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #105
"...who exactly are they going to war with? WTF does that mean? And who is the enemy?" Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2014 #128
"..who exactly are they going to war with? WTF does that mean? And who is the enemy?" workinclasszero Dec 2014 #132

Ron Green

(9,822 posts)
2. "The enemy" is anyone who falls below a certain line:
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 05:11 PM
Dec 2014

A line of property, social status and conformity. The cops' unions are betting they'll win this battle of the culture war, and take the Fear and Nostalgia Class with them.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
102. That's exactly what this is, protection racket pure and simple.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 02:17 PM
Dec 2014

Even before the two cops got shot, this lunatic Lynch was all over the TV,
whining "WE are the ones who KEEP YOU SAFE while you're in bed at night."
clearly implying "Don't EVER criticize cops, or we can't be responsible for
what might happen to you and your loved ones" .

When I heard his rant, that's the first thing I thought was "gee that sounds
alot like a protection racket"

calimary

(81,110 posts)
119. Sounds like a threat too. Strong-arming.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 05:17 PM
Dec 2014

Bullying tactics. So when officers overreact and some innocent gets shot to death or a penny-ante "crime" results in a death sentence, the police are still immune? They ALWAYS get a free pass, even when they're in the wrong?

I'm pro union. But this guy is just stirring up shit. He's causing even more of a rift with the community rather than trying to show some level-headed leadership (the way the mayor is doing).

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
124. yep. who knows where this clown show may be going?
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 08:14 PM
Dec 2014

But I can tell you it's nowhere good. Not by a long shot.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. While Lynch seems to want to blame 'protests' and 'protesters' for the two officer deaths,
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 05:52 PM
Dec 2014

he ignores the fact that the protests wouldn't exist without police killing unarmed men. So if you want to follow the 'blame chain' back, it leads right back to their fellow officers.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
15. No, you are dismissing the substance of what the writer is saying on a very important topic . . .
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:55 PM
Dec 2014

. . . based on a common grammatical error. Your loss, indeed.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
18. nope...if someone wants me to read an article, he/she can start with a headline that is
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:58 PM
Dec 2014

grammatically correct. I can't take him/her seriously as a writer.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
22. yes...if someone is supposed to be taken seriously as a writer. Knowing when to use "who" and
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:04 PM
Dec 2014

when to use "whom" is pretty basic.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
26. Then don't read it if you don 't like his style.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:11 PM
Dec 2014

No need to sit here and complain about his grammar. You're perfect. You should stay in Perfectlandia.

 

Jim Beard

(2,535 posts)
64. Josh Micha Marshall
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:48 PM
Dec 2014

has been a loyal liberal writer for years and he is very good. You are entitled to your opinion since it is in line with all Republicans. I assume you buy Playboy for the articles.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
34. If you want to get really chickenshit about it
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:24 PM
Dec 2014

It should be "For whom do you work?"

Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.

Or you could just say, "Who do you work for, asshole?"

Actually, I like that better.

 

greiner3

(5,214 posts)
116. "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:51 PM
Dec 2014

Actually this 'rule' has had a shaky history for centuries.

The latest definitions of this rule;

"A Pointless Worry (2002)
We also have evidence that the postponed preposition was, in fact, a regular feature in some constructions in Old English. No feature of the language can be more firmly rooted than if it survives from Old English. . . . The preposition at the end has always been an idiomatic feature of English. It would be pointless to worry about the few who believe it is a mistake.
(Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, 2002)"

"An Antiquated Superstition (2004)
Contrary to popular belief, it is not a mortal sin to end a sentence with a preposition, as long as the sentence sounds natural and its meaning is clear. . . . It is absolutely antiquated to forbid ending a sentence with a preposition.
(Michael Strumpf and Auriel Douglas, The Grammar Bible, Henry Holt and Company, 2004)'

http://grammar.about.com/od/grammarfaq/f/terminalprepositionmyth.htm

I am in no way belittling the OP or you but this is where the current ruling is at.



 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
52. You're ignoring the fact that language changes and evolves over the years and that
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 08:38 PM
Dec 2014

the distinction between accusative ('whom') and nominative ('who') cases in spoken English has largely disappeared and may be on its way out also in written English. IOW, you're allowing a narrow-minded pedantry to take the place of substantive analysis and criticism.

Do you refuse to listen to the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction" because Jagger sings, "I can't get no satisfaction"?

Do you refuse to read or enjoy Shakespeare because he uses phrases like "That was the most unkindest cut of all"?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
93. You're going to miss an awful lot of important news if that is your
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 12:03 PM
Dec 2014

standard for whether to read or watch it.

Every day there are spelling and grammatical errors on the media, in newspapers and other news media.

It's the message rather than the messenger that most people who want to know what is going on in this world tend to be interested in.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
67. No one on the planet exists for the purpose of catering to you.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 11:47 PM
Dec 2014

Don't read it if you don't want to. But don't expect anyone to give a fuck either.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
46. We should do that all the time.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:52 PM
Dec 2014

Scan everything for mistakes and if you find a misplaced comma or a word dismiss the whole thing...that will show them.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
77. open a news site or paper & find one where
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 01:00 AM
Dec 2014

Over half the headlines are grammatically correct.

No, really. Get back to du with the link. We'll wait.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
23. What should it be?
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:04 PM
Dec 2014
For whom do you work?

That's petty, if so. Who do you work for? is everday phrasing.
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
36. I imagine people like you in the crowd of the Gettysburg address whining about grammar and.......
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:30 PM
Dec 2014

missing the whole fucking point of the message.

I think it is insecurity.

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
66. Lol! Fascinating that more than half the posts so far on this subject is
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 11:39 PM
Dec 2014

about grammar. Talk about distraction....

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
109. He sounds like one of those people who think they are superior to "the rabble"...
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:05 PM
Dec 2014

...and uses any excuse to show off their sense of superiority. Hence his post above saying that he only listens to Classical music.

gregcrawford

(2,382 posts)
101. Youse gotta be on da spectrum...
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 02:16 PM
Dec 2014

... or perhaps just an insufferably pompous boob. Incidentally, the ridiculous "rule" forbidding a preposition at the end of a sentence was written by a fool who applied LATIN rules of grammatical structure to the ever-evolving English language. Now, HE was a pompous boob!

Winston Churchill, after being upbraided for this very same crime against humanity, is said to have replied, "You are absolutely correct, Madame! Such grievous grammatical errors are something up with which we must not put!" Or words to that effect.

The veracity of the substance of the message is irrefutable. Pay attention to THAT, rather than dissecting it in a feverish search for something by which you can claim to be offended. Grammar good enough for ya?

deurbano

(2,894 posts)
125. You didn't read it: <<"Who were you talking to?" vs "To whom were you talking?" [over-formal]>>
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 08:56 PM
Dec 2014

You're welcome.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
33. Why even comment on this article?
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:23 PM
Dec 2014

You're comment is nothing more than a desperate plea to be noticed. Quite sad really given the seriousness of the situation. You should change your DU name to anti imperfection.

TheKentuckian

(25,020 posts)
136. No, more a desperate effort to derail and distract. Better to lead the discussion into a swamp
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 07:48 AM
Dec 2014

of nits to pick and ensuing arguments over doing so than to actually address the content because that isn't the discussion you want going on.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
123. In case you haven't noticed, Will...that was the intent. I jumped in first with a smartass comment
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 07:13 PM
Dec 2014

before your regular detractors. Little did I know the subthread would take on a life of its own, adding more kicks to your post.

So here we are, thousands of views and 91 recs later.

Merry Christmas, William!

And you're welcome.

eta: (You didn't have to give it away in post #44.)

As Sheldon Cooper would say, "Bazinga!"

Bartlet

(172 posts)
47. I you can't be bothered to
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:56 PM
Dec 2014

understand the message because you have an issue with some utterly irrelevant grammatical points, then you're really part of the problem aren't you.

Feel free to check my post for grammatical errors since that seems to be your singular skill.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
69. He got the headline right. "For whom do you work?" Is not
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 11:55 PM
Dec 2014

what he was trying to say. "Who do you work for?" Is the common vernacular. He go it right. You are looking for an excuse to be dismissive.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
78. I once answered an intercom with "it's me" and got corrected by the, um, gentleman I was visiting.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 01:03 AM
Dec 2014

Fact was, I knew all about predicate nominatives, but had just read an article saying a sure way to prove you were an asshole of the first order was to answer "Who is it?" with the technically correct, but humanity clueless, "It's I."

So, ultimately, there's just no pleasing the authoritarian speech police, no matter what.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
110. "It is me" is actually grammatically correct for English.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:08 PM
Dec 2014

The pompous dicks who say that it is supposed to be "it is I" are trying to impose Latin grammatical rules on English.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
135. As usual, you are insightful.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 06:50 AM
Dec 2014

I don't know if "It's me" is technically grammatically correct English or not. It certainly sounds more "normal" and less dpdompos/


However, the only reason I ever got the difference between the nominative case and the objective case at al was that I took Latin as an elective it and, for some bizarre reason, I liked it. Until then, all the valiant efforts of English teachers to drum cases into my head were unsuccessful.

JanMichael

(24,873 posts)
71. It is not incorrect as you claim. You are however a d-bag.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 11:57 PM
Dec 2014

Or you whom is a d-bag. Or you is a who bag.

Piss off.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
83. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 07:30 AM
Dec 2014

Better yet, go the fuck away. Mr Pitt is a well respective member and writer here and your approval of anything he does is neither needed nor wanted. Back the fuck off.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
96. "For Whom Do You Work?" would not strike the right tone.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 12:39 PM
Dec 2014

There is grammar and there is effective communication, and the two are not always the same.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
107. "Whom" is dead in contemporary English. Language changes, deal with it.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:01 PM
Dec 2014

English has been slowly losing it's remaining vestiges of grammatical case for centuries, now.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
7. So, Archie Bunker is the head of the police union in New York City now?
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:31 PM
Dec 2014

How the fuck did a loud-mouthed racist piece of shit like him get that position?

The union would be better off if he was speaking to other Klan members at a KKK rally while wearing a hood rather than representing cops.

But, that's just my opinion.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
81. I heard what that dick said at his press conference, and as far as I'm concerned, he's trying . . .
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:32 AM
Dec 2014

. . . as hard as he can to start a race riot in New York City.

I don't live there, so my point of view is pretty objective.
I wouldn't approve of someone saying that shit here, so I don't know why they tolerate that shit being said there.

 

adigal

(7,581 posts)
85. Or to get the Mayor killed
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 08:00 AM
Dec 2014

And I'm not exaggerating - that was my first thought.

My second one was, "Who the hell are they at war against?"

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
16. He has been head of the PBA for 15 years . . .
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:57 PM
Dec 2014

. . . having been the youngest PBA president ever elected. And he made a splash right out of the gate when he defended the cops who killed the unarmed Amadou Diallo in a hail of 41 bullets after one nervous, rookie cop mistook a wallet for a gun. And he has belligerently defended police in every instance where there has been any allegation of abuse or corruption, up to and including the recent indictment of Bronx officers in a ticket fixing scandal. The man is beneath contempt.

 

Jim Beard

(2,535 posts)
62. Where are the people in the middle with the common sense?
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:43 PM
Dec 2014

You can't loyally stick to your own side be it right or wrong. The Cop murder was no different than over reactive murder of citizens. I mean, does it really require 14 bullets to keep a homeless man with a machete from hurting others.

The same can be said about male/female responsibilities. Males should chastise and call out those who hurt women and at the same time, females should condemn their own "purposly" set forth to hurt men in their own way.

We are not doing a very good job of "policing" ourselves.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
63. Uh, yes, the cop murder WAS different . . .
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:47 PM
Dec 2014

. . . It was the act of a lone, deranged individual, and not a product of nationwide, systemic abuse of power by police.

TBF

(32,004 posts)
86. "the people in the middle with the common sense"
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 10:19 AM
Dec 2014

I am so tired of this kind of rhetoric. With these types of words you are blatant in your implication that those who are protesting are not logical or making good decisions. That is bullshit. It is NOT right for unarmed men to be gunned down like animals. It is not lovely when the police (or anyone else) is gunned down by a lunatic either. But to act like protesting racism is less than a mature response is flat out nasty.

DinahMoeHum

(21,774 posts)
10. Will, this piece from the Daily Beast may help explain
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:44 PM
Dec 2014

why Patrick Lynch and the police union are having shit-fits about Mayor deBlasio:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/21/the-ny-police-union-s-vile-war-with-mayor-de-blasio.html

(snip)
On Dec. 3, in the wake of the Staten Island grand jury’s refusal to indict in the case of the police homicide of Eric Garner, de Blasio gave a press conference at a Staten Island church. He spoke of the need to heal and so on, the usual politician’s rhetoric, and then he uttered these words:

This is profoundly personal for me. 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.

Dante de Blasio, as you surely know, is a mixed-race young man of 16 who looks black and sports a large, ’70s-style afro. Does anyone seriously think that his father should not have told him what he did? Come on. We all know the odds (actually, we don’t, more on which later). We hear every prominent black man in America who has a son and who decides to talk about this publicly—football players and actors and others—say exactly the same thing. We’ve heard it hundreds of times. Are these men lying? Are they paranoid weirdos? Of course they aren’t. They are fathers, describing to the rest of us what I thought was a widely acknowledged reality
(snip)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, certain people among the NYPD are ragging on Mayor deBlasio for teaching his son to be street-wise and be careful out there.

But hell - Patrick Lynch is as dumb as he looks. No cure for his case of stupid.


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #10)

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
11. Cops are AUTHORITARIAN assholes. Period.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 06:45 PM
Dec 2014

No matter how nice they are (yes I have them in my family, I do), the moment they put on that uniform that's what they become. You have to be an AUTHORITARIAN to take the job.

There are degrees of assholery, of course just like anything else in life. But all cops believe in ''hierarchical control-systems.'' Which makes sense, because so do the slaves (people) who inhabit this planet. It's all they know. It's what we're taught from the beginning.

There will always be someone there in their lives, to tell them what to do.

- That is what is in question now.

And soon we'll have the answer.......

K&R

[center][/center]

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
50. You don't have to be an authoritarian to be a cop.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 08:07 PM
Dec 2014

But that is who will apply and that is who the ones that hire them want.
If we actually weeded out the authoritarians, especially at the top, it would solve a world of problems we have now.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
56. Exactly
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:00 PM
Dec 2014

Who in the hell wants to join an armed gang that bosses around and terrorizes the public? Bullies, sociopaths authoritarians, that's who. Pretty much the same for the politicians.

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

spanone

(135,791 posts)
49. i'd hate to be in the mayor's shoes. scary predicament. NYPD sounds like a scary club.
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 08:06 PM
Dec 2014

great read:

favorite tweet:

In 1997, police officers distributed fliers demanding that Mayor Giuliani be refused admittance to their funerals.

gagarux

(24 posts)
55. Intimidation Politics...as usual
Tue Dec 23, 2014, 08:46 PM
Dec 2014

The behavior by the Police Union, Giuliani et. al. is intended as a shot across the bow of anyone who does not tow the line as they see it. The message is that you will be criticized, ostracized, and demonized unless you reflexively support the narrow beliefs they hold dear. It is the same kind of thinking that brought us McCarthyism, the vilification of the Vietnam war protesters, and the attempts to destroy the career of the Dixie Chicks. There is no reasoning with these actors, they are constitutionally incapable of seeing shades of gray, you are either with them or against them. It is impossible for them to see that you can support them, but still disagree with some of the things they do.

glinda

(14,807 posts)
80. Similar thing happening in Minneapolis also.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 02:03 AM
Dec 2014

Union police officer head attacking Mayor verbally.
Sometimes I wonder why one of the Police Chiefs here was doing speeches at NRA get togethers. I also wonder the connection between the attack on Dem Mayors. I wonder who these cops work for really. Like "who" is calling the shots for them if not the Cities.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
112. I think fear of the police union is why Gov. Dayton remains publically anti-marijuana.
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:14 PM
Dec 2014

The Twin Cities police unions are vehemently anti-legalization and they give lots of money and support to the Dems in Minnesota.

glinda

(14,807 posts)
134. True to that. But I am not so sure about giving money to Dems. They appears to be some strong
Thu Dec 25, 2014, 01:19 AM
Dec 2014

vocal righties heading up the screaming.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
98. Very similar to Seattle, with Guild here defending cop who killed John Williams
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 01:12 PM
Dec 2014

As well as every other brutal action (and there have been many) against people of color in the community.

duhneece

(4,110 posts)
103. I want to memorize this for our new advisory group
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 02:29 PM
Dec 2014

...which turns out to be crappy.
"...The conflicts over policing are ones that need to be worked out at the grass roots level in the hard but critical work of police-community relations and at the grander level of city politics (but I would add, 'state and federal....MANY changes are needed)

underpants

(182,604 posts)
104. Hmmm in 1997 the PBA also circulated forms requesting Guiliani not attend their funerals
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 03:07 PM
Dec 2014

I'm sure if Rudy was asked he would say that all changed after 9/11

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
132. "..who exactly are they going to war with? WTF does that mean? And who is the enemy?"
Wed Dec 24, 2014, 11:11 PM
Dec 2014

They are going to war with the 99%. Thats why the 1% armed them like a military occupying force. Has nothing to do with law enforcement and everything to do with oppressing the poor and the working class who have been getting screwed for decades by TPTB in this country. I remember well when the police were macing, shooting so-called non-lethal weapons, busting heads with nightsticks etc on peaceful Occupy protesters.

The cops have always been at war with black and brown Americans, now their war against America is expanding to us all.


Just proves if any group in this country gets its rights taken away, all of us will get our rights taken away eventually.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If you're wondering just ...