The Ruth Bader Ginsburg flap continues

The New Neo Posted on by

Her anti-Trump comments seem to have struck a nerve.

Ginsburg has now made an attempt at walkback:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” the associate justice said in a statement.

She added: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Ouch, that slap on the wrist by the Times editorial staff must have smarted. The question is why she felt free to violate the rule for judges against commenting on candidates in the first place, one she had to have known exists. Did she feel that cocky about Hillary’s prospective victory? Does she plan to retire soon? And more importantly in the strategic sense, did she not know such remarks could backfire by pulling the mask off to show her naked partisanship? I guess when she says “more circumspect,” she means that at least until November she’ll keep her mouth shut about this.

Even some liberal commentators are noticing something, though:

On Wednesday’s edition on Bloomberg’s With All Due Respect, co-host Mark Halperin admitted what many on the left probably wouldn’t dare to. He admitted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about Donald Trump have not been as controversial as they should be because she’s a liberal. “If a Republican justice did that to a Democratic candidate, I think, the world explode,” Halperin exclaimed to co-host John Heilemann.

Halperin’s exclamation came in response to his co-host who described Ginsburg’s comments as “unusual” and “probably inappropriate.” Halperin had plenty to say about Notorious RBG’s disparaging Trump comments. “NO! Definitely inappropriate. Repudiated by some Democrats. In this partisan period that’s extraordinary,” he said, speaking over Heilemann.

Ginsburg’s remarks are not just an example of a clear violation by Ginsburg and an indication of how partisan she is (and how bold she has become about it in her public utterances), although that’s certainly true. They highlight how biased the reporting is—so much so that a few people are defecting, at least ever-so-slightly, from the pack.

Booker T. Washington: controversial then, controversial now

The New Neo Posted on by

Booker T. Washington was a towering figure. Born in slavery, he become a leader of early post-Civil War black advancement and in particular emphasized the value of education. You can read about his manifold accomplishments here, as well as the arguments and controversy he sparked and still sparks today for his gradualist and non-confrontational approach to overcoming the very serious barriers set for the black people of his time. The following is a short summary that only scratches the surface:

He called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship, rather than trying to challenge directly the Jim Crow segregation and the disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Washington mobilized a nationwide coalition of middle-class blacks, church leaders, and white philanthropists and politicians, with a long-term goal of building the community’s economic strength and pride by a focus on self-help and schooling. But, secretly, he also supported court challenges to segregation and passed on funds raised for this purpose. Black militants in the North, led by W. E. B. Du Bois, at first supported the Atlanta compromise but after 1909, they set up the NAACP to work for political change.

Different versions of these same disagreements continued—and continued to escalate—during the 60s, and they continue to this day.

But this post isn’t meant to be an exploration of Washington’s life, fascinating though that might be. It’s about two quotes of his. Here’s the first:

I pity from the bottom of my heart any nation or body of people that is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery. I have long since ceased to cherish any [spirit]] of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction, and, besides, it was recognized and protected for years by the General Government. Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. This is so to such an extend that Negroes in this country, who themselves or whose forefathers went through the school of slavery, are constantly returning to Africa as missionaries to enlighten those who remained in the fatherland. This I say, not to justify slavery ”” on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive ”” but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose.

Interesting perspective from a man who was born in slavery. It can be found in his autobiography Up From Slavery, published in 1901.

And this is from his 1911 book My Larger Education: Being Chapters from My Experience (Dover Thrift Editions):

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs ”” partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

Washington knew there were very real grievances—he had been personally subject to most of them, and much worse ones than are present for black people today. But his answer was not the same answer given by Black Lives Matter—although to him black lives most definitely did matter. That doesn’t mean Washington’s point of view didn’t have flaws (it did) and the views of his opponents some value (they did), but with the above paragraph I submit he was correct about some activists and he remains correct.

Which brings us to the present. I recommend reading this Powerline post (please read the whole thing) that draws a direct line between Black Lives Matter’s focus on what they consider racist-inspired police brutality towards blacks and the current rise of crime in urban areas, a rise that has ended up causing the death of far more black people than have been killed by police:

The virulent antipolice campaign that began with a now-discredited narrative about a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, has made police officers think twice before undertaking precisely the type of enforcement that led to that twenty-year crime drop…

With police so discouraged, violent crime has surged in dozens of American cities, as we have seen…Homicides were up 76 percent in Milwaukee, 60 percent in St. Louis, and 56 percent in Baltimore for the year through mid-August, compared with the same period in 2014. Murder was up 47 percent in Minneapolis and 36 percent in Houston through mid-July.

But something even more fundamental than public safety may be at stake. There are signs that the legal order itself is breaking down in urban areas…

The lawful use of police power is being met by hostility and violence, which is often ignored by the press…

The irony is that the historic reduction of crime in the United States since the 1990s was predicated on police singling out African-Americans for their protection. Using victims’ crime reports, cops focused on violent hot spots; since black Americans are disproportionately the victims of crime, just as blacks are disproportionately its perpetrators, effective policing was heaviest in minority neighborhoods. The cops were there because they do believe that black lives matter.

In the recent eruption of violent crime, the overwhelming majority of victims have been black. The Baltimore Sun reported that July 2015 was the bloodiest month in the city since 1972, with 45 people killed in 30 days. All but two were black.

It is almost inexpressibly sad and ironic, and there is no end in sight. The MSM is complicit in this particular cycle of violence, as are many of the activists.

I did not realize that public libraries had been all been closed

The New Neo Posted on by

Did you?

But that’s the only explanation I can think of for this extraordinary remark of Barack Obama’s delivered yesterday at the funeral for the five murdered police officers in Dallas:

It’s easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.

There’s a popular rumor to the effect that public libraries—which still were wide open when last I checked, even in the inner cities of large urban centers—contain books and even computers. And that teenagers are allowed into them, and can place their hands on both the books and the computers.

Yes, you may doubt it, but it’s true, and such centers often even have special programs geared to the needs of urban youths (see also this, for another example).

What’s more—and I know it’s very difficult to believe—libraries are free as long as a person resides in the city served. Yes, I realize that this is arcane information that probably hasn’t yet reached Obama, but it’s true. Nor does a person have to go through any sort of background check to get the card except perhaps to prove residency.

Meantime, buying a Glock legally is not only not easier for a teenager, it is impossible if the teenager is under 18. What’s more, smartphones are mini-computers, and there are very few teens in America who don’t have at least one.

Not to mention the fact that Glocks are expensive: about $500 a pop. So even an illegal purchase would be very expensive.

But hey, when Obama says something in that sonorous voice of his, the fact that it’s a ridiculous Big Lie doesn’t matter to a lot of people, because if he said it, it must be so. I’ve adopted a light tone for this post, but there’s really nothing funny about what Obama said and the technique of the Big Lie that he continually employs to make his political points, hoping that the American people are stupid enough to believe him.

Loretta Lynch’s off-putting testimony

The New Neo Posted on by

I have rarely felt so repulsed by Congressional testimony as I did yesterday on watching some of Loretta Lynch’s answers before the House. I used the word “answers,” but they were really the most astoundingly verbose double-talk I’ve ever heard. Maybe double-talk isn’t quite right, either; another phrase that comes to mind is from the fictional character Holden Caulfield, and it’s one of his favorites: “slinging the old bull.”

Well, it’s hard to imagine someone slinging the old bull any better than Lynch did yesterday. If you want to take a look, here’s hours and hours of it (I only watched a series of brief clips, myself, and that’s all I could stomach):

Did Lynch actually answer any questions with a substantive answer of any sort? I don’t know; as I said, I didn’t wade through the whole thing or anywhere near it. But most Americans aren’t about to do so, either. Most Americans who pay any attention to the news at all will probably see about what I saw, and it occurs to me that an awful lot of people (perhaps even a certain number of Clinton fans, and certainly quite a few “undecideds”) will be similarly repulsed by it.

So in that sense, although I believe that Lynch thought what she was doing would help Clinton, Democrats, and the liberal cause, I’m not sure sure that her non-responsive tap-dancing isn’t as harmful or even more harmful to that cause than any truthful or at least substantive answers she might have given. People don’t like being flipped off, especially in such a controlled-yet-somehow-testy way. Lynch was unfailingly polite, but her affect was like a steel trap tightly shut, and one could hardly escape the idea that she doesn’t feel that anyone is entitled to know anything about anything she does.

The Clinton email controversy is an issue in which a lot of people are interested, even if they weren’t at first. And—although lots of you are always criticizing the Republicans in Congress, and although nothing will come of this in terms of indictments or impeachment or whatever else would be an obvious result that you might want—I think it does have an effect, and that effect is to show the American people what an imperious, non-transparent presidency they have.

This cannot help Clinton. It cannot.

And interestingly enough, at the same time we have Donald Trump rising in the swing state polls. Those polls were taken before the Lynch testimony, of course. But portions of them were taken after the Comey announcement. Polls are fluid and the hour is early, and there will no doubt be many twistings and turnings along the way before November. But my gut feeling on watching Lynch is that anyone who actually decides to view even a few minutes of her testimony cannot help but become angry at the stonewalling combined with the condescension.

Whether that will translate into Trump votes is another question. Many Hillary voters are NeverTrump voters, so it may be that none of it will sway them.

[NOTE: I also think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s intemperate anti-Trump mouthing off will annoy quite a few people, and that Trump’s extremely on-point response (even the NY Times agreed that he was correct!) can only help him with those who aren’t already totally in the bag for Clinton.]

[ADDENDUM: And get a load of this.]

The European “migration” of the “asylum seekers” is down

The New Neo Posted on by

If you reward a behavior you get more of it. When you stop rewarding it, you get less.

That’s not as absolute a law as that of gravity, but it’s the way it usually goes, and the phenomenon of the enormous rush of immigration from countries such as Syria seems to have abated for now in conformance with that law of rewards and lack thereof:

The human traffickers who brought a million desperate asylum seekers through Turkey to the Greek islands have been stopped. Where once thousands a day were smuggled by the mafias on cheap rubber rafts, very few are making the trip this summer.

To shut down the Eastern Mediterranean route, countries such as Macedonia, Hungary and Bulgaria acted independently and threw up razor-wire fences along their southern borders, defying Europe’s central authority in Brussels.

The European Union itself struck a deal that threatens to send the migrants back to Turkey from Greece en masse…

… it worked.

The unimpeded flow of humanity, dominated by Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, to Europe is over, at least for now. Arrivals in the Greek islands are down 97 percent.

Meanwhile, Brexit has occurred and about 50,000 people are still waiting in camps in Greece, but the influx has stopped. The people remaining in the camps mourn the fact that they came too late. Few new arrivals are coming:

The migrants and refugees appear to have made a financial calculation: Why spend $1,000 on a smuggled voyage only to be sent back later after enduring a few squalid months in a dirty camp on Lesbos?

“I would not have come to this place to rot,” said Akash, 24, from Bangladesh, who traveled here with two cousins. “It cost us everything we had.”

From the start it has been difficult to determine which of the refugees are bona fide political refugees fleeing persecution and worse, which are economic opportunists lured by the promise of jobs (nothing wrong with that, if a country needs them and wishes to let them in), and which are parasites wishing to take advantage of the European welfare states—and what the proportions are of each group. But their arrival has upended the politics of Europe and the demographics of several countries, and has even affected politics in this country.

In House testimony today, Loretta Lynch…

The New Neo Posted on by

…performs the extremely-limited extremely-modified hangout.

See also this and this.

And although it’s not directly related, what’s up with Ruth Bader Ginsburg going on and on lately about the awfulness of Donald Trump? In this case, Trump is the one taking the high road, and he’s absolutely correct:

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Mr. Trump said. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

He continued: “That she should be saying that? It’s so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.”

Allahpundit has some theories, and this one seems most likely to me:

…she’s already planning to get off the Court as soon as possible. Four days ago, anticipating her “RBG Uncensored” knocks on Trump this past weekend, Ginsburg told a reporter from the AP that the next president, “whoever she will be,” will likely have multiple Supreme Court vacancies to fill. That was a hint that she’s on her way out and that she thinks Hillary has this in the bag. She may feel so confident about Clinton’s chances and so sure about her own impending retirement that she’s lost her inhibitions about signaling bias against the other party’s nominee, suspecting that she’ll never have to rule on an initiative of President Trump’s.

Ginsburg is getting old, and it may be a sign of some sort of age-related disinhibition. Another idea I have is that her friendship with Justice Scalia acted as a check on her, and this check has been removed since his death.

Election 2016: what might have been

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s often an empty exercise to mourn what might have been.

One reason is that one can never know, because the road not taken is just that: not taken. We are free to imagine any “if only” that suits our fancy, and no one can disprove it wouldn’t have happened that way any more than we can prove it would have happened that way.

So it’s an empty exercise, but a tempting one. And with that caveat, I have to ask your indulgence while I’ll go down that speculative road not taken, just for a moment.

I spent most of the 2016 primary season worrying that Trump might be the Republican nominee. Far from laughing at him, I took his candidacy very seriously nearly from the very start, and opposed it with all my might. I was against that prospect for two rather simple reasons, ones which more fervent Trump supporters would strongly disagree with: the first was the character and history of the man himself (and since I’ve written so many posts on both subjects, I see no need to recap now), and the second was that I was strongly convinced that Trump was the weakest of all the possible candidates against Hillary Clinton.

That was my reasoning. It was somewhat analogous to the old joke, “The food is bad, and such small portions!” He’s terrible, and I don’t think he’ll win, which is an awful prospect because I suspect she’ll be even worse. That was it in a nutshell.

Why am I going into all of this again? One reason is that the convention is coming up, and it’s not over until the chorus of fat ladies has belted out that Trump is the 2016 Republican nominee. The other reason is that I’ve been reminded of it many times recently when people who had told me months ago that they were thinking of voting for a Republican for the first time in their lives—usually their choice was Rubio, whom they seemed to like—have now been very clear that they will vote for Hillary although they don’t like her at all, for the simple reason that Trump is completely unacceptable to them and however much they detest her they will never, never ever, vote for him.

These people are very reluctant Hillary voters who were looking to vote for a halfway decent GOP candidate after a lifetime of voting Democratic, and Trump lost them. What their numbers actually are I don’t know; this is the most anecdotal of anecdotal evidence I’m presenting. And whether they will ultimately be offset by those mythical Democratic voters who are said to be about to defect to Trump I don’t know, either. But the people I hear from are the opposite: possible GOP voters who are turned off by Trump.

[NOTE: The title of this post is a quote from the third-to-last verse of this John Greeleaf Whittier poem.]

Compare and contrast: Jason Brezler and Hillary Clinton

The New Neo Posted on by

Hillary Clinton’s decision to use an alternate and insecure email system has never been adequately or convincingly explained. Her initial excuse was nonsensical and/or mendacious (wanting to use one device), and people have speculated ever since on the real reasons. But no one—not even Hillary herself—has ever offered a possible reason that was altruistic.

Unlike the case of Jason Brezler, in which his motive was decidedly selfless.

Brezler’s actions and the possible consequences for those actions as a member of the military are subject to the rules/laws of that institution; Clinton’s are not. And like Clinton, Brezler has never been indicted for a crime, although like her he sent classified information through a regular email account. But his motives, the extent of his offense, his behavior after the offense, and official reaction to that offense have been markedly different from what Clinton did and what happened to her afterward.

Brezler had served as a Marine in Afghanistan, and in 2012 (two years after returning home; he was now a reservist), Brezler received an urgent email from a fellow officer warning him about the reappearance of an Afghan named Jan with whom Brezler had previously had extensive dealings:

[While in Afghanistan] Brezler had come to the conclusion that Jan was involved in narcotics and arms trafficking as well as facilitating attacks by the Taliban, even selling Afghan police uniforms to the enemy. Jan also was alleged to be what Brezler’s lawyer would call “a systematic child rapist” who allegedly ran a child kidnapping ring and acquired “tea boys” with the help of U.S. taxpayer job development money.

…Brezler kept pushing and was finally able to pressure the provincial governor into removing Jan from his post, a rare and notable bright spot in the bloodiest province in the bloodiest year of the war.

That’s the background. Here’s what the 2012 email was about, and what happened next [emphasis mine]:

…[H]ere was this email from a fellow Marine officer in Afghanistan saying Jan was back as police chief and had allegedly been raping as many as nine boys at Forward Operating Base Delhi. The email asked Brezler for any information he might be able to provide.

The Marines had not issued laptops during Brezler’s deployment, and he had used his own to send and receive reports while in the war zone…it seemed like a stroke of great luck that the lone report he inadvertently still had on hand summarized the allegations against Jan.

Brezler attached the report to his reply and emailed it with…urgency…

The fellow officer who had made the inquiry and received the response, identified by one source as Marine Maj. Brian Donlon, noted that in his haste Brezler had sent what was technically a classified document via an insecure mode of communication. Brezler acknowledged the error and duly reported himself, in keeping with a code of honor befitting a graduate of the Naval Academy.

The aftermath? Nothing was done about Jan, he and his “tea boys” continued to come and go on the base, and seventeen days later one of those boys entered the base gym and murdered three unarmed Marines, wounding a fourth. The murders occurred in August of 2012, and in December of 2013 a panel recommended that Brezler be “tossed from the military but given an honorable discharge.”

Brezler’s case has not gone unnoticed by certain members of Congress, among them Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), who have tried to clear his record:

“The one person who did the right thing is the person who’s being penalized,” King said.

King made that statement in late 2013, and in November of 2015 Brezler lost and the military’s decision was upheld:

A senior Navy Department official decided Monday to force a Marine Corps officer out of the service for his handling of classified information, three years after he was first investigated after sending a warning to deployed colleagues about an Afghan police chief whose servant later killed three Marines.

Maj. Jason Brezler will be separated from the Marine Corps following a decision by acting Assistant Navy Secretary Scott Lutterloh, said Michael Bowe, Brezler’s attorney.

That was the military’s decision. After that, the case went to the civilian courts for further appeal:

“We will now proceed to a real court and prove that Commandant Amos and his generals illegally retaliated against Major Brezler because they were more concerned with politics and their careers than the lives of their Marines and the service of a good Marine who did the right thing,” [Brezler’s attorney] Bowe said in an e-mailed statement. “I look forward to their cross-examination.”

There are other legal elements involved in the military’s handling of Brezler and of the murders, including a civil lawsuit:

…filed by the family of one of the Marines killed [which] remains pending against the service in federal court. It alleges that the service ignored Brezler’s warning that the police chief, Sarwar Jan, was corrupt and sexually abusing children, allowing for the Aug. 10, 2012, ambush in which Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley, 21; Staff Sgt. Scott Dickinson, 29; and Cpl. Richard Rivera Jr., 20; were killed at Forward Operating Delhi, a Marine Corps outpost in Helmand province’s Garmsir district. A fourth Marine sustained five gunshot wounds but survived.

The suit was filed…by the Buckley family, which also is represented by Bowe. In court filings, they have repeatedly expressed frustration with the amount of information the Marine Corps has provided them about the case.

As of now, Brezler’s case is still proceeding through the court system, and his defense plans to make use of the decisions made in the case of Hillary Clinton’s classified emails:

An attorney for Brezler, Michael J. Bowe, said that he intends to cite the treatment of Clinton “as one of the many, and most egregious examples” of how severely Brezler was punished…

Bowe said it is impossible to reconcile President Obama’s statement that Clinton’s intentional act of setting up a secret, unsecured email server did not detract “from her excellent ability to carry out her duties” while Brezler received a “completely opposite finding”¦ involving infinitely less sensitive and limited information.”

If Hillary Clinton were to become president, those duties would include being Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such, of course, she would nevertheless still be a civilian and not subject to the military justice system nor to military rules.

Majority of Americans disapprove of Comey’s/Lynch’s decision not to charge Hillary

The New Neo Posted on by

56% disapprove, to be exact, and only 36% approve.

I had two thoughts on hearing this. The first was surprise that it was that many disapproving, and the second was, “What difference, at this point, will it make?” I doubted whether it would cause a single Hillary-voter to change his or her mind from voting for Hillary to not voting for her. After all, although Comey offered a few more details that made Hillary look even worse than before, it’s not as though the gist of it hasn’t already been known for a long time.

The survey had some slightly-encouraging statistics on the question of possible vote-changing, though:

Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote in the presidential election. But 28 percent say it leaves them less likely to support her…

But will those people “less likely to support her” still vote for her anyway? After all, you can be 90% likely to support her down from 95% likely to support her, and you will still end up voting for her.

Here are some more numbers, but they don’t really answer the question (and of course there’s lots of time to go before November):

Among Democrats, the email issue makes no difference to three-quarters, and 16 percent say it has strengthened their support (likely given that she wasn’t charged) ”” but 10 percent say they’re less likely to vote for her because of it.

Most independents, 58 percent, say the issue won’t influence their choice, but those who say it has made them less likely to support Clinton far outnumber those who say it has made them more apt to vote for her, 33 percent versus 5 percent.

[ADDENDUM: I offer some anecdotal evidence, for what it’s worth—I was at several social functions this past weekend that featured a lot of Hillary supporters, not one of whom voiced the least bit of doubt about voting for her. In fact, those who spoke (which wasn’t everyone) seemed extremely supportive of her and protective of her.]

Black Lives Matter is not leaderless

The New Neo Posted on by

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton has gotten some flak for criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement by making a:

…condescending comparison between demonstrators who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Rev. Jesse Jackson and today’s anti-police protesters…

He said modern-day protesters have chosen whooping and hollering over meaningful dialogue because “it makes for good TV.” Bratton also launched into a history lesson about meaningful social protest.

“Unlike the civil rights movement, which focused on the broad needs of desegregation and a segregated country, the needs of jobs, the needs of voting rights, the needs of education, the Black Lives Matter movement has focused entirely on police, and is not engaging in dialogue, instead engaging in protests where there’s a lot of yelling and screaming…”

But another part of Bratton’s statement caught my eye as being more significant: he called the movement “leaderless.” And he said that all the BLM-inspired “yelling and screaming” about police brutality “accomplishes nothing.”

So far I haven’t been able to find a transcript of the Bratton interview, but the excerpts indicate a gap in Bratton’s background knowledge of the BLM movement. He’s correct that it doesn’t have “leaders” in the same sense as the civil rights movement of the 60s and Martin Luther King, Jr.; visible charismatic speakers who were looked up to by the rest and who made headlines almost on a daily basis. But the BLM movement is not some grass-roots mass of protoplasm that just spontaneously rose from social media, it does have founders and people who try to direct its course, people with a history of agitation, activism, and extreme leftism, such as Alicia Graza whom I featured in a post on Saturday (please read the links there if you haven’t already).

The MSM has kept relatively hush-hush about the leftist background and driving forces of the Black Lives Matter movement, so it’s understandable that the average person wouldn’t be aware of them. But if NYPD’s Bill Bratton isn’t aware, that’s a pretty sad commentary. What’s more, his remark that it “accomplishes nothing” seems naive at best. It depends what the goal is. In the case of the leaders of the “leaderless” BLM, the goal is not what Bill Bratton (and a lot of BLM followers) may think it is. The goal is very much in the Cloward-Piven mold—to force a crisis that leads to a societal upheaval that moves the country even further to the left, rather than to peacefully solve an immediate problem.

[NOTE: See also this for some historic background on a group called the BLA, please see this previous post of mine.]