General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf 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 hes 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
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Ron Green
(9,822 posts)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.
calimary
(81,110 posts)Sad but true. Pretty grim times.
moondust
(19,958 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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)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)But I can tell you it's nowhere good. Not by a long shot.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)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.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)calimary
(81,110 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,783 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)as usual.
antigop
(12,778 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . based on a common grammatical error. Your loss, indeed.
antigop
(12,778 posts)grammatically correct. I can't take him/her seriously as a writer.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)geez
antigop
(12,778 posts)when to use "whom" is pretty basic.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)what are you looking for? A reward? Here's one.............
antigop
(12,778 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)No need to sit here and complain about his grammar. You're perfect. You should stay in Perfectlandia.
excellent
antigop
(12,778 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)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.
antigop
(12,778 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)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)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)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"?
antigop
(12,778 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Don't read it if you don't want to. But don't expect anyone to give a fuck either.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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)Over half the headlines are grammatically correct.
No, really. Get back to du with the link. We'll wait.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)geez another deflector distraction.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)That's petty, if so. Who do you work for? is everday phrasing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)missing the whole fucking point of the message.
I think it is insecurity.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)about grammar. Talk about distraction....
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)it cleans up the thread nicely.
vanlassie
(5,663 posts)Don't bother to answer.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)vanlassie
(5,663 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...and uses any excuse to show off their sense of superiority. Hence his post above saying that he only listens to Classical music.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... 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)antigop
(12,778 posts)deurbano
(2,894 posts)You're welcome.
antigop
(12,778 posts)deurbano
(2,894 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)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.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)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.
Springslips
(533 posts)Copy editors do.
antigop
(12,778 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)thank you for kicking my thread.
antigop
(12,778 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)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!"
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)My heart to you and yours.
antigop
(12,778 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Bartlet
(172 posts)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)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)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.
robbob
(3,522 posts)...if you really want to sound like a douchebag, that is.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)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)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)Or you whom is a d-bag. Or you is a who bag.
Piss off.
antigop
(12,778 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)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.
antigop
(12,778 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Post 84
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Ishoutandscream2
(6,660 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)There is grammar and there is effective communication, and the two are not always the same.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)English has been slowly losing it's remaining vestiges of grammatical case for centuries, now.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)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.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . 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)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). . . 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)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). . . 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)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.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)DinahMoeHum
(21,774 posts)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 jurys 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 politicians 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 faceweve 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 dont, more on which later). We hear every prominent black man in America who has a son and who decides to talk about this publiclyfootball players and actors and otherssay exactly the same thing. Weve heard it hundreds of times. Are these men lying? Are they paranoid weirdos? Of course they arent. 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.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)dumb as a box of rocks.
Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #10)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)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)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.
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.
CullenBohannon
(64 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)and it's disgraceful.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
spanone
(135,791 posts)great read:
favorite tweet:
antigop
(12,778 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Who do you work for?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)gagarux
(24 posts)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.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)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.
Lars39
(26,106 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)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)vocal righties heading up the screaming.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)spot-on, as usual
suffragette
(12,232 posts)As well as every other brutal action (and there have been many) against people of color in the community.
duhneece
(4,110 posts)...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)I'm sure if Rudy was asked he would say that all changed after 9/11
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Liberals.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)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.