I don’t. But I will listen to your reasons why. I just don’t think that police would murder someone in their jail cell three days later because she was lippy to a trooper. And there’s no evidence that suggest that and no claim by the family, but that’s what happened. I think the claim is that she was so distressed and feeling so lonely in that jail cell that depression got the best of her. The fact that it all started from a totally bogus traffic stop makes the story, outrageous and infuriating, but I don’t think it belongs with the stories of people like, say George Floyd.
A young woman, on her way to her first professional position after grad school , with no apparent previous history of depression or suicidal behavior. 3 days in jail and she kills herself? What happened to her in those 3 days? An even if she was not harmed in any way, the police are at least guilty of negligence in failing to prevent self-harm.
I should have put committed suicide in quotes. - I have serious doubts about the veracity of the Jail personnel in their assertion. Just as I have doubts (well total disbelief) in the nominal cause of the arrest.
I'm for recall for any reason, but make the numbers needed on petitions higher than what's currently used in California. That's due to the insane & useless attempt to recall Governor Gavin Newsom there a few years ago & believe it or not, there's now another budding attempt to recall him!
As for Brandon Johnson, this Jewish atheist believes he's an anti-Semite & also flat out knows he's utterly incompetent as mayor & will never grow into the job, mainly because he doesn't make any decisions, but just takes his marching orders from the lunatics that run the vile out of control Chicago Teachers Union. His unwillingness to go along with just about everyone's demands that the also incompetent CTA boss Dorval Carter be fired are absurd, as it's obvious he just doesn't want to fire a black man, as for some reason he thinks it will hurt him politically with black voters. But all CTA riders, of which I am one, are fed up with the rottenness of the service & the fact that riding the L is simply dangerous, due to out of control crime on the trains & stations. Carter has no idea of what he's doing, he's lost at sea, without any way to fix the mess the CTA is in. The CTA's financial problems are not his fault, other than the fact that the other problems are & that contributes to the loss of passengers, which cuts the CTA's revenue, which is low as it is without help form the state & feds.
Whether it is Johnson pushing for the city council resolution, protesters blocking O'Hare, or the mess at Columbia University (and soon to be the Democratic Convention) is that no one in the United States has the power to enact a cease fire in Gaza, which is their demand. Even Biden only has tangental influence with Netanyahu. The signs and protests should at least demand what can actually be accomplished by US leaders, such as limiting arms shipments. This infatuation by the far left with these barbaric and terrorist regimes is another mystery, since they are anti-democratic and treat women and LGBT people horribly. Besides increasing antisemitism here in the US, this unrest will only serve to help get Trump elected, which will bring more far right policies to the US.
The alliance between radical lefties and virulently anti-woman, anti-gay barbarians has always been a head scratcher for me as well, but Bill Maher explained it on his show a few months ago. The equation is: the darker your skin, and the poorer you are, the purer you are, and the whiter your skin, and the richer you are, the more evil you are. This may be overly simplistic, but it’s as sound a theory as any I’ve heard.
Never take anything Bill Maher says seriously. This is a man who thinks Ann Coulter is hot & had a contract that gave him time in his dressing room to masturbate!
Never thought of it that way but you might have a point. Hence never a campus demonstration over the many other atrocities taking place in the world such as Aleppo and Yemen. However, the opposite might be true on the right. The right wing loves to defend Israel even though many of them are really quite antisemitic and attack Jews as "globalists".
Not only are they not demonstrating about Aleppo or Yemen, they are actively cheering on Hamas, and have been doing so since October 7th.
This is the tell that their purported humanism and claim of “hearts being in the right place” (as another commenter put it) are bullshit. The most benign thing that can be said of these protesters is that many of them are simply TikTok marionettes, jumping on the bandwagon and screeching what they’re being told to screech.
As far as the right wing anti-Semites are concerned, at least their Jew hatred, apparently, does not extend to actively defending their mass murder.
I agree with the no recall. Johnson should get his 4 years. For those who are dissatisfied with the the results and voted for him, too bad. Use your brain next time. I don't believe he was hiding anything. For those who voted for him you're pretty much getting what was advertised. Plus, he could have a great next three years, you never know.
This view is also my initial take on it. However.... I'm trying to imagine if I'd feel the same if I lived in George Santos' district. Perhaps his many, MANY lies didn't amount to criminal activity but I'd sure want a way to remove him as my representative without waiting for the next election. Any actual crimes he committed would take more than 2 years to prove.
There are so very many examples of the ways elected officials can screw up, it's hard to conclude in advance what's worthy of a recall effort and what's not.
I realize that. I'm just using his behavior as an example. If we learned that our Mayor, or State Rep, or Governor had done something similar or worse, how would we feel about their being in office and not being effective at their job and our not being able to get rid of them before the next election. It just gives me pause to consider what options are available to voters.
No doubt there are situations when it would be good for the general public to have a recall option. But weigh that against the unintended consequences that EZ points out.
If incompetence were a reason to recall any elected official, I'd vote to recall the entire US Congress Republican caucus, but then we have a means to do that. I believe it's called an election in which every adult citizen has a right to vote. It seems ironic in a country with such low voting rates, people get their underwear in a knot about a recall. As Zorn says with scorn, it puts more power into the hands of special interest and single issue voters.
With all due respect to David L., with whom I have had several informative discussions, he ruins his argument by calling it a "leftist" march. What does leftist have to do with it? The right also marches when protesting abortion, the election of Joe Biden, or the March on the Capitol. There is no "left" in antisemitism. I have been a Jew all my life. I can't remember a time when we weren't scorned as the killers of Jesus. The sudden outpouring of support from the right for Israel is not a declaration of love for Jews. It is support for Israel, which is a different matter. It is about politics and as much about anti- Muslim bias as it is support for Israel. When you get right down to it, when have most Americans supported Israel since 1948? When did they care one way or another? The politicians have played their games on the world stage because of Israel's strategic position on the world map and they support us. But don't confuse that with love for Jews. I don't see any movements in the near future toward establishing any special holidays honoring Jews or an entire month of worship as done for other segments of society. So there is no leftist antisemitic march. Marches are performed by both sides we must distinguish between antisemitic and anti- Israel.
Hi Laurence - the current street activism that is openly pro-Hamas and overtly anti-Semitic is being conducted by the hard left of the US political spectrum. It is actively supported by Congresspersons Talib and AOC and their comrades. It took MI Governor Whitmer a full week before she finally issued a statement condemning chants of Death to Israel and Death to America at a rally praising Hamas in Michigan. So I believe my characterization of the street fascists who blocked access to O'Hare as leftist is accurate.
My maternal grandmother Hatie was Ashkenazi Jewish, having emigrated to the US with her mother to flee a pogrom in eastern Europe in the late 19th century. I'm also a lifelong conservative. Whenever I have encountered any open anti-semitism on the far right fringe, it has been immediately condemned by my fellow mainstream conservatives. But because the liberal establishment is politically dependent upon and fearful of the far left, we are seeing great reticence by the Democrat establishment to forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism that is disgustingly on open display on our streets and college campuses.
The Jewish students in New York City and on ivy League campuses who are fearful for their safety are not in fear of conservatives, but these anti-Semitic hard leftists.
I'll repeat what I said before. When have Republicans ever cared about Jews? I'm not impressed by the latest round of political opportunism. I'm ashamed about it. Go back and read my comments. I did not defend the marchers. They are one-sided and short sighted. They are politically naive by opposing Biden. If they are concerned about Palestinians, what do they think they will get from Trump who has announced support for Israel and threatened to bar Muslims from entering the US? But it's not a matter of either/or. There are times when both sides are wrong. When the marchers lose interest and move on to their next cause, the right will still be concerned about anti-semitism? I haven't seen it in my lifetime.
Liked all of the VTotWs this week - except for the stale visual Dad Joke.
I am not as certain as certain as you that recalling elective officials is off-base - if the bar to recall someone is sufficiently high. I remember the Sandra Bland case - and being outraged at the conduct of the arresting officer when the arrest footage came out.
I think that human compassion should know no skin color. The Palestinians in Gaza do not deserve to die, be crippled for life, or to starve because their murderous and fanatical government (elected 17 years ago, when many of the dead, crippled, and starving were either not yet born or had no vote) committed a vile atrocity. What is happenening to the Gazans and to the innocent dead and crippled in Ukraine deserves our compassion and help, just as do the innocent murdered Israelis and the Palestinians in the West Bank murdered by "settlers."
I agree. There are "crimes against humanity" on both sides. But it is nearly impossible to frame this as a war between two equal sides. Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the government of Israel for years, and Hamas (one side's terrorist and the other side's potential savior) has to be held accountable for its recent actions as well. My feeling on the pro-Palestinian protests is this: some students are undoubtedly anti-Semitic, but I truly believe that many are acting out due to the "crimes against humanity" that the Israeli government is now dealing the Palestinians. Isn't it possible that young people in the 1940's - had we known - would have been protesting against the incredible crimes against humanity of Hitler's reign against the Jews? These are young people who are still learning but seem to have a heart for anything unjust. They are choosing ways that incite their elders, methods that will probably backfire. But I think we are missing the fact that many of them ARE looking to end suffering.
I am old and remember the anti-Vietnam student protests and the National Guard called in to deal with shirkers, anarchists, and Communists of Reagan's fever dreams. Remember Kent State? Uncanny resemblances all around. With hindsight, it is not hard to see who is on the famed right side of history.
I don't think that Johnson will grow into the job. He was totally unprepared for the job and in my opinion thought that it was like his county board job; an endeavor where he would get marching orders from the top which could be the role that CTU now fills. Many of the competent people he had around him are gone and (as stated here) won't fire the head of the CTA so he doesn't offend his base. He is dismissive of the media, is uncollaborative and frankly he is just a horrible leader. Given all that I don't like the re-call idea either, though yes for criminal conduct. Anyone who voted for him did NO research and for those people, quit beefing. You have the mayor you wanted.
How much of the seemingly visceral dislike of Johnson is fuelled by animosity toward the CTU? It is comical to see that Mayor Johnson is singled out as being a "tool of the CTU," as if previous mayors were not heavily beholden to one interest or another (banks, union haters, real estate companies and individuals, developers, etc., etc.). Also the demonisation of the CTU seems exceptional even among the usual union-bashing suspects such as the Koch, Uihlein, and Rauner funded Illinois Policy Institute.
My dislike of the mayor is not rooted in his association with the CTU, though I think that the teachers fought too hard not to return to work during the pandemic and Johnson agreed with them at every step, since he was in their employ. My dislike comes from the way that he acts starting with the decision on Dr. Arwady, and not so much that he wanted a change but the cowardly back door way that he handled it. He is dismissive of questions as to his decisions, he has badly mishandled the asylum seekers and said that he doesn’t want to “criminalize” criminal behavior. I think he is an embarrassment as the representative of the city on the national stage, and as I said above, he will not grow into the job, he will continue to do what he has done so far; nothing of substance.
re Mayor Johnson & recall - EZ and i agree he's had a mediocre 1st yr on the job ['doesn’t seem ready for the job and isn’t inspiring confidence'; 'platitudinous and opaque'], and that neverhteless he shouldn't be subject to a recall vote, we disagree on his prospects for the future.
not only am i unhopeful that he'll grow into the job - i think it's more likely his performance will deteriorate. let's see how he handles the CTU negotiations, and to what extent his policies have an impact [if any] on reducing crime, especially violent crime. nothing he's done or said on the job so far bodes well for favorable outcomes/progress on these 2 of his most significant responsibilities.
Sorry, but I must continue to disagree with you about Mayor Johnson’s pro-Ceasefire vote. Maybe he thought a pause in hostilities would allow aid to get in? Weak argument. That’s not what he voted on. He voted on a resolution explicitly calling for a ceasefire that implies Israel should unilaterally stand down. It did not acknowledge that Hamas, in fact, violated a long-standing ceasefire on Oct 7 and has publicly stated its intention to do so again and again. It did not acknowledge that Hamas has refused every single ceasefire offer since the short “pause” months ago. No, the mayor voted in favor of a measure that is a long-coordinated effort to discredit Israel, and is now an implicit indictment against Jews everywhere. If he did not fully understand that, he is not excused.
Sandra Bland's traffic stop was not "totally bogus". She blatantly ran a stop sign right in front of the DPS officer who subsequently arrested her. If you look at the entirety of the dash-cam video of the incident, which I have seen more than once on the internet, you will see that it starts at the end of a traffic stop in which the officer (Brian Encinia) gives the driver a warning, admonishes the driver to drive safely, and walks back to his vehicle. The dashboard camera is running because of the previous traffic stop. Before the officer turns it off, you see a grayish car on the far left of the screen make a right turn onto University Boulevard without stopping or slowing down. You don't see a stop sign, although you would expect a stop sign to be present at that type of intersection. The policeman immediately makes a U-turn, and when the camera swings around, you see the stop sign. The policeman begins to speed up and gets closer and closer to the grayish car. Both cars go through a traffic signal (green light) and then the gray car pulls over. The driver is, of course, Sandra Bland.
For reasons that have never been explained, the policeman immediately tells the driver that she has been pulled over because the changed lanes without giving a signal. If the agenda of some journalist is to foment hatred of police, he has everything he needs right out of the policeman's mouth. The nice black woman was pulled over by the mean racist white policeman (probably Hispanic, but that's a detail that needn't be dwelled upon) for a nothing offense that nobody else is pulled over for. However, if you bother to look at the video, it is obvious that what brought her to his attention and caused him to pull her over was the fact that she ran a stop sign, a relatively serious offense. I got a ticket once for running a stop sign in a technical way.
The policeman did not handle the interaction well. Neither did Sandra Bland. Since he could have given her a citation for a relatively serious offense but, in fact, gave her a warning for a relatively minor offense, she didn't have too much basis to complain. As a taxpayer in Texas, I have a basis to complain. In an ideal world, drivers obey traffic laws because that's what good citizens do. But we don't live in an ideal world. To induce drivers to obey the traffic laws, you have to have some system of punishments for violators, and that's why we pay traffic police to issue citations. If you stop someone for running a stop sign but tell them that they were stopped for some other reason, I don't think you are doing your job very well.
As for the media, it is reported ubiquitously and uniformly that Sandra Bland was pulled over for the trivial offense of not signaling a lane change as she pulled over to the side of the road to stop. Is that dishonesty or incompetence? I don't know. Did reporters never bother to look at the video, or did they choose to ignore it? I don't know.
A letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle a week or so after Sandra Bland killed herself was a dramatic example of the use of the incident to promote the idea of ubiquitous racism in policing. A middle-aged white woman writes about a conversation with her elderly mother. The mother asks, "Why was that Bland woman in Prairie View pulled over?" The daughter says that she changed lanes without giving a signal. The mother says, "I didn't know you were supposed to give a signal. I never do. Why haven't I been pulled over?" The stage is now set. The daughter replies, "You weren't pulled over because you are white."
Prairie View is a historically black town. If a policeman has an interaction with a civilian in Prairie View, there is a high probability that the civilian will be black. Would it be better not to enforce traffic laws in Prairie View?
As for why Sandra Bland committed suicide, there is a fascinating article in probably the Atlantic (probably 18 Dec 2018 by Jordayne Blaise) about her life, which starts out saying something like, "If you want to understand what happened to Sandra Bland, you need to understand Sandra Bland." The article is no longer available without a subscription. She was badly in need of a job. She had had a job with a small company in or near Chicago which was a niche manufacturer of special plates, spoons, etc. used in prisons. The Black Lives Matter movement convinced her that she could not in good conscience work for such a company. She quit the job and was not successful in finding another one. A friend suggested that she look in Prairie View, where she had gone to college. She drove all night from Chicago, went to the friend's house, took a shower, and went for the job interview. She got the job (temporary, but a job). Within a few hours, instead of preparing for the new job, she is in the Waller Co. jail, and her relatives in Chicago don't seem particularly keen to come with bail money. Once again, she has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I studied that video -- https://youtu.be/CaW09Ymr2BA -- very closely at the time and the story might have been very different if the trooper had said why he was pulling her over.
>>>For reasons that have never been explained, the policeman immediately tells the driver that she has been pulled over because the changed lanes without giving a signal. >>>
For reasons that have never been explained??? That's horseshit. Giving her a wholly bogus reason set the entire interaction on edge. She rolled through a stop sign to make a turn onto a road with very little traffic on it. Go stand on any stop sign intersection in the city and tell me how many people out of 100 come to a full stop when there's no other traffic around. You will find that it's essentially zero.
Anyway, she gives attitude to the cop -- understandly -- and he escalates it. That said, as I wrote, her suicide was an act with numerous factors and it's not fair or right to include her in the list of suspects killed by police.
But, c'mon, man "As for the media, it is reported ubiquitously and uniformly that Sandra Bland was pulled over for the trivial offense of not signaling a lane change as she pulled over to the side of the road to stop. Is that dishonesty or incompetence?" Why is this the media's fault when the trooper SAID it was a failure to signal a lane change when a cop was running up her tail. I don't know that the trooper EVER claimed that it was for a rolling stop sign. But you might have a news clipping that says otherwise. What, did he misspeak?
I told you the policeman handled the situation badly. That is not in dispute. Part of his mishandling was that he gave her a false reason. The real reason she came to his attention and that he pulled her over was that she ran a stop sign. This has nothing to do with a "full stop". The video shows that she didn't slow down more than enough to make a turn. 99% of the people who read about it will never be aware that there was a stop sign involved because the media chose not to mention it and focused entirely on what the policeman said. The media never asked why he gave a false reason, and it was never explained. The media had what it wanted and ran with it.
What was "the media" supposed to do? Get inside the head of the trooper, claim that he saw this (perfectly safe) stop sign violation, then, what, got confused after he pulled her over? The fact that the reason he gave her for the stop was bogus got things off to a terrible start and the trooper’s inability to deescalate — so she’s smoking in her own car! Let it go, copper — began a longer chain of events.
Maybe you or some other reader here has followed the aftermath more closely — did anyone official ever explain the traffic stop? Did the trooper recant?
I invite any and all to watch the interaction on the video starting at this link https://youtu.be/CaW09Ymr2BA?si=0i1-3Ls1you0-Whb&t=525 -- the trooper was way, way out of line and did not correct Bland's version of events about her irritation at being pulled over. It's a bad look to try to make excuses for him.
What the media was supposed to do was look at the evidence, specifically, the video. The initial traffic stop was legitimate. She ran a stop sign. This was not a case of not coming to a complete and total stop. She ignored the sign, slowing down only enough to be able to turn. The standard story in the media would lead one to believe that the policeman was following behind her when she changed lanes without a signal and then he pulled her over. That's not what happened. The public ought to be told what actually happened.
So far as I can tell, there was next to nothing about why the policeman gave a false explanation for the stop. The policeman didn't talk. Maybe his superiors told him to keep his mouth shut. If there was any explanation of why he told her to get out of the car, it was minimal. That part of the traffic stop may have been pretextual, or maybe it wasn't. I can't see that the media ever made any serious effort to explore these issues.
Why don't you invite people to see the whole video? Remember that I have said more than once that the policeman handled the situation badly. So did Sandra Bland. She is not a hero. She does not deserve to have a street named after her.
Did Sandra Bland commit suicide? I have my doubts...
I don’t. But I will listen to your reasons why. I just don’t think that police would murder someone in their jail cell three days later because she was lippy to a trooper. And there’s no evidence that suggest that and no claim by the family, but that’s what happened. I think the claim is that she was so distressed and feeling so lonely in that jail cell that depression got the best of her. The fact that it all started from a totally bogus traffic stop makes the story, outrageous and infuriating, but I don’t think it belongs with the stories of people like, say George Floyd.
A young woman, on her way to her first professional position after grad school , with no apparent previous history of depression or suicidal behavior. 3 days in jail and she kills herself? What happened to her in those 3 days? An even if she was not harmed in any way, the police are at least guilty of negligence in failing to prevent self-harm.
I should have put committed suicide in quotes. - I have serious doubts about the veracity of the Jail personnel in their assertion. Just as I have doubts (well total disbelief) in the nominal cause of the arrest.
I'm for recall for any reason, but make the numbers needed on petitions higher than what's currently used in California. That's due to the insane & useless attempt to recall Governor Gavin Newsom there a few years ago & believe it or not, there's now another budding attempt to recall him!
As for Brandon Johnson, this Jewish atheist believes he's an anti-Semite & also flat out knows he's utterly incompetent as mayor & will never grow into the job, mainly because he doesn't make any decisions, but just takes his marching orders from the lunatics that run the vile out of control Chicago Teachers Union. His unwillingness to go along with just about everyone's demands that the also incompetent CTA boss Dorval Carter be fired are absurd, as it's obvious he just doesn't want to fire a black man, as for some reason he thinks it will hurt him politically with black voters. But all CTA riders, of which I am one, are fed up with the rottenness of the service & the fact that riding the L is simply dangerous, due to out of control crime on the trains & stations. Carter has no idea of what he's doing, he's lost at sea, without any way to fix the mess the CTA is in. The CTA's financial problems are not his fault, other than the fact that the other problems are & that contributes to the loss of passengers, which cuts the CTA's revenue, which is low as it is without help form the state & feds.
Eric, your wit and analysis make my day. Do persevere!
Whether it is Johnson pushing for the city council resolution, protesters blocking O'Hare, or the mess at Columbia University (and soon to be the Democratic Convention) is that no one in the United States has the power to enact a cease fire in Gaza, which is their demand. Even Biden only has tangental influence with Netanyahu. The signs and protests should at least demand what can actually be accomplished by US leaders, such as limiting arms shipments. This infatuation by the far left with these barbaric and terrorist regimes is another mystery, since they are anti-democratic and treat women and LGBT people horribly. Besides increasing antisemitism here in the US, this unrest will only serve to help get Trump elected, which will bring more far right policies to the US.
The alliance between radical lefties and virulently anti-woman, anti-gay barbarians has always been a head scratcher for me as well, but Bill Maher explained it on his show a few months ago. The equation is: the darker your skin, and the poorer you are, the purer you are, and the whiter your skin, and the richer you are, the more evil you are. This may be overly simplistic, but it’s as sound a theory as any I’ve heard.
Never take anything Bill Maher says seriously. This is a man who thinks Ann Coulter is hot & had a contract that gave him time in his dressing room to masturbate!
Never thought of it that way but you might have a point. Hence never a campus demonstration over the many other atrocities taking place in the world such as Aleppo and Yemen. However, the opposite might be true on the right. The right wing loves to defend Israel even though many of them are really quite antisemitic and attack Jews as "globalists".
Not only are they not demonstrating about Aleppo or Yemen, they are actively cheering on Hamas, and have been doing so since October 7th.
This is the tell that their purported humanism and claim of “hearts being in the right place” (as another commenter put it) are bullshit. The most benign thing that can be said of these protesters is that many of them are simply TikTok marionettes, jumping on the bandwagon and screeching what they’re being told to screech.
As far as the right wing anti-Semites are concerned, at least their Jew hatred, apparently, does not extend to actively defending their mass murder.
I agree with the no recall. Johnson should get his 4 years. For those who are dissatisfied with the the results and voted for him, too bad. Use your brain next time. I don't believe he was hiding anything. For those who voted for him you're pretty much getting what was advertised. Plus, he could have a great next three years, you never know.
Aside from criminal activity, I say as voters that we made our bed, we have to lie in it. No recalls except for criminal activity.
This view is also my initial take on it. However.... I'm trying to imagine if I'd feel the same if I lived in George Santos' district. Perhaps his many, MANY lies didn't amount to criminal activity but I'd sure want a way to remove him as my representative without waiting for the next election. Any actual crimes he committed would take more than 2 years to prove.
There are so very many examples of the ways elected officials can screw up, it's hard to conclude in advance what's worthy of a recall effort and what's not.
George Santos was a US representative, not subject to recall.
I realize that. I'm just using his behavior as an example. If we learned that our Mayor, or State Rep, or Governor had done something similar or worse, how would we feel about their being in office and not being effective at their job and our not being able to get rid of them before the next election. It just gives me pause to consider what options are available to voters.
No doubt there are situations when it would be good for the general public to have a recall option. But weigh that against the unintended consequences that EZ points out.
If incompetence were a reason to recall any elected official, I'd vote to recall the entire US Congress Republican caucus, but then we have a means to do that. I believe it's called an election in which every adult citizen has a right to vote. It seems ironic in a country with such low voting rates, people get their underwear in a knot about a recall. As Zorn says with scorn, it puts more power into the hands of special interest and single issue voters.
With all due respect to David L., with whom I have had several informative discussions, he ruins his argument by calling it a "leftist" march. What does leftist have to do with it? The right also marches when protesting abortion, the election of Joe Biden, or the March on the Capitol. There is no "left" in antisemitism. I have been a Jew all my life. I can't remember a time when we weren't scorned as the killers of Jesus. The sudden outpouring of support from the right for Israel is not a declaration of love for Jews. It is support for Israel, which is a different matter. It is about politics and as much about anti- Muslim bias as it is support for Israel. When you get right down to it, when have most Americans supported Israel since 1948? When did they care one way or another? The politicians have played their games on the world stage because of Israel's strategic position on the world map and they support us. But don't confuse that with love for Jews. I don't see any movements in the near future toward establishing any special holidays honoring Jews or an entire month of worship as done for other segments of society. So there is no leftist antisemitic march. Marches are performed by both sides we must distinguish between antisemitic and anti- Israel.
Hi Laurence - the current street activism that is openly pro-Hamas and overtly anti-Semitic is being conducted by the hard left of the US political spectrum. It is actively supported by Congresspersons Talib and AOC and their comrades. It took MI Governor Whitmer a full week before she finally issued a statement condemning chants of Death to Israel and Death to America at a rally praising Hamas in Michigan. So I believe my characterization of the street fascists who blocked access to O'Hare as leftist is accurate.
My maternal grandmother Hatie was Ashkenazi Jewish, having emigrated to the US with her mother to flee a pogrom in eastern Europe in the late 19th century. I'm also a lifelong conservative. Whenever I have encountered any open anti-semitism on the far right fringe, it has been immediately condemned by my fellow mainstream conservatives. But because the liberal establishment is politically dependent upon and fearful of the far left, we are seeing great reticence by the Democrat establishment to forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism that is disgustingly on open display on our streets and college campuses.
The Jewish students in New York City and on ivy League campuses who are fearful for their safety are not in fear of conservatives, but these anti-Semitic hard leftists.
I'll repeat what I said before. When have Republicans ever cared about Jews? I'm not impressed by the latest round of political opportunism. I'm ashamed about it. Go back and read my comments. I did not defend the marchers. They are one-sided and short sighted. They are politically naive by opposing Biden. If they are concerned about Palestinians, what do they think they will get from Trump who has announced support for Israel and threatened to bar Muslims from entering the US? But it's not a matter of either/or. There are times when both sides are wrong. When the marchers lose interest and move on to their next cause, the right will still be concerned about anti-semitism? I haven't seen it in my lifetime.
EZ -
Liked all of the VTotWs this week - except for the stale visual Dad Joke.
I am not as certain as certain as you that recalling elective officials is off-base - if the bar to recall someone is sufficiently high. I remember the Sandra Bland case - and being outraged at the conduct of the arresting officer when the arrest footage came out.
i mostly agree - but i liked the dad joke!😆
I think that human compassion should know no skin color. The Palestinians in Gaza do not deserve to die, be crippled for life, or to starve because their murderous and fanatical government (elected 17 years ago, when many of the dead, crippled, and starving were either not yet born or had no vote) committed a vile atrocity. What is happenening to the Gazans and to the innocent dead and crippled in Ukraine deserves our compassion and help, just as do the innocent murdered Israelis and the Palestinians in the West Bank murdered by "settlers."
I agree. There are "crimes against humanity" on both sides. But it is nearly impossible to frame this as a war between two equal sides. Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the government of Israel for years, and Hamas (one side's terrorist and the other side's potential savior) has to be held accountable for its recent actions as well. My feeling on the pro-Palestinian protests is this: some students are undoubtedly anti-Semitic, but I truly believe that many are acting out due to the "crimes against humanity" that the Israeli government is now dealing the Palestinians. Isn't it possible that young people in the 1940's - had we known - would have been protesting against the incredible crimes against humanity of Hitler's reign against the Jews? These are young people who are still learning but seem to have a heart for anything unjust. They are choosing ways that incite their elders, methods that will probably backfire. But I think we are missing the fact that many of them ARE looking to end suffering.
I am old and remember the anti-Vietnam student protests and the National Guard called in to deal with shirkers, anarchists, and Communists of Reagan's fever dreams. Remember Kent State? Uncanny resemblances all around. With hindsight, it is not hard to see who is on the famed right side of history.
I don't think that Johnson will grow into the job. He was totally unprepared for the job and in my opinion thought that it was like his county board job; an endeavor where he would get marching orders from the top which could be the role that CTU now fills. Many of the competent people he had around him are gone and (as stated here) won't fire the head of the CTA so he doesn't offend his base. He is dismissive of the media, is uncollaborative and frankly he is just a horrible leader. Given all that I don't like the re-call idea either, though yes for criminal conduct. Anyone who voted for him did NO research and for those people, quit beefing. You have the mayor you wanted.
How much of the seemingly visceral dislike of Johnson is fuelled by animosity toward the CTU? It is comical to see that Mayor Johnson is singled out as being a "tool of the CTU," as if previous mayors were not heavily beholden to one interest or another (banks, union haters, real estate companies and individuals, developers, etc., etc.). Also the demonisation of the CTU seems exceptional even among the usual union-bashing suspects such as the Koch, Uihlein, and Rauner funded Illinois Policy Institute.
My dislike of the mayor is not rooted in his association with the CTU, though I think that the teachers fought too hard not to return to work during the pandemic and Johnson agreed with them at every step, since he was in their employ. My dislike comes from the way that he acts starting with the decision on Dr. Arwady, and not so much that he wanted a change but the cowardly back door way that he handled it. He is dismissive of questions as to his decisions, he has badly mishandled the asylum seekers and said that he doesn’t want to “criminalize” criminal behavior. I think he is an embarrassment as the representative of the city on the national stage, and as I said above, he will not grow into the job, he will continue to do what he has done so far; nothing of substance.
re Mayor Johnson & recall - EZ and i agree he's had a mediocre 1st yr on the job ['doesn’t seem ready for the job and isn’t inspiring confidence'; 'platitudinous and opaque'], and that neverhteless he shouldn't be subject to a recall vote, we disagree on his prospects for the future.
not only am i unhopeful that he'll grow into the job - i think it's more likely his performance will deteriorate. let's see how he handles the CTU negotiations, and to what extent his policies have an impact [if any] on reducing crime, especially violent crime. nothing he's done or said on the job so far bodes well for favorable outcomes/progress on these 2 of his most significant responsibilities.
while I agree with the majority that renaming/branding it "X" was stupid, can we finally drop the obligatory "formally known as Twitter"?
At this point, IFYKYK, as the Kiddos say.
Sorry, but I must continue to disagree with you about Mayor Johnson’s pro-Ceasefire vote. Maybe he thought a pause in hostilities would allow aid to get in? Weak argument. That’s not what he voted on. He voted on a resolution explicitly calling for a ceasefire that implies Israel should unilaterally stand down. It did not acknowledge that Hamas, in fact, violated a long-standing ceasefire on Oct 7 and has publicly stated its intention to do so again and again. It did not acknowledge that Hamas has refused every single ceasefire offer since the short “pause” months ago. No, the mayor voted in favor of a measure that is a long-coordinated effort to discredit Israel, and is now an implicit indictment against Jews everywhere. If he did not fully understand that, he is not excused.
Sandra Bland's traffic stop was not "totally bogus". She blatantly ran a stop sign right in front of the DPS officer who subsequently arrested her. If you look at the entirety of the dash-cam video of the incident, which I have seen more than once on the internet, you will see that it starts at the end of a traffic stop in which the officer (Brian Encinia) gives the driver a warning, admonishes the driver to drive safely, and walks back to his vehicle. The dashboard camera is running because of the previous traffic stop. Before the officer turns it off, you see a grayish car on the far left of the screen make a right turn onto University Boulevard without stopping or slowing down. You don't see a stop sign, although you would expect a stop sign to be present at that type of intersection. The policeman immediately makes a U-turn, and when the camera swings around, you see the stop sign. The policeman begins to speed up and gets closer and closer to the grayish car. Both cars go through a traffic signal (green light) and then the gray car pulls over. The driver is, of course, Sandra Bland.
For reasons that have never been explained, the policeman immediately tells the driver that she has been pulled over because the changed lanes without giving a signal. If the agenda of some journalist is to foment hatred of police, he has everything he needs right out of the policeman's mouth. The nice black woman was pulled over by the mean racist white policeman (probably Hispanic, but that's a detail that needn't be dwelled upon) for a nothing offense that nobody else is pulled over for. However, if you bother to look at the video, it is obvious that what brought her to his attention and caused him to pull her over was the fact that she ran a stop sign, a relatively serious offense. I got a ticket once for running a stop sign in a technical way.
The policeman did not handle the interaction well. Neither did Sandra Bland. Since he could have given her a citation for a relatively serious offense but, in fact, gave her a warning for a relatively minor offense, she didn't have too much basis to complain. As a taxpayer in Texas, I have a basis to complain. In an ideal world, drivers obey traffic laws because that's what good citizens do. But we don't live in an ideal world. To induce drivers to obey the traffic laws, you have to have some system of punishments for violators, and that's why we pay traffic police to issue citations. If you stop someone for running a stop sign but tell them that they were stopped for some other reason, I don't think you are doing your job very well.
As for the media, it is reported ubiquitously and uniformly that Sandra Bland was pulled over for the trivial offense of not signaling a lane change as she pulled over to the side of the road to stop. Is that dishonesty or incompetence? I don't know. Did reporters never bother to look at the video, or did they choose to ignore it? I don't know.
A letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle a week or so after Sandra Bland killed herself was a dramatic example of the use of the incident to promote the idea of ubiquitous racism in policing. A middle-aged white woman writes about a conversation with her elderly mother. The mother asks, "Why was that Bland woman in Prairie View pulled over?" The daughter says that she changed lanes without giving a signal. The mother says, "I didn't know you were supposed to give a signal. I never do. Why haven't I been pulled over?" The stage is now set. The daughter replies, "You weren't pulled over because you are white."
Prairie View is a historically black town. If a policeman has an interaction with a civilian in Prairie View, there is a high probability that the civilian will be black. Would it be better not to enforce traffic laws in Prairie View?
As for why Sandra Bland committed suicide, there is a fascinating article in probably the Atlantic (probably 18 Dec 2018 by Jordayne Blaise) about her life, which starts out saying something like, "If you want to understand what happened to Sandra Bland, you need to understand Sandra Bland." The article is no longer available without a subscription. She was badly in need of a job. She had had a job with a small company in or near Chicago which was a niche manufacturer of special plates, spoons, etc. used in prisons. The Black Lives Matter movement convinced her that she could not in good conscience work for such a company. She quit the job and was not successful in finding another one. A friend suggested that she look in Prairie View, where she had gone to college. She drove all night from Chicago, went to the friend's house, took a shower, and went for the job interview. She got the job (temporary, but a job). Within a few hours, instead of preparing for the new job, she is in the Waller Co. jail, and her relatives in Chicago don't seem particularly keen to come with bail money. Once again, she has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I studied that video -- https://youtu.be/CaW09Ymr2BA -- very closely at the time and the story might have been very different if the trooper had said why he was pulling her over.
>>>For reasons that have never been explained, the policeman immediately tells the driver that she has been pulled over because the changed lanes without giving a signal. >>>
For reasons that have never been explained??? That's horseshit. Giving her a wholly bogus reason set the entire interaction on edge. She rolled through a stop sign to make a turn onto a road with very little traffic on it. Go stand on any stop sign intersection in the city and tell me how many people out of 100 come to a full stop when there's no other traffic around. You will find that it's essentially zero.
Anyway, she gives attitude to the cop -- understandly -- and he escalates it. That said, as I wrote, her suicide was an act with numerous factors and it's not fair or right to include her in the list of suspects killed by police.
But, c'mon, man "As for the media, it is reported ubiquitously and uniformly that Sandra Bland was pulled over for the trivial offense of not signaling a lane change as she pulled over to the side of the road to stop. Is that dishonesty or incompetence?" Why is this the media's fault when the trooper SAID it was a failure to signal a lane change when a cop was running up her tail. I don't know that the trooper EVER claimed that it was for a rolling stop sign. But you might have a news clipping that says otherwise. What, did he misspeak?
I told you the policeman handled the situation badly. That is not in dispute. Part of his mishandling was that he gave her a false reason. The real reason she came to his attention and that he pulled her over was that she ran a stop sign. This has nothing to do with a "full stop". The video shows that she didn't slow down more than enough to make a turn. 99% of the people who read about it will never be aware that there was a stop sign involved because the media chose not to mention it and focused entirely on what the policeman said. The media never asked why he gave a false reason, and it was never explained. The media had what it wanted and ran with it.
What was "the media" supposed to do? Get inside the head of the trooper, claim that he saw this (perfectly safe) stop sign violation, then, what, got confused after he pulled her over? The fact that the reason he gave her for the stop was bogus got things off to a terrible start and the trooper’s inability to deescalate — so she’s smoking in her own car! Let it go, copper — began a longer chain of events.
Maybe you or some other reader here has followed the aftermath more closely — did anyone official ever explain the traffic stop? Did the trooper recant?
I invite any and all to watch the interaction on the video starting at this link https://youtu.be/CaW09Ymr2BA?si=0i1-3Ls1you0-Whb&t=525 -- the trooper was way, way out of line and did not correct Bland's version of events about her irritation at being pulled over. It's a bad look to try to make excuses for him.
What the media was supposed to do was look at the evidence, specifically, the video. The initial traffic stop was legitimate. She ran a stop sign. This was not a case of not coming to a complete and total stop. She ignored the sign, slowing down only enough to be able to turn. The standard story in the media would lead one to believe that the policeman was following behind her when she changed lanes without a signal and then he pulled her over. That's not what happened. The public ought to be told what actually happened.
So far as I can tell, there was next to nothing about why the policeman gave a false explanation for the stop. The policeman didn't talk. Maybe his superiors told him to keep his mouth shut. If there was any explanation of why he told her to get out of the car, it was minimal. That part of the traffic stop may have been pretextual, or maybe it wasn't. I can't see that the media ever made any serious effort to explore these issues.
Why don't you invite people to see the whole video? Remember that I have said more than once that the policeman handled the situation badly. So did Sandra Bland. She is not a hero. She does not deserve to have a street named after her.
I personally think the Musk deadnaming tweet is hilarious - but I’m the type who appreciates a good trolling of gender studies academics 😎
I think it's funny too, but I think it would have been much funnier if he had left off the emoji. It's called deadpan. Works great in the text medium.
Fair point. We’ll see if it stirs up as much controversy as prosecute/fauci… another absurd one that made me giggle